Look into the bowl in the picture above and what do you see? Would you say “tomatoes” or would you say “vegetables?” Maybe a red spatula. I see Erica von Trapp’s amazing handiwork as she’s preparing yet another wonderful meal back in 2010. All of those answers are technically correct. The ingredients were just part of the whole, however. The end result was more beautiful than any single element or the combined ingredients of this bowl.
Imagine how absurd it would be if the person growing the tomatoes had gone out to the plants while they were blossoming and told them, “You are such beautiful tomatoes! Keep growing and remember that you are to be part of a great salad someday. Salad tomatoes are the best tomatoes, and I know you want to be the best tomato you can be. Grow well, little ones, because you don’t want to be that tomato that ends up in a sauce or, worse yet, on top of a hamburger. No! You are destined for more because you are chosen tomatoes!”
Sounds a bit crazy, doesn’t it? After all, who’s to say what will become of a single tomato when there are hundreds, maybe even thousands in the field? There are so many things a tomato can be. The farmer would be limiting his crop if he only wanted salad tomatoes. And while some variations of tomato may indeed serve better for salads, every tomato has the potential for multiple uses. Attempting to influence tomatoes’ ultimate outcome while they’re still on the vine is (pardon the pun) fruitless.
Using tomatoes as a metaphor is a strain because, as far as we’ve determined, tomatoes are incapable of critical thought. To some degree, though, the absurdity of trying to influence the outcome of a tomato is not much different than attempting to indoctrinate children toward a specific belief system. Each child comes preloaded with endless outcomes, possibilities, and experiences, taking them down different paths of thought and belief. Teaching them involves helping them to explore the possibilities, why some things are easily accomplished and others more difficult, how to discern facts from fiction, and how to stretch the boundaries of what we know. Indoctrination may look like teaching, but instead, it shuts down all but one predetermined answer, an answer that may be wholly inappropriate.
A meme I see posted often during political seasons asks an interesting question:
Agree or Disagree: teachers should be allowed to tell the kids in their class about Jesus Christ.
At first glance, I think many Americans would agree with the premise on the grounds that teachers should be allowed to teach anything appropriate to the age of the child. Is Jesus Christ a factor in American life? Yes, rather dominantly. However, so are Muhammed, Yahweh, Buddha, Krishna, and some 3,000 other deities. If one is actually teaching, then the tenets of education demand that all relative deities should be covered in an equal manner. What if we asked the following question:
Agree or Disagree: teachers should be allowed to tell the kids in their class about Asu-shu-namir.
Would your answer still be the same? For the record, Asu-shu-namir is the first nonbinary person/deity, blessed by Ishtar. The number of people who adhere to the ancient Babylonian religion may be less than a thousand, so finding someone who could teach that lesson is unlikely. Still, if we’re talking about teaching, then one’s answer should be yes. Otherwise, you’re not talking about teaching, but indoctrination.
Standing inside a classroom, it can be difficult to tell the difference between teaching and indoctrination. The primary difference between teaching and indoctrination lies in the intent and methods used. Teaching typically involves presenting information, guiding students to think critically, and encouraging open discussion to help them develop their understanding and perspectives. It aims to impart knowledge and skills while fostering independent thinking.
By contrast, indoctrination involves instilling a specific set of beliefs or ideas without encouraging critical thought or questioning. Indoctrination names to influence students to adopt a particular ideology without consideration for alternative viewpoints. It aims to shape attitudes and behaviors according to a predetermined agenda.
Indoctrination is dangerous. It limits critical thinking, suppresses individuality, and leads to being closed off to any belief system that might conflict. People who have been indoctrinated may struggle to consider alternative perspectives, which can hinder personal growth and social interaction. Indoctrination also fosters intolerance toward people who believe differently, leading to conflict and division.
Indoctrination keeps the Earth flat, the weather controlled by deities, the universe revolving around Earth, and stars nothing more than little specs of light in the night sky. Indoctrination denies the existence of black holes, dark matter, spacetime, and all of quantum physics. We’ve been here before, often, and people who would move society forward end up dying.
Encouraging education is wonderful. Every person should be exposed to learning and have the opportunity to have their questions about life, the world, and the cosmos answered with the most accurate information available. Students should be taught that few answers are absolute and learn how to ask questions in a manner that leads to a greater understanding of any topic.
Endorsing indoctrination is a path toward sure disaster and social decimation. How do we know? We look at the example of what happened to society, science, and mathematics from the fall of the Roman Empire (72 AD) to the beginning of the Italian Renaissance (1500 AD). We frequently refer to this period as the Dark Ages for a very good reason. To obtain, secure, and enforce control, both religious and political leaders participated in a program of severe indoctrination. The penalty for thinking, speaking, or acting outside these narrowly defined boxes was typically either exile or a painful public death. Returning to that horrible period is a lot easier than one might think and Western Civilization has flirted with doing so numerous times.
We should fear the powers that would drag us backward, that would tell us to let authorities do all the thinking for us, that would deny facts that don’t fit with their worldview, or seek to punish anyone who thinks differently from them. We should be very vocal in proclaiming the dangers of one-sided philosophies that leave no room for questioning. We must be on guard against anyone who regards explorers as evil.
