GUTHERY%ASC@sdr.slb.com (Guthery) (12/06/87)
Gerry Gleason writes: > ................ We must choose between creating ever-more-complex > weapons systems, and systems to eliminate poverty through education > (in my opinion this is the only way to solve this and related problems > such as over-population and hunger), care for our environment, or > reach for the stars. First, American public school systems can't teach simple arithmetic or spelling. Can you imagine what a garbled mess they'd make of complex issues such as world hunger and genetic engineering? Secondly, "education" as used in the above quote usually means "propagandize" or "brain wash". In other words, if we fill folks full of "right think" about these issues and then the issues will somehow magically go away. In fact what goes away is our ability to talk about them or deal with them. Like unpopular individuals in Soviet history, they become non-issues because we are not permitted to speak their name. We are seeing more and more of this approach to problem solving. Rather than address the problem directly with all of its glory, complexity, and intricacy, we work instead on the language we use to talk about the problem. While I'm sure the reasons are many, a prominent player is the recasting of the word "education" by those who think we can solve problems by chanting patently false political cliches.
glg@sfsup.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (12/15/87)
Just because the present system doesn't work very well, doesn't mean we should not try to do something better. Education is a real challenge, and one we cannot afford to ignore. The previous article on this subject included the comment "education... usually means 'propagandize' or 'brain wash'"; Excuse me If I was not clear enough. This is not what I meant by education in the cited quote. What I am talking about is teaching people to think for themselves and to observe the world around them. Ending hunger means teaching people how to feed themselves, and to understand the culture they are in and how it contributes to their living conditions. Without education people almost automatically follow the living patterns they observe in their parents, regardless of whether this produces satisfactory results. > Rather than address the problem directly with all of its glory, > complexity, and intricacy, we work instead on the language we use > to talk about the problem. I don't know how anyone read this in my posting. It is absolutely necessary to attack the full complexity and intricacy of our problems, but how can we do this. Presently only a small handfull of the worlds population has enough education to take on such complex problems, therefore I consider the problem of education, in all of its glory and complexity, to be the first one to address. The central point of my posting was that we must consider *what* problems we choose to work on. I have an obvious bias as to which ones I consider most important, but I do not presume to have the final answers. The important thing is that the options be considered, and explicite, infomed choices be made rather than just letting things happen. In my oppinion, "right think" is what continues the arms race without really allowing us to consider or debate about where it is taking us, while at the same time we may be doing irreperable harm to the only environment we have. I don't ask that you accept my oppinion, or that people be "educated" to this way of thinking. I ask that they be educated so that they can consider these complex problems, and that those of us working on tech- nologies that are changing the world, stop for a minute and ask them- selves, "What am I building?" Gerry Gleason