I think, before going further, I should say that we can both agree that the way things are right now is not working well, and will continue to decline as time goes on. Am I correct in saying that?
Going on that assumption...
Yes, but "misplaced" isn't the word I'd use.
Police don't just show up at work one day and put on a uniform, they're put through an academy, they're given extensive training for their role, and then when they finally do put on the uniform and start the job, they're put under the supervision of a more experienced officer.
Most parents however are 20-30 year olds with little to no education in child rearing and are just left to figure it out by a society that assumes, nay demands, that they should just intrinsically know, because it's supposedly instinctive or something.
This seems like such a top-down approach. In order to effect strong, long lasting change, a bottom up approach would seem not only more effective, but also more efficient and less coercive. Instead of teaching policemen how to enforce the law, why not spend those resources teaching children how to be better parents when they get older?
On the other hand, what standard is there for 'good' parenting? Bringing up nice christian children? Children that will be ready and willing to enter the work force? Children more willing to turn the other cheek to a government hungry for power? And I'm still curious as to what guidelines one would use to discern whether someone was suitable to conceive offspring or not.
Now aside from the fact that you've strawman'ed me by suggesting society’s fate will be entrusted to either parents or police, it's clear from an objective standpoint that it would be better to trust a well trained police force with the fate of society, than the untrained parents of the general populace.
My point is that people are either going to be governed by an authoritative regime, or they are going to be self regulating; we're either going to have to raise our children or be treated as children once we're adults. I think that a system of self regulation will be more efficient and more sustainable, if achieved - and of course, nothing worth doing is ever easy, which is why imposing restrictions and regulations seems like such an easy, quick fix way of conducting business.
Well, what is this overhaul you're suggesting?
First and foremost, an education system not based on rote memorization, but instead focusing more on critical thinking and honing good decision making skills. An environment that teaches children to question the conventional wisdom and 'expert' opinions. A place where decision making using both our intuition and rational minds is cultivated and practiced. Not only are facts given, but understanding and application of those facts is also taught.
Secondly, the education given to children would not be exclusive to children. Allowing children and parents to have access to education systems directed at teaching both of them how to interact and learn at the same time could be beneficial (at least for younger students), as opposed to the cut off, "no child left behind" type system (at least in the USA). Education should always be an ongoing process, and it should be something that both grown-ups and children can do together, much like this forum; everybody can learn, teach, debate, discuss, and bounce ideas off one another. Everyone has a chance to be both pedagogue and pupil.
Thirdly, knowledge should be taught on an academic level, not indoctrinated. People should be given
all the facts, from every side of the issues, taught how to understand and utilize it them, and allowed to derive their own conclusions. The main point is, people should be given information, be taught to think critically, and be able to make wise decisions.
Fourth, more education on a human level: psychology, sociology, and anthropology should be stressed more, so that people have a better understanding of not only the people they interact with on a daily basis, including co-workers and their own children, but a better understanding of the world and other cultures. It's a colossal shame how ignorant people are of the rest of the world - at least in america, anyway. I have no illusions as to why a staggering majority of the world thinks we're a bunch of arrogant, pompous assholes that
literally think we're gods gift to the entire planet.
Anyway, I could probably go on, but one thing I'd stress is that, if there is anything that society should damn the costs about, it's education, because heavy handed authoritarianism, eugenics, or whatever the hell it is we're doing right now, just will not work. Knowledge truly is power, and an educational overhaul is the only way to obtain it; through a society of capable, enlightened
individuals that are able and willing to understand each other and work together.
Sounds like business as usual to me.
But to address your point properly, the things I've proposed are only small parts of the greater societal overhaul that needs to occur, in fact this "change one aspect of a system at a time" is a major part of societies problem.
I couldn't agree more. But, once again, I'd say a bottom up approach would be much more prolific then a top down approach.
Corruption is the sign of a flawed system, on where people have stopped believing in the principals it was built upon, and people have forgotten how their individual efforts contribute to the wealth of the greater whole. In a highly systemized society an individual can have a clear understanding of their part in the greater whole, and so not only know their worth, but also how to make themself worth more.
Corruption is human nature, and if the fundamental way in which humans conduct business isn't adressed - namely through education when they are the most easily shown how to think - then corruption will always be a factor. Having a conscience based on the idea of fear that someone might be watching isn't going to solve the problem, merely patch it.
