Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

- Self Sufficiency -

Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 6:54:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is this not taught in schools? Isn't this the most efficient subject that you could ever learn to have security over your life, no matter what the situation?

Are we just being taught to be assets for corporations and business?

If so, how does that help us in building security over our lives no matter what the situation? Are the businesses and corporations creating an educational environment which breeds people who are dependent on them for security and survival?

I would like to hear your thoughts.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 1:26:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/28/2011 6:54:27 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Why is this not taught in schools? Isn't this the most efficient subject that you could ever learn to have security over your life, no matter what the situation?

Are we just being taught to be assets for corporations and business?

If so, how does that help us in building security over our lives no matter what the situation? Are the businesses and corporations creating an educational environment which breeds people who are dependent on them for security and survival?

I would like to hear your thoughts.

Okay, I'm assuming you are talking about literally being able to sustain yourself - ie. farm, grow food etc.

Teaching such things is duplicitous. Not everybody needs said skills. Currently people earn a living through money. Growing things yourself and such is a throwback to older, less prosperous times. Also, this would lead to a severe contraction in the economy as specialised skills would begin to fall.

Essentially, people learn things which they need to get a job which then gives them money to live on. Furthermore, this job's income produces a higher quality of living than self sufficiency does.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 3:11:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Survival skills (self sufficiency skills) are needed and should be taught to every human in my opinion. The efficiency in which a human can harness self sufficiency is what ensures survival in a wide variety of situations. After these skills are taught, the human should develop skills that reflect the individual's special interests. This system would ensure that the human can possess both self sufficiency skills and specialty skills.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 3:18:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The probability of needing wilderness survival skills without any help is low. Probability of having to function in a world based on specialization is high.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 3:47:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 3:18:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The probability of needing wilderness survival skills without any help is low. Probability of having to function in a world based on specialization is high.

I don't feel that we agree. Can you elaborate on your perspective?

Here is my perspective: Different survival skills are needed in relation to one's environment. I don't advocate that wilderness skills are the only self sufficient skills that should be taught. Self sufficiency skills do include the natural wilderness environment, but should also include the structured environments that humans have developed. These skills should range from water filtration, self defense, building shelter, hunting/foraging, and building fire... While also including fuel creation, basic mechanics, basic electrical wiring, basic plumbing, basic carpentry, basic energy generator construction, basic first aid, etc.

Combining these skills gives a human the self sufficiency they need to live in almost any environment efficiently. These skills could also be used later in life to help develop specialty skills in subjects of interest. These skills could then be used in almost any situation in any environment. Urban, rural, and everything in between.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 4:09:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tsup homes, Imma teach you how to be of absolutely no use to me whatsoever, for free.

Sounds like a chump.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 4:52:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

lmao
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 7:08:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is a concept in educational theory that is enjoying a recent surge in popularity called "self directed learning". Basically, it is the habits and characteristics of the child that make them more or less independant in their progress. In earlier years, K-4, SDL is supposed to be promoted by a combination of tasks that require SDL, instruction regarding SDL, and extra-curricular/play-based learning.

It has been shown (I'll try to find the study/article I read this in) that kids with high EQ/SDL scores go on to be more successful in life because they are more adaptable and more tolerant of new ideas.

So at once, they tend to make better students (therefore better specialists) but not in a restrictive way thus allowing them to succeed in general life tasks.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 7:42:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 7:08:52 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
There is a concept in educational theory that is enjoying a recent surge in popularity called "self directed learning". Basically, it is the habits and characteristics of the child that make them more or less independant in their progress. In earlier years, K-4, SDL is supposed to be promoted by a combination of tasks that require SDL, instruction regarding SDL, and extra-curricular/play-based learning.

It has been shown (I'll try to find the study/article I read this in) that kids with high EQ/SDL scores go on to be more successful in life because they are more adaptable and more tolerant of new ideas.

So at once, they tend to make better students (therefore better specialists) but not in a restrictive way thus allowing them to succeed in general life tasks.

Reply: What you speak of is very interesting to me. I would like to research it more. If you find quality information on the subject, could you post it here?

Question: What are your thoughts on my post about self sufficiency skills?

Thank you for your time.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 8:13:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Reply: What you speak of is very interesting to me. I would like to research it more. If you find quality information on the subject, could you post it here?

Question: What are your thoughts on my post about self sufficiency skills?

Thank you for your time.

I get most of my information from academic journals I have access to through the University of Ottawa, so, unfortunately, I can't post links to the articles themselves, but sometimes newspapers cover topics related to these concepts.

