RE:Schools and apes 2

This was my take on the Tuan article:

I guess I see in it again, (what I see as) the changing nature of US universities from institutions where people were devoted to strictly academic pursuits (and in the process become more well informed, rational, and wise citizens) to places where one learns how to "interact in the world"--where one learns how to be a good citizen (as previously defined by the thinkers and policy makers that shaped the aims of the school) instead of places where one contemplates and critiques what it actually means to be a good citizen.

I think the important difference for me lies in this quote, "The rationale was this: once the children entered the gate of their school, they were to forget the status of their parents, whether they lived in a mansion or in a cottage. None of these social and cultural differences mattered. What did matter was their intelligence, which was to be placed in the service of Truth" So we have these institutions, supported by society, where people can go to remove themselves from society in order to contemplate truth, and then apply that back to society. And then " American public schools have, from the start, distanced themselves from religious institutions. From the start, their purpose was and is to teach citizenship in an immigrant, multi-ethnic society. How to get along with one another, rather than God or Truth, was and is the primary goal". And so our schools are instead giving us skills to work in society. And I understand that, and think that is a very important part of what education, and especially earlier education should do. And then, " A novelty of recent decades is that this public school ideal has moved up to public universities. In public universities, too, more and more emphasis is put on creating diversity and a multi-cultural environment so that students, upon graduation, can cope with the turbulent world." So OK, now this has moved up into universities as well--which I can also understand, because the world is becoming increasingly complex and nuanced, and we have a whole bevy of socially complex phenomena to understand and think about (and perhaps many children have been sufficiently sheltered through their primary and secondary schooling that they still have absolutely no idea how to survive in this world). But, then I guess I'm just curious where the previous institutions went? Is that now more strictly for MAs and PhDs? And I think most of this is based on my inherent assumption (I think its just always been in my brian--the way I though about schools) that a school or university was necessarily the previous kind institution. And I feel like that is such an important part of society, and of the purpose of life, that I'm curious where they are now.

And so now on to the apes: "They show amazing powers of abstract thought in the artificial environment of the lab, but not in the complex environment that is their natural habitat, where their brain power is totally consumed in two basic activities: the social skills of getting along and the technical skills of finding food." I wouldn't say that Tuan thinks we are becoming "degraded" by becoming more like the apes, nor that we are superior to apes in the first place--I think he is just using it as a point of analysis. Or perhaps he is using it to stimulate questions. And from that, my question is this: if we are moving in this direction--towards getting along and finding food--then aren't we abandoning (or having to neglect) one of the inherent qualities that makes us human? The question "Why?" and the search for greater understanding and truth? If we choose to become creatures who are simply surviving, and choose not to pursue these questions when we have the opportunity to do so (as in, we have the resources to enable ourselves to ask these questions), then have we become lesser creatures?

One more comment: why are we now learning "life skills" in an artificial environment?

Green Lawns vs. Sufficient Food

"US lawn maintenance entails heavy use of chemical fertilizers with their environmentally problematic nitrate loads.  In 1984, more synthetic fertilizers were applied to American lawns than the entire nation of India applied to all its food crops combined (Talbot, 1990)"

- Taken from Robins et al, 2001

Thoughts?  

I can send you the entire article if you'd like, as well as some articles on urban ecology and how to manage resources in an urban world.  Let me know.