A History of Human Culture
The human is by nature (instinct) a social animal. He has been shaped by evolution over a 4 million year period to live in small tribes. With the invention of fire and tools about 2 million years ago, his social life became that of a warrior/hunter. The survival of the individual and immediate family, in those harsh times, depended on the survival of the tribe. Even in these early times each human became members of several groups within the tribe. Females were primarily attached to their own children but also grouped with other females for camp maintenance, care of the sick and wounded, and group food preparation. Those without children grouped for local foraging for food and campfire fuel. Each male primarily served his own family unit, providing food and raw materials for housing and clothing. Males formed fishing, hunting or foraging groups to gather communal food. The males also grouped with all of the other males for defense of tribe and territory. Tribal management and leadership rested with a select group.
The drives which cause the human to gather into groups and sub-groups are instinctive, the product of millions of years of evolution. Human instincts have never been uniform, and many instincts are selfish in nature. Successful group effort requires rules of conduct that everyone follow. Many of these rules require suppression of some instincts and augmentation of others. Behavior which provides benefit to the survival of the group (and ultimately the species) is encouraged and behavior which harms the survival of the group is discouraged. Intellectual control over instinct (self-discipline) developed as a distinguishing characteristic of the human. The more disciplined the tribe, the more focused its work, the better it survived.
A description of the summed social behavior within a group (tribe or sub-group) is called its culture. Each individual within the group is autonomous, but cooperative for a common cause. Each is willing (indeed is driven by his own instincts to do so) to trade certain personal freedoms for the benefits he will gain from the group. As a free-spirit, each individual in the group contributes his behavior to the culture. The 'culture' of a group is not an entity with certain characteristics. The 'culture' of a group is the name given to a descriptive summation of the behavioral characteristics of the group.
Management and planning was required within these ancient tribes. The decision on when to move a camp, for example, and where it should be moved, was critical to the survival of the entire tribe. These actions are not only behaviors themselves, and therefore part of the cultural description, they effect all of the behaviors of the individuals within the tribe. As with tribal leadership, the economic structure was also a part of the cultural description since it detailed the acceptable tribal norms in bartering and trading.
This is an important distinction. A tenet of intellectual elitist ideology (from Marxist roots) is that it is not the horse which pulls the wagon, it is the wagon which abuses the horse by requiring its labor, in spite of the horse being the active element and the wagon the passive. In a like fashion, they claim that it is not the summed behavior of the individuals which defines the culture, it is the culture which robs the individual of its freedom by forcing its rules on the individual as a means of control. This, then, removes behavioral responsibility from the individual and places it on the culture, in spite of the fact that the individual is the active element and the culture the passive (being merely a description of the summation of all of the behaviors in the group). They also eliminate the overlying government and the economic system as portions of the culture, in order to claim it is they who use the culture to abuse the 'people', when in actual fact these two factors are extremely important in their contribution to the behavior of the individual and therefore to the description of their summed behaviors (culture). This also ignores the fact that a large portion of the group (about 70% in the US) are people who work in and manage those activities.
In a free society, the individual is responsible for and should be held accountable for his own actions, since he alone makes the behavioral decision. If he is a member of a certain group he must expect to follow the rules of that group. Unfortunately, many want the benefits of the action of a particular group without sacrificing the necessary personal freedoms to serve as a member of that group.
The ability of man to provide a set of group acceptable behaviors is the result of man's evolution. The details within a cultural set of behavioral standards (such as the language spoken) are incidental. Man developed the ability to speak. It matters not what language he speaks, if the language can provide the needed communication. It matters not what clothing a culture dictates, if they are protective of both man's environmental and his culture's social behavioral requirements. So cultures do not evolve from the simple to the complex, it is man's ability to provide cultures from the simple to the complex that evolved. During the evolution of man, the complexity of his culture increased in stages, along with and following the evolution of man's cultural ability. Once man was capable of a complex society and had formed one, others were formed by derivation or modification. If each element within a group of cultures satisfies the parameter required, though wide differences in practices may exist, then each culture meets the needs of man for a culture.
Any discussion of culture as a causal portion of the process is in error