Degradation Of Modern Culture

[babykeiff]

Alright, so people are complaining that the OP has no ideas of his own and insisting they be told what specific topic they are confined to, because otherwise they can't form ideas of their own? This. The content of this thread is a great example of the degradation of modern culture. People are no longer taught to think for themselves but trained to have someone else think for them, and are perfectly O.K. with that.

Little Faerie,

I agree that some people have no firm opinion of their own, and in some circumstances, it is a contributory factor in the degradation of modern culture, but maybe not the only one. However, most members here are both highly educated and intelligent, and do not wish to partake in a discussion where their words can and in some cases, have been used against them. Only an fool enters a battlefield naked and expects to survive. Similar here.

Unless the OP - impulsive - voices his opinion, I doubt that people will reply. If a question is asked - then an answer WILL be given.

People here CAN think for themselves. There are 368,000+ posts that prove your statement wrong. It would be more correct to state, and the OP agrees, that he can't think for himself.

...

The sole difference between a human and a computer is that a human is supposed to be able to form views and opinions from information stored, where a computer cannot. It is also the key topic in life.

Is the OP a computer, or some inanimate object?

...

Edit: Yes, after a full process of your input variable, I can affirm that I am a computer.

What does one do to a computer when it freezes - pulls the plug and restart it.

[Little Faerie]

Babykieff, I have to disagree with you a bit. While there are many free thinking intelligent people here, we do have members with an IQ comparable to a shrub, and the shrub would probably win a common sense contest. Thankfully most of them go away in due time. My statement is only one of many contributing factors, and of course aimed at the populace in general and not DD members specifically. What I do not understand is why people are afraid of a good debate? Just because people have differing viewpoints doesn't mean that they as people are against each other, and I don't think people should be afraid to reveal their position on a topic.

What I took from the OP's original post is:

What do you think is the cause of/contributes to the degradation of modern culture?

To which he could have replied immediately or later with his own opinion, though sometimes it is just interesting to know what others think.

My short answer to that question is that too many people are trained not to think for themselves and to accept the lies fed to them by the ruling class (governments, corporations, etc.) as absolute truths. Public schools play a major part in this with textbooks edited to teach falsehoods and teachers who aren't paid enough to care. Daycare workers make more than teachers. The mass medication of the people because of the big pharmaceutical corporation's greed for profit combined with the ruling class's desire for a docile populace is a big issue. The current currency system with it's inherent flaws also contribute to it. As further generations are indoctrinated into this system of obliviousness, the intelligence quotient of the general populace decreases alongside moral responsibility and self-sufficiency, and in my opinion this is the root cause of the problem. People must re-learn to be self-sufficient, must learn once again how to work together as a community, learn to take responsibility for their own actions, and have the self discipline to root out the truth even when it isn't the popular belief.

Orwell's 1984 and the movie Idiocracy are scarily close to accuracy.

That is my two cents, for what it's worth.

[Leilin]

My short answer to that question is that too many people are trained not to think for themselves and to accept the lies fed to them by the ruling class (governments, corporations, etc.) as absolute truths. Public schools play a major part in this with textbooks edited to teach falsehoods and teachers who aren't paid enough to care. Daycare workers make more than teachers.

Inaccuracies aside, I'm somewhat curious as to when or where in history you think this WASN'T the case in the overwhelming majority of the world for the overwhelming majority of people? It's hardly the "degradation" of modern culture if it representations almost no change from historical precedent whatsoever.

And, yes, the OP is pretty much a troll-and-run attempt, in my eyes. Your post, at least, is worthy of a well-thought response. His was, by his own more or less admission, an attempt to start an argument and controversy.

[Little Faerie]

Inaccuracies aside, I'm somewhat curious as to when or where in history you think this WASN'T the case in the overwhelming majority of the world for the overwhelming majority of people? It's hardly the "degradation" of modern culture if it representations almost no change from historical precedent whatsoever.

Very good point. I hadn't quite thought of it that way. It's easy to think things were better at some point, though it is really that they were different, some in better ways and some in much worse ways. I would like to know what things did you find to be inaccurate though? It is certainly fact that history and social studies textbooks in the U.S. are skewed to reflect political agendas of the time they are published and that some things presented as fact are completely different from the reality of what happened, or who did what, etcetera. Some can be merely passed off as errors but some of it is blatant misinformation. I'm all for correcting the facts when something is proven to be inaccurate but lately it's been that they are taking what actually happened and changing it to something else, in order to be "politically correct". I find that to be unacceptable. The intentional dumbing down of America is really becoming a problem and I do apologize if I seem over-enthusiastic in my discussion of it, but it is a topic that really gets to me.

[Yvhuce]

so,...everyone

*checks answer book*

is the correct answer! everyone has a part for where society is at!

Yes. Everyone. That's the overall point I was going for. Unfortunately, I'm not always at my best writing form at 1:30AM... That tends to be closer to bedtime.

[Leilin]

The inaccuracy would be that childcare-givers make more than teachers in any prevalent fashion. Typically, that is not the case. The costs for those caregivers usually go to the business-owners, licensing costs, and insurance costs, not typically to the people giving care, who scarcely ever make over minimum wage.

