[QUOTE=Regulas021;33450440]It doesn't really matter whether these programs are leading to employment. The fact that the government gets to tell people how they will get to spend their college money, study time, and careers on is the travesty here.[/QUOTE]
China heavily interfering with the free market and human rights?
SAY IT AINT SO
Where have you been for the past 60 years?
[QUOTE=Contag;33450514]China heavily interfering with the free market and human rights?
SAY IT AINT SO
Where have you been for the past 60 years?[/QUOTE]
Authoritarian, I tell you what.
I'd much rather study something I love than to force myself to go into business or engineering because its a more financially secure move. Can't put a price on happiness.
Furthermore, I'm very good at what I study even though it is considered 'useless'. I'd rather excel in a dangerous field than do poorly or decently in a safe field that I don't like.
But liberal arts majors do get jobs!
[sp]as baristas[/sp]
[QUOTE=Regulas021;33450440]It doesn't really matter whether these programs are leading to employment. The fact that the government gets to tell people how they will get to spend their college money, study time, and careers on is the travesty here.[/QUOTE]
They're not removing them from private educational facilities. It's just that government will no longer help fund "unworthy" classes.
[editline]26th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Altin;33450850]But liberal arts majors do get jobs!
[sp]as baristas[/sp][/QUOTE]
I would never get that job, I'm artistic.
[QUOTE=Noz;33449033]How can you expect to have a culture of your own if you're a country comprised entirely of engineers and accountants? Arts is the reason why western/american culture is so universal.[/QUOTE]
A country comprised entirely of engineers and accountants would be efficient as fuck, i'd live there.
[QUOTE=Altin;33450890]A country comprised entirely of engineers and accountants would be efficient as fuck, i'd live there.[/QUOTE]
The country would die off because it would be comprised of all male virgins.
On a related note, if you cut courses or majors all it is going to do is stop people from going to school, not encourage them to change their major. If someone wants to study 1960s women's movements and they cut that they are not going to go 'Oh derp I guess I'll just be an engineer now!'.
I've been in the "study something for a good job instead of something you like" boat.
It's was a fucking stupid move, due to not being interested I failed and that was 3 years wasted.
Now I'm on something I'm really interested in and I'm doing way better.
[QUOTE=StormHammer;33448860]Before they begin cutting out majors, it would be nice if they also downsized the entire college experience. You shouldn't have to spend 4+ years getting a degree for a job that should only take 2.[/QUOTE]
But not for all majors, I work IT at my local and this is a problem for our Agriculture dept. Because for some people to get their majors need to to research on their crops, but they could have a bad year for growing crops so all their data and research is ruined, and so the university wants to kick these kids out because they're taking so long when it's not actually their fault.
[QUOTE=Noz;33449033]How can you expect to have a culture of your own if you're a country comprised entirely of engineers and accountants? Arts is the reason why western/american culture is so universal.[/QUOTE]
I'm not one of those "art is useless" folks, and I can see why people would disagree with me, but a technocratic nation of engineers and economists would seem like a paradise to me.
I don't need palm trees, political speeches and art galleries to make me happy.
If you call Culture, what wikipedia defines first as "Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture" and you think things like this
[img]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg[/img]
are more important, more impressive, and in the long run, more valuable than things like this:
[img]http://thedebtweowe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Moon-Landing.jpg[/img]
Then...well...frankly we will never agree on anything.
Good luck getting any kind of concept art done to persuade politicians to fund your space program. Good luck getting writers to document your exploits so future generations know what you did. Good luck inspiring millions of children to be interested in a very mundane at heart profession without comic books, TV shows, and movies.
Artists give engineers the dream, engineers just build it.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;33452299]Good luck getting any kind of concept art done to persuade politicians to fund your space program. Good luck getting writers to document your exploits so future generations know what you did. Good luck inspiring millions of children to be interested in a very mundane at heart profession without comic books, TV shows, and movies.
Artists give engineers the dream, engineers just build it.[/QUOTE]
If science was a mundane thing to do, there wouldn't be scientists doing it. That was a dumb thing to say.
[editline]26th November 2011[/editline]
Good job being a shining example of a perpetuator of the myth that scientists and engineers aren't creative
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33451913]I'm not one of those "art is useless" folks, and I can see why people would disagree with me, but a technocratic nation of engineers and economists would seem like a paradise to me.
I don't need palm trees, political speeches and art galleries to make me happy.