Here are some interesting Abstracts

Positive relationship: self-Regulated Learning (same as SDL) and Academic Success
http://psycnet.apa.org...

Perception of SDL/SRL and its effects on strategy use and therefore success
http://psycnet.apa.org...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

To answer your question, I understand where you are coming from. the economic and academic forces that have led to the incredible amount of specialization offers both great advantages in the form of efficiency and integration and great disadvantage in the form of economic fragility and personal dependance on a social network that isn't always there. However, it is my opinion that training autonomous minds will lead to greater flexibility/independance which mechanistic specialization can't offer and greater advancement which basic training in the multitude of disciplines prevents.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 8:20:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 8:13:06 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
Reply: What you speak of is very interesting to me. I would like to research it more. If you find quality information on the subject, could you post it here?

Question: What are your thoughts on my post about self sufficiency skills?

Thank you for your time.

I get most of my information from academic journals I have access to through the University of Ottawa, so, unfortunately, I can't post links to the articles themselves, but sometimes newspapers cover topics related to these concepts.

Here are some interesting Abstracts

Positive relationship: self-Regulated Learning (same as SDL) and Academic Success
http://psycnet.apa.org...

Perception of SDL/SRL and its effects on strategy use and therefore success
http://psycnet.apa.org...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

To answer your question, I understand where you are coming from. the economic and academic forces that have led to the incredible amount of specialization offers both great advantages in the form of efficiency and integration and great disadvantage in the form of economic fragility and personal dependance on a social network that isn't always there. However, it is my opinion that training autonomous minds will lead to greater flexibility/independance which mechanistic specialization can't offer and greater advancement which basic training in the multitude of disciplines prevents.

Reply: Thank you very much for your quick response. I feel that my thoughts are in alignment with the words of your last post. There is much wisdom to be learned there.

I will research your links as soon as I get a chance. Thank you for posting them. I greatly appreciate it. I hop your day is filled with happiness.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 12:19:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 3:47:34 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 3:18:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The probability of needing wilderness survival skills without any help is low. Probability of having to function in a world based on specialization is high.

I don't feel that we agree. Can you elaborate on your perspective?

Here is my perspective: Different survival skills are needed in relation to one's environment. I don't advocate that wilderness skills are the only self sufficient skills that should be taught. Self sufficiency skills do include the natural wilderness environment, but should also include the structured environments that humans have developed. These skills should range from water filtration, self defense, building shelter, hunting/foraging, and building fire... While also including fuel creation, basic mechanics, basic electrical wiring, basic plumbing, basic carpentry, basic energy generator construction, basic first aid, etc.


Combining these skills gives a human the self sufficiency they need to live in almost any environment efficiently. These skills could also be used later in life to help develop specialty skills in subjects of interest. These skills could then be used in almost any situation in any environment. Urban, rural, and everything in between.

Inefficient to learn all those materials. They are largely unnecessary to learn while others can specialize in it. At the foundations of economics, Adam Smith stated that specialization of labor increases productivity. If two people have different skill sets, they can trade, and produce more then they could if each person was working individually. Specialization of labor increases the wealth, quality of life, and increases life expectancy.

It is much more efficient to hire someone to repair a car then to pay for the tools, learn how to do it, and spend the time doing it. Instead, it would be easier to hire a mechanic, and I can spend time working on something the mechanic doesn't know.

Plus, even claiming learning how to install and repair stuff isn't really 'self-sufficiency'. You still rely on tools and materials. These materials were created by others. Your still relying on others. The only way to really be self-sufficient is to go in the forest naked and try to survive.

What should really be taught is the power of specialization and trade. Every single person should watch this video to understand the power of the free market.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 10:46:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Inefficient to learn all those materials. They are largely unnecessary to learn while others can specialize in it. At the foundations of economics, Adam Smith stated that specialization of labor increases productivity. If two people have different skill sets, they can trade, and produce more then they could if each person was working individually. Specialization of labor increases the wealth, quality of life, and increases life expectancy.

It is much more efficient to hire someone to repair a car then to pay for the tools, learn how to do it, and spend the time doing it. Instead, it would be easier to hire a mechanic, and I can spend time working on something the mechanic doesn't know.

Plus, even claiming learning how to install and repair stuff isn't really 'self-sufficiency'. You still rely on tools and materials. These materials were created by others. Your still relying on others. The only way to really be self-sufficient is to go in the forest naked and try to survive.

What should really be taught is the power of specialization and trade. Every single person should watch this video to understand the power of the free market.



