Hi Turil,

Your concept of: open-ended work~play~education spaces that welcome all ages, types, and interests of humans (and others!) is certainly worthwhile. I would like to see it as part of what is supported by an education mandate along with more formal education structures. Perhaps you intend that the open ended system should not be supported by any formal organization in that this would stifle the creative process. There is always this option, at least in an open society. What form of education is better or more productive... I do not know. We should be scientists and investigate many alternatives.

I assume "others" means elephants and donkeys :)

Thanks for visiting,

Don Limuti

Hi Turil,

The weblogic that controls this blog is very strange. It seems that many people cannot rate my essay, and the logoff times vary enough to make author posts iffy. Here is the post again.

Your concept of: open-ended work~play~education spaces that welcome all ages, types, and interests of humans (and others!) is certainly worthwhile. I would like to see it as part of what is supported by an education mandate along with more formal education structures. Perhaps you intend that the open ended system should not be supported by any formal organization in that this would stifle the creative process. There is always this option, at least in an open society. What form of education is better or more productive... I do not know. We should be scientists and investigate many alternatives.

I assume "others" means elephants and donkeys :)

Thanks for visiting,

Don Limuti

Hi again Joe,

I wanted to add that I too am frustrated with the current education system. I was considering graduate school to get a degree in physics. I decided against this because it would put me in a position of having to agree to concepts about quantum mechanics that I knew to be incorrect.

Lying propaganda may be a little strong, but not far from the mark. I would like that you could keep your morals and not fear that school would destroy them.

Peer review is basically a good idea, but it has its limits that are best described by Mark Twain. What we know for sure that just ain't so is what gets us into trouble.

Thanks for visiting and best of luck,

Don Limuti

Hi Peter,

Or should I say Hi Jedi prince. I look forward to reading your essay.

Thanks for the kind remarks.

Don Limuti

Hi Hoang,

Yes, that is what I am after.... maximum profit for the future. My frustration is that I cannot make it an ironclad argument that is obvious to all.

Thank you, and I look forward to reading your essay.

Don Limuti

Hi Tommy,

You caught me! I did my best but logically cannot nail down to everyones satisfaction the importance of education. All my logic and intuition says that the continuing education of all people should be top priority. The elitist school systems of the UK are second rate to the more inclusive university systems of the US. Unfortunately the US is trying more and more to imitate the UK.

Here is my response to your web links:

1. Where has all the education gone?

YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THE SEVERAL IMPORTANT CAVEATS THAT PRITCHETT LISTS

2. Does Education Matter:

The conclusion of this devastating book is that a large proportion of the billions poured into vocational training and university provision might be better spent on teaching the basics at primary school.

YES, EDUCATION DOES MATTER.

3. Going Broke by Degree:

THIS LOGICAL ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THE THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN A COLLEGE DEGREE IS NOT WORTH IT FROM AN INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT. YES, SPENDING $400,000 ON A DEGREE IN ART DURING THE JURASSIC PERIOD MAY NOT GIVE A MONETARY RETURN. STATISTICS CAN BE STUPID.

Perhaps we are both making a case for what we intuitively believe is the truth. I like mine better.

Thanks for visiting and best of luck,

Don Limuti

Hi Jim,

Good to see you in the contest. What I mean by market driven when it comes to what is offered in education, is that the government does not have a monopoly on deciding what is important. What is educationally offered is what is desired by individuals.... if enough individuals want a course of study it will be offered. Many will make choices that they believe will enhance their economic potential and give them credentials. Others many take courses to improve their health. Others may want to improve their gaming and collaboration skills. Still others may want to organize against corporation dominance in election politics. Others will work on making the earth a sustainable place to live. Others may want to study consciousness, philosophy, religion, physics etc, etc.

Market driven is not necessarily a negative concept. People driven may be a better nomenclature.

Look forward to reading your essay,

Don Limuti

  • [deleted]

Hi Marc,

Thanks for visiting and voting.

Your question: "Would most people just enroll with no real intention to actually learn anything in the process?" Is the most to the point question.

Yes, I believe people will just enroll to get the check. If a person has medical issues and is in a hospice, there is nothing wrong with getting the check. But we have given them the right to play the education game for as long as they can.

If a family is in dire straits and homeless, they may just take the check buy food and worry....but the option of taking classes for free is there.

If a young person wants to race cars, they may just take the check and buy a computerized suspension, but the path is open to learn about computerized suspensions and collaborate with others perhaps to start a business.

