Censorship and Education
There has been much discussion of the role of education in civics, political awareness, democracy and good citizenship.
One role of the education system is to present reading material to students, and incidentally, to withhold reading matter from students. Of late, some state legislatures have banned certain textbooks from their public schools, not on the grounds of inadequate or incorrect information but on the grounds of inappropriate subject matter.
From time to time, governments or their agencies ban literature from public libraries and prohibit their sale in bookstores and newsstands.
Is there any justification for censorship of any kind?
If so - where, when, why and by whom?
One role of the education system is to present reading material to students, and incidentally, to withhold reading matter from students. Of late, some state legislatures have banned certain textbooks from their public schools, not on the grounds of inadequate or incorrect information but on the grounds of inappropriate subject matter.
From time to time, governments or their agencies ban literature from public libraries and prohibit their sale in bookstores and newsstands.
Is there any justification for censorship of any kind?
If so - where, when, why and by whom?
Comments (78)
The most pernicious justification for censorship at any institutional level that I notice is that such and such information will cause harm, and is therefor dangerous. But invariably, and at its core, the motivation of the censor is that there exists information he does not like (or his masters do not like) and he does not want others to see it. He will deprive others of their right to receive and impart information so that this motivation will be satiated. Its a pitiable existence.
This is the sentence I struggle with.
How extreme do we have to go in exemplification, before we start to think of who we don't want this information to be available to, as a free public resource. How about the following titles?
How to be a better criminal (100 tips to escape justice).
The terrorist/freedom fighters tool kit.
How to control people.
Best ways to kill yourself.
Why the white way is the right way.
Should these titles be available to everyone?
How about the illustrated, 5- to 10-year-old versions, with 20 built-in pop-up pages?
Is there a book or even a pamphlet title that for you, would be a step too far?
For me, there are many. I would not let young children read anything I had not previously vetted for horror, violence and sadism - a lesson I learned the hard way when I inadvertently gave my son what I thought was an adventure story that turned out to be a week of night-terrors and insomnia. If it's just a question of adult content, I would want to know what they're reading and watching and take time to discuss it with them.
School books are a difficult proposition, because there is always the question of accuracy, pertinence and grade-level of the information, which is difficult for lay persons to judge. I'm far more inclined to trust teachers with the selection of textbooks than any outside body.
Similarly, I think what's available in the public library should be decided by the library staff (not any one person) who are probably better judges both of literature and the public's wishes than any government agency. What's available in a bookstore should be up to the owner.
I would be tempted, however, to label or grade literature, as well as video games and graphic entertainment. I appreciate the warning on television programs. (even though they're often too general to be useful. Smut shops and sadistic games should be labelled as clearly as cigarette packages. In practice, I don't think such warnings deter anyone, including children and youth, from seeing whatever they want. All those titles,
Quoting universeness
and much worse, are available on the internet.
I believe that a much more effective approach is simply awareness and factual information. I believe that parents and teachers need to take responsibility and have authority over their own spheres of influence. That is, separate spheres of influence, so that, if their philosophies diverge, the children are exposed to both sides of the issue.
More importantly, though, I think we should support public broadcasting outlets and empower factual, in-depth journalism, discussion, review and analysis.
Out of interest I think the reason these wouldn't be condoned is they're biased. By focusing on the negative while not offering the other point of view they suggest that the other side doesn't exist and can't be chosen.
For example if I posit these alternative titles are they more palatable?
"How criminals escape justice and how justice escapes being criminal. 100 flaws with legal systems and 100 flaws of the people that abuse them".
"Terrorist verses freedom fighter. What's the difference? A discourse."
"How to control people and thus how to recognise when you're being manipulated". (I'm sure politicians already have this book lol).
"the ways people kill themselves and why they do it."
"How white supremacy emerged and what it has done to society".
I think these are more balanced topics that don't use their title as a biased assumption.
If something is actually "true knowledge" then it can be used equally for good as it can for bad.
Every coin has two faces.
Only revealing one side of the coin is not ethical - its just "propaganda/agenda based" knowledge.
How many items can you successfully juggle and for how long?
To balance censorship, personal freedom, mental state, age/experience, education level.
I think these 5 'juggle' items are not the only 'issue' items related to the censorship question.
I think it's very hard indeed to get the balance correct in all cases or even in a majority of cases.
Vera highlights some of the issues she is personally concerned about, and I think she (gender assumption based on name), would have a very large number of supporters, who share her concerns.
Ben types about 'balanced' arguments and I fully agree that would be nice to achieve during all human discourse. BUT it actually rarely happens in reality.
I think it's another one of those issues that we must always strive very hard to get right but will probably never get 100% correct every time. I agree with the viewpoint, that at the moment, based on all the crazy internet stuff that almost anyone can view, we are currently failing miserably, to protect vulnerable people online. The number of people, including very young folks who have harmed themselves or killed themselves due to what they have been exposed to or have encountered or have deliberately looked for online is quite horrifying.
I lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of those whose main motivation is how much money they can make from internet social networking.
It seems a very difficult one to solve. My knee jerk solution would be some sort of 'global internet authority,' perhaps some globally accepted, United Nations type authority which could place people in some kind of 'walled garden' style system.
Your age, experience, education level, mental state etc would be used to decide which websites you are allowed to visit and who you are allowed to interact with online, but even as I type this, I object to my own idea?
How would YOU control access to online info? What methods would you use?
What actually works and is very hard to circumnavigate?
What would achieve the honourable goal of protecting the vulnerable?
It seems very dangerous and foolish to suggest that no controls at all, is the best we can do.
I think you'll find that most banning or challenges take place through local school districts or governments. Given the peculiar fascination with and dread of sex in our Great Republic, my guess would be that most books proscribed have to do with sex.
There are bans, and bans. Those addressed to what children are required to read will inevitably arouse the suspicions of parents, and the state (here at least) has little interest in acting contrary to those suspicions. Some bans are worth fighting, some are not.
Before you despair, consider--while in school, particularly in elementary and high school, how many books which you were compelled to read as a student influenced you in any significant respect? I doubt there were many. I likewise doubt that any banned book students are compelled (told by a teacher) to read would greatly influence a student. If they want to read them, they'll find a way to do so regardless of any ban. If they don't, reading the books will probably be considered just another dreary chore.
A much stronger political motivator is a POV that doesn't fit the far right's alternate history, alternate America, parallel universe. They came to prominence over the desergragation of schools and they have never altered that position.
