From: Kalkor (kalkor@kalkor.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 10:38:56 MDT
<Joe>
No, because, if the fields were rendered compensatorally impecunious, enough
people
would not be drawn to invest huge chunks of their lives studying to be
doctors or
dentists or engineers to meet the public's need for them.
<Kalkor>
So your assertion here, as in the last few emails in this thread, is that
people will not spend large amounts of time or energy to learn a skill they
will not be paid for? Or is it that the primary motivation that drives
people to get an education is public need?
This sits contrary to what I observe everyday. I know dozens of people who
play musical instruments, and have been learning to play them for decades,
without any hope of ever being compensated financially (since the discussion
originated on music).
No one goes to medical school because they want to help people? They do it
solely because they are getting paid? Have you ever heard a child say "I
want to be a fireman" or "I want to be a marine biologist"? This happens
long before they have an understanding of the social and financial construct
they live in. What if they did? Would they still want to do these things
later in life, knowing they will not be compensated financially? How many
artists do you know that make a living pouring coffee and living just below
the poverty level so they can practice their art?
And don't get me started on hobbyists. How much skill does it require to
climb a mountain? Assemble a ship in a bottle? Hike 3000 miles in 6 months?
The observable data does not fit in with the framework you outline. Try
again.
Kalkor
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 10:38:55 MDT