I have already alluded to comparative advantage and its benefits and problems. I will be more precise. The kind of education system you talk about would train people to be the best cog they could possibly be. This would be a fine idea if the world began and ended at the steps of the marketplace.

Humans are dynamic creatures especially children and they draw pleasure from everything from sports to watching movies to reading books. It has been said many times that GDP doesn't measure happiness nor should it, but that fact reflects the downfall of shapig an education system around an economic calculus. Equipping peopler their lives ahead must take more into account than just a market (no matter how free).

Education is not job training it is, in the roughly paraphrased words of John Dewey, the "renewal of life by transmission". (1) It is the recreation of our civilization in the next generation with the constant opportunity to recreate it with improvements. Besides, by your own logic you should leave education to the education theorists, teachers, and child psychologists, not the economists.

http://www.ilt.columbia.edu...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 2:51:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 10:46:09 AM, CGBSpender wrote:
Inefficient to learn all those materials. They are largely unnecessary to learn while others can specialize in it. At the foundations of economics, Adam Smith stated that specialization of labor increases productivity. If two people have different skill sets, they can trade, and produce more then they could if each person was working individually. Specialization of labor increases the wealth, quality of life, and increases life expectancy.

It is much more efficient to hire someone to repair a car then to pay for the tools, learn how to do it, and spend the time doing it. Instead, it would be easier to hire a mechanic, and I can spend time working on something the mechanic doesn't know.

Plus, even claiming learning how to install and repair stuff isn't really 'self-sufficiency'. You still rely on tools and materials. These materials were created by others. Your still relying on others. The only way to really be self-sufficient is to go in the forest naked and try to survive.

What should really be taught is the power of specialization and trade. Every single person should watch this video to understand the power of the free market.



I have already alluded to comparative advantage and its benefits and problems.

Please explain then? I have not heard this information.

I will be more precise. The kind of education system you talk about would train people to be the best cog they could possibly be. This would be a fine idea if the world began and ended at the steps of the marketplace.

However, the ability to obtain wealth is a positive benefit. Even if a person has a quickly decreasing marginal utility of money and has a high preference for leisure, through specialization the person can obtain the high prference for leisure.

You have yet to show how this can be harmful.

Humans are dynamic creatures especially children and they draw pleasure from everything from sports to watching movies to reading books.

So, in other words, forcing students to learn how to be 'self-sufficient' will only draw the children away from their leisure time and will force the students to learn material they will never need to know.

It has been said many times that GDP doesn't measure happiness nor should it

GDP has many faults with it. It doesn't measure 'indirect trade' (ex: A wife cooking dinner for the family), "bartering", capital consumption, the diparsity of wealth in a geographical area, if what is produced is desired and whether leisure or productivity is more desired.

However, you don't need to use GDP to understand the benefits of specialization in labor. Wealth has positive effects (ability to afford a healthy lifestyle). Also specialization increases one productivity, which can give a person more leisure time. You have yet to prove the harmful effects.

I don't use GDP to refer to wealth. Wealth is merely the means to obtain the resources necessarily to live a happy, long, and fulfilling life.

but that fact reflects the downfall of shaping an education system around an economic calculus. Equipping peopler their lives ahead must take more into account than just a market (no matter how free).

Please explain. What is wrong with basing an education system in order to increase one's human capital? Perhaps one can 'learn for learning sakes'. However, if one has such a desire, then he or she would likely benefit from self-learning. Furthermore, I don't see why a compulsory education system should be crated to fulfill such desire.

To force people to pay money and then force people to attend schools just for 'learning sakes' is counterproductive in many aspects. It destroys the wealth of the children AND adults.


Education is not job training it is, in the roughly paraphrased words of John Dewey, the "renewal of life by transmission". (1) It is the recreation of our civilization in the next generation with the constant opportunity to recreate it with improvements. Besides, by your own logic you should leave education to the education theorists, teachers, and child psychologists, not the economists.

http://www.ilt.columbia.edu...

Appeal to authority. The specialization of trade is the best way to improve society, as it increases prosperity and wealth.

Of course, you quoted just one educational theorists. There are many educational theorists each with there own ideas. However, that is unimportant, since it is government officials that have control of the education system and the system is created through force, by both the mandatory education of students and mandatory paying of education by adults.

However, the education would not be done through FORCE for in a free market, free agents would decide which educational system is best for them. It is likely that agents would use education to increase their human capital, not for consumption: since people can self-learn, and learning to gain trading skills is a more desired use of time then 'learning for learning sakes'.