Quoting Ciceronianus
I was fortunate enough to grow up in Toronto in the late 50's and early 60's. While the school library didn't stock anything raunchy or communist, the public libraries were quite liberal. What influenced me in the literature curriculum: Frost - come to think of it, most of the assigned poetry was inspiring - Dickens, Shakespeare, Hardy. I can't recall what novels we took besides 'Mayor of Casterbridge'' (which prompted me to go read Hardy); I know I went on to Trollope, Thackeray, Lawrence - was quite taken with 19th century Brits for a while, which led naturally to 19th century French and Russian writers... Oh, yes, 'Heart of Darkness' gave us a lot to chew over, though I never came to like Conrad. Thing is, whether the subject matter is politically controversial or not, good writing is worth getting to know. If it is controversial, it's worth discussing. If it engages the student's imagination and curiosity, it will have an influence.
That's what they're afraid of, the science and Civil war and democracy deniers.
Quoting Ciceronianus
How would they know they want to read something the don't even know exists?
No, it isn't. That's why I would leave it to the librarians in each community, rather than have a state-wide ban on any literature that contradicts the state legislature's POV.
Quoting T Clark
Assuming that elementary schools actually have libraries, that's why I would leave it up to the elementary school teachers to decide what's age- and reading level-appropriate for their students, rather than the state legislature or a vociferous religious lobby.
Quoting T Clark
What if "that stuff" that's being kept from them is about people who are unlike them in some way? (Yes, if Billy-Bob says he's really a girl, he's a girl. It's okay to stop feeling guilty because you were attracted to him. Yes, the people in China are also human beings, and they didn't invent the Covid virus. ) Or factual history? (No, the Civil War was not stolen, the Confederacy lost; General Lee did not ride proudly into the glorious sunset and Jim Crow was not a very good policy...)
Yes, the family unit has the right to ban some reading materials from their household. If you or an organization starts censoring the family unit of that banning, then where does that leave all of us?
Anything could be justified, but subjective justification is just that subjective.
It makes perfect sense to pick what students learn and the order they learn it in. Does a pedagogical system necessarily have to be framed as just or unjust. I think the idea of justification tries to saddle education as something that takes place in a courtroom.
Just like with offence a particular method of education is not at all compatible with every person at any age. As for offence in education I would strongly insist that upsetting students with questions is something every teacher must do at some point so the student can learn how to deal with problems that rouse emotional responses in them. The difficulty faced by every teacher is picking and choosing where and when to challenge/offend/question students this inevitably leads to situations where students ate sometimes more offended than challenged. It is dance between the student and the teacher, and consider that whilst the student has only to deal with one teacher at a time the teacher has to do this multiple times for a relatively poor wage and high stress.
This is just the tip of the iceberg it is a very complex environment to work in and I have seen many teachers fall prey to being put into a position where they too often assume they are smarter than every student to the point that they feel scrutinsed unfairly if they make errors (which they will).
A classroom works well if there is a reasonably large and equal share of humility between teachers and students. A know-it-all teacher is perhaps far worse than a know-it-all student. If there is one thing a teacher should teach - not that I believe in teaching per se - it is to teach students to question everything rather than cling to answers as an end goal.
An answer that cannot be applied to, or open up, more questions is not worth anything much at all.
Great questions Universeness.
I think the primary issue with the Internet is the fact that it's a non-physical (meta) dumping ground of any and every thought possible.
I have seen the same people that behave socially and well mannered in public spew malicious and sinister content online. I suspect because a). they know it won't ever be tracked back to them/it's cowardly and b). They cannot engage with the facial expressions/the hurt/impact of what they say, and so it's harder to empathise.
"If one has something to say, say it to my face". And such.
In society we have a body. We are particulate. People can locate us as a source of nastiness. So the consequences of behaving this are very real.
Online we have no body and can pop up anywhere like some random quantum blip, new profiles registered only for a day to commit some trolling. So it doesn't feel real (real subjects with emotions) to us and we can thus objectify everyone.
Censorship on the Internet need not come from limiting speech, but from effectively tying online persona to in person persona. So that whatever someone says they actually mean because they know it could impact their job, their personal relationship with friends, their education, their day in a courtroom etc.
Okay so instead of a free for all where you can say just about anything to anyone anywhere in the world.
Imagine that what you say (still free to say anything) based on some category gets automatically "cced" to the relevant people.
Imagine for example a childhood bully posts an exposing and inappropriate photo of his victim.
The post would automatically be sent to the victims parents, the bullies own parents, the school, whoever is deemed responsible for that child's wellbeing and the bullies actions.
One would imagine online school bullying would come to a hault pretty abruptly.
Consequences eh? They aren't so nice to acknowledge.
The issue is, that requires an AI with Emotional intelligence running the Internet.
An algorithm with the ability to identify potentially harmful content quickly and accurately based off an assessment of the sender and recipients personality types (so as to not misconstrue self deprecation/comedy/humour) as harmful. And then take out a guardianship role to protect the vulnerable.
The irony is we already have such an entity - a sentient being, a person.
We are already equipped with emotional intelligence and the ability to tell if something is harmful, so why isn't it working?
There's a few issues why.
One is "cohesion" . When you mix people of all different regions, cultures, political beliefs in a single online argument about one simple, specific thing, no matter how mundane, it is just chaos. A riot of opinions and personal attacks left right and center.
For an issue to be contextually addressed (like a child getting Bullied in school) it must be done so from context. The Internet lacks context and you get opinions like (well girls should be quiet in class (from places where women's freedom is oppressed) , or she was asking for it? From someone accross the world that has no idea what's going on, or maybe she should wear longer clothes (from a Conservative) and how she dressed is irrelevant. It's about bullying (from some liberal feminist somewhere perhaps).
Two - "virality." Information travels too fast on the Internet. Virality can be good - to make someone popular, famous, recognised. But it can also be bad - to make someone a scapegoat, play Chinese whispers, gossip and completely self propel a vicious cycle of abuse.
Three - "Accountability" as I said earlier. These are serious problems we need to somehow address simultaneously if we want to maintain freedom of speech but protect the vulnerable at the same time
In essence it will be about establishing truth on the Internet. The truth as to who is spreading lies and gossip to harm someone, the truth as to the identity/character/personality of the vulnerable person/ victim and truth as to the fact that its not tolerated to victimise helpless/innocent people and a serious apology and explanation is required.
I remember a system we employed with our secondary school pupils (aged 11-18)
Each pupil was given a network account and a passcode when they joined the school in S1.
This gave them access to nothing except internal school info.
As they attended each department, their teacher would give them access to the software and websites approved for that curriculum group, by adding their passcodes to a secured data file, which could only be accessed by the staff of that department.
Any special needs materials could also be accessed via secured permission data files.