If you call Culture, what wikipedia defines first as "Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture" and you think things like this
[img]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg[/img]
are more important, more impressive, and in the long run, more valuable than things like this:
[img]http://thedebtweowe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Moon-Landing.jpg[/img]
Then...well...frankly we will never agree on anything.[/QUOTE]
The moon landing was less important than solving world hunger so space programs are USELESS until we figure out world hunger and they should be cancelled and shunned
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33451913] a technocratic nation of engineers and economists would seem like a paradise to me. [/QUOTE]
yeah only if you are an engineer or an economist.
everyone else would be miserable if they don't have the chance or aren't willing to become such a person. only people who consider themselves smarter and more elite believe in technocracy.
paradise itself is an idiotic concept.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453046]paradise itself is an idiotic concept.[/QUOTE]
you're sounding like a conservative
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453061]you're sounding like a conservative[/QUOTE]
lol paradise being dumb is something prevalent in marxism, not conservatism.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453096]lol paradise being dumb is something prevalent in marxism, not conservatism.[/QUOTE]
explain then
whenever someone says something like "world peace will never happen" or "life would be nothing without hardship" I can never help but think of the bullshit rhetoric that's used to ensure that the proles knuckle down and keep working hard because "life is hard" and that's the way rich conservative fucks would like it to stay
[editline]26th November 2011[/editline]
I don't know shit about marxism
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33451913]I'm not one of those "art is useless" folks, and I can see why people would disagree with me, but a technocratic nation of engineers and economists would seem like a paradise to me.
I don't need palm trees, political speeches and art galleries to make me happy.
If you call Culture, what wikipedia defines first as "Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture" and you think things like this
[img]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg[/img]
are more important, more impressive, and in the long run, more valuable than things like this:
[img]http://thedebtweowe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Moon-Landing.jpg[/img]
Then...well...frankly we will never agree on anything.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how I've benefited from a couple of dudes being on the moon.
I'm not sure how you would benefit from a piece of "art" either.
Notice the quotation marks.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33453162]I'm not sure how I've benefited from a couple of dudes being on the moon.[/QUOTE]
well first off you missed his point, he's trying to say you can have abstract art and moon landings at the same time and pointing out the ridiculous false dichotomy that some people create between them
and secondly that's kind of an ignorant thing to say, for starters it inspired an entire new generation of scientists, as well as producing [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off]a million and one spinoff technologies[/url]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453155]
whenever someone says something like "world peace will never happen" or "life would be nothing without hardship"[/QUOTE]
well i didn't even say that so i don't quite know what the criticism is here
let me be less vague:
in marxist criticism, paradise is a flawed notion because it requires subjugation. as people die and ideas change in order for paradise to continue subjugation must happen or else the paradise will fall apart.
a paradise based on technocracy forces by definition to subjugate non-oligarchs which is a big no no in my book and marxist books.
chances are if you have to ask the question "how did I benefit from people being on the moon" it'll be impossible to explain to you why it is so awesome that we did something like that
[QUOTE=Altin;33450850]But liberal arts majors do get jobs!
[sp]as baristas[/sp][/QUOTE]
at NUCA (norwich university college of the arts), 85% of graduates get a job within a year of leaving, which is more than can be said for most science graduates of oxbridge
people shouldn't look at the bleak "THIS IS MOOOREE IMPORTANT", because at the end of your life it's all subjective. in 250 years time nobody will remember who you are or what you did, and wether or not you do the 'best subject' at university shouldn't matter as long as you are happy as a person throughout your life.
forcing people to do subjects that'll take you to the moon will not get you further into space, as it's been proven throughout history that all breakthroughs have been done in the face of dedication and passion for an aspect of life.
[QUOTE]Artists give engineers the dream, engineers just build it. [/QUOTE]
What the hell is with all the misconceptions about Engineers in this thread. More often than not, the Engineer of a civil project is in fact the artist. Engineers don't build structures, they design them.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;33453202]I'm not sure how you would benefit from a piece of "art" either.
Notice the quotation marks.[/QUOTE]
stop wasting my time and just write what you mean instead of doing shit with quotation marks.
[editline]26th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Altin;33450850]But liberal arts majors do get jobs!
[sp]as baristas[/sp][/QUOTE]
you're dumb. fyi liberal arts include mathematics and science.
ever heard of a BA? it stands for bachelor of arts.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453265]well i didn't even say that so i don't quite know what the criticism is here
let me be less vague:[/quote]
well universal peace would be a big step toward paradise, and reducing hardships to a minimum is another element of paradise
[quote]in marxist criticism, paradise is a flawed notion because it requires subjugation. as people die and ideas change in order for paradise to continue subjugation must happen or else the paradise will fall apart.[/quote]
okay then, I don't understand quite why a paradise requires subjugation
"ideas change" indeed, but that sounds like a vague statement - I mean, they change for sure, but they don't just change randomly, if an idea is good enough it'll stick
[quote]a paradise based on technocracy forces by definition to subjugate non-oligarchs which is a big no no in my book and marxist books.[/QUOTE]
I think I've said this before, but nowhere in the definition does it say that a technocracy [I]has [/I]to be oligarchic - it's definitely a possible permutation of technocracy, but it's possible to have a democratic technocracy, at least according to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy]wikipedia[/url] :
"Other forms have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather administration by discipline-specific science, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups."