It's worthy of note that not ALL districts use the intentionally inaccurate textbooks, despite Texas's best efforts. California, in particular, refuses to use those textbooks (for MOST of its districts, not all, since those decisions are not made on a state level in CA) and, due to the possibility of a competing textbook type and a significantly larger population, this provides an alternative to the inaccuracy.

This, of course, alleviates the schools of the responsibility. If you want to get angry at someone for the textbook inaccuracies, your anger is better spent on the idiots who populate the school-boards and the politicians, depending on the area, who make those decisions. It's hardly the schools' fault when some moron decides that Intelligent Design is science or that Jesus and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

Ironically enough, there is more current value placed on knowledge than there ever has been before, for the common person, when you look at things in the long term. While one might point out, correctly, that there were such and such popular figures of great knowledge in the renaissance and ancient China and Japan, there was also a significantly higher percentage of people who were illiterate and very oppressed. The United States currently has its highest literacy rate in history (despite limited and nonfactual claims that tend to get parroted on internet forums. Those are easily debunked for the facts that they flat-out ignore, and often are comprised of limited pools to make them look like a much higher percentage than they are) and, despite the monumental amounts of debt that it takes to get into academia for those who are in the middle class, college is quite accessible as well.

Now, are there also things like the intellectual cesspits of Fox News, Spike TV, and Jackass all over? Sure, but for every one of those, there's an NPR, a great poet or songwriter, and a truly artistic piece of film, without fail.

But that's just my opinion.

[babykeiff]

Babykieff, I have to disagree with you a bit. While there are many free thinking intelligent people here, we do have members with an IQ comparable to a shrub, and the shrub would probably win a common sense contest. Thankfully most of them go away in due time. My statement is only one of many contributing factors, and of course aimed at the populace in general and not DD members specifically. What I do not understand is why people are afraid of a good debate? Just because people have differing viewpoints doesn't mean that they as people are against each other, and I don't think people should be afraid to reveal their position on a topic.

What I took from the OP's original post is:

What do you think is the cause of/contributes to the degradation of modern culture?

To which he could have replied immediately or later with his own opinion, though sometimes it is just interesting to know what others think.

My short answer to that question is that too many people are trained not to think for themselves and to accept the lies fed to them by the ruling class (governments, corporations, etc.) as absolute truths. Public schools play a major part in this with textbooks edited to teach falsehoods and teachers who aren't paid enough to care. Daycare workers make more than teachers. The mass medication of the people because of the big pharmaceutical corporation's greed for profit combined with the ruling class's desire for a docile populace is a big issue. The current currency system with it's inherent flaws also contribute to it. As further generations are indoctrinated into this system of obliviousness, the intelligence quotient of the general populace decreases alongside moral responsibility and self-sufficiency, and in my opinion this is the root cause of the problem. People must re-learn to be self-sufficient, must learn once again how to work together as a community, learn to take responsibility for their own actions, and have the self discipline to root out the truth even when it isn't the popular belief.

Orwell's 1984 and the movie Idiocracy are scarily close to accuracy.

That is my two cents, for what it's worth.

In every country worldwide, not just America, the political machine during their reign have tried to manipulate history and the then future populace by their influence on education and curtailment of free thinking. Combine this to the many years of compliance by the populace and the ideology of a few creates a world civilization unable to think and also unwilling to object. Orwell's 1984 is somewhat of a bias and exaggerated view. Yes, in some circles, Big Brother is watching you, but due to mathematics ( huge amount of data vs limited people analyzing the data) physically it is impossible to watch everybody all the time.

Idiocracy is closer to what, I suspect, the world will become. In a certain sense, from the power of the media via overuse of brandnomers, populace is forgetting the core products, and therefore, losing their ability of choice. This, I fear, will only increase over time. A capital based society will eventually defeat a manufacturing based society. Based on capital expenditure, machines will eventually replace all human need in the manufacturing process. This will also cause the human factor of product manufacture to be eliminated, and accordingly, the human knowledge base of manufacture. Combine the two, and both the knowledge to produce and the reason to produce a product that has not got a brandnomer will be eliminated. At that stage, there is NO choice and also no reason for choice for the end consumer. This will reflect on the education standards imposed. Why teach a person about a subject when the need for said knowledge has been eliminated?

Due to the constant dropping in education standards - In education, there is a 10-25% loss of information once a teacher tells a student. Using compound calculations, a 95% loss of education will occur in 19 generations at 25% or 28 generations at 10%. Using the average age an adult gives birth being 18, 19x18=342 or 28x18=504 years. The average is (342+504)/2 = 423 years. This works out that in 400 odd years, the intelligence capability of humans on this planet will resemble that of a twelve month old child of today. The storyline behind the film Idiocracy does not seem so far fetched.

Is it even possible to stop this?

[Leilin]

Due to the constant dropping in education standards - In education, there is a 10-25% loss of information once a teacher tells a student. Using compound calculations, a 95% loss of education will occur in 19 generations at 25% or 28 generations at 10%. Using the average age an adult gives birth being 18, 19x18=342 or 28x18=504 years. The average is (342+504)/2 = 423 years. This works out that in 400 odd years, the intelligence capability of humans on this planet will resemble that of a twelve month old child of today. The storyline behind the film Idiocracy does not seem so far fetched.

Is it even possible to stop this?

