I would like to postulate that studying ancient history, for the sake of “knowing about ancient history” is wasteful in that it takes away too much limited human resources (great minds) from areas better served by those minds, such as future tech research, medical research, economics, and an entire list of sciences that would be more beneficial to humanity. While we spend time researching when the horse became central to human civilization, while we study when farming began in Mesopotamia, while we search for the dagger of Brutus, other areas more important to human civilization are understaffed.
I am a history buff, I love ancient history, I love learning about it through books and documentaries (unbiased). I would be less fulfilled without the knowledge I have acquired concerning said topics. Even still, I realize that what I’ve learned is useless in the grand scheme of things. My admiration of Archimedes is without limits. I absolutely love learning more about Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Plato, Socrates, The Books Thomas, Truth and Mary Magdalene. Such knowledge, while individually important, doesn’t help humanity to grow. One could argue that if all of society studied such, our civilization would benefit – but we know that only a small percentage of folks will delve into the classics (of anything, any specialty of society). And I am of around average intelligence (for human kind, not perhaps for certain groups).
We have a finite limit of genius level individuals capable of making the “next great leap” in _____insert any new innovation_____. Coupled with that, therein lies exceptionalism that is necessary for these individuals to take that step. Genius does not beget accomplishment. It’s a well known fact that there are genius level intellects all around us (even though you may not be aware of this) – individuals that NEVER CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY in a meaningful way, due to a variety of reasons such as poor physical health, poor mental health, lack of ambition, lack of opportunity, abuse, neglect, simple unwillingness to participate (for a variety of reasons). Exceptionalism + intellect do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Therefore, the number of genius level individuals capable of making that “next great leap” is further diluted by the lack of their ability to be exceptional. For instance, take High School Athletes, an individual may have the physical prowess to be break records running the 100 meter dash, however, if that person cannot keep their head straight, they’ll beat themselves before taking to the blocks. While their ability is still there, their lack of focus, drive, determination or mental stamina may preclude them from taking the record. Situations such as this takes these folks out of the running for the win. Same with academics. We place so much pressure on individuals with said genius, they may break before the final results are delivered.
By stopping with useless studies, how about we try to focus those that have the abilities and the exceptionalism to toward more important feats of study.
The U.S. military has certain job roles available at any given time. Recruiters are given lists of available slots. When someone tests for the military, only those roles that are needed are offered. If the recruit doesn’t want to do any of those things listed, that’s their choice, but no other offers are made outside of those roles the military needs. To a certain degree, the recruits have choices, but those choices are limited. Square peg, square hole. Everyone wants unlimited personal choices – even when their choices have no benefit what-so-ever to society. Therein lies the conundrum. Free will, liberty, freedom in general, vs. the good of society. Should society set rules governing what a person should be allowed to do with their intellect? No. Should society be manicured to push individuals along the path that benefits us more, without making these choices mandatory? Probably. How about, instead of telling folks “….you can be anything you want.” – we transform that by first stating, “…if we had more people like you working in experimental physics, exploration outside the solar system may be possible.” Folks want to believe that someone with the ability to do experimental physics will end up working in experimental physics, and that’s simply not the case. A few will, but some won’t. Some may in fact turn toward a career in archeology, perhaps specializing in the archeology of some mundane culture that ultimately did not contribute anything to civilization. While that may be important to a select few decedents of said culture, it’s a dead end that will never yield any benefits what-so-ever to society.
How many garage bands do we need that incorporates a child prodigy? How many mathematicians wind up becoming accountants, rather than theoretical physicists?
By no means would I ever consider forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do. Never. I just think that more emphasis should be placed on certain fields of study in order to recruit more human resources to participate in these fields, rather than pointing toward a more open environment. Why not place a monetary interest in these fields, increasing funding for scholarships toward these fields and completely dropping scholarships for underwater basket weaving? If a person doesn’t want to study a field that’s backed by more scholarships, that’s still their choice, a choice that will ultimately cost them more money, because less scholarships will be available. Such a change would be a massive undertaking, perhaps impossible. The fact remains, more folks are needed to explore the possibilities of the future, rather than study what already occurred.