I see it like this : you have to be over a certain age to be president, right - so why shouldn't you need certain other qualifications to be president, or prime minister, or an MP? ignorant politicians are the scourge of the earth, and not to put too fine a point on it but you have WAY too many of them in the US, and the UK isn't without its troubles in that field either
I'm not sure if what I want qualifies as a technocracy, but I definitely know what I want
also, a technocracy has no predefined obligation to persecute artists or stupid shit like that, it's not like in Equilibrium or Player Piano
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453295]
you're dumb. fyi liberal arts include mathematics and science.
ever heard of a BA? it stands for bachelor of arts.[/QUOTE]
not in the UK, we have BSc for science
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453414]well universal peace would be a big step toward paradise, and reducing hardships to a minimum is another element of paradise[/QUOTE]
well not the accepted definition of paradise. a paradise in definition is more of a positive harmonious closed off place. whether you like the paradise or not depends on how the paradise is geared. for instance, if you are a brutal dictator north korea would be your paradise.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453414]okay then, I don't understand quite why a paradise requires subjugation
"ideas change" for sure, but that sounds like a vague statement - I mean, they change for sure, but they don't just change randomly, if an idea is good enough it'll stick[/QUOTE]
but they do change randomly. an idea being good enough to stick hasn't stopped anything from changing. evolution certainly will not continue to be used in the come 200 years when we know far more than we used to.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453414]I think I've said this before, but nowhere in the definition does it say that a technocracy [I]has [/I]to be oligarchic - it's definitely a possible permutation of technocracy, but it's possible to have a democratic technocracy, at least according to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy]wikipedia[/url] :[/QUOTE]
technocracy is anti-populism unless the entire population were technocrats but then it defeats the point of calling it a technocracy. it is oligarchic because it rests power of decision making on the elite.
anyone who says you can have democratic technocracy is either being purposefully vague because they haven't thought the whole thing out or just plain doesn't know what they are talking about.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453414]"Other forms have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather administration by discipline-specific science, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups."[/QUOTE]
which is impossible and a complete fantasy like the notion of paradise.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453414]I see it like this : you have to be over a certain age to be president, right - so why shouldn't you need certain other qualifications to be president, or prime minister, or an MP? ignorant politicians are the scourge of the earth, and not to put too fine a point on it but you have WAY too many of them in the US, and the UK isn't without its troubles in that field either[/QUOTE]
ignorance isn't the sign of a bad leader. that's another issue with technocracy, it places merit on things that have nothing to do with anyone. are you gonna tell me anthony weiner was a bad congressman because he couldn't operate twitter correctly?
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33453414]also, a technocracy has no predefined obligation to persecute artists or stupid shit like that, it's not like in Equilibrium or Player Piano[/QUOTE]
in a technocracy by definition artists would have no political power which is persecution in a different way.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33453550]in a technocracy by definition artists would have no political power which is persecution in a different way.[/QUOTE]
I'm missing how not having something you don't need (the power to make decisions in fields you don't understand) qualifies as mistreatment.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33453677]I'm missing how not having something you don't need (the power to make decisions in fields you don't understand) qualifies as mistreatment.[/QUOTE]
well it's not supposed to be something for you or anyone else to decide.
the idea of sovereignty comes from the fact that the people must allow you to rule and their consent goes towards anything.
if i'm not allowed to have the power to decide things that i help to provide money towards and consent to allowing, then what is it besides tyranny?
unless you believe that people should be ruled without popular sovereignty but that's called dictatorship.
TIP you made a couple of good points but that was a huge post and I cba to go through it all so I'll just point out the three glaring errors in it because it's less effort :
[quote]but they do change randomly. an idea being good enough to stick hasn't stopped anything from changing. evolution certainly will not continue to be used in the come 200 years when we know far more than we used to.[/quote]
no, this is just plain wrong. we still use Newton's laws in physics despite the fact that they're over 300 years old and we have Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. Newton's laws were enough to fly us to the moon and back.
[quote]ignorance isn't the sign of a bad leader. that's another issue with technocracy, it places merit on things that have nothing to do with anyone. are you gonna tell me anthony weiner was a bad congressman because he couldn't operate twitter correctly?[/quote]
ignorance starts mattering when politicians apply their ignorant ideas to the greater populace. weiner did no such thing. that's not to say weiner didn't suffer a bit for his ignorance - it was just on a much more personal level
in short, I'd only start worrying when a man like weiner is elected to be a supervisor on laws such as internet privacy and security. that's another facet of technocracy - you can be ignorant on other issues as long as you have no control over them, so you wouldn't want to have a biologist as an economic advisor or some shit like that
[quote]in a technocracy by definition artists would have no political power which is persecution in a different way. [/quote]
and again, you perpetuate the myth that scientists can't be artists too. come on man
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.