That has nothing to do with the standards of education. That has to do with human learning. This is why teachers are taught not just to TELL students things, but to SHOW them and to help them ANALYZE the things so they can UNDERSTAND. This is why there's a current trend towards formative assessment in the classroom, despite the trend towards summative assessment in the politicians. Wow. I've never seen that ratio so misused, ever.

Also: Despite the current state of schools, and your "compound calculations" (Why not just call them "numbers I made up?" since they're in no way based in anything factual?), we have the highest rate of college entry in history right now. We have the highest rate of young people entering Calculus, advanced economics, advanced technology, advanced English, and other advanced courses, right now.

And, yes, we have the highest rate of vocal anti-intellectualism in the media in history, right now. Thank you for that, Sarah Palin and friends.

To say that kids are "getting dumber" is patently incorrect, one way or the other. There is not a single reliable metric currently used which can accurately assess that and provide that conclusion.

Edit: Source for the current college admission numbers. Most recent one I could find with a quick google, since I abhor it when people just make up numbers to say silly things:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

More recent for the US: Highest college enrollment in history, last year:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/college-enrollment-rate-at-record-high/

Here's one for Ireland, from a 2007 study, they were 13th in the world, as a country, and rising:

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/20755120-2010-table1/index.html?contentType=/ns/KeyTable,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/table/20755120-table1&containerItemId=/content/tablecollection/20755120&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

[Little Faerie]

Leilin- for the large scale daycares that is true. But in most cities for every large daycare with multiple staff members, there are at least 10 more privately run licensed daycares with one or two caregivers, and they are paid per-child. Typical daycare rates are $100 to $150 per child per week in my home state of Missouri. Let's say these smaller daycares have 8 unrelated children per week on average. The actual average number of children is more than that but I do not know the exact statistic so I'm lowballing the number of children for this stat to be on the safe side. That is $1000 per week, or $4000 per month. Daycare insurance can cost upwards of $1000. This leaves $3000 per month, not including expenses. Many daycares are run from property owned by the daycare owner. That puts a (very) small daycare worker's income at $36,000 per year before taxes. Even most small daycares have more than 8 children per worker. My former daycare provider had 12, and she was the smallest one in the city I lived. I have a dear friend who is a retired teacher (she was one of mine ) In her entire teaching career, her highest pre-tax yearly income was $30,000 which she finally earned just before she retired. She paid for 75% of her classroom supplies and expenses out of her own pocket and as a specialized art teacher, that was a lot. She was a high quality teacher as well. Somehow, this seems pretty damned unfair to me.

[Leilin]

Leilin- for the large scale daycares that is true. But in most cities for every large daycare with multiple staff members, there are at least 10 more privately run licensed daycares with one or two caregivers, and they are paid per-child. Typical daycare rates are $100 to $150 per child per week in my home state of Missouri. Let's say these smaller daycares have 8 unrelated children per week on average. The actual average number of children is more than that but I do not know the exact statistic so I'm lowballing the number of children for this stat to be on the safe side. That is $1000 per week, or $4000 per month. Daycare insurance can cost upwards of $1000. This leaves $3000 per month, not including expenses. Many daycares are run from property owned by the daycare owner. That puts a (very) small daycare worker's income at $36,000 per year before taxes. Even most small daycares have more than 8 children per worker. My former daycare provider had 12, and she was the smallest one in the city I lived. I have a dear friend who is a retired teacher (she was one of mine ) In her entire teaching career, her highest pre-tax yearly income was $30,000 which she finally earned just before she retired. She paid for 75% of her classroom supplies and expenses out of her own pocket and as a specialized art teacher, that was a lot. She was a high quality teacher as well. Somehow, this seems pretty damned unfair to me.

The mistake in your numbers is in the assumption that a worker at a large daycare for any age but kindergarten, for those ones which include that age, is paid that much. Most of those profits will go to the owner, who is usually not the one taking care of the children. Furthermore, we should be looking at licensing fees as well, which are NOT cheap (Day Care is, in general, an anticompetitive business), rent, upkeep, health code inspections, which are paid by the day care, vehicle licensing fees if necessary, and any number of costs, and you can bet that those will come out of the pocket of the caregiver rather than the owner, since no individual licensing is required, typically to run a daycare in most states, but rather a business license to cover the venue. 36,000 is much much larger than the vast majority of daycare workers make pretax.

To be fair, I imagine SOME do, but there's a HUGE range in average day care worker salaries that we're looking at, with the low end, which I think we can agree represents an innumberably larger population, making about 15,000 a year, which isn't really enough to live on.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Child_Care_/_Day_Care_Worker/Salary

There are very few districts in the country, if any, where a teacher is only making 30 thousand after 20 years, and yet that represents the top end of all daycare positions recorded.

Yay for the internets.

I'm not really sure what your friend was doing, because the entry pay for Missouri teachers is 31 thousand a year right now:

http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/missouri.html

Was your friend working for a private school? They tend to pay less due to their overall lack of a need for licensing standards (though most of them observe minimum standards greater than teaching licenses require. Their success is in their ability to deny underperforming students from entry more than it is from superior educational standards)

[Puer Aeternus]

For a topic to be discussed in a rational manner requires three things -

1- A topic

2- A point of view

3- A rational mind.

This is the internet, and by definition lacks #3, dooming rational manner faster than this thread will inevitably start a comparison to Nazis*.

