It is impossible to predict in advance what type of education will be most useful later in life. That however has not prevented people from doing exactly this. The result as I have discussed before has been a narrowly focused educational system that excels at producing technocrats. What is the problem with that? This after all is the current requirement. All the market incentives are geared towards pushing people into a technically oriented education. Anything else is devalued with the consequence that potential students do not opt for such courses. The result is that increasingly higher educational institutions are closing down entire departments due to a lack of demand and increasing costs in providing the education to a shrinking pool of students.
This has several consequences. One consequence (that I highlighted earlier) is a gradual loss of innovation. This is perhaps a surprising conclusion. On the one hand, innovations build on previous ones. As knowledge progresses across many fields, ideas germinating in one area can fertilize another (sometimes completely different) area. As the body of innovation increases over time, such cross fertilizations become increasingly common. The result is an exponential increase in innovation which is exactly what we have seen in the last 10 years. However, for this process to work, ideas have to germinate across many fields. If there are barren patches amongst the productive ones, the potential for cross fertilization decreases. Furthermore, this tends to be a self-reinforcing cycle. Over time the barren patches become more so and effectively increase in size whilst the opposite happens to the productive patches. The result is that these latter become more and more isolated from each other. The scope for cross fertilization which is a necessary ingredient for innovation to occur deteriorates and the rate of innovation can actually slow down.
Another consequence of note is that technical innovation tends to run amok if there is no restraining influence. This influence is exerted by people trained in the humanities and arts that are currently being denigrated. Consider an example. The 19th century saw a series of amazing inventions. I would like to mention just two: the birth of the chemical industry and the invention of the machine gun. The former gave rise to amazing new products while the latter conferred an overwhelming military advantage to the Europeans over the rest of the world. Needless to say, there was quick and widespread adoption of both amongst the developed nations of the time. Nobody pondered over the full ramifications of both. These were highlighted by the horrors of chemical warfare and the mindless slaughter of millions on the battlefields of World War 1. Once a technology is invented or an innovation unveiled, it will be used. Sooner or later, it will be used for baleful purposes. If people end up being mere technocrats, they will be surprised when it is used for such purposes.
I read a lovely short story (called Profession) by Isaac Asimov that explores similar themes. The story posits a world whereby knowledge relevant to a person's career is literally downloaded into the brain. No need to tediously study for 18+ years. This was instant knowledge at the push of a button! Yet the question remained: where will the new innovations and inventions come from in such a scenario? Treating knowledge only as a means of acquiring material things or earning a salary results in such a scenario. We thus end up with an impoverishment of the soul that ultimately reflects back on our economy and material things. Small minds can conceive of small things not soaring projects.
No comments:
Post a Comment