A department or teacher could request access to another site (either temporarily or permanently) by going through a fixed process of 'why' the access was required, for how long and the site involved had to pass a list of general and subject specific criteria. This would then be passed to the senior management of the school for consideration at their weekly meetings.
It was basically a walled garden system, but it did work very well in the particular school setting I worked in. There were some issues related to pupils gaining access to other pupil's passcode etc but these were dealt with quite successfully.
Do you think we need such a tight system of control for the internet?
Would each country become like a department in my school system?
S6 pupils had a far wider walled garden than S1. Should it be the same for the internet?
Would it be the government via the ISP's who decide on what access for which individuals?
I think it's very necessary/interesting/important, perhaps even vital to debate the issue of the internet and the immense, perhaps even the most significant power there is on the planet today, which affect people's world viewpoints. BUT we really do all have to think about how this incredible power to influence people should be controlled/wielded.
Right now, it seems to me, that's its currently like a delivery system that can reach so many people so quickly that its power to spread positivity or negativity is equal in capability.
The fact that its power is currently underappreciated and uncontrolled and in the hands of a nefarious looking few is of great concern.
Exactly.
There are those that would continue to use the Internet harmlessly for comedy, deep dives, curiosity and knowledge. And are fairly smart, productive and reasonably immune to misinformation. They are not the problem per se.
Then there are those that pass on suspicious information and theories and possibly propaganda as well as some wholesome stuff because they're easily influenced and go with the flow (of information). And just don't think for themselves (don't know how or don't have the confidence) but rather look to others for approval or validation of what they ought to think or pass on.
Then there's those that really are up to no good and use the Internet for pure propaganda, insighting of hatred, spreading harmful regimes and beliefs and ignorance etc. These are the problem.
Now imagine they are all mixed up together with no way to regulate or divide them up.
This. This is the Internet.
You raise many valid points but we humans are as a totality, quite clever and we have many experts in the field of computing and electronic information systems. My own niece works in internet security.
There are many clever folks on TPF who have expertise in many fields. Surely we can travel a respectable distance by suggesting the basics of a system that could be employed on the internet which would give its users a positive, protected experience which enhanced their lives instead of having the current widely unpredictable effects it is having now.
No-one should be killing themselves as a direct result of their experiences on the internet.
Is a personal walled garden system a feasible way forward or even the beginnings of one?
If not, what controlled, secured individualised 'view' (if any) of the internet would YOU support?
Let's leave the issue of 'who' would create/enforce that 'personalised view' for now. Let's concentrate on the 'what' for now? 'What' would you include in an internet view/access for 5 to 12 years olds? or teenagers or '60+ years of age?'
Agreed. No one should ever be a victim of a mass attack to the point of suicide. Its desperate and we as parents or future parents can only think "what if that was my son or daughter? ". That prospect of the Internet terrifies me.
I will have to think for a bit on the questions you asked here. They're not easy ones. I'll get back to you shortly :)
You mentioned 'bullying.' Anonymity is a big internet issue. Do you think you should be able to post anonymously? Should anonymity only be allowed when the possible response may be your own personal endangerment? But your full details are still held by the host site you are posting on?
Is it the responsibility of moderators to identify genuine threat towards a member whose id details are available and should they carry the responsibility of warning the person making the threats. Should there be a firmly established 'tick box' style set of global netiquette rules that will cause a mod to report you to the police?
By 'the family unit', I imagine you mean some kind of collective decision-making mechanism. In real life, it's usually one person with all the power to decide what everyone less powerful is allowed to do, have, read and say. That person, patriarch or matriarch, usually also has the power to enforce their decision through punitive measures.
However, that's parental control, not 'censorship', which is normally a function of the state and its designated agencies.
Quoting L'éléphant
The state already does that by limiting what's available and unavailable to the family. Banning material it doesn't approve of from libraries, schools and bookstores, so that the parental unit doesn't have any freedom of choice in what comes into his house. That is where a great many people in the world have been left.
In a relatively free-speech country, the children of narrow-minded, oppressive parents may still learn about the world beyond those blinkers at school or in the public library. They have a hope of setting their minds free once they've flown the stifling nest. But not in a state ruled by the same kind of despotism that prevails in their childhood home. Nor, in such a state, do liberal parents have the freedom to help their curious children expand their horizons.
Quoting I like sushi
I didn't do that. I asked whether, in your [subjective] opinion, it's okay for anyone to tell everyone else what they may or may not read, look at and listen to. I've already expressed the opinion that teaching material for schools should be chosen by pedagogues and library stock chosen by librarians (rather then clerics and politicians) , that parents should be in control of what comes into their home and retailers in the choice of what they stock in their store.
I'm not interested in this issue in a legalistic or judicial sense, but in a social context.
What do you think is better for society: freedom or constraint of information?
Anonymity offers dissonance/uncoupling between the actions made (written/expressed etc) and the consequences applied.
As with all things that can be good and/or bad.
In anonymity one can call out, say, the abuse of their employer without having personal repercussions pressed on them.
But in anonymity someone can also bully without reproach.
Anonymity can be protective to a victim but can also be protective to the aggressor.
The anonymity of two parties can only be preserved by full transparency to a third party which can gather the facts about the conflict and make a decision as to who is owed the apology. If one is owed at all.
Hence why in school bullying a principle will tend to meet the two people individually, or in a court hearing depositions are made separate to one another. It allows a person to be more honest to an uninvolved/unbiased third party. Because their safety is not directly under threat when acting through a third.
So based on your analysis of the pro's and con's involved with the use of anonymity, it seems to me that we need internet controls which are capable of catering benevolently to the current and prior status of each user. This was supposed to be the 'prime directive' in teaching. Your job was to progress each pupil/student based on their current and prior knowledge and skills. A lofty goal in my opinion but the correct one. I think we need to employ the internet in the same way. Remove all of it from private ownership, make it a completely free global resource.
A global authority should administer it but not own it.
Each country should 'pay'/'contribute' to develop and maintain it.
Then we would be at the stage of deciding, how each nation will decide, how they want to use the internet? and I think that the people who live in that nation must initially decide via debate and perhaps even referenda?
What do you think? How could we move forwards and make the internet become the fantastically positive tool it could be?
It seems to me that our systems have to cater to the individual needs of each human on the planet.
No 'one size fits all' system has ever worked or every human in its catchment area, in all of human history. Systems must be created which are capable of successfully catering to the need of each separate human that uses it. What do you think? Impossible to achieve?
Well the issue is its already a fantastical positive tool for those that use it to its best. The issue is that all fantastical positive things have a downside.
Antibiotics are fantastical positive rescuers of people from bacterial infections that previously killed us. The downside - antibiotic resistence and suoerbugs.