Conclusion:

You have not yet to describe how an alternative system is better than my system described. You make assertions without backing it with facts. You don't explain why an education system that teaches 'self-sufficient' is better, nor explain why we need teachers to teach students through force these 'self sufficient' skills.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 2:57:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 12:19:38 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/30/2011 3:47:34 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 3:18:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The probability of needing wilderness survival skills without any help is low. Probability of having to function in a world based on specialization is high.

I don't feel that we agree. Can you elaborate on your perspective?

Here is my perspective: Different survival skills are needed in relation to one's environment. I don't advocate that wilderness skills are the only self sufficient skills that should be taught. Self sufficiency skills do include the natural wilderness environment, but should also include the structured environments that humans have developed. These skills should range from water filtration, self defense, building shelter, hunting/foraging, and building fire... While also including fuel creation, basic mechanics, basic electrical wiring, basic plumbing, basic carpentry, basic energy generator construction, basic first aid, etc.


Combining these skills gives a human the self sufficiency they need to live in almost any environment efficiently. These skills could also be used later in life to help develop specialty skills in subjects of interest. These skills could then be used in almost any situation in any environment. Urban, rural, and everything in between.

Inefficient to learn all those materials. They are largely unnecessary to learn while others can specialize in it. At the foundations of economics, Adam Smith stated that specialization of labor increases productivity. If two people have different skill sets, they can trade, and produce more then they could if each person was working individually. Specialization of labor increases the wealth, quality of life, and increases life expectancy.

It is much more efficient to hire someone to repair a car then to pay for the tools, learn how to do it, and spend the time doing it. Instead, it would be easier to hire a mechanic, and I can spend time working on something the mechanic doesn't know.

Plus, even claiming learning how to install and repair stuff isn't really 'self-sufficiency'. You still rely on tools and materials. These materials were created by others. Your still relying on others. The only way to really be self-sufficient is to go in the forest naked and try to survive.

What should really be taught is the power of specialization and trade. Every single person should watch this video to understand the power of the free market.



Reply: Teaching humans to be self sufficient in no way hinder their ability to develop specialized skills. In fact, I think that self sufficiency would only help develop individual specialization on a number of levels. The skills that I advocate are skills that would help any human at the most basic level of thinking about and understanding any problem they may encounter. If you only teach humans to be sufficient in a small area of skills (specialization), they are inefficient in all other skills that may be needed in life. So, as I said. Learn self sufficiency skills for both urban and rural environments. Then specialize your skill development according to your individual interests. In my opinion, an educational system such as this one would be beneficial for humans in all society structures. This includes the free market concept that you advocate.

I am open to your thoughts. I would like to hear why you think only "specialization" is more efficient overall for any human's different life situations.

Basic Example 1: 5 men living in a rural part of the country, they decide to live together (forming a small society). All self sufficient human beings. All have other specialized talents as well. One makes music. One is a comedian. One is a martial arts instructor. One is a sculptor. One is a clothing expert. Each person can use their extra skill to trade or enrich each other's life. But none of them need each other to live. If one or more of the men dies or leaves, the other men in the economy still live. This scenario shows efficiency towards stability in hard times.

Basic Example 2: 5 men living in a rural part of the country, they decide to live together (forming a small society). All are not self sufficient. One man is a hunter. One is a farmer. One is a clothing expert. One is a carpenter. One is a musician. A bear kills the hunter. So now all the men depend on the farmer for food, for their survival. This gives the farmer a lot of control and he can choose how to use it. But then the farmer dies from a farming accident. All three of the other men die, because they can no longer survive in the economy they created. This scenario shows inefficiency towards stability in hard times, an imbalance of power, and an unhealthy dependency on others for individual survival.

Please understand that these are only examples and should not be taken at face value. Their is a deep lesson to be learned in the comparison between the two examples though.

Please, explain to me how the free market concept you are advocating is more efficient towards economic stability than the self sufficient market I am advocating.

Thank you for your time.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 3:33:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thank you for responding to my response. I was expecting you to ignore everything I said, refute nothing, and go onto your own little tangent. I was happily surprised.

At 7/1/2011 2:57:35 PM, Tiel wrote:

In fact, I think that self sufficiency would only help develop individual specialization on a number of levels.

Except you would be learning skills outside of your specialization. Furthermore, self sufficiency in order to obtain the same amount of wealth in modern society is impossible.

The skills that I advocate are skills that would help any human at the most basic level of thinking about and understanding any problem they may encounter.

