I think it's a mistake whether for financial reasons or in terms of personal satisfaction. You go into a field because you are interested in learning and engaging with the problems in that field. Not for status or rewards.
You can't enter a profession on the basis that it will be personally rewarding. You can only leave because it turns out not to be.
Just have lots of different toys available to begin with and get more of whichever are played with the most. Don't restrict the use of computers.
Don't worry about outcomes or what people should be playing with. Actually "should be playing with" is almost a contradiction in terms since play is undirected.
Wrong, perhaps, but 'badly' wrong? Despite the accident, building Fukushima saved lives and reduced atmospheric pollution relative to other power sources.
Part of the reason we haven't improved reactor designs as rapidly as we should is due to irrational fears surrounding nuclear power. In other words, such fears have to some extent been a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The fears aren't so irrational. They reflect the fact that we don't know how to assess and manage risk over the kinds of timescales required to safely handle nuclear waste.
How can it be 'elitist' if the education is not only cheaper but its graduates are allegedly doomed to be exploited in their 'bubble'?
The reality is that school leavers are more likely to be exploited. Once cast out of their enclosures, which resemble almost nowhere else in the wider world, they are mentally unable to pursue their own interests.
>I personally think they are a little bit crazy for doing what they are doing
True, except that it's more the case in unschooling for adults to be guided by the children, being available to give help or find help when required.
It takes years for the average adult to break his school conditioning and find the courage to follow his own direction. Most never manage it, and of those that do, most don't till retirement, which is tragic.
My daughter is unschooled and taught herself to read and type mostly from the web browsing.
Most people somehow assume that because they learnt to read and write at school that one cannot do it out of school, and more efficiently. This despite the fact that they themselves didn't get good at reading until they found books they were excited about and wanted to read for their own reasons (reasons, btw, that might include hunting and fishing).
And if they think about it they'll correctly predict that asking adults on the street what 7 times 8 is will yield the wrong answer, or no answer at all, despite many years of compulsory arithmetic and socialization. Yet the commonly proposed solution to this deficiency is more compulsory education rather than less.
Considering one's future self as a different person could have the opposite effect. We might then sympathise with that person, and take measures not to be mean to him, in the same way we wouldn't be mean to a friend.
But it's a nice idea. Another tendency we have is to shed our skins and not remember what it was like to be a child. This effects the way we interact with children.
Some severe procrastinators, I think, also sort of hate themselves and their future selves, and see themselves as unworthy and undeserving of anything substantial. The procrastination might be a symptom of depression, etc.
Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need, not on acting out some supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for mutual support.
>Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual need
To counter your easy dismissal I'd say modern individuals, rife as they are with selfiness, consumerism, lack of empathy and of time to connect to their neighborhood, are mostly basing their circles on career paths and personal interests, and other people being their cultural split image.
How is my dismissal 'easy'? I haven't heard it from anyone else and it acknowledges an unpleasant truth. What I dismiss are sentimental media ideas about 'community' which are all too common.
What both arbitrary socialising and consumerism have in common is that they are focused on selves whereas truly important activity primarily relates to abstract ideas. It is ideas that create the solutions to local problems.
Btw, none of this is inconsistent with a smile and a nod to people you see about you in daily life! And mingling with new people if one feels lonely.
Those ideas about community aren't just sentimental, they're reflections of real human needs. Humans value community to a tremendous degree, shaped by evolutionary pressures evolving from our tribal roots. We want to feel part of a larger group, whether it is our family, neighborhood, city, company or country. This isn't a relationship born out of "creating solutions," it independently nourishes an innate emotional need.
Oh, c'mon, the word "community" is thrown around willy nilly nowadays. Every day I read something about the "tadpole-owning community" or whatnot.
It could be the other way around: we are born into families and nations and therefore we post-hoc accept and value them.
We can't wait to leave and get away to the big city and then, eventually, from time to time, we yearn to return home. Not due to some innate preference or unexplained genetic mechanism but simply because that's how we grew up.
However, few are willing to give up their new-found freedoms for a circumscribed tribal existence. Which doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't honour our pasts.