Democracy - another fantastical positive tool when used correctly, downside is it can be navigated by misinforming voters with propaganda into a false sense of unbiased and objective decision when in fact not all options have been presented on the ballot. Tyrannies can only arise out of democracies. And democracies can only arise by revolt/overthrowing tyrannies.
So long as there are selfish or evil agendas in the world they will try to manipulate good systems in their favour.
It is the perogative of an ethical person to mitigate the downside as much as humanly possible. By being just as clever.
As for the Internet, it will always have a sinister market. The issue is that regulation (mitigation of all the nasty going on) lags far behind the rat race for power. Because it can only legislate against new crimes/abuses. Not one's that don't yet exist.
There is a leading edge to progress which is selfish in nature, finding loop holes. Those loops holes are only closed when identified, at which time they're up and running.
So it seems the Internet reflects the global human conscience. The only way to tackle it on a personal level is to educate people better, ask them not to be well... D*cks. And then legislate when the inevitabkle happens - some of them being d*cks.
(as you see I have up on the formal language we once argued about with some weeks ago) lol
I wouldn't be unhappy as a parent if the elementary grades focused on basics without a lot of controversial issues being discussed. Younger children need to see the physical and human worlds as coherent and enduring and that adults have some sort of consensus understanding of how things work. Of course it's more complicated than that, but I don't see any harm in waiting till middle school to start getting into that.
So, in history, tell the story, but include slavery and how the American Indians were treated. In science, tell the story, but for controversial issues like evolution or the age of the universe, tread lightly in elementary schools in areas where this will cause problems. In English class, don't teach "Huckleberry Finn." There are plenty of other good books until kids get older. In health, teach fundamentals of how bodies work including issues with sex at an age-appropriate level. Third graders don't need to know about issues of sexual politics and controversy.
I went through the American public school system, including three years in high school in central Virginia near the North Carolina border. And look how well I turned out.
They'll know what their parents and the parents of others, and their teachers, think that they should or should not read quite readily. Banning or trying to ban books doesn't tale place in secrecy at that level. And media and social media will make such information readily available.
As for my schooling, we read what was typically read in so-called "English" classes at that time--some Shakespeare, some Dickens, Catcher in the Rye (for some reason), some Jack London, some Conrad, even some Dostoyevski, some books I can't easily recall but the titles of which I'd no doubt recognize if confronted with them. But schoolwork is schoolwork; it's to be tolerated, it doesn't inspire. I did quite well, but learned to appreciate great works of prose and poetry not when in school, but out of it.
Neither nor, rather than either or. It is a sweeping statement to side with one or the other and lacks any kind of nuance. In some circumstances freedom of information makes more sense than in others.
I would say it is worse for everyone to insist on complete freedom or rigid constraints as a one-size fits all approach to how information can be distributed and the kinds of arguments against exposing people to items others may deem inappropriate.
:lol: Yeah, nothing wrong with a little use of the words that are italicised(BS) and those that required a few *'s. The mods will tell you/me when we have used up our ration for the thread.
I have always typed about the perfect system being unattainable but that we should still strive towards it.
I remain interested in actual suggestions people have on how people on the internet could be better protected and how such protections could be enacted without too undue impact on personal freedom of speech or expression.
Does that mean the state/church should dictate what children under - what age? 12, 13, 14? - cannot know about? What happens when they catch their first glimpse of the evening news?
Quoting I like sushi
Who should be in charge of deciding?
I'm in favour of the UN setting up an international monitoring committee for the internet, assuming no major powers have a veto... and I know that it's about as realistic an expectation as that commercial owners of communications media will fact-check every item they print or broadcast or that politicians dependent on the support of special interests and religious sects would make informed, unbiased choices of topics to promote or suppress in public education.
What they can know about and what they should learn in school are not the same thing. In school, especially elementary school, it makes sense to me that the focus should be on commonalities in understanding and values among the citizens of the country.
Does anyone buy hard cover encyclopedias? Do they still exist? Is Encyclopaedia Britannica more accurate than Wikipedia? It doesn't seem so.
Is any of this thread relevant to teenagers on social media or playing video games? Telling them not to read a book is whistling in the wind.
Such IF questioning can be useful though. I personally would look to forming several bodies to assess information, if needed, for more specific situations. The UN could certainly be one that could provide some expertise as it had a history of trying to manage complex cultural and political interactions.
What does that mean, precisely? One size of what, fits all of whom? Where and by whom was it suggested that this should be the case?
Quoting I like sushi
Which is why I suggested that the authority that knows most about the particular venue - home, school, public library, news-stand, bookstore, movie theater, video game shop, art gallery or museum - respectively, should be in charge of deciding what material they each make available to their clients.
Quoting I like sushi
It could, but very few nations would allow it to interfere in their internet communications. That would have to be far too co-operative a project for a great many, of not most governments to undertake, even if they could agree on the principles, and none would want to give up the right to edit its own history.
For fact-checking, I was thinking more about the random postings of bloggers and tweeters and political parties. But I don't see how they can be internationally controlled, either. Childish bullies ... some of the mechanisms mentioned above might work, at least to degree.
I think we'd have a better chance of making the citizens aware of the manipulative methods and more canny about assessing their own reading material.
Rather than what? What is it that would be harmful in a math book that meets the educational standard?
How is a math book, or a short story collection supposed to present 'commonalities' in a deeply divided nation? More interestingly - to me, at least - why should elementary school students have the truth concealed from them? Would they not notice on the street or on the news that everybody isn't the same, and wonder why their school books don't reflect reality?
Why would you possibly bring anything political or social into a math textbook. 8 x 4 = 32 is definitely what I would call a commonality. If the train is leaving Station A at 12:00 noon and travelling 126 miles to Station B at 70 miles per hour, and if I want to know at what time it reaches Station B, what difference does it make if the engineer is a man or a woman or gay or straight? The US is not that divided. It's just that people on the left and right ends raise a ruckus and the media plays it up.
Quoting Vera Mont
There's a story I always tell about my daughter and me. When she was about 7, in second grade, she and I were in my bedroom lying on the bed. My wife was working. She asked me the stereotypical question - how are babies born. I remember vividly being a bit taken aback, then thinking, well...just tell her. So I told her that the man puts his penis in the woman's vagina and... At that point I looked down and saw a look of complete shock on her face. I immediately realized the mistake I had made. I don't remember how I did it, but I brought the discussion to an end quickly.
It's not "concealing the truth" to only talk about issues with children when they are old enough to deal with them. Sensible liberal and conservative parents don't want their second graders to have to figure out what it means to be transgendered. I remember what it felt like to be in elementary school. We boys didn't think about sex much at all till 6th grade when girls started to have breasts.