*see Godwin's Law

[Impulsive]

I started this thread with no clear direction for it to go.. And i did not express my views because they could potentially offend quite a few people

[Little Faerie]

The mistake in your numbers is in the assumption that a worker at a large daycare for any age but kindergarten, for those ones which include that age, is paid that much. Most of those profits will go to the owner, who is usually not the one taking care of the children. Furthermore, we should be looking at licensing fees as well, which are NOT cheap (Day Care is, in general, an anticompetitive business), rent, upkeep, health code inspections, which are paid by the day care, vehicle licensing fees if necessary, and any number of costs, and you can bet that those will come out of the pocket of the caregiver rather than the owner, since no individual licensing is required, typically to run a daycare in most states, but rather a business license to cover the venue. 36,000 is much much larger than the vast majority of daycare workers make pretax.

To be fair, I imagine SOME do, but there's a HUGE range in average day care worker salaries that we're looking at, with the low end, which I think we can agree represents an innumberably larger population, making about 15,000 a year, which isn't really enough to live on.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Child_Care_/_Day_Care_Worker/Salary

There are very few districts in the country, if any, where a teacher is only making 30 thousand after 20 years, and yet that represents the top end of all daycare positions recorded.

Yay for the internets.

I'm not really sure what your friend was doing, because the entry pay for Missouri teachers is 31 thousand a year right now:

http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/missouri.html

Was your friend working for a private school? They tend to pay less due to their overall lack of a need for licensing standards (though most of them observe minimum standards greater than teaching licenses require. Their success is in their ability to deny underperforming students from entry more than it is from superior educational standards)

To answer your last question first, she worked for a public school. She retired 2 years ago, so the current wage does not apply to what she made, but she worked for mainly rural schools. In rural Missouri where she taught, few jobs in those areas pay worth crap. I was not using large daycares as my example, I was referring to the more numerous small daycares in which the licensed care provider is most often the same person as the owner, or the spouse of. Private daycares which tend to be smaller with less staff often charge more and pay more than public daycares which accept government subsidy. Large daycares have their own inherent problems with finances and employee pay which certainly need to be evaluated. I don't know if you have ever used daycare services, but as a mother of a young child I have used several and done plenty of "daycare shopping", this experience being in part what these comments are based on. In the cities in which I lived, there were few larger daycares and lots of small care-provider owned facilities, and the rates which I quoted were the range of rates I encountered from various facilities I interviewed. I suppose if these large daycares employ 20 people that their workers could outnumber the more numerous small facilities, but I honestly didn't stay long enough to find out in the ones I visited... I was not willing to subject my child to being treated like a number. I preferred personalized care. And I seldom believe the statistics presented on the internet about any given topic, especially wages and employment. They are too often skewed or misrepresented. I will agree that those people who work for large daycare facilities are underpaid, and if it is true that since they employ more people than small ones per facility that they do in fact make up a larger number of daycare workers, then I can see how your statement can be true. I think maybe that it varies by city or region. In any case, teachers are still not paid enough for what they do. My comments exclude higher education professors of course, I refer only to grades pre-K to 12. They shape the future generation, they instill the basic fundamentals of knowledge for life, isn't that worth something?

[Leilin]

Your friend should sue, then:

http://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t11/1630000172.html

Either she was telling a little fib, she was giving you the amount AFTER taxes, she made up the number, or she should be suing the district for several thousand dollars.

It's also worthy of note that Missouri, last time I checked, had the fourth-lowest cost of living of any state in the union. Those pay rates are currently approximately eight thousand dollars a year higher than what is given at minimum here in Vegas, where we have approximately double the cost of living.

You still seem to be judging the profit of a daycare by what the cost per child is. This is why your numbers are inaccurate. Why not google the cost of starting a daycare and all of the permits and inspections required, even if it is in your own home? Every one of those permits and inspections, except for the actual daycare license, costs money and requires upkeep.

I agree on the importance of teaching, of course, but the regular misrepresentation of facts against education doesn't make it okay to misrepresent them on the other side.

[aleyxsis]

Blackberries computers cell phones the government wanting more control .Companies trying to eliminate the middle class (shipping jobs over seas ) CEO'S making millions while running the company in to the ground !.Ponzi schemes ! kids shooting each other bacause they dissed the wrong person .The price of oil gas food .Just plain greed !! i could go on but these are a few of my favorites !! 2 Thumbs down for the future it is evil !

[Little Faerie]

Your friend should sue, then:

http://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2005/t11/1630000172.html

Either she was telling a little fib, she was giving you the amount AFTER taxes, she made up the number, or she should be suing the district for several thousand dollars.

It's also worthy of note that Missouri, last time I checked, had the fourth-lowest cost of living of any state in the union. Those pay rates are currently approximately eight thousand dollars a year higher than what is given at minimum here in Vegas, where we have approximately double the cost of living.

You still seem to be judging the profit of a daycare by what the cost per child is. This is why your numbers are inaccurate. Why not google the cost of starting a daycare and all of the permits and inspections required, even if it is in your own home? Every one of those permits and inspections, except for the actual daycare license, costs money and requires upkeep.

I agree on the importance of teaching, of course, but the regular misrepresentation of facts against education doesn't make it okay to misrepresent them on the other side.