It is impossible to think and understand any problem they may encounter, since the amount of problems one might encounter are infinitesimally high. The amount of information, even useful information, is so immense, that even the most knowledgeable person likely knows less than 1% of it.

If you only teach humans to be sufficient in a small area of skills (specialization), they are inefficient in all other skills that may be needed in life.

People can trade with one another. Perhaps there are a few basic essentials, however self-sufficiency is neither desired nor efficient.

So, as I said. Learn self sufficiency skills for both urban and rural environments.

This statement makes no sense. You aren't exactly self sufficient in an urban environment. You have to trade constantly with others. The only true form of self-sufficiency is to go alone into a woods naked, with no equipment.

Then specialize your skill development according to your individual interests.

However, time and energy is wasted learning material that is f no relevance to oneself.

In my opinion, an educational system such as this one would be beneficial for humans in all society structures. This includes the free market concept that you advocate.


I am open to your thoughts. I would like to hear why you think only "specialization" is more efficient overall for any human's different life situations.

Basic economics teaches that specialization increases productivity. See comparative advantage and my whole entire post previously:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Basic Example 1: 5 men living in a rural part of the country, they decide to live together (forming a small society). All self sufficient human beings. All have other specialized talents as well. One makes music. One is a comedian. One is a martial arts instructor. One is a sculptor. One is a clothing expert. Each person can use their extra skill to trade or enrich each other's life. But none of them need each other to live. If one or more of the men dies or leaves, the other men in the economy still live. This scenario shows efficiency towards stability in hard times.

Basic Example 2: 5 men living in a rural part of the country, they decide to live together (forming a small society). All are not self sufficient. One man is a hunter. One is a farmer. One is a clothing expert. One is a carpenter. One is a musician. A bear kills the hunter. So now all the men depend on the farmer for food, for their survival. This gives the farmer a lot of control and he can choose how to use it. But then the farmer dies from a farming accident. All three of the other men die, because they can no longer survive in the economy they created. This scenario shows inefficiency towards stability in hard times, an imbalance of power, and an unhealthy dependency on others for individual survival.


Except both these societies are unrealistic since society is composed of 6 billion individuals each producing goods and services and trading instead of 5. If you were to die tomorrow, your death would be insignificant to the economy.

A primitive society like the one described would likely only have farmers, since the society would only have enough resources to produce food. There simply is not enough labor for strong specialization, since there would not be enough capital or labor.

Please understand that these are only examples and should not be taken at face value. Their is a deep lesson to be learned in the comparison between the two examples though.


Except your examples do not take into consideration that the economy is filled with 6 billion people, not 5. Nice try.
Please, explain to me how the free market concept you are advocating is more efficient towards economic stability than the self sufficient market I am advocating.

Thank you for your time.

Specialization increases productivity. Free trade also decreases warfare and violence. Societies are less likely to go to war with one another, if both societies would be at a significant loss during warfare. I would less likely kill a person, If he or she is necessarily for my survival. People are less likely to kill one another If a person actually has value to them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 4:03:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Please explain then? I have not heard this information.

I assume you have not heard this information because you have not read the entire thread. When I spoke of the vulnerability of interdependence in addition to efficiency that comes along with specialization, I was talking about comparative advantage I just wasn't using the words. I encourage you to read those posts. If you want real world examples you need look no further than the 1973-4 oil crisis. You can also look at the cases of Vietnam, Chile, and a host of other countries, exposing their coffee trade to the international markets on the recommendation of the IMF in the late 70s. Or perhaps the intense almond mono-cropping going on in California and how it has effected the bee population.

However, the ability to obtain wealth is a positive benefit. Even if a person has a quickly decreasing marginal utility of money and has a high preference for leisure, through specialization the person can obtain the high prference for leisure.

You have yet to show how this can be harmful.

You have accused me of making groundless statements, but you demonstrate no proof or example of this framework. Assuming it were true, it would be based on the idea that specialization necessarily leads to a greater ability to obtain wealth.

The number of production chain factory workers, perhaps the greatest example of specialization and comparative advantage, quickly found themselves in the worst economic situation as soon as the recession (and certainly before that) hit as none of their skills were transferable. What's more, the international condition of modern neo-liberalism has shown that corporations are willing to pay for lower quality work as long as the wages are as low as can be. Ergo, one's adaptability becomes far more essential than any single skill or set of skills they may acquire because there's always someone somewhere who will do the same job at a much lower wage with half the skill.

So, in other words, forcing students to learn how to be 'self-sufficient' will only draw the children away from their leisure time and will force the students to learn material they will never need to know.