For the record, there is no law against teaching about Jesus Christ in appropriate ways. There is no (enforceable) law against teaching differing opinions around a historical event. There are, however, laws against indoctrination and those should be heeded.
Imagine a farmer standing at their produce stand insisting that anyone who buys his tomatoes must use them only in salads. Some would simply lie about their intent and then do what they want. Others would drive off in search of unrestricted tomatoes. Many tomatoes would end up rotting.
Education opens us to many marvelous things including some incredible food recipes. Indoctrination leaves us hungry (and in need of protein).
Which would you choose?
Time To Eliminate The Hoarders
Dreams are odd and unusual things that sometimes have a meaningful message and other times are nothing more than a series of bizarre images that have no noticeable relationship to real life. Sometimes, dreams are replaying events of the past, especially those one wishes they could change. Other times, dreams indulge in fantasies, things we might like to do if we didn’t have to suffer the consequences of doing them. Dreams are not trustworthy. Dreams are not predictable. They are glimpses into a part of our mind that science has yet to understand. So, when I dreamed of a movement to eliminate billionaires the hard way, I woke up trying to tell myself that it absolutely does not mean that I’m bloodthirsty.
In my dream, we (those faceless individuals with me) commandeered a submarine and torpedoed Jeff Bezos’ yacht. We (presumably the same group) then used a surface-to-air missile to take Elon Musk’s plane out of the sky at 30,000 feet (Is that even possible?). Immediately, the world started being a better place as the billions of dollars they hoarded were distributed more equitably through charities named in their wills. While their deaths were news for a moment, people quickly forgot all about them and went on about their business.
Reality would be much different, however. For all the calls to “eat the rich,” killing rich people isn’t sufficient to redistribute billions of dollars of wealth equitably. Billionaires have wills, trusts, and succession plans already in place to make sure that whoever comes behind them continues to build on the wealth they already have. Like fighting the legendary Hydra, cutting off one head only causes two more to pop up in its place. If we’re really going to put an end to billionaires, all of them, then we are going to need a much better plan, one that ensures money is getting to where it’s most needed.
First, let’s take a look at who, exactly, we’re talking about when we use the term billionaire. Forbes just updated their list last week. Consider who’s hoarding the most wealth.
The number of billionaires has increased by 141 over last year, up to 2,781 with an aggregate value of $14.2 trillion. The US has the most, by far. China comes in second and India third (up significantly from last year). It is almost impossible to wrap one’s head around how much money these people have. Let’s examine the obligatory comparisons.
Excluding war, these are the four biggest problems addressing the world at the moment and they could all be completely eradicated by 2030 and our group of billionaires would still have more money than they can possibly spend. Think about that for a moment. All the world’s most critical needs can be met if the world’s billionaires would kindly get their heads out of their collective asses.
Apparently, all those billionaires need some incentive. The go-to response is that they need to be taxed. That sounds like it should be an easy solution. However, the US government wastes approximately .51 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy. Even at the most streamlined methods, it would still double the cost of any endeavor. Other countries are worse. Then, once the government has the money, there’s the fight over who gets how much. Inevitably, the military, which doesn’t need any more fucking money than it’s already getting, would be yelling and screaming for more and there are far too many politicians willing to give it them because of the pull the military-industrial complex has. Several billion would be lost to pork projects in individual states under the guise of “creating jobs.” The inefficiencies of government cause very little actual help to reach the people who need it.
A much more efficient way would be for the billionaires to get together and handle these matters themselves. They already have the people and the structure and, unlike governments, have reason to operate in the most efficient way possible. Think of all the good Chef Jose’ Andres is doing with World Central Kitchen and he isn’t a billionaire! These problems are fixable without involving governments and the solutions would almost certainly last longer and be more effective than any government-funded project would be.
The problem is, that billionaires don’t want to work together and don’t want to let go of the money they’ll never spend. The motivation has to come from people like us. We have a couple of choices: either we stop buying their products and dump their stocks (which puts more money in our own pockets), or… we start buying rocket launches and putting them to good use. How many billionaires do you think we’d have to blow out of the sky before they got the hint?
Before you get all self-righteous about murder being wrong, stop and think about the degree to which billionaires who could help world problems and don’t, are accessories in the deaths of millions of people who die because they didn’t have enough food, protection from the elements, enough education to survive, or sufficient access to healthcare. MILLIONS of people that they could and should be helping.
There is a moral responsibility we all have to help those in need. Hoarding wealth in extreme amounts does not excuse anyone from that responsibility. Knowing that you could completely eradicate an inhuman condition and doing nothing more than throwing pennies at it (donations less than $100,000,000) makes you just as inhumane. Billionaires are the real animals in our society, and yes, that includes the ones you like.
This all brings to mind the French Revolution and the solution they found for the inhumanity of the rich: cut off their heads. The advantage of using rocket launchers is that you don’t have to get as close to the filth.
Share this:
Like this: