| Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Saving the World Part 2: LiteracyHamish Alcorn is a philosopher, and possibly quite mad. As I failed to promise in Ecological Keynesianism, this is Part 2 of an unpublished and unqualified philosopher’s sermon on how it is that the globalised middle classes must set out to save the world. Part 3, Democracy, I also don’t guarantee, but you never know. I want to first make a very general comment about the quite long, diverse and pleasingly civilised discussion that ensued after Part 1. I’m not sure if it’s the World in general, Australian intellectual culture or just Webdiary, but with one exception (and Barry is an old friend of mine and possibly the most naturally enthusiastic person alive, as well as new to Webdiary) what I perceive is a total failure of nerve. This is more dangerous in my view than all the coal-fired powerplants in the World. Now there were diverse views, so let me elaborate just a bit. I don’t think anyone contested that what I was proposing was completely possible and even desirable. There was out-and-out despair and self-hatred (“What’s the point?”, “Good riddance to horrible humans.”) There was various forms of political despair (“The horrible tyrannous government will never do it”, “We are all too greedy to do that”). But even the non-despairing, in my humble view, showed a failure of nerve. I can hardly criticise attempts to pressure the government to set lower emission targets, or to reduce personal consumption. But they are hardly solutions to the problem. The old Earth is suffering from more than a flesh wound. I mean, where’s your bloody mettle people? Just because there’s 7 billion of us doesn’t mean we're not just a group of folk who need a plan to get out of a spot. Can we at least face the problem and not just say it’s too hard? Anyway, one issue that kept coming up was apparently a decisive ingredient of people’s despair, and I purposely didn’t comment because I was leaving it for now. It’s the population thing. You see, there’s a solution to it, demographers are eyes-wide-open aware of it, and interestingly in all of people’s comments about population it wasn’t mentioned. Malthus was wrong, as Jay alluded and as demographers well know. It’s well known that the projections Malthus made of the English population failed to unfold, and the steep upward curve of population plateaued and now actually creeps downward, not just in England but in many parts of the World. Australia itself has a fertility rate below two (2.1 is the considered replacement rate) and we only increase through immigration. We know perfectly well what the key factor is in causing that plateau, and it’s not affluence as such, it’s not telling the Catholics to shut up (Ireland and Italy have among the lowest fertility rates in the World), it’s not giving out free condoms and abortions, it’s not an authoritarian imposition of small families, and it has nothing to do with immigration. It’s teaching women to read. Again, this is something that, in my understanding, demographers are very clear about. There’s not a lot of controversy. When women learn to read, it gives them opportunities and the ability to dream widely, they have children later, further apart and less. Many literate women decide not to have a family at all. In parts of the World where there is universal literacy, fertility is very low. In some parts of Europe depopulation is a serious planning problem. A lot of crap is talked about the population explosion, and I largely blame Paul Ehrlich’s, The Population Bomb, which is essentially a racist, reactionary essay. If you want to know what I mean, just read the first page which is one of the vilest most racially prejudiced passages I have had the misfortune to be exposed to, but he goes on to take seriously solutions like ending immigration, sterilising people after two kids and putting sterilising chemicals in the water supply. I don’t want to go on about it but the guy’s a dickhead with no solutions that would work without an absolutely repulsive regime. Unfortunately he’s had a huge impact and you see him quoted favourably everywhere. He proceeds as if Malthus was correct, and he completely ignores the fact that the upward population curve has plateaued in many parts of the World, without following any of his hysterical advice. Now I want to get a misconception out of the way. I’m not talking about ‘women’s education’ in the sense of fertility education and condoms. I’m talking about literacy, with which a comprehension of fertility issues is but a minor but virtually inevitable concomitant. Universal literacy of course is the basis for universal citizenship and democracy, and a basis for maximum creativity, flexibility and potentiality in the economy. It’s the basis for traditions to be challengeable and for critical faculty to develop. Quite obviously it’s the basis for an effective print or on-line media. It can be a basis for a deeper appreciation of one’s own culture, as well as the rest of the World. These aren’t minor benefits. Like pro-active forestry, a proactive campaign for universal literacy must become a standard demand of the world’s middle classes upon their governments and institutions. Every child in the World must have every opportunity to learn to read. Like forestry, this is so achievable with everyday effort and organisation that it’s a joke that it isn’t a global priority. Especially as, as so many people keep pointing out, population may well prove to be the final choke on our species regardless of all other efforts. If I’m right about this, then what are we going to say? Oh yes but it’s too hard. Our governments will never do it. Whatever the fuck! Jesus, there’s people seriously lobbying the government of Queensland to introduce daylight savings again. There’s a spontaneous and potentially huge campaign to tell the Australian government that a 5% emissions cut is just not enough. These and many other things are fine I guess but they’re simply not solutions to the World’s problems, and without those solutions they are vain. Come on Webdiarists, show a bit of intellectual and spiritual muscle! If there’s a solution to a big (decisive) problem we simply have to pursue it, and if we don’t it doesn’t matter how smart we are, we’re fucking wimps.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Malthus was not so wrong
Hamish, I know you shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good story, but have you looked at the latest trends in Australian population growth?
While I agree that a global literacy program would be a good thing, I am not sure it is an answer to overpopulation and overconsumption.
Malthus may have been a bit quick to bring the human race to an end but I still think he understood the problems that we are now facing.
The planet is a finite resource and we can't go on continually increasing the human population and human standards of living, forever increasing our consumption of resources. At some point we must be willing to share the planet resources.
It seems to me that literate people consume more resources than illiterate people. It could be argued that we should be decreasing literacy rates to reduce consumption.
I agree that we are facing enormous challenges and we must meet these challenges head on. We need a complete rethink of how we interact with each others and indeed with other species. The current economic consensus supports the need for continued economic growth. This is a recipe for disaster, and all the education in the world doesn't seem to change our entrenched way of thinking.
Malthus was correct. It was Marx who was wrong
"Malthus was wrong, as Jay alluded and as demographers well know."
Far from it. Malthus was correct.
Indeed, that basic facts of evolution itself wouldn't work had Malthus not been correct, as Charles Darwin famously observed while out for a ride in a hansom cab one evening.
Populations increase (and decay) over time exponentially, while resources either don't increase at all or can only be made to do so at an arithmetic rate.
Sooner or later, each exponentially expanding population will hit the 'ceiling' of limited resource availability.
In natural populations, that results in the population growth curve being 'sigmoid', or flattening out, then going down.
Typically, population numbers oscillate in waves, going up at an accelerating rate, then going down (decelerating) exponentially as environmental factors impinge on the accelerating growth.
No mystery there - many are born, few survive to have their own offspring. And they are born at a faster rate than nature can in the long run provide for them.
Humans have intervened in the process and altered the dynamic, but can only delay its onset, never eliminate it. Unless we become immortal.
One of the really stupid myths of the marxisant Left during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was that socialism would solve this problem in nature, ushering in an era of super-abundance.
See Marxist idiot speaking on that very point:
They didn't just get stupid lately. They've always been that way.
The inane marxist belief in an economy of superabundance has resulted in entire generations of the prating simpletons attacking Malthus at every point.
Nothing like a basic, if inconvenient fact, to upset a pinko "intellectual". Better always to ignore the facts than tamper with marxisant dogma.
Malthus and Marx
According to Eliot it was Malthus who was correct and Marx a nincompoop which of course is why in every school of economics Malthus is central to the understanding of the economy/population/market nexus. He is, isn't he? No?
Oh really?
As to Marx's understanding and the marxisant interpretations of socialism...almost all utopian movements, of which Marxist socialism is only one variant, proposed a society of superabundance. Marx's predecessors including Fourier and Saint Simon and numerous others all premised their utopian solutions on an end to scarcity and a future cornucopia.
Liberalism is not at all free of the same problem: Locke's Two Treatises on Government was informed by the literal cornucopia of natural wealth that was the 'new world' (ie America) ... unending forests, lakes, fishes, fowl and so on. Superabundance. Capitalism is as much an inheritor of the human desire to avoid scarcity and to create plenitude as any utopian socialist movement. Take a walk through a supermarket and just ask yourself why? What is this amazing abundance of goods about?
As for Malthusianism...the problem with it is that it reduces humans and human social life to the level of a natural object by presuming that human populations and resource use can be studied with the same objective scientific methods that that are used to study nature's animal populations. This fails to recognise what it is that differentiates human social life from animal existence which is of course a capacity for rational, self directed agency. Human imaginative capacity is not limited to that of a wolf pack or a deer herd or a band of chimps.
If Marx has had his day, and in many ways he has, let me tell ya' that Malthus has been a long time dead both literally and intellectually.
Coz there's plenty of pie in the sky, after all
"...Malthus has been a long time dead both literally and intellectually."
Yeah. As long as we keep resource consumption expanding exponentially along with population growth, we can hold Malthus at bay.