I have not intentionally misrepresented anything, and am sorry if it seems I did.

I am inclined to believe the error would be on my part as to whether Mrs. Murray's figure was pre or post tax, she is not a dishonest person in the slightest. I have never found her to be anything but truthful. Perhaps I remember our discussion about it the other day wrong.

The cost of living there in MO is why I want to move back... I live in the Los Angeles area now and boy do I miss the rent back home! I will never think of $500 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment as "high" again! I pay 2.2 times that here. I just wish the pay was better, if you are lucky enough to find a job and keep it, they pay you the least that they can these days. In urban areas you can find some better work but the quality of life is worse and not worth it to me. I grow my own organic vegetables and that's something hard to do in those areas... I am thankful to live in the suburbs out here where I have at least a little space to grow food. When I go back I plan to have chickens again for organic eggs and meat, so definitely can not live inside the city.

Without apparently having all the information I must conclude that it seems I do not actually know enough about childcare systems to accurately compare them to the education system in terms of salary and wages, and so I retract any previous statement about such that proves to be false or inaccurate. I do however still firmly believe that many childcare workers and most teachers are underpaid for the amount of work put in, and that both systems are in sore need of repair. I took a brief look at the sites you mentioned and see numbers that are at odds with my personal experiences, so it is probably time for me to withdraw from that subject without having further information. You have enlightened me on a few things I hadn't taken into consideration, and perhaps I should check outside my own experience before I post. I am however pretty busy so I probably won't look into the topic in depth for a while. I concede that you are more knowledgeable on the topic than I for now. This week's activities include homeschooling (as always), making a nine-square twisted quilt (hint, each block is 9 squares... lots of pieces!) for a summer bedspread since the old one is about dead and it's getting warm here, prepping some veggies for canning and freezer storage, writing in my Urban Homesteading blog (some big community stuff going on) and planting peppers and zucchini plants... on top of the day to day chores and spring cleaning. Somewhere in there I have to find time to level my WoW character because I haven't played all week. Hence why I haven't been around DD much... you'd think staying at home was an easy job lol!

[Leilin]

I do however still firmly believe that many childcare workers and most teachers are underpaid for the amount of work put in, and that both systems are in sore need of repair.

I'll focus on this to say, well, THIS! Holy cow, our system is incredibly broken. The system filters money into education without realizing that it's focusing money into the top level of education, that not being higher education but instead administration.

Picture the educational system as an upside down funnel. On the bottom of that funnel are the teachers and support staff, the masses who go to work every day. The next level up is the administration, the vice principals and principals and deans. Finally, at the "top," the thinnest part of the funnel, are the politicians: The superintendents and school board members who make the decisions.

Currently, our funding goes into the top of the funnel. Do you know what happens when you try to pour water into the thin part of a funnel when that part is facing up?

Most of the water goes to waste.

Instead of realizing this problem, the politicians keep pouring more and more into the top of that funnel, and more and more goes to waste.

[Little Faerie]

I'll focus on this to say, well, THIS! Holy cow, our system is incredibly broken. The system filters money into education without realizing that it's focusing money into the top level of education, that not being higher education but instead administration.

Picture the educational system as an upside down funnel. On the bottom of that funnel are the teachers and support staff, the masses who go to work every day. The next level up is the administration, the vice principals and principals and deans. Finally, at the "top," the thinnest part of the funnel, are the politicians: The superintendents and school board members who make the decisions.

Currently, our funding goes into the top of the funnel. Do you know what happens when you try to pour water into the thin part of a funnel when that part is facing up?

Most of the water goes to waste.

Instead of realizing this problem, the politicians keep pouring more and more into the top of that funnel, and more and more goes to waste.

Exactly.

[babykeiff]

...

That has nothing to do with the standards of education. That has to do with human learning. This is why teachers are taught not just to TELL students things, but to SHOW them and to help them ANALYZE the things so they can UNDERSTAND. This is why there's a current trend towards formative assessment in the classroom, despite the trend towards summative assessment in the politicians. Wow. I've never seen that ratio so misused, ever.

Leilin,

I doubt if I misused that ratio. Secondly, the standard of education AND the capability of one being educated (you refer to it as human learning) in a populace DOES determine the amount and value of information passed on to future generations.

...

Also: Despite the current state of schools, and your "compound calculations" (Why not just call them "numbers I made up?" since they're in no way based in anything factual?),

The source of the "Compound calculations" are as follows.

Using 100 as the base number of all information passed on to a student, and with a loss of either 10% or 25% per generation, the figures work at as such:

Generation Base 10% Remaining Generation Age of 18

100 10 90 2010

1 90 9 81 2028

2 81 8.1 72.9 2046

3 72.9 7.29 65.61 2064

4 65.61 6.561 59.049 2082

5 59.049 5.9049 53.1441 2100

6 53.1441 5.31441 47.82969 2118

7 47.82969 4.782969 43.046721 2136

8 43.046721 4.3046721 38.7420489 2154

9 38.7420489 3.87420489 34.86784401 2172

10 34.86784401 3.486784401 31.38105961 2190

11 31.38105961 3.138105961 28.24295365 2208

12 28.24295365 2.824295365 25.41865828 2226

13 25.41865828 2.541865828 22.87679245 2244

14 22.87679245 2.287679245 20.58911321 2262

15 20.58911321 2.058911321 18.53020189 2280

16 18.53020189 1.853020189 16.6771817 2298

17 16.6771817 1.66771817 15.00946353 2316

18 15.00946353 1.500946353 13.50851718 2334

19 13.50851718 1.350851718 12.15766546 2352

20 12.15766546 1.215766546 10.94189891 2370

21 10.94189891 1.094189891 9.847709022 2388

22 9.847709022 0.984770902 8.86293812 2406

23 8.86293812 0.886293812 7.976644308 2424

24 7.976644308 0.797664431 7.178979877 2442

25 7.178979877 0.717897988 6.461081889 2460

26 6.461081889 0.646108189 5.8149737 2478

27 5.8149737 0.58149737 5.23347633 2496

28 5.23347633 0.523347633 4.710128697 2514

29 4.710128697 0.47101287 4.239115828 2532

30 4.239115828 0.423911583 3.815204245 2550

31 3.815204245 0.381520424 3.43368382 2568

32 3.43368382 0.343368382 3.090315438 2586

33 3.090315438 0.309031544 2.781283894 2604

34 2.781283894 0.278128389 2.503155505 2622

35 2.503155505 0.25031555 2.252839954 2640

36 2.252839954 0.225283995 2.027555959 2658

37 2.027555959 0.202755596 1.824800363 2676

38 1.824800363 0.182480036 1.642320327 2694

39 1.642320327 0.164232033 1.478088294 2712

40 1.478088294 0.147808829 1.330279465 2730

This tells us that removing 10% per generation, at 40 generations (year 2730, or in 620 years) the number of information points being passed on will be 1.33 out of 100, or 1.33%.

Generation Base 25 Remaining 18

100 25 75 2010

1 75 18.75 56.25 2028

2 56.25 14.0625 42.1875 2046

3 42.1875 10.546875 31.640625 2064

4 31.640625 7.91015625 23.73046875 2082

5 23.73046875 5.932617188 17.79785156 2100

6 17.79785156 4.449462891 13.34838867 2118

7 13.34838867 3.337097168 10.0112915 2136

8 10.0112915 2.502822876 7.508468628 2154

9 7.508468628 1.877117157 5.631351471 2172

10 5.631351471 1.407837868 4.223513603 2190

11 4.223513603 1.055878401 3.167635202 2208

12 3.167635202 0.791908801 2.375726402 2226

13 2.375726402 0.5939316 1.781794801 2244

14 1.781794801 0.4454487 1.336346101 2262

15 1.336346101 0.334086525 1.002259576 2280

16 1.002259576 0.250564894 0.751694682 2298

This is the same calculations with a 25% loss. 16 Generations, Year 2298 (280 years), and only .75 information points out of 100 being passed on OR less that 1% of the information.

My figures are NOT made up. The base figures rely on a loss of between 10 - 25% of core information compounded over a number of generations.

Generation Base 1 Remaining 18

100 1 99 2010

1 99 0.99 98.01 2028

...

459 0.99209742 0.009920974 0.982176446 10272

This is the same calculation, using a 1% loss. 459 generations, Year 10,272 (8262 years) 0.99 information points out our 100, or less that 1% of the information.

YES, with any loss of information per generation, over enough years, the loss will be compounded.

I do agree, and figures exist to confirm, that there is a greater number of people entering third level education, but you also have to agree that progress in a business world means cheaper ways for producing goods and services, which also entails the loss of specific skills.

An example - a product of clothing costs €10 to dry clean, but €7.50 to replace. Out of financial concerns, I would rather replace than clean this article of clothing. As more people agree to this step, and over generations, the skill to dry clean this specific article of clothing will be lost.

On a worldwide scale, many items are becoming disposable, where the maintenance costs exceed the combined production + delivery costs. The production and delivery are becoming more automated, and accordingly, this skill set is being lost also. Without a skill-set being taught / need to be taught AND practiced, the skill-set will be lost. With each generation, these skill-sets ARE being lost, and the percentage per generation IS 10-25%.

Although more people are entering third level education, and being taught to this level of education, the actual skill base is narrowing at between 10-25% per generation, which equates to 10-25% of available information is decreasing per generation.

You may argue that new processes and methodologies are being developed every day, and therefore, the skill-set is increasing. I believe that the skill-set is changing, not increasing, and in my opinion, not for the better. The populace is gaining new ways for investing capital, with a higher percentage of return on investment at a detrimental cost, and will eventually lead to the destruction of the human race.

[babykeiff]

Generation Base 10% Remaining Generation Age of 18

100 10 90 2010

1 90 9 81 2028

2 81 8.1 72.9 2046

3 72.9 7.29 65.61 2064

4 65.61 6.561 59.049 2082

5 59.049 5.9049 53.1441 2100

6 53.1441 5.31441 47.82969 2118

To read the maths in this table,

line 0> 100 10% = 10 (100-10) = 90 year 2010

line 1> 90 10% = 9 (90-9 ) = 81 year (2010+18) = 2028

line 2> 81 10% = 8.1 (81-8.1) = 72.9 year (2028+18) = 2046

line 3> 72.9 10% = 7.29 (72.9-7.29) = 65.61 year (2046+18) = 2064

line 4> 65.61 10% = 6.561 (65.61-6.561)= 59.049 year (2064+18) = 2082

Figures in bold appear in the table. The other calculations are not shown for clarity reasons. The base figures in each line is the calculated answer from the previous line. ie 90 in line 1 is the calculated (100-10%) from line 0 AND year 2028 line 1 is the calculated result from line 0 (2010+18). All subsequent lines use the exact same calculations.