If a person is interested in criminal activity then they could take the check and proceed to do their criminal thing and suffer the usually bad consequences (and loose the education mandate), but a door is open that has never been open before, to use their energy to get a better outlook on life via education.

Most people would see the advantage of a new pain free (high quality) education system and feel grateful to use the skills and new friends to build a very prosperous future.

Thanks again, and I look forward to reading your essay,

Don Limuti

Marc, the logout demon caught me again, Don Limuti

Hi Michael,

Thanks for visiting and your support. I look forward to reading your essay.

Don Limuti

Hi Don,

thanks for your replies. Yes there are many foreseeable advantages. I particularly like your reply THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION IS NOT TO CREATE JOBS, IT IS TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE JOBS CAN EMERGE.Thank you. Georgina

Dear Don,

Thank you for your stimulating post on my thread.

I herwith sent you my latest article meant for cosmology but it is still in preview.

wilhelmus

    Sorry it seems to be more as 1 mb, so if you communicate your e-mail I will sent it there.

    wilhelmus

    True, statistics can be stupid. I think I can produce a logical argument though:

    Let f_e be the fraction of the economy dedicated to education. If it's 0, nobody gets any education, and there is not much of an economy. If it's 1, everybody is either learning or teaching; nobody is producing necessities like food, so everybody starves to death, and the economy eventually shrinks to zero. Clearly then, the optimal f_e for growth is something larger than 0 and smaller than 1.

    So the veracity of "more education is good" depends on whether f_e is still below or already above that optimal value. It may be true in a developing country with very low levels of educational spending and false in a developed country which already produces more college graduates than there is demand for.

    Hi Don,

    Nice to re-meet you in this new FQXi Contest. I have read your original and beautiful Essay. Here are my comments:

    1) Sadly, the problem of shifting of priorities away from education is not only in USA, but in other various countries, starting from my Italy.

    2) I suspect that point 1) is due to the issue that for governs is simpler to dominate an ignorant populace instead of an educated populace. If I am correct, the problem 1) is even worst.

    3) It is fundamental that education methods must be subject to individual choice. The alternative should be having a populace made of servants instead of a free and educated populace.

    4) Free public education will also permit people to construct a better life and to improve the social security for themselves also for when they will become elders. Thus, I agree that the higher priority is education.

    5) Not only in USA the word public as a preface for a community wide service has turned into a dirty word. I assure you that,sadly, in Italy the situation is even worst.

    6) The Gaming example is important also from another point of view, which concerns the value of playing in education and in science in particular. Playing is the main reason for which I work like a researcher. In general, it is very difficult for scientists becoming rich people, but they have the good luck to play in all their life! I think that it is important to teach youngest children, starting from childhood, that science is playing. That is the best way to initiate them to science. I were lucky from this point of you as I had a teacher in my elementary school who initiated me to science in that way.

    In any case, you wrote a nice Essay, which enjoyed me. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

    I hope you will have the time to read my Essay.

    I wish you best luck in the contest.

    Cheers,

    Ch.

      Don,

      A spot on and logically focused article. I've been castigating various entrants for their 'out in space' entries and so it is nice to have such a well centered and reasonable one. I think though, that the possibility exists to be far more radical than you might think possible. Significant change is only possible when the old order breaks down, but right now the current status quo is coalescing in upon itself and only re-enforcing its own increasingly disfunctional methods. So all the various sectors of society mostly seek to hold onto what they have and further antagonize other parts of society. In this situation, even your reasonable proposals would meet considerable resistance from those who are more focused on holding onto what they have, than gambling on a better outcome.

      The result would normally be a state of slow stagnation and increasingly stratified and compartmentalized future society. Yet I think that the monumental nature of these issues provides a potential relief.

      The enormous tumor of financial excess can only keep growing at this exponential rate and will blow up when it reaches some totally unsustainable level. The result will be the equivalent of a massive heart attack on society, as the economic circulation system siezes up. While this will be potentially catastrophic in some quarters, it is not as though monetary regimes haven't collapsed before and had forms of local exchange rise in their place.

      My proposal is that we begin treating money as the contract which it is, rather than the commodity we have been led to believe it is. While this might seem a minor conceptual issue, it has the potential to change the paradigm by which society functions.

