111–120 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social Darwinism, really? I thought that went out of style with eugenics.
Eugenics didn't go out of style. It's used quite successfully to prevent horrible genetic diseases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A year after graduation, ten of the first sixteen Clemente Course graduates were attending four-year colleges or going to nursing school; four of them had received full scholarships to Bard College. The other graduates were attending community college or working full-time. Except for one: she had been fired from her job in a fast-food restaurant for trying to start a union. It sounds like it was successful to me.
So the solution is to make everyone a nurse or an engineer or a manager? Who's going to sweep the streets and grow food?
She's completely correct that it's the culture of the rich which make them rich. What she's completely wrong about is that it's their morality that makes it so. We, the rich, the middle and upper classes, are the ones who fund prisons, we are the ones who do not share our food with our neighbors, we are the ones who refuse to mix with them and share our culture. It's like Terrence McKenna said - "Culture is not your…
In order to accumulate resources, one must use the resources available wisely, consuming just a portion and investing the rest to produce more resources. Individuals and societies that don't do this grow poorer.
She's completely correct that it's the culture of the rich which make them rich. What she's completely wrong about is that it's their morality that makes it so. We, the rich, the middle and upper classes, are the ones who fund prisons, we are the ones who do not share our food with our neighbors, we are the ones who refuse to mix with them and share our culture. It's like Terrence McKenna said - "Culture is not your…
Now, there is a solution that will work and is dangerous: Huxley's eugenics/genetic engineering solution described in Brave New World. And we're fast approaching that solution, I think.
I remember reading an article at one point about a study done on high school students. I can't remember exact details, but there was a program where students in areas with bad high schools could apply to be sent to better high schools. If I remember correctly, admission to the program wasn't merit based, but first-come, first-serve. The study compared the students who got into the program, and the students who applie…
This is part of Freakonomics ( http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden... ). Though you could have obviously seen it elsewhere. In the book, it was referring to lottery based admission to the better schools. The result was that it didn't matter whether the students won the lottery or not. They performed equally well (on whatever generic criteria you use to judge academic performance in hs, most l…
That might just be measuring the stability, resources, and values of the family. I can easily see how a kid with a supportive family can do well, even under challenging circumstances.
But is that fair to the kid who was born into a more chaotic environment?
Or, a family where the parents make a rational choice not to send their kid to this school? Perhaps they can't afford increased activity fees. Or perhaps they worry about their kid being a fish out of water, competing with kids from more privileged backgrounds?
Or, a family where the parents are actively anti-learning -- either through internalized racism or sexism[1], fear of their kids becoming alien to them, or a belief that the rest of society is so racist that education isn't helpful?
[1] A friend of mine from rural Quebec was dissuaded by her mother from getting a college degree, because, quote, "we're not made for great things".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least a good school does provide the opportunity, from stories I've heard from people who have worked at or attended bad schools it would be an environment where it would be basically impossible to learn anything even if you wanted to. OK, this is just one anecdote, but... I grew up in a fairly rural, poor part of North Carolina, went to generic, poor to below average public schools, came from a dirt-poor family t…
I'm curious what your parents taught you about personal responsibility. My theory is it's less about whether you grow up in poverty as it is about growing up being taught you're a victim, that everything bad in your life is the result of other people hating you or taking what should be yours, etc. If you feel everything that you have or don't have is the result of things other people are giving you or taking from you…
"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death — however mutable man may be able to make them — our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."
Stanley Kubrick
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the solution is to make everyone a nurse or an engineer or a manager? Who's going to sweep the streets and grow food?
What? The solution proposed by the article is to make quality education available.
She's completely correct that it's the culture of the rich which make them rich. What she's completely wrong about is that it's their morality that makes it so. We, the rich, the middle and upper classes, are the ones who fund prisons, we are the ones who do not share our food with our neighbors, we are the ones who refuse to mix with them and share our culture. It's like Terrence McKenna said - "Culture is not your…
You should realize you can actually say "socialism" on this site.