Government-Regulated Education: The Chains That Bind to Set Us Free?

Calling Rob Reich, calling Rob Reich . . .
Self-driving cars?? Right there at Stanford University, whence emanate your advanced theories of controlling kids to set them free?

Homeschooling should not be banned, but regulated much more vigilantly.

Not to mention the intellectual cradle of your Stanford-educated colleague Kimberly Yuracko, who quotes your theories so um, liberally -- or illiberally, both, neither? -- as spitshine for her own Stanford-servile theory that home education is a public function from which government is required to protect all children. (Did you two go pub-crawling while she was a student, to swap collegial notes on these elaborate fantasy worlds you both had under construction, like CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien?)

It says right there in the news, “The idea of a self-driving car is a really big idea that will have a big impact on society.”

Only if society is asleep at the switch, and that's where you come in, quick! There's still time to cook up some kind of ethical servility theory to stop it. Maybe use your homeschool regulation screed as a template, here, we'll help --
Society can't ethically empower individual kids with such transformative innovations, especially not if they actually WORK! Parents letting kids go soft with automatic transmissions and power steering was quite indulgent enough, but this is worse than how calculators almost made a mockery of government math testing as social control. Self-driving cars could "theoretically" decouple government's control of kids' lives through control of their driver licensing. Stanford professors of all people cannot be so enthusiastic and cavalier about the serious theoretical risks of outright liberty

Rob Reich, your reputation is on the line. You know what you must do. Expose your scientific colleagues as ethical slavemongers against children, for conceiving of robot computers controlling helpless (one could even say servile?) passengers -- no matter how well it works, "self-driving" is by definition unAmerican!

(damn kids need to take the city bus like we did, and support government services or all is lost . . .)

By JOHN MARKOFF
New York Times June 15, 2007

. . . the scientists at Stanford said a new generation of technologies is on the horizon that will increasingly assist human drivers in operating their vehicles. “Why are we doing this? We all know automobiles are unsafe and inefficient,” said Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford faculty member who was one of the designers of the Volkswagen Touareg autonomous vehicle, named Stanley, that won the contest in 2005.

“The idea of a self-driving car is a really big idea that will have a big impact on society.”

(crossposted at Snook.)


JJ Ross's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 650 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

How do we know? I mean, what you're saying is fine. But how do we know that that's actually the law? I mean there are a lot of people who absolutely in very good faith would say that isn't competing harm. They would say that the competing right for the life of the fetus is more important than the possibility of the mother having children in the future herself. See, there are people in good faith on both sides of this argument. And so how do we know that ... your competing harms defense is going to do for this particular woman what a health exception would do?


— Justice Stephen Breyer


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify