Quoting from Baltimore’s essay:
“I think that the major failure is our inability as parents to pass on our culture to our children.
“I say “inability” because I truly believe that parents want to do better but do not know how. One reason is the downgrading of family life in the two-wage-earner home, another is the speed with which technology changes how kids spend their lives and how people communicate; yet another is a lack of will when it comes to imposing discipline on children. And one that particularly galls me is the denigration of the word “stress.”
“When I grew up, we worked hard, played hard and never thought to minimize our activities because of stress. Sure, people were under stress and some cracked under it, but leading a “stressful” life was honored because of the accomplishments that could be achieved by those who could handle it. Today we deify the spa, not late hours solving problems at school or work. High-achieving faculty and students are seen as weirdos because of their intense focus, but even at a university like Caltech, some graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are seeking a more balanced life.”
So what do you think? Our local paper illustrated this all with a US hare asleep against a tree, being passed by an Asian tortoise. Do we really need to buck up and get to work? Or is Baltimore just an old codger blaming the youth of today for the problems his generation has left us with?
What is success?
We all want to succeed, we want our children to succeed. But to succeed you first have to define "success" so you can pursue it.
Unfortunately, in the US, the definition of "success" has come to mean "lots of money." There’s a bit of a "there are more important things than money," counterculture, and I’m part of that, but it is, quite frankly, endangered.
Along with money, the US now worships "the entrepreneurial spirit," which is another way of saying, "lots of money." Being an entrepreneur means not just having an idea, but selling it as well. In other words, it’s no longer sufficient to be good at electronics or physics or chemistry or copmuter science, you ALSO have to be good with money. In this scheme of things, being good with money is more important than being good with science. In fact, for "success" it’s easier to dispense with being good with science than it is to dispense with being good with money. This is why I say the "things more important than money" counterculture is endangered – those good with mere science or arts are at such a competitive disadvantage in the job marketplace that we’re approaching the fry-serving positions – while the work requiring true technical excellence is moving overseas.
So in the US, the path of least resistance to "success," the path we as a nation, urge to our best ‘n’ brightest, is to pursue money, not science. (or arts, etc) While it pays lip service to science, the arts, and socially important jobs like teaching, that’s not what gets rewarded. And as the rich/poor disparity grows larger and more is sent offshore, it’s harder to stay adequately employed in science, arts, etc.
Our society is messed up. While I may not blame it on Ronald Reagan personally, the "Greed is Good" culture certainly emerged during his terms, and I blame that for the current state of the US.
Excellent comment. And why not blame Reagan? :-) But is it just that the country is too wealthy, perhaps because the rest of the world has been giving us a free ride, supporting the dollar? If there’s a lot of money around, then money becomes important. Maybe a good real depression would clear some heads on this…
I can’t believe Baltimore can say
as if it’s a bad thing. Balance is good! Take the health aspect alone: scientific studies show that sleep deprivation, lack of exercise, and lack of a strong social support system (such as what comes from participating in non-work/school activities) have a measurable negative affect on health. Is Baltimore really saying you should sacrifice your health to get ahead? I guess so, since he accepts breakdowns as part of the norm.
This is one part of our culture that I for one am glad is not being passed on to our children!
Is it instructive to point our fingers at sources outside of the scientific community, and allow secular science to take zero responsibility
for it’s own missteps?
I don’t think so.
Are you aware that..
“The new world religion of Antichrist will be thought of as scientific. This new religious science will promise to lead humanity into the experience of its own divinity, that each of us is “God.” The basic lie of the serpent in the Garden of Eden will seem to be validated by the godlike psychic powers the Antichrist will manifest and the whole world will pursue. It will be a religion of self-love and self-worship, centered in man himself and oriented to man’s personal success rather than to the glory of the true God. It is already clear that we are heading rapidly in this very direction. The evidence is there for all to see in the New Age movement, which is a blend of science and Eastern religions” (The Seduction of Christianity: Spiritual Discernment in the Last Days, Dave Hunt & T.A. McMahon, Harvest House, 1985, p. 52).
I think that is a good point. Especially considering he says this, "Sure, people were under stress and some cracked under it, but leading a "stressful" life was honored because of the accomplishments that could be achieved by those who could handle it."
How is this different than the pursuit of the almighty dollar, to the exclusion of everything else, as far as its effect on society?
He also blames “our fragmented educational system that leaves so much to local control”, and “general anti-intellectualism and the cult of the sound bite.”
There is a great quote!