It is assumed that once the result get to less that 1.00000, that the compound calculations are complete. With a compound percentile reduction, it is not mathematically possible to reach 0. Floating point calculations are used up to five zeros below the decimal point. (i.e. range of 100.00000 > n > 0.99999)

[AndB]

I have noticed there are more followers than Leaders. Even less pride in the work place than years before too!

Sorry I'm late to the party on this.

You know, with the "pride in the workplace," maybe if the workplace treated workers with some pride, the workers would reciprocate. I'm temping now at a place where the management isn't happy unless they've got something to kvetch about. Now layoffs...people wonder why workers aren't "loyal" to the company and staying for their whole career -- it's because the companies aren't loyal to us!

I'm done with my soapbox now.

[Leilin]

To read the maths in this table,

line 0> 100 10% = 10 (100-10) = 90 year 2010

line 1> 90 10% = 9 (90-9 ) = 81 year (2010+18) = 2028

line 2> 81 10% = 8.1 (81-8.1) = 72.9 year (2028+18) = 2046

line 3> 72.9 10% = 7.29 (72.9-7.29) = 65.61 year (2046+18) = 2064

line 4> 65.61 10% = 6.561 (65.61-6.561)= 59.049 year (2064+18) = 2082

Figures in bold appear in the table. The other calculations are not shown for clarity reasons. The base figures in each line is the calculated answer from the previous line. ie 90 in line 1 is the calculated (100-10%) from line 0 AND year 2028 line 1 is the calculated result from line 0 (2010+18). All subsequent lines use the exact same calculations.

It is assumed that once the result get to less that 1.00000, that the compound calculations are complete. With a compound percentile reduction, it is not mathematically possible to reach 0. Floating point calculations are used up to five zeros below the decimal point. (i.e. range of 100.00000 > n > 0.99999)

I will spell it out for you.

The "ratio" (which you do misquote, and is untested and in fact part of an educational meme), STARTS by saying that 75 percent (or some similar amount. Like most memes, it changes in the telling) of what is said is forgotten.

It continues to say that 50 percent of what is repeated is forgotten.

And 25 percent of what is tested is forgotten.

And 5 percent of what is checked for true comprehension is forgotten.

And 1 percent of what is abstracted is forgotten.

Basically, you've taken a meme and mathed it out, painting a stronger picture of obsession over a single out-of-context, untested, basically made up number. Your maths are based on a false premise.

Now, onto your other point, which is much more worth discussing:

Is the massive growth in higher education (College and beyond) a sign of cultural degradation?

At that point, it comes down to opinion. Personally, I don't think so. I find it to be a sign of cultural change, absolutely, but one which is neither positive nor negative.

The positive changes, however, outweigh the negative.

More women and minorities in countries across the globe are given equal rights to other citizens of those countries than any time in history.

More art is being produced, more songs written, more books read, and in more variety than at any time in history.

Those are positives which I find to be the most positive.

Of course, there's another side to that coin:

The gap between the rich and the poor is wider than at any time in history, and the poverty line higher.

The willingness of the press, traditionally, to lie, be it for either side of the false political dichotomies created in so many countries, as opposed to taking its original role to report the truth as the "third leg," is greater than at any time in history. Yay sensationalism.

[babykeiff]

I will spell it out for you.

The "ratio" (which you do misquote, and is untested and in fact part of an educational meme), STARTS by saying that 75 percent (or some similar amount. Like most memes, it changes in the telling) of what is said is forgotten.

It continues to say that 50 percent of what is repeated is forgotten.

And 25 percent of what is tested is forgotten.

And 5 percent of what is checked for true comprehension is forgotten.

And 1 percent of what is abstracted is forgotten.

Basically, you've taken a meme and mathed it out, painting a stronger picture of obsession over a single out-of-context, untested, basically made up number. Your maths are based on a false premise.

Now, onto your other point, which is much more worth discussing:

Is the massive growth in higher education (College and beyond) a sign of cultural degradation?

At that point, it comes down to opinion. Personally, I don't think so. I find it to be a sign of cultural change, absolutely, but one which is neither positive nor negative.

The positive changes, however, outweigh the negative.

More women and minorities in countries across the globe are given equal rights to other citizens of those countries than any time in history.

More art is being produced, more songs written, more books read, and in more variety than at any time in history.

Those are positives which I find to be the most positive.

Of course, there's another side to that coin:

The gap between the rich and the poor is wider than at any time in history, and the poverty line higher.

The willingness of the press, traditionally, to lie, be it for either side of the false political dichotomies created in so many countries, as opposed to taking its original role to report the truth as the "third leg," is greater than at any time in history. Yay sensationalism.

Premise #1: Unless 100% or more, since new thing are being discovered daily, of available information is taught to the next generation, a percentage, no matter how small, will be lost.

Premise #2: Certain skill sets, due to cost cutting and/or optimization of processes and/or lack of interest, will be lost.