You misunderstand what I am arguing. I am not arguing for the self-sufficiency that is teaching people how to do everything they might need to do in their life as a seperate subject, I am advocating for the promotion of self regulated learning with a greater focus on a capable mind rather than any specific skill set (which would come in specific career training later on). Since a capable mind is useful in all that we do in life, there is no risk that what is being taught won't be used. Again, if you have not done so already, I strongly encourage you to read the thread in its entirety before you draw conclusions and level accusations.

However, you don't need to use GDP to understand the benefits of specialization in labor. Wealth has positive effects (ability to afford a healthy lifestyle). Also specialization increases one productivity, which can give a person more leisure time. You have yet to prove the harmful effects.

I don't use GDP to refer to wealth. Wealth is merely the means to obtain the resources necessarily to live a happy, long, and fulfilling life.

Greater productivity does not necessarily lead to more leisure time. The only time it does do that is when a person is in control of their own work schedule which is not the case for most people. It could just as easily promote more stress and depression (1/5 Canadians will be depressed at some point in their life and the predominant reason is work related).
Your definition of wealth is nice, but if wealth is not coupled with a hollistic/rational mind all it will lead to is a greater capacity to be manipulated. The success of the tobacco industry is an excellent example of this. So is the startling rate of obesity in North America. Greater consumer power can but does not necessarily lead to a longer life or a better one. The money to buy food could just as easily be spent on bad quality food.

A higher per capita income is not a proper measurement of any of those things your definition of wealth gives a person the capacity to pursue. However, it has been shown that those with a post-secondary education have lower rates of all these conditions (additionally heart disease) not because of increased levels of specialization most liberal arts programs do not provide greater specialization, but because all programs train a more critical mind.

Please explain. What is wrong with basing an education system in order to increase one's human capital? Perhaps one can 'learn for learning sakes'. However, if one has such a desire, then he or she would likely benefit from self-learning. Furthermore, I don't see why a compulsory education system should be crated to fulfill such desire.

To force people to pay money and then force people to attend schools just for 'learning sakes' is counterproductive in many aspects. It destroys the wealth of the children AND adults.

Again, you don't seem to understand what I am arguing. I am not claiming that we should all learn for the sake of learning. What I am claiming is that an education system is more effective if it attempts to foster critical minds rather than any specific skill set in an individual. I am not saying that specialization is bad just that specialization is made better if it is engaged in after the foundations of SDL are created.

As far as forcing people to go to school, that is an entirely different argument that will only detract from the one we are currently having.

Appeal to authority. The specialization of trade is the best way to improve society, as it increases prosperity and wealth.

Of course, you quoted just one educational theorists. There are many educational theorists each with there own ideas. However, that is unimportant, since it is government officials that have control of the education system and the system is created through force, by both the mandatory education of students and mandatory paying of education by adults.

However, the education would not be done through FORCE for in a free market, free agents would decide which educational system is best for them. It is likely that agents would use education to increase their human capital, not for consumption: since people can self-learn, and learning to gain trading skills is a more desired use of time then 'learning for learning sakes'.

It's not just an appeal to authority, Dewey is the basis of all modern conceptions of education. And since this is a normative debate it does not matter who currently makes the decisions because we are arguing what decisions they should make.
The free agents you're talking about, I assume, are children, if it's not than I don't really see how you could claim that force is some how more legitimate because it comes from parents instead of government. Anyway good luck getting 6 year olds to pick a trade school. Something tells me the cowboy/princess classes will do better financially than they currently do.

Conclusion:

The alternative system I have described is the one grounded in fact rather than wild speculation of the efficiency a purely specialized free market based system would provide. That wealth is some a synonym for a better life is an unproven assertion. I have not shown why an education system should promote self-sufficiency because that is not what I have been arguing for. As for the force, that is not in the scope of this thread; we are arguing within the context of the education system. If you would like to start another thread or perhaps a debate than I would be happy to participate in either.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 5:56:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Reply: Thank you for your quick response. I respect the passion you show for your perspective. I have an equal amount of passion towards my own perspective. I see that we disagree on many things and I would like to try and bridge that gap, if at all possible.

At 7/1/2011 3:33:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Thank you for responding to my response. I was expecting you to ignore everything I said, refute nothing, and go onto your own little tangent. I was happily surprised.

At 7/1/2011 2:57:35 PM, Tiel wrote:


In fact, I think that self sufficiency would only help develop individual specialization on a number of levels.

Except you would be learning skills outside of your specialization. Furthermore, self sufficiency in order to obtain the same amount of wealth in modern society is impossible.

