> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> and lots, of time undermining education
>
> I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good can
> it do to anybody to limit education?
>

"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear 
to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore 
to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared.  If the machine 
were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy 
and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. ... But it was 
also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the 
destruction - indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a 
hierarchical society.  ... the most obvious and perhaps the most 
important form of inequality would already have disappeared.  If it once 
became general, wealth would confer no distinction. ... But in practice 
such a society could not long remain stable.  For if leisure and 
security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who 
are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn 
to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would 
sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, 
and they would sweep it away.   In the long run, a hierarchical society 
was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.  ... Ignorance is 
Strength"

- G. Orwell. 1984.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message