Honest question - why would you wait until the next draught or plague to get to know your neighbors well? Why not start getting to know them today, before you "need" them?
Honest question - why is it considered so inherently important to spend time with your neighbors? I don't understand why I'm supposed to have a natural connection to certain individuals just because we chose to live in the same area. If my social circle consists of people who don't happen to live on my street, is that so bad? We don't really need to worry about having someone to come check up on us from next door because modern communication has extended our reach far beyond our own street.
I've never really been comfortable getting to know my neighbors. I feel like they see and hear too much about my private life as it is, it's actually awkward for me to see my neighbors.
You have time and have nothing better to do with it than to kill it? My condolences. Try having kids; it rids you of free time quite well! :)
Really, with current online life, people have contact less with random strangers and more with like-minded or otherwise interesting individuals. If in an [abstract] countryside you have to talk to you neighbors because there's no one else around, on the Internet the choice is wider.
OTOH your neighbors may be nice and interesting people; some of my neighbors are. Also you might have some local common interest, or could e.g. lend power tools or kitchen utensils to each other sometimes.
It's not about staring at the screen. It's about using that screen to contact your friends who live beyond your street to come over and sit around your fire.
People forget that 100 years ago that wasn't really an option.
You really don't see the benefit in being social be to the people around you? It doesn't have to have an intimate relationship.
Do you just ignore the people you work with as well for similar reasons?
OK, one reason off the top of my head. Say something suspicions is going on outside your flat. Someone that could be checking out your house wanting to break in. A friendly neighbor may go up and ask in a non threatening way if you were expecting to see John in just now, and could he take a message for you. Ignore your neighbor to the point he doesn't even know your name, and guess what. He won't give a shit. Which scenario is more likely to get your place broken into?
> why is it considered so inherently important to spend time with your neighbors?
It's propaganda disseminated by unhappy single women. :) I said it that way because not all single women are unhappy -- some prefer being alone, just as some men do. Recent statistics tell us that almost 1/2 of Americans are single, and they're about to become an absolute majority.
> Why not start getting to know them today, before you "need" them?
Maybe they're completely boring. Maybe the person under discussion prefers being alone unless and until the entire neighborhood is going up in smoke. It's not as though large groups of people are what nature has in mind, regardless of environmental and biological changes -- evolution doesn't work that way.
About 1/2 of Americans are now single. Is this a disease, or a result of personal preferences, by people who tried the alternatives and then made the least objectionable choice?
I wish my neighbours well, but for me socialising is a distraction from work and family. Those are my contribution to the (wider) community. Besides, I have trouble enough keeping up with relatives and schoolmates without introducing new, geographically-oriented relationships.
I agree with coldtea. Our consumerison is why it we get isolated. What is intresting, tendencys in DE show that people go back in the cities for shopping (it's more socializing).
http://www.presseportal.de/pm/8664/2804458/innenstadt-bleibt...
Maybe when our kids getting in adolescence find that this is the way to be diffrent than us.
Good Practise:
Start greeting people when you are in your neighbourhood. That's what I did. I got very fast in contact with above-, below my floor and people around in that block. We had big times (even with the very old folks!). Friendliness and courage (to do so) is the key to start a relationship. The cause of the problem is our missing culture (even neighbourhood parties) to get connectd.
g start flash-mobs!
I'm not a consumerist. Nor do I suffer from social anxiety. Who are you talking to, and giving advice to? Nothing in your comment addresses any of my points. Why not engage -- otherwise you remain 'isolated', surely?
This is a fantasy of course, which is a defence mechanism for frustrated minds.
However, the quasi-religious defence of Science as a settled body of knowledge which people must be forcibly 'educated' about is becoming depressingly common. Becoming more like a religion isn't a good way to counter superstitious falsehoods.
The patient-doctor relationship has waned, IMO. Here in the UK for most ailments I see a GP for about 10 minutes. I never see her again. No follow up, no chat, etc. Different GP next time. Perhaps social media could help build trust within practices.