I don't think people will have a sense of being part of a greater whole unless they can actually believe in that greater whole, which means being a fundamental part of it. In order to do that, they must have a sense of control through freedom from coercion, and self regulation. Restrictions imposed by hierarchical forces on whether they can have children or not will make people feel smothered and oppressed - not as if they are part of a great system. Nobody is going to accept the idea that "I'm just not good enough to have children, I might as well do my civic duty and acknowledge this".
A well trained police force would not just be taught ethics, they'd be taught to understand the purpose behind those ethics; they'd be proud of their role in society and people would respect them for performing that role. I envision your "totalitarian oppressors" being instead designated heroes of society, the sort of people children look up to and aspire to be one day.
Economic advisers, business leaders, and politicians have countless hours of ethical training, and yet that doesn't stop them from being corrupted, because they aren't taught these things at a fundamental level, and mostly because they are on top - theres nothing to really stop them, so why would they stop themselves? The problem is, they are given too much power and too much trust. This is why we can't allow them to have so much authority over us, and why people need to be taught to question
everything: politicians, economists, religious leaders, scientists, and any other 'experts'.
I envision a world where an overwhelming majority of people are able to make good decisions
on their own that can be beneficial to themselves and to society. This vision may be orders of magnitude more difficult then simply throwing around regulations, but It's certainly much more worth the time, energy, and costs (of which, I think we can both agree, are not spent very wisely when it comes to such an undertaking).
Everybody has to get a driver's license before they can handle the potentially lethal power of a modern automobile, so where's this elite class of people who are "good enough" for such responsibility? Simply there isn't such a class, because nearly everybody is "good enough" to handle such responsibility, once they are educated in how to handle it; would you consider just letting any unlicensed person drive a car, seems an absurd notion doesn’t it?
This seems like a bit of a red herring. The ability to drive a car has a standard, because there are rules for driving (speed limit, stop lights etc). Are you suggesting we should make rules like that for raising children? Should there be only one way that someone can raise a child, and if they deviate from that rule then their liscence to raise a child is taken away?
Not only that, but this would support my notion of the importance of fundamental education. Anybody
is allowed to drive if they are physically capable of it, but only if they are taught how. In the same way, all people should be educated, not only before they have children, but during the child rearing years themselves.
I've already undermined this point, but just allow me to put the final nail in it's coffin by saying: We already tolerate incompetent governments, thuggish authorities, and the daily grind of corporate subjugation, if anything living under a "fascist, pseudo-eugenics system" may actually be preferred.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that we either A: give up on getting rid of the incompetent, thuggish authorities or B: that we should go ahead and give them more power to regulate and micromanage our lives? This seems like a very defeatist attitude.
I agreed with you for everything between "giving up" and "regulate themselves properly".
This isn't giving up, this is ceasing half-hearted stop-gap attempts at trying to fix the systems that support society, in favour of a definitive "this shit stops now" approach, which is the exact opposite of giving up.
I agree with this. Nothing short of a revolution and complete overhaul is necessary to fix all of the worlds problems.
Self regulation (as you're suggesting it) is not unlike the idea of giving a robot it's programming and setting it lose to carry out your will, it's an indirect form of mind control but still mind control all the same, it's still coercion, the only difference is that my method would be more honest.
Self regulation, as I'd prefer, would be a group of
individuals that can maintain open minded skepticism, being able to think critically about everything, to understand and think about ideas without endorsing them, to be able to participate in debates without pounding their fists in stalwart advocacy, and to be able to see past themselves to society as a whole, understanding how it functions on large scales over long periods, and know what has to be done in order to benefit it the most, yet not having to sacrifice their freedom to think freely - they don't think this way because it's how they were made to think, they think this way because they've come to the conclusion on their own that it's the best way to think.
(btw, who wouldn't love to angst under a totalitarian regime, go watch a movie, this is actually one of the most common fantasies in the modern western world)
People also like to watch dramas, but tend to abhor it in their own lives. It's interesting to see your favorite character stand up against all odds, but the obstacles portayed in most entertainment would crush the vast majority of people and leave them broken, hollowed out corpses of human beings. That's why it's so damn entertaining to watch.