Coz there's plenty of pie in the sky, after all.
To each according to his needs
Eliot, the link you provided may hold some of the answers to our current position: to each according to his needs may be the only way ahead for the human race.
While we continue to fight each other for more and more we have no future.
The commodification of learning
There are no non-practitioners! We are all teachers, and we have the duty and the privilege of both teaching and learning during every interaction we have.
I sent my kids to "good" schools. I wasn't interested in the schools teaching literacy or numeracy. What I really wanted (and the schools by and large failed) was to foster and grow the love of learning every two year-old is born with.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with building systems based on theory. The problem occours when there exists no recognised common body of knowledge developed using robust, empircial scientific methods.
"New Scientist and just about everywhere"
Is that so? I can't find it on the New Scientist website...or any other google, actually.
Link please, Richard Tonkin.
Maths is a passionate concern of mine, as a teacher.
I believe that recent innovations have stymied kids' maths progress on an ongoing and increasing basis. I don't know what happens in South Australia, but here in NSW, stupid and complex alterings in simple procedures such as subtraction have cut off parents from being able to help their children, and made maths more opaque for kids. Schools have shucked off the responsibility of teaching, say, multiplication tables, onto parents. The theorists have complicated simple issues in the worst possible ways. Don't get me started, but, I would suggest that the chances of your - or anyone's - child passing the old "Primary Final" are minimal. Thank the "experts" for that....(see "Club orloff").
I read the evidence of such as Dame Mary Gilmour, growing up with aboriginal children, and expressing their sophisticated concept of number - so distinct from the anglo.
I have never seen an acknowledgement or comprehension of her knowledge, When aboriginal children fail maths literacy, they are failing an anglo view of the world, as well as lingo. We judge them, all the time, in terms of how they take on and measure up to our anglo culture. We fail to learn from them. We don't seem able to take on board the idea that there may be comprehensions of number that are outside the anglo view of the world.
And our scores go down and down and down internationally, while the non-practising theorists pontificate.
Heaven help us. We are such slow learners.
Google
F Kendall, just for fun I googled "Groote Eylandt Fiona Reynolds" and found the paper immediately. I have already emailed you the pdf. For anyone else who may be interested, this is the link.
I agree with your concerns about the stupidity of taking a purely "anglo" view of other cultures' understandings, though I would broaden it to being a "western" view, as it is not only people in the anglosphere who engage in such crassness. I also agree with you about the pontifications of the "non-practising theorists", though I have also encountered classroom teachers who don't always seem to have a good grasp of what they are doing ... at least in the domain of mathematics.
Are we all completely out of our minds?
To all, that may or may not, ... have an interest in insanity!
"Yes, we are completely out of our minds"
An interesting new site? ... Well, at least I think so! ...
A "tool-pusher" on an oil-rig once told me after I asked ..."What's the most valuable asset on the planet ? " ... His reply ... "Madness !" ... I suspect (know) he's right!
Suffer the little children
Well said, Hamish.
The truth seems to be that it is fairly easy to achieve literacy. What is required is that parents must have good conversations with the child in their first four years of life – this correlates about 80% with later literacy achievement in middle primary school. Books at home, pre-school, reading recovery, whole language versus phonetics all appear to be secondary factors.The first step?
I think we underestimate kids' intellects by a considerable amount, and could well be stunting their minds by not giving them the 'food for thought" they're capable of digesting. Jay's right, exposing young children to a range of vocabulary and concepts, giving the skills to manipulate both, is going to make life a lot much easier.
Universal literacy would need a "War On.." its opposite in order to be achieved. Armies of people will be required to go out and teach. The paradox here is that it willl take a cry for help from those least able to make it in order to achieve the necessary magnitude of concern that will be required as a catalyst.
Maybe the teaching of the skills to communicate the need will be the first step in the educational process?
What about our own kids first?
Around the time that Fiona was up there researching, I saw an interview in which a Groote Eylandt headmaster was saying the LAN results would have been different if the kids were taking the test in their own language. Fiona's research, btw (as far as I can follow) helped prove that aboriginal kids can handle mathematical concepts as well as non-aboriginal children despite not having words for the numbers. Her team's findings were published a few months ago, reported in New Scientist and just about everywhere. Is this what you mean by trying to fix the problem, Hamish? Fiona,IMHO, has been doing the pioneering.
If the LAN test is inefficient due to linguistic barriers this speaks of a problem within our education culture almost as great as if the stats for Aboriginal kids are accurate. Either way, it's not a pretty sight.