Premise #3: Without a basic education standard, the birth age will be decreased. This is shown in the increasing teen and growing pre-teen pregnancies worldwide. I'll explain - A 17 year old X gives birth to a female cX, the percentage chance of that female cX giving birth at 17 or 16 is significantly higher than a female cB, daughter of female B who gave birth to cB at age 20+. Secondly, as said, female X creates cX at 17, and cX creates scX at 17, the age gap between generations is 17 years.

X +17 = cX +17 = scX +17 ...

B +20 = cB +20 = scB +20 ...

Using simultaneous equation solving, in 340 years, 20 generations of X will exist while only 17 generations of B exists. With the average births per family of 3, there will be 8,000 of X and only 4,900 B, approx twice the population of X, or under-educated / poor educated than that of B.

Building on the above (#1 and #2) that not everything can be / will be passed on to the next generation, and each subsequent generation, the compound loss over a number years will be significant. Add to that, premise #3, that within 300 years, the under educated will out breed the educated.

You mention that more songs / music is being produced. Mathematically, in the music scale, 7/8 notes make an octave, and including the incidentals, there is 13 notes in a scale. Once a note is pressed, there is only 12 places left to go without repeating oneself. Using 32th notes, there are 32 notes per bar, so mathematically, there is a finite number of permutations, which equals a finite number of songs / music available. If we take the presumption that the first music was capable of being produced 0.6 million years ago (cranial capacity > 1,000 cm3 and had auditory and vocal capacity), and presume that one music piece was created a month, and that half the population created music it is reasonable to summarize that over 72m x 3.1b (223.2 million billion) individual pieces of music should have been produced. The limit using music range limitation (8 notes, 32 notes per bar, 10 bars per piece) works out as 8*32^10 or 120.3 million billion unique pieces of music, or approx half what could have been produced. Since music has the variation of increasing or decreasing more than an octave, AND not all music has 32 notes per bar, most usually have 4 - 8, I think the rounding works. If you wish, I could use an instrument that has normally 6-7 octaves (piano / concert harp = 88 keys = 6.769 octaves) to try and approximate more accurately these figures. The point being is that the number of individual music pieces that are possible to be produced IS finite, and more people attempting to do this will not increase this finite number.

More art being produced

Although the human mind is supposed to be able to create, with art (pictures / sculpture etc ) all we do is reproduce. Yes, it can be called impressions, but ultimately, it is the artists impression of something he/she has seen, and the skill is the reproduction in his/her own style.

More women been given equal rights...

Whether the person is male or female, their gender, or profession of gender does NOT change their ability and/or their level of knowledge. To say or think different is sexual discrimination.

I agree with you, and facts exist to confirm, that more of the populace, by numbers, are entering third level education. However, the population is growing, and 100 people out of a population of 1,000 (10%) is less than 1,500 out of a population of 100,000 (1.5%).

Even if I DONT use the stated incorrect / unproved precentage of 1%, 5% or 20%, do you think that knowledge, and its applications will degrade over time? I throw this into the mix. The pyramids were build circa 2,600BC using a skill set that we, 4,600+ years later do not yet know. Even the numbering system that we depend on today, we only created (or more correctly re-created) 500BC, almost 2,000 years after the pyramids. I think that it is presumptuous to say that knowledge will not be lost over time. I think that it is correct to state that a percentage of knowledge will be lost per generation, this will be cumulative, and our own ignorance of this will be to our detriment.

[lilJester]

In this sad sad world, we have lost all moral values and ethics. The intellect has taken a SHARP down turn thanks to the internet and text messaging in the fact that the mass populous rarely uses actual works anymore nor the correct spellings. Phrases like "what do" and "wat u mad?" have begun to run rampant, words are condensed just to letter such as "wut r u doin". Instead of going out and enjoying the outdoors people hide behind their illuminated computer screens and diligently type their ramblings and opinions on things they more than likely have no actual knowledge of, and furthermore what knowledge they might have is stemmed from others opinions instead of actual facts. Sadly the world has become victim tot he whim and whimsy of the online blogger to where people look to them for advice and ideals to base their own lives on.

As for the lack of moral ethics, discipline has taken a back seat to allow everyone to always be a "precious angel" that can do no wrong, and always be in first place despite where they actually fall in lifes daily battles. Instead of punishment, people are praised for their wrong doings. Of course, I refer to mainly our children.

With all the special interest groups running wild throughout the American nation, the economy is in constant uproar over things that anyone with an actual intellect would not waste the time on. Cries of foul are cried out for or against the gay community, particularly gays in the military hence the Westboro Church disturbing private funerals for grieving families who's son or daughter died while in the services. Then the NAACP crying in outrage over supposedly race based hate of which there is none, claiming police fire upon men and or women of African decent for that reason alone, of course ignoring that these people had fired upon police before hand to deem such actions by the police to transpire in the first place. Then remember, these groups were created because everyone demanded "fairness" and "equal treatment" with the end result of anyone associated with these groups being granted special priviledges. Case in point, AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE FUND, where as anyone of European decent is left to fend for themselves, or the recent ruling by the supposedly supreme court in terms of the Westboro "church" stating that what they do is within their rights. I'm sorry but what they do is nothing more than spread irrational hatred and act unpatriotically.

Does that suffice in discussing the degradation of society?

[aleyxsis]

i like your post diapercrow !