      Any society above a few hundred people needs a medium of exchange. If there is not some readily available commodity with universal applications, such as gold, silver, salt, grain, etc. then a debt based monetary system is quite effective. Yet we forget it is essentially a form of public utility and social contract, not private property. We no more own those bills in our pockets, than we own the section of road we happen to be driving on, yet it is very much in the interest of those controlling this system for us to believe that it is personal property, much as it is in the fisherman's interest for the fish to think that worm belongs to it. This way, every aspect of exchange becomes denominated in this medium and everyone wants as much as possible, further empowering those controlling it.

      Money functions like blood in the economy and as such it needs to keep flowing. Since everyone wishes to obtain as much as possible, this naturally creates excess. If we simply take it out of circulation and store it, it means more must be issued and then there becomes more than necessary, so that if the value started to go down, people would try dumping these stores, further decreasing the value.

      Otherwise it must be invested, ie. loaned to someone else who can effectively spend it in ways to make even more and then pay off the debt and still earn enough to make the effort worthwhile. The fact is there are far fewer of these opportunities, then there is money seeking worthwhile investments.

      This then leads to various unsustainable feedback loops, such as that once speculative investing, ie. greater fool systems, start, it can quickly become possible that money can be borrowed into existence cheaper than these bubbles grow and thus building on theselves, as is currently happening in much of the investment world

      There is also the need to create ever more debt to feed the production of this capital and so lending standards fall. Not to mention the innumerable ways further leverage is added.

      Now if people wish to gamble, this should be perfectly legal, with the understanding that it is gambling, not disguised as safe investment.

      So in reality money is a form of debt. One person's asset is another person's obligation. When those with large piles of these surplus bills gain functional control over the government, then they can effectively have the government, ie. the public, buy this notational wealth as public debt and so sustain its value, since the public is required to pay it back, with interest. Then this money has to be spent and often it is in ways which further enrich those in control.

      Now if we were to begin to understand that money functions as a necessary social contract and we don't actually own it, then most people will start to be far more careful how much they are willing to pull value out of personal and social relations, as well as environmental resources. This would then make the community and the environment natural stores of wealth, not just resources to be mined for value, in order to compete and gamble in the financial system.

      Since stores of currency would be recognized as potentially unhealthy to the system, methods would be devised to reduce them. Most people store wealth for such needs as elder and youth care, education, housing and other large expenses. Now if we started storing value within our communities and relations, the normal, organic systems of exchange and reciprocity would emerge. We would start caring for the old folks and kids like nature intended, as part of life, not just services bought and sold. Much of primary education could also naturally fall into this system and more naturally integrated systems of secondary eduction might evolve as well. Then there could be forms of mutual building societies, much as the Amish do.

      This is not to say a normal and extensive monetary, or even various overlapping monetary ststems wouldn't still function, but they would be built with full understandings of how they best function and for more liquid forms of exchange. Then local public banks would use their profits to fund services and projects within the communities that produced those profits. They would then serve as shareholders in regional systems, in a bottom up system.

      Much as the body has both a heart and a head, society would naturally keep this function of circulation of wealth somewhat distinct from its public management, as a natural distribution and separation of power.

      So this is how I think humanity should be steered; When this current financial system does break down, which seems imminent, but has been for a few decades, but they keep patching with ever more public debt and the resulting surplus credit, we simply have to open our eyes and understand this stuff called money is not, in and of itself, a form of commodity, but a contract which a community is making with its members and those caught abusing this system will naturally have their benefits penalized, not be allowed to profit from this abuse.

      We need to educate people how it all works!!!!

      Regards,

      John Merryman

        Thanks Don,

        A refreshingly brief and easy to read entry, but also leaving me wishing you had said more - because you were on a roll. You deal well with the essay question, and with the questions that arise from your solution. I like the idea of being paid to go to school and learn. Your practical approach explains how universal education helps to bring about a free lunch, and answers some of the questions raised when I read Leo KoGuan's essay, which emphasizes some of the same themes.

        Overall, a very excellent offering. It is fun to read and gives real answers, but as you say not easily accepted by all. Of course; any formula can be tweaked, but one needs to start somewhere - and you offer a good start.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

          Don,

          I could quibble about how to implement it -- though I won't -- because I agree wholeheartedly with your premise that lifelong free education is the key to producing more capital, since human capital is our most valuable resource.

          Great job, high score from me, and thanks for commenting in my forum!

          Best,

          Tom

            Hi Christian,

            Good to see you in another contest.

            This essay was the toughest essay to write. The subject is close to my heart, and I felt I did a very incomplete job. Your support is very welcome.

            You work makes the complex accessible to all. I think there is magic in it that will steer the future.

            All the best,

            Don Limuti