Quoting Vera Mont
What would they see on the street? When I was a kid, the elementary schools were segregated. I don't think any of us, the white kids at least, thought about it much. Now schools generally aren't segregated, although I live in a suburb of Boston and there aren't a lot of non-white students. Even so, all three of my children went to school with black, Jewish, Hispanic, and Asian children. Should we be teaching fourth graders about the class struggle and the oppression of blacks and other minorities. How would you feel if you were the only black kid in a class when people were talking about your ancestors being slaves? Do you think other kids might tease you about it?
We don't have to indoctrinate our children into our political persuasions. We shouldn't be indoctrinating, propagandizing, them at all. They're children for God's sake.
It is difficult to say who ought to be in charge/ assume the role of such a monstrously responsible position.
The Internet is dangerous and a gift simultaneously. Is it realistic to sway it towards predominantly gift and minimise harm without imposing on freedom of speech?
For me, the only way to protect the vulnerable on the Internet is to impose regulation and thus tell people that their opinions are threatening/ not permitted because they damage other peoples self esteem.
But that denies genuine discourse. I think on a global level this is akin to censorship.
So perhaps harm done in the Internet ought to be taken as a "case-by-case" basis.
Lodge a complaint, have it reviewed by an Internet ethics committee and adjudicate accordingly.
If someone is being bullied, an ethics committee for Internet relations can promptly acknowledge the victims complaint and seek the truth of the situation, implementing measures based on the individual case.
If they try to structure the Internet in a sweeping generalised way, they're likely stifle genuine freedoms to point out flaws. It's impossible to predict all justifications possible on the Internet.
So let it be a case that individual wrongs are corrected in context of how they came about.
I wouldn't. That's why I asked. I have not been able to discover exactly what was meant by a "prohibited topic". Neither have many of the publishers.
Quoting T Clark
I don't think there is any controversy over that one. I didn't realize what you meant by commonality. Some facts are just facts, but some facts are disputed and become controversial.
Quoting T Clark
When I was in second grade, no adults would discuss any aspect of sex, which made it so much more confusing when a friend of the family made some lewd advances. (Yes, those kind of people have always existed.) As for reproduction, I was told by a fourth-grader, who was herself woefully uninformed, which resulted in a good deal of unnecessary anxiety - exacerbated by the secrecy and shame with which adults shrouded the subject, so I couldn't ask anyone who actually knew. Thank goodness for the encyclopedia!
Thing is: at six, seven or eight, all children want to know where babies come from: younger siblings appear in their own or their classmates' families. Curiosity about the world and how things work hasn't been killed out of them yet. It's a good idea for parents to be prepared for this, so that when (not if) their children ask, they can probe for exactly what aspect of the process the child is interested in at the moment, and answer specific questions directly and truthfully, without laying out all the biological detail at once. For many parents, the subject is uncomfortable, because it involves them personally. If it's taught in school, they're spared that long, speculative stare. Plus, all the kids of the same age get the same facts and can't misinform one another, that's a bonus. When my children were that age, we went to the library and found a very useful picture-book aimed at their comprehension level.
Another aspect of this is: if adults insist on pretend everything is beautiful, not only does nobody tell them why one kid is being picked-on and bullied, but, as with sex, they tacitly understand that they shouldn't ask. Either they have to figure it out on their own (especially if they're the victim) or accept it as normal and join the bullies.
(This may be why some textbook publishers include comments on thinking and acceptable social behaviour. Obviously, not all children are learning it at home. Just why is bullying such a big issue as I keep hearing about?
Or maybe it isn't and the media exaggerate it?
I honestly don't know, because it wasn't an issue in my schools or the ones my kids went to.)
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, it was quite broad, because I was interested in whether people approved of censorship in general, or in some venues and not in others, or on some topics and not others or by some agencies and not others.
Here is a narrower version: Should the state be in charge of deciding what material is available to the public at large? If so, where should it be applied, through what mechanism should their decision be arrived-at and how should be enforced?
That would be nice, but it doesn't seem to me practical. Some private owners of social media have imposed their own standards of acceptable discourse on their own platforms, and even that is being legally challenged... ironically, by the DeSantis administration, which rejects textbooks for "prohibited subjects"
So, I can't see North Korea or Sudan or Venezuela going along with whatever rules the UN might set up.
The only way people or groups of people (governments) will agree with such intents is if it favours them.
Bad people, or wholly selfish, self serving people don't want censorship of their lies that promote themselves, and likewise, good people don't want censorship of the truth that empowers others.
Who then do we censor and how? How do we know who to believe?
I think the problem there - as in many other subject areas - is thinking terms of "us" or "we". There is no collective that can make decisions or determine a path forward. Every issue is what a friend of mine calls "an n-dimensional rope-pull". Every issue has a temporary local resolution, yet remains undecided globally. And yet, communication, like economics, takes place on a global scale now. No presently existing entity is equipped to deal with those issues. The UN comes nearest in scope, but still lacks the power.
Individually, we make these decisions every minute, often without even having to think about them, because, as adults, we have each developed our own habits and coping mechanisms. We have learned to trust certain sources of information more than others, on the basis of past experience; we have a personal archive of knowledge by which to measure new data; we disregard some outlets entirely and have our staple references for statistics, charts, timelines, scientific facts, etc.
This is because in our formative years, we were exposed to multiple sources of information. In my case, that was long before the internet: it was school, libraries, periodicals, television and bookstores. Those were far more coherent in their organization than the internet, and so much easier to navigate. I believe young people coming up today are often set adrift on a bewildering ocean of unsorted fact, biased news, partisan jingo, opinion, propaganda, hostility, mis- and disinformation. They're also living in a very much more dangerous world than I did. They need some guidance in discovering and assessing the information they will have to use in difficult decisions in difficult situations. They'll need every erg of critical thought they can muster.
If you dont ask you dont get Vera! If there are enough people asking, then asking can quickly become demands and then if the demands are not met. We can start to demand the UN gets an update! OR ELSE......
The unlikely, even the very very very unlikely, is only so until people make it happen :strong:
Power to the people!
I think it makes sense to show particular care when it comes to education for children. For university level EVERYTHING should be on the table.
As for governments, in general, freedom of information should be the norm. In an ideal world there would be no need for any censorship, but obviously the real world is messy. In matter of security there is clearly a good argument for keeping certain pieces of information private.
Maybe through a carrot and stick style politics.
Quoting Vera Mont
I hear you sister! (even though I suspect you are being sarky! :smile:)
Do you think 'people power' in the future, could reform the united nations into what it really could be, the conduit to a world government? Are you attracted to the concept of a world government via uniting nations?