That is the standard of wealth that you speak of? Please be more specific, so I can address your perspective accurately.


The skills that I advocate are skills that would help any human at the most basic level of thinking about and understanding any problem they may encounter.

It is impossible to think and understand any problem they may encounter, since the amount of problems one might encounter are infinitesimally high. The amount of information, even useful information, is so immense, that even the most knowledgeable person likely knows less than 1% of it.

While it may be impossible to think about or understand every single problem that may arise, it is possible to develop a wide array of skills that covers a high degree of problems that are more probable to happen in a specific environment. Developing these skills would not take away from the development of specialization skills. The skills I speak of are building block skill sets,these skill sets can only help develop any specialization skills that the individual would be interested in developing.


If you only teach humans to be sufficient in a small area of skills (specialization), they are inefficient in all other skills that may be needed in life.

People can trade with one another. Perhaps there are a few basic essentials, however self-sufficiency is neither desired nor efficient.

Self sufficiency may not be desired by you. This is true. But as you have stated, here are 6 billion people in the world. A large portion of those people depend on markets in order to survive. This large portion of the human race may indeed find it desirable to not depend on the market any longer for future survival.

Also, please give me elaborate as to why you feel self sufficiency is not efficient, and to what standard of measurement are you using in order to judge what is efficient or inefficient?

So, as I said. Learn self sufficiency skills for both urban and rural environments.

This statement makes no sense. You aren't exactly self sufficient in an urban environment. You have to trade constantly with others. The only true form of self-sufficiency is to go alone into a woods naked, with no equipment.

My statement does make sense. Autonomous living can be designed for urban, suburban, and rural environments. Currently all three environments are not set up to run in such a way. That is one of the points that I am making, is that our civilization should be designed more around self sufficiency, less around market dependency. I know this is opposite of what you feel passionate about and I can respect that. Please try to respect my perspective when you reply.

Then specialize your skill development according to your individual interests.

However, time and energy is wasted learning material that is f no relevance to oneself.

All of the skill sets that I advocate are of use, as being self sufficient means that you only need to develop extra skills (specialization) because you want to, not because you need to.

In my opinion, an educational system such as this one would be beneficial for humans in all society structures. This includes the free market concept that you advocate.




I am open to your thoughts. I would like to hear why you think only "specialization" is more efficient overall for any human's different life situations.

Basic economics teaches that specialization increases productivity. See comparative advantage and my whole entire post previously:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Economics is a relative system and does not hold objective rights and wrongs. Increased productivity is only useful in a society that need the products. Self sufficient individuals would not need these products, therefor increased productivity is useless. Why would self sufficient individuals need increased productivity? Both comparative advantage and increased productivity are key to the health and growth of the market n a capitalist economy. There are different economic structures and an economic structure based on self sufficiency finds no efficiency in capitalist economic essentials. Trade is always desirable, but it should never determine your survival.

Specialization increases productivity. Free trade also decreases warfare and violence. Societies are less likely to go to war with one another, if both societies would be at a significant loss during warfare. I would less likely kill a person, If he or she is necessarily for my survival. People are less likely to kill one another If a person actually has value to them.

As I have noted, productivity increase is only desirable where products are needed. Self sufficiency does not need any form of trade, it is only desirable as a welcome addition. I disagree strongly with you that Free trade decreases warfare and violence. Capitalism creates power imbalances and dependency of the market. Both of these things greatly increase the probability of war and violence. You speak of people needing each other as a reason for why they won't kill someone. But when it comes to survival or desire people will indeed kill each other to get what they need or want. Lets say I am dependent on you for food and you are dependent on me for water. If I cannot fill your need or desire for water or you cannot fill my need or desire for food, then we have a major problem. It is a problem of survival. In this situation of resource dependency, the probability of one of us killing the other for the thing we want or need, increases dramatically. I hope this shows clearly hoe capitalism increases the probability for war or violence between dependents. Self sufficiency doesn't depend on others for survival needs, therefor such situations of violence or war have very low probability of happening.

Thank you for your time and perspective on this subject. I look forward to your response.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 6:28:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...

Reply: I would love to participate in an intelligent discussion about our differing perspectives, but it seems that you don not wish to elaborate on your perspective, which promotes a weak stance on the subject.

Questions: What silly rule do you speak of? What is your stance? Please elaborate your perspective.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 7:24:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 6:28:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...

Questions: What silly rule do you speak of?
The one prohibiting children receiving education from adults.

