7 ms·

Accepting "education is for a job" in the first place: you're lining your kids up to chase the biggest growth area of the last 20 years, when biotech is likely

Accepting "education is for a job" in the first place: you're lining your kids up to chase the biggest growth area of the last 20 years, when biotech is likely to be the most successful area in the next 20?

genwin 14y ago
I'd probably be disappointed if a kid of mine was in the biotech field. I don't support genetic modification of food, for example.
- AkThhhpppt 14y ago
  What about biological production of plastics? Or bioinfomatics or computational biology, where they're understanding current biology, not engineering new stuff? You've discarded all of fundamental science, in favour of teaching your kids programming. Programming's important, but a physics degree _definitely_ teaches programming along with _how the universe works_. And stats. Lots and lots of stats. ",) I'm just saying; you come across as a little short sighted, here.
  - genwin 14y ago
    It's certainly possible that biotech can be employed for the greater good. But I'm confident there will be a ton of competition for that relative sliver of jobs. I know several people with physics degrees. None of them do physics for a living. None could find a decent job doing it. Whereas programming is a very safe bet over the next 20 years, and is better taught by Python courses than physics. I'd like schools to favor programming over physics and chemistry, but not ignore physics and chemistry altogether.
    - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
      So you think schools should teach programming over fundamental science? As a very learned person said, "[physics] runs the shit that runs the shit that runs the shit that runs your shit!" If you don't know physics, you don't know why there are fundamental limits to Moore's Law that we are rapidly approaching, for an example.
      - genwin 14y ago
        I took two years of physics classes. Virtually none of it applied to life. For example what good did it do me to calculate the trajectory of a projectile (multiple times, for homework, pop quiz, test, semi-final, and final)? We could've spent a fraction of the time on the concept and then been shown the equation for possible future reference, never to actually do a calculation. It would've served me much better to spend most of that time learning programming. I could've grasped fundamental limits to Moore's Law without ever doing a calculation of a projectile. Nowadays physics is a hobby of mine, having entertainment value only. I can fully appreciate that "[physics] runs the shit..." but that doesn't pay the bills or get me to retirement.
        AkThhhpppt 14y ago
        Ballistics is occasionally interestingly counterintuitive, but perhaps that was overkill. Bully for you. But it's the idea of prioritizing what is essentially a technician's job (yes, we call ourselves engineers; in reality, most of us are craftsmen) over knowing how the world works, and having some of the mental tools to figure stuff out that's confusing me. Also, physics really rubbed in abstraction as a concept: "here's the atom, it's a black box, but externally scientists at this point in history could tell this about it. Then this discovery was made. Here's the nucleus, it's a black box, but externally scientists at this point in history could tell this about it..."
        genwin 14y ago
        I do want schools to teach physics at a high level. As long as they'll get bogged down in minutia (as was my experience, and from what I've seen it's still the case) I'd rather they teach programming. Better they do Python functions than ballistics calculations. It's highly likely my kids will exit high school without having heard about relativity or quantum mechanics, except from me or info elsewhere.
        AkThhhpppt 14y ago
        Well in that case, you've got big issues with the science curriculum, and that might be a better place to start...
- ktizo 14y ago
  I don't support genetic modification of food, for example. Then you will be really annoyed when you work out what viruses get up to all on their own. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
- kbolino 14y ago
  How are we going to feed an ever-growing population? How are we going to treat debilitating diseases that plague much of the world, in a cost-effective manner? How are we going to improve the quality of life for all the people who are living longer lives? How might we address unforeseen medical and nutritional crises? You have a very short-sighted attitude. Which is not to even mention the impact that tying your approval of your children to the field in which they choose to work will have on them.
  - genwin 14y ago
    Simple: don't have an ever-growing population. It can't ever grow in any case, so it's better to work toward stabilizing and then reducing it. Through attrition of course. With a population significantly less than today's level, biotech isn't really needed. Without modern biotech people can live to be 80+ on average. That's good enough in my book. I support death (even my own, at 80+!), to keep the population fresh and keep the dictators dying. Overall, I'm confident the benefits of no biotech outweigh the negatives. I don't think I could help being disappointed if a kid of mine chose to work in a job that did great harm to others, be it cigarettes or GMO food. That's kind of natural to feel that way.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      I support death Death doesn't really need your support, although it might appreciate the fanbase as it is usually not that popular on the whole, apart from with goths, although it tends to find them a bit embarrassing.
  - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
    Point of information: the world population is currently predicted to peak at 11 billion, due to the rest of the world going through demographic transition. So not ever-growing - though 11 billion is definitely enough to cause problems... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Projections_of_...)

genwin 14y ago

I'd probably be disappointed if a kid of mine was in the biotech field. I don't support genetic modification of food, for example.

AkThhhpppt 14y ago
What about biological production of plastics? Or bioinfomatics or computational biology, where they're understanding current biology, not engineering new stuff? You've discarded all of fundamental science, in favour of teaching your kids programming. Programming's important, but a physics degree _definitely_ teaches programming along with _how the universe works_. And stats. Lots and lots of stats. ",) I'm just saying; you come across as a little short sighted, here.
- genwin 14y ago
  It's certainly possible that biotech can be employed for the greater good. But I'm confident there will be a ton of competition for that relative sliver of jobs. I know several people with physics degrees. None of them do physics for a living. None could find a decent job doing it. Whereas programming is a very safe bet over the next 20 years, and is better taught by Python courses than physics. I'd like schools to favor programming over physics and chemistry, but not ignore physics and chemistry altogether.
  - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
    So you think schools should teach programming over fundamental science? As a very learned person said, "[physics] runs the shit that runs the shit that runs the shit that runs your shit!" If you don't know physics, you don't know why there are fundamental limits to Moore's Law that we are rapidly approaching, for an example.
    - genwin 14y ago
      I took two years of physics classes. Virtually none of it applied to life. For example what good did it do me to calculate the trajectory of a projectile (multiple times, for homework, pop quiz, test, semi-final, and final)? We could've spent a fraction of the time on the concept and then been shown the equation for possible future reference, never to actually do a calculation. It would've served me much better to spend most of that time learning programming. I could've grasped fundamental limits to Moore's Law without ever doing a calculation of a projectile. Nowadays physics is a hobby of mine, having entertainment value only. I can fully appreciate that "[physics] runs the shit..." but that doesn't pay the bills or get me to retirement.
      - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
        Ballistics is occasionally interestingly counterintuitive, but perhaps that was overkill. Bully for you. But it's the idea of prioritizing what is essentially a technician's job (yes, we call ourselves engineers; in reality, most of us are craftsmen) over knowing how the world works, and having some of the mental tools to figure stuff out that's confusing me. Also, physics really rubbed in abstraction as a concept: "here's the atom, it's a black box, but externally scientists at this point in history could tell this about it. Then this discovery was made. Here's the nucleus, it's a black box, but externally scientists at this point in history could tell this about it..."
        genwin 14y ago
        I do want schools to teach physics at a high level. As long as they'll get bogged down in minutia (as was my experience, and from what I've seen it's still the case) I'd rather they teach programming. Better they do Python functions than ballistics calculations. It's highly likely my kids will exit high school without having heard about relativity or quantum mechanics, except from me or info elsewhere.
        AkThhhpppt 14y ago
        Well in that case, you've got big issues with the science curriculum, and that might be a better place to start...
ktizo 14y ago
I don't support genetic modification of food, for example. Then you will be really annoyed when you work out what viruses get up to all on their own. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
kbolino 14y ago
How are we going to feed an ever-growing population? How are we going to treat debilitating diseases that plague much of the world, in a cost-effective manner? How are we going to improve the quality of life for all the people who are living longer lives? How might we address unforeseen medical and nutritional crises? You have a very short-sighted attitude. Which is not to even mention the impact that tying your approval of your children to the field in which they choose to work will have on them.
- genwin 14y ago
  Simple: don't have an ever-growing population. It can't ever grow in any case, so it's better to work toward stabilizing and then reducing it. Through attrition of course. With a population significantly less than today's level, biotech isn't really needed. Without modern biotech people can live to be 80+ on average. That's good enough in my book. I support death (even my own, at 80+!), to keep the population fresh and keep the dictators dying. Overall, I'm confident the benefits of no biotech outweigh the negatives. I don't think I could help being disappointed if a kid of mine chose to work in a job that did great harm to others, be it cigarettes or GMO food. That's kind of natural to feel that way.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I support death Death doesn't really need your support, although it might appreciate the fanbase as it is usually not that popular on the whole, apart from with goths, although it tends to find them a bit embarrassing.
- AkThhhpppt 14y ago
  Point of information: the world population is currently predicted to peak at 11 billion, due to the rest of the world going through demographic transition. So not ever-growing - though 11 billion is definitely enough to cause problems... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Projections_of_...)