Absolutely! Always have been an advocate of the universal charter of human rights and would like to see all legal codes based upon those principles. I've also long advocated global disarmament and conflict arbitration under UN auspices. (Think of the money we'd save!!) I'm less sure about uniting the nations and erasing the borders. Ideally, that ought to be done, but people are rather attached to their national identities, so it might be a better approach to adjust the borders in as equitable a territorial division as possible. We'd simply have to accept that some peoples prefer to be ruled by a demagogue... unless the people brought a complaint against their own ruler and the impeachment brought before the international tribunal. All those issues could be decided without nuclear missile. Obviously, law-enforcement and tax collection would be a whole lot easier through international agencies.
And also, just as obviously, communications media could be regulated much better than they are. I'm sure a central megavac computer program could fact-check and classify packets of information passing through its web. It might be set up to filter out incitement to violence type posts and let everything else pass through labelled as F(act), E(ditorial) S(peculative), S(tatistical) H(istorical) Sc(ientific) O(pinion) P(olitical) R(eligious) Pr(ivate) and so forth.
That's a much more difficult question. In principle, yes. Realistically, no. Pessimistically, I don't see a future for humanity as we have known it.
I wonder if it will take something like a catastrophic event such as climate change payback to unite us as a single species that currently exists on a single pale blue dot of a planet?
I hope not, I hope we can do better than that, as the cost in human lives could be very extreme indeed.
It seems I share many of your political viewpoints Vera, but I don't share your level of pessimism. I can only hope I never do. But then, I haven't walked your life path.
I am back to Rabbie Burns again.
I think I have now posted this 3 times on TPF, so my apologies but:
Wad some power the gift ti gie us.
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us.
I believe so. (Well, I have to believe it; I wrote it.) But it would take a very long recovery, even with the excellent provisions some of our long-sighted people are making to preserve knowledge, seeds and DNA.
Quoting universeness
Please, gods, no! The mirror is quite frightening enough.
:lol: is that all that will be left of us in your scenario?
Now you are looking through that mirror you mentioned, too darkly!
Did you write a dystopian sci-fi book?
I was picking out math because it is probably the most social value-free subject. When I was talking about commonality, I wasn't just talking about facts, I meant values too. As far as I can see, I share a lot of common values with most Americans, including those who voted for Donald Trump.
Quoting Vera Mont
It's not the schools job to teach children everything they need or want to know. That's especially true for value-laden topics such as sex and religion.
Quoting Vera Mont
As ham-handed as my first efforts into sex education for my daughter were, I still think it was good we had that conversation. It makes a good story now and it was evidence that I respect her curiosity and intelligence. I'll say it again - not everything children need to know has to be taught in school.
No. Those seed banks libraries, archives and DNA repository are being prepared for the people who will restore biodiversity and agriculture after the climate crisis has passed. These are very optimistic and ambitious projects undertaken by dedicated specialists.
Quoting universeness
The exact opposite. I wrote a utopian one. That/s why I dislike the disparagement of utopian ideology.
But I sincerely cannot see it working if people don't talk openly about their ideas, convictions, beliefs, misconceptions and prejudices. It seems to me that all official (legislated, legally enforced) censorship tends toward propaganda. Even if with the most benign intentions, the group in power will always legislate in favour of the status quo, however unjust or misguided its world-view. And there is no way that legal standard can be nuanced enough to fair in all cases; a great deal of unjust prosecutions and persecutions get swept up in a general intention to protect the public. (And of course, we can't really depend on all governments to have the best intention.)
I agree Vera. The Internet is a place where every and any belief can be propagated given the right circles/groups to interact with. A worrying and dangerous freedom to become perhaps a fundamentalist/extremist for example amongst other threatening states of mind that can be indoctrinated through misguidance.
So it seems that when faced with a mountain of information both correct and incorrect, to sift through and establish true fact from falsity, children and teens need some form of paradigm or logic to apply to such information to guide them sensibly through the BS towards what is actually the case.
I think that is the responsibility of teachers and parent alike. A failed education leaves one vulnerable to believing whatever they're exposed to. To be gullible and fall in with the wrong crowd.
We must teach young people two things: 1). Reasoning and 2). Ethics. For without either they're helpless and prone to manipulation.
It's good then that people engage in philosophy which trains both skills. If everyone was a humbled and cautious philosopher I think the world would be a better place.
That's a valid opinion. In the case of religion and politics, I agree. But encouraging basic civility is not out of place in a classroom or a textbook - especially in a world so racked with acrimony. I would prefer parents to teach values, courtesy and empathy, but I don't feel they are always the best source of useful information - especially on subjects of which they are either ignorant or ashamed.
As for biology, I disagree: it is just as factual as any other science, as factual as math. It can be very damaging - in some situations, deadly - for young people to be misinformed about the health and function of their own bodies. Not knowing about reproduction until they're of reproductive age is only inconvenient in a tolerant, supportive society; life-destroying in a repressive, punitive one. And ignorance of sexual predators.... well, let's say, having worked in forensic pathology, I've seen distressing evidence of the results. (also of bad and inadequate parenting)
That's exactly to purpose of shutting down debate, restricting college courses, hiding (and burning) controversial literature.
Absolutely. Brava. Biological and sex Ed should "grow" unanimously with the person. In harmony. Children and teens should be exposed to such things as needed to be in harmony with their development.
There is no place for shame/awkwardness and guilt when it comes to empowering youths to take command of their developing body, having the information available to them to make conscious, sensible and informed decisions and not be led astray by myths, gossips and misinformation just because teachers and parents felt it an uncomfortable subject to broach.
We must not deny teens the truth of things just for the sake of trying to prevent them growing up (ascertaining that knowledge regardless - either through unwanted pregnancy, taking drugs etc).
Let's be Frank with them and give them the tools to navigate their expanding world before, not after, it inevitably happens. So they aren't blindsided.
I strongly disagree. Controversy is the place of learning. Conflicting ideals are exactly where we learn to apply reasoning and ethics. If we try to create a utopia (ignoring or hiding controversy, restricting learning, shutting down debate) then how ought we prepare them for the fact that it is indeed not a utopia?
One must address the lacklustre to highlight the lustre. Otherwise we are simply being biased which leaves teens vulnerable and naive.
The world is both a gorgeous and dirty place. We must get down and dirty to acknowledge the appropriate contrast so that students can make good and informed decisions. We must not be afraid to converse on things that are unpalatable. But it should be age appropriate. The knowledge of such things should be revealed in time, at the right time, to raise responsible well doing adults.
Not an easy task but a neccesary one.
