Education
There has been quite a lot of talk about education, and math and literacy, and then the MCAS, and what we should do about it.
Perhaps - just perhaps - if we reviewed education in terms not just of job skills we would make more progress.
How about this for an idea: If we keep degrading our environment very soon it really won’t matter whether we can read or write. And we only degrade our environment because there are so many of us on the planet that quite a few of us have no choice. Ravage the ecosystem or starve? I know what I’d do.
Perhaps ‘education’ needs to be redefined. If we could teach people about looking after the planet, and if we could also teach them about controlling their reproduction rate, we’d have a chance. We could put out the fire so we could salvage the house. At the moment we’re trying to save the antique grandfather clock but no one’s called the fire service yet.
This may sound grandiose but it can be done at the most basic level. If education was redefined so that we taught children to respect their bodies as bodies that exist in an environment (and that what they ate, what they breathed, how they exercised, and what they threw away actually mattered), we could build the sort of self esteem that asks them to use their bodies responsibly.
Massachusetts already did a small version of this. The public schools launched a campaign against tobacco some years ago, and parents were bombaded with the things their second graders had learned. Quite a few parents gave up tobacco, and now it is almost impossible to smoke in any building in this state.
If we could do this with tobacco, we could certainly do it with recycling, gas guzzling, resource use, etc etc, (and the limits are only in your imagination). But the big one would still be contraception.
If we don’t address that one soon, we may as well roll up the carpet.
on August 27th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Such thoughtful commentary. Yes, I see what you mean about education improving lives beyond the people directly educated.
It seems so simple, if you give people good information, they’ll make good choices. What’s hard is when people see that sort of information as an affront to their personal beliefs, and ultimately that’s what seems to cause a divide and keep us stagnant. We see this with reproductive issues and, to a lesser degree, environmental issues which are both considered “leftist” agenda items.
I recently watched Jesus Camp and was struck by the particular homeschooling curriculum which taught that global warming was over hyped and irrelevant, which segued into a discussion of creationism and its value over evolution.
I would love to see children taught critical thinking skills, at an early age, so they might be better at asking questions, regardless of the platform or agenda of the speaker. Even times when I am largely in agreement with people, for instance, those who strongly support environmental issues, I still find many rely on deceptive tactics or refuted claims, to make their point. I don’t see doing the wrong thing for the right reasons an improvement over the alternative, since either inhibits progress.
Anyway, interesting topic and timely, indeed.
on August 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Dear Marnie,
Excellent points, as always, and you make them well. I can only agree that there are all sorts of ‘educations’ going on out there that are not all benign. Some of the fundamentalists I have come across, of all kinds, are about pushing their agenda, only.
I do think, though, that it would be hard to ignore the problem of over-population. All wars have had, as their basis, the struggle for scarce resources, whether one sees those resources as food, or quality of life issues, or space in which to practice certain beliefs, or wealth. It would therefore seem to be a matter of some urgency to try and remove the source of struggle. Resources aren’t usually that scarce unless the population is too large….
Obviously this will cause me to run afoul of the Catholic church and also of Islamists in some places. And it will cause those who value human liberty (as I do) to object. I don’t know what the answer is.
But the house is on fire… The house really is on fire.
As ever, Allan
on August 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Haha, you make me think of Stephen Colbert’s joke about “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” I see your point about priority. Everything takes a back seat when your ship is sinking.
If I’m reading your reply correctly I think you may be alluding to each person’s individual responsibility in population control, namely, considering the environmental impact of large families. If I’m reading you wrong, please forgive me, it’s a delicate subject and I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth (though I clearly don’t mind putting them on your blog.)
I think one needs to separate the individual rights, (i.e. you have the right to decide if and how often you wish to reproduce,) from conscientious behavior, (i.e., you also have the right to leave your fridge open all day to cool you down and to take 2 hour showers, but it’s not a very responsible thing to do.) Again, I think it comes down to these seemingly verboten topics that are just too taboo to touch and discuss reasonably. You have the right to have 18 children, but is it responsible to do so? If we say “I can’t discuss this topic because it might offend someone’s religion,” then no progress can be made.
I recall hearing an episode of World Have Your Say, in which someone argued that not having children was irresponsible and selfish. It was one of the most galling things I’d ever heard. I had to write a long rambling post on the subject here
http://www.marniemaclean.com/words/2007/07/a_few_moments_o.html
I thought you might get a laugh out of it.
on August 28th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Dear Marnie,
I do enjoy your comments.
I especially like the idea of ‘irresponsible and selfish’ as a measure of what’s going on. Not so long ago of course one could have 18 children, yet the downside of that was that one was responsible for their survival and well-being (not the government), and with 18 of them there was a fairly good chance that several would starve, others would go in for crime, etc etc. We also have the right to cool our houses by leaving the fridge door open, as you say, but we wind up paying for that, in a more specific way, when the electric company demands money.
Many people have lost sight of this basic reality. In a closed system like a single planet (ours) we do not have infinite resources to squander. Once we’ve cut down those trees it takes a while to grow them again. Once we’ve paved over the grasslands it’s a little difficult to go back to growing crops. Animals, by becoming extinct, remind us of this every day. Sure, there are lots of animals left, but New York City’s animal population is mostly roaches, rats, and pigeons….. oh, and designer dogs.
You are quite correct in your statement that we shy away from the ‘taboo’ topic of over-population. And that’s our cowardice, as a society. We’re afraid to talk about sex honestly.
Well.
And I hope all my readers go to the link you provided for ‘Have Your Say’, read, enjoy, and have their say too, perhaps?
With great affection, Allan