What is your stance?
On what proposition?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 9:05:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 7:24:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/1/2011 6:28:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...

Questions: What silly rule do you speak of?
The one prohibiting children receiving education from adults.

What is your stance?
On what proposition?

Reply: There was nobody advocating such a rule. I am sorry for the confusion.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2011 10:58:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 9:05:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 7:24:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/1/2011 6:28:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...

Questions: What silly rule do you speak of?
The one prohibiting children receiving education from adults.

What is your stance?
On what proposition?

Reply: There was nobody advocating such a rule. I am sorry for the confusion.

The OP advocated self-sufficiency.

Self sufficiency implies such a rule, for otherwise the self will not be sufficient for the education the children seeks.

Which part of this do you deny?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2011 4:29:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/2/2011 10:58:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2011 9:05:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 7:24:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/1/2011 6:28:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...

Questions: What silly rule do you speak of?
The one prohibiting children receiving education from adults.

What is your stance?
On what proposition?

Reply: There was nobody advocating such a rule. I am sorry for the confusion.

The OP advocated self-sufficiency.

Self sufficiency implies such a rule, for otherwise the self will not be sufficient for the education the children seeks.

Which part of this do you deny?

Reply: Self sufficiency is a subject. A subject can both be taught by oneself or accelerated by other's teachings. Self sufficiency is the result of self sufficient teachings. Self sufficiency is a term that is commonly used to describe the result of not needing to depend on others for your survival or livelihood. If you want use semantics, that's ok, but it doesn't change the goal of self sufficiency.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2011 11:06:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/3/2011 4:29:28 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 10:58:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2011 9:05:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 7:24:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/1/2011 6:28:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...

Questions: What silly rule do you speak of?
The one prohibiting children receiving education from adults.

What is your stance?
On what proposition?

Reply: There was nobody advocating such a rule. I am sorry for the confusion.

The OP advocated self-sufficiency.

Self sufficiency implies such a rule, for otherwise the self will not be sufficient for the education the children seeks.

Which part of this do you deny?

Reply: Self sufficiency is a subject. A subject can both be taught by oneself or accelerated by other's teachings. Self sufficiency is the result of self sufficient teachings.
It's a vast leap from "A subject" to "any subject. Simply because some subjects work that way doesn't mean that anything you phrase as a subject acquires that property. And you've done nothing to resolve the contradiction.

Self sufficiency is a term that is commonly used to describe the result of not needing to depend on others for your survival or livelihood.
Which clearly isn't occurring if you depend upon others to acquire that property in the first place.

If you want use semantics, that's ok, but it doesn't change the goal of self sufficiency.
Um, actually, it's very important to whether we hold something as a goal just what that goal means.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 5:14:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/3/2011 11:06:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/3/2011 4:29:28 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 10:58:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2011 9:05:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/2/2011 7:24:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/1/2011 6:28:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/1/2011 5:59:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:51:10 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 6/30/2011 4:10:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Or, in other words:

If you wanna be self sufficient-- SELF EDUCATE. duh.

So do you advocate that adults should not teach children subjects? Are you advocating that humans should learn all education through self teachings, from birth till death?

Please elaborate your perspective.

I'm not an advocate of self-sufficiency in the first place, I'm an advocate of market division of labor.

Therefore, I'm not bound to follow this silly rule. Advocates of self-sufficiency, on the other hand...

Questions: What silly rule do you speak of?
The one prohibiting children receiving education from adults.

What is your stance?
On what proposition?

Reply: There was nobody advocating such a rule. I am sorry for the confusion.

The OP advocated self-sufficiency.

Self sufficiency implies such a rule, for otherwise the self will not be sufficient for the education the children seeks.

Which part of this do you deny?

Reply: Self sufficiency is a subject. A subject can both be taught by oneself or accelerated by other's teachings. Self sufficiency is the result of self sufficient teachings.
It's a vast leap from "A subject" to "any subject. Simply because some subjects work that way doesn't mean that anything you phrase as a subject acquires that property. And you've done nothing to resolve the contradiction.

Self sufficiency is a term that is commonly used to describe the result of not needing to depend on others for your survival or livelihood.
Which clearly isn't occurring if you depend upon others to acquire that property in the first place.

If you want use semantics, that's ok, but it doesn't change the goal of self sufficiency.
Um, actually, it's very important to whether we hold something as a goal just what that goal means.

Reply: I'm sorry, but you seem to missing the point. The point is about teaching people to become self sufficient, self sufficiency being the end result of those teachings. Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Maybe we can settle this issue in a debate at some point in the future.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."