I think only because I worded my response ambiguously. I meant that the purpose of not allowing ethics and critical thinking to be taught in schools, including university is to render the young helpless and prone to manipulation.
I've quoted this before
all of which i strongly support
while I believe religion has no place in school. Good citizenship, yes - informed citizenship.
Schools should encourage basic civility by enforcing it in their facilities. Don't teach it. Do it.
Quoting Vera Mont
What you prefer isn't the question. In general, we have to trust that parents and families are the best people to look out for their children. I certainly believe that. Sure, there are bad parents. Human social behavior is not perfect. I still think it's our best bet.
Quoting Vera Mont
Teaching biology is fine, although I think there are limits to what should be taught at younger ages. Sex education, on the other hand, is not just biology. It also expresses values and may recommend practices that parents consider inappropriate. Community concerns should be taken into account.
Education is just education. Values do not come into DNA replication; it happens in amoeba, earthworms and wombats just the same way it happens in people. Who says any health teacher is recommending any 'practices'? Just tell the kids how it works - not how to do it.
Quoting T Clark
Of course. Some communities are concerned about outbreaks of herpes, hepatitis and AIDS; some trust none of those things will happen.
Quoting T Clark
True, I asked what you prefer. And you have been very clear. Thank you.
I don't know what you have to apologize for! Did you delete it? I must have missed it the first time - and, looking back through the thread just now, I can't find it. Morality and empathy are important issues. Even if I can't exactly see how see how they fit into the problem of state censorship, I would be interested.
Yes, I have watched a few docs about such human repositories, and I agree the efforts involved are prudent and commendable as a protection against some natural disaster we had no control over or as protection against us causing our own approach towards extinction that we need to rebuild from.
Quoting Vera Mont
I think it's good that you are trying to dilute the assumption that anything labelled utopian is not attainable by humans, but I think it's because it is often associated with notions of perfection.
Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree with the level of complexity you cite within the issues you raise but I think the solution may lie in some kind of AI/expert systems, which will help humans deal with such complexity and will indeed allow the kind of nuanced, individualised approach, which will remove the chance of personal human prejudices being applied, which cause unjust and imbalanced actions.
Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Benj96
Do you think we could create AE systems (artificial expert systems) that could do a lot of the heavy lifting, when it comes to the balanced academic and social education that children need in today's world?
There are a few new systems (one I know about in Finland), that teaches children electronically from home. They don't attend school but they do still get together physically in groups, when they can, for the purposes of live debate, physical education etc. They visit hospitals, charity orgs, parks, museums etc. The cities become their school grounds so to speak. At home, they are taught via Virtual reality systems, augmented reality systems and just by networking with software and live teacher/pupil conferencing. It is thought that such systems are initially very expensive to set up but will be much cheaper, long term, when applied to city populations, compared to the costs involved in running city schools.
If we can create a balanced, unbiased, virtual, educational, electronic system which can almost immerse the child, in an education, that would allow them to meet and talk to a virtual Socrates or/and Carl Sagan etc. Role play in many emulated social circumstances and be presented with 'situations,' and be given feedback on whether they made wise choices etc and they would have the possible consequences of the choices they made in a simulated scenario, fedback to them, perhaps as further simulations. Do you think we could create a very high quality, economically viable, reliable, balanced social and academic, virtual reality, home based education system, that would do the heavy lifting in nurturing all the children in the world from year 1 to year 21? I think we probably could.
Like the one I suggested in the UN hub of internet traffic? I suppose something of the kind could work in legal systems regarding published material, too... after the the world government is established, and central regulating agency has programmed its mega-computer to deal with all of it... So, we just have to wait out the collapse and resurrection if civilization.
We could. But "we" don't want to.
If all we cared about was the welfare and education of our young, we didn't have to wait for virtual reality or computers; we could always have treated our children better than we did. We had lots of choices (and proposed models, and examples) other than the kinds of school we instituted over the centuries. They served and still serve a political, ideological, economic social agenda that isn't about suiting education to children but molding children to the needs of the elite.
Better to plan for a better future than to mourn the bad behaviours of the past or present. We all must just learn from them and not repeat or continue to sustain them.
"We" propose; "they" dispose. There is nothing to stop you from planning. I have a plan for education reform that I devised forty years ago, and it still hasn't been adopted. What would motivate them - the same elite that's still in possession of the power and wealth - to implement your plan?
You have already identified it, people power!
I don't think it is the same elite as the ones from days gone by. Their power has been in decline since the days of the first nations, otherwise you would still be ruled by a foreign King Charles II.
I don't think they have the power or anonymity they used to.
I think they are more and more unsure of their 'divine rights' or their 'Money trick,' and gangster style tactics and their dynastic, inherited/passing on of that which was stolen, self-justifications.
I think even the celebrity culture and status is eroding.
What's 40 years or a human lifetime or 2022 years. Nothing but a splash in the cosmic ocean.
In the cosmic calendar, there are 437.5 years per cosmic second, so 43.75 human years would be 0.1 seconds in the cosmic calendar. A current human lifespan, at that scale, is a camera flash!
I think the last page of the cosmic calendar should have the message 'so give us humans a f****** chance guys, we are still just coming out of the end of our beginnings!'
What I meant was that what either of us prefers doesn't matter. It's the community's values that should be taken into account.
Some thoughts:
In the US, studies show that distance learning that took place as a result of the pandemic has seriously undermined the quality of education for students involved. I know of teachers who say the same thing. I think this has to be taken into account in any program that deals with learning from home.
I am skeptical that there is some sort of technological solution to improving education. It seems to me that a program generated and implemented by artificial intelligence would be more rigid and limited and less responsive to students than regular schools are. That's based on my own assumptions, not any specific knowledge.
When I think back to the good parts of my experiences in school, it is particular teachers that come to mind. Mrs. Coepcke, my 11th grade English teacher. Mr. Polychronus, my 12th grade biology teacher. Professor Deandre, my geotechnical engineering professor. I don't think any educational program will work without active involvement by adults who care about the students and their education and are prepared to provide the work and effort required.
Another thought. I think any centralized, standardized education program will be subject to political and social pressure to conform to a particular vision of what education should be. That's already a problem with regular school systems.
Two example sites worth looking at and thinking about:
https://litslink.com/blog/usage-of-virtual-reality-in-education-pros-and-cons
https://e-student.org/virtual-reality-in-education/
There are many many others, which look at all aspects of education via VR and AR.
Quoting T Clark
Is that a valid comparison or a valid standard to measure by? A time of national crisis?
I don't think there was much high-quality AR or VR used during the emergency situation education authorities found themselves in during the pandemic. Both my nieces were at uni at the time and the quality of the hardware/software systems they were using at home was minimal to say the least.
Certainly, no VR or AR.
Quoting T Clark
A skeptical position is always a healthy one. Parents need to have system prototypes presented to them. They have to be allowed to ask all the kinds of questions you are asking and the solutions must be demonstrated to them. If no current solution exists to the problems identified, then they must be developed, based on the cyclical feedback of all stakeholders. There is an established software development method for doing this, use of alpha testers, beta testers, demo software etc.
Quoting T Clark
There are plans to identify 'good teaching practice' and film such over a school year.
If this was done very systematically over a few years, then these exemplars could be used to create emulated characters based on the kind of 'good teachers' you refer to. The quality of emulation and simulation is becoming very impressive. But you are correct. A full replacement of our current school system with a home-based VR/AR academic and social education system must be demonstrated and be able to convince a majority that it offers many improvements to our current system.
Many more internet controls would be required but the ability of such a system to deliver good citizenship to the next generation seems very attractive to me. Human teachers would stilll be a vital part of such a system but would have so many more helpful tools at their disposal.
In Scotland we have a strong policy of inclusion in our secondary schools. This gave me many classrooms of pupils of mixed ability and special needs. A class with high, medium and low academic ability kids is hard enough but if you add special needs kids as well, autistic, MS sufferers, asperger's, ADHD, selective mutism, partial hearing, partial sight etc, etc. Often each special needs kid had their own helper in the room with them, so you could have three or 4 adults trying to do their tasks as you tried to cater successfully to 20+ children. Some software assists were starting to come in to alleviate the stress on teachers, just as I decided on early retirement. Much more is needed. I completely agree with inclusion, but one teacher does not have all the skills required.
Quoting T Clark
I agree, but I don't want to retype, regarding some of the ways I think we need to get rid of party politics as a means of governance. I posted about my views on that recently in the thread US Midterms
As for social pressure, I can only report that in my whole teaching career, the few schools I worked in were strongly supported by the people in their catchment areas. There was a lot of scrutiny as to what was going on in the school but, on the whole, I think such scrutiny was healthy, even if some groups did try to 'bring in more religion' or 'constantly complained about almost everything, whilst offering no solutions or ridiculous solutions.'
Charles III. I quite like him, actually, but he can't control the tories in his own country any more than he could here, and the tories are controlled by moneyed patrons. Of course it's the same elite - they just call themselves CEO instead of OBE and maybe they did their thieving through different methods - the top 0.01% who own 50% of everything, including governments and information.
On the larger scale, of course all of them will disappear.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, I understand that. What I don't know is who or what controls the community.
Having a comprehensive public school curriculum doesn't hamper parents in teaching their children about values, relationships and social behaviour. By the time children enroll in Gr 1, their personalities are already established; the parents and early caregivers know how best to handle the emotional part of their interactions with the world.
Quoting T Clark
Of course, as is also the case with each locally administered system: it's designed on some philosophical basis; some central idea of the purpose of educating children. Hence the need for democracy without too much corruption and voter suppression, so that a true majority of the people decide. The only difference is that with no set standards, the quality and content will vary from place to place, so that in one state or province or county the graduates of public school will have a much better chance at higher education, higher achievement and a better living, while another region may be doomed to generations of economic and cultural stagnation.
As for distance education, the proposal I considered was not simply an isolated child sitting in front of a screen, as many students did under quarantine, but something far more sophisticated:
Quoting universeness I would add a few more outdoor and creative activities, but I think some version of this flexible arrangement would serve children's far better than sitting in plastic chair all day long.
I don't know.
As for your other responses to my comments, I remain skeptical, but I'm don't have any specific knowledge.
The people who live there control the community. That's the point. Even if the choices the community makes aren't the ones we would like them to.
Quoting Vera Mont
The point I've been trying to make is that each community, each school system, should have input in deciding what is and isn't taught in its own schools; what is and isn't included in its library.
Quoting Vera Mont
I still think person to person, teacher to student, contact is needed for true learning.
I'm not rejecting the kinds of plans you and @universeness are discussing, but I am skeptical.
Yes, I understand that. But if poorly educated people live in a town, their choice of material is limited by their knowledge, and their children will never be able to compete with the children of a more prosperous, better-educated community, and so the prevailing caste system is reinforced. That is also the result of segregating schools and ghettoizing cities. It could work better if there were a high academic standard (with concomitant funding and teacher training) of core subjects like grammar, math, science, history and geography, peripheral ones like civics, music, health, physical education, art, literature, comparative culture and religion, which individual families or entire communities could choose for their children. If they all came out of middle school literate and numerate, they'd have the basic tools to learn more.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, I fully agree that 's an integral part of the learning experience, just as contact with peers is an integral part of the socialization process. I'm only proposing that it alternate with solitary study (computer-aided homework) and take place in different settings and with a variety of teachers, as well as different cohorts for each activity, rather than the same little flock (with their same pecking order), presided over by the same adult (with his or her same competence level and preconceptions) in all subjects.
I think the difference between you and me on this issue is one of emphasis, not primarily substance.
That may well be the case.
Only in a society, where people can take their basic means of survival for granted, perhaps via a UBI or via a money free, resource-based economy, where the basics are birthrights, from cradle to grave, could 'Teaching' become the vocation it always should have been. I never needed a salary to teach, I needed a salary to live. VR, AR and internetworking are essential teaching tools for the future, for the very practical and irrefutable reason, that a single teacher cannot cater effectively to the needs of any significant number of individual, mixed ability, and special needs children.
In private schools, mixed ability classes can be as small at 5-10 pupils.
I can deal effectively with 20 high ability academics, that's easy, and a joy, but mixed ability and special needs, is a whole different ball game, and is, by far, the majority situation that teachers have in front of them in their classrooms every day. Some can produce astounding successes, even under very difficult circumstances and crushing workloads but they burn out in a few short years because they are humans!
I think I would still be teaching if I had not completely mentally and physically burned out due to the stresses and implausible demands, I could just about deal with at the beginning.
That, right there, is my vindication for the advocacy of zero employment! Everybody should be able to do what they love, and I'm quite sure, given the opportunity - everybody would find some work to love. With the basic needs guaranteed, we would have a great many more teachers (You must have some among your acquaintance who quit for lack of support, unreasonable clerical demands or just plain burnout... though, in Finland, probably not so many as get disgusted with the low pay and constant abuse to which American teachers are subjected.), and some who have a particular talent and desire to help slow students and special needs students, and children with exceptionalities of every kind. Because all children are exceptional - and all children are interesting - and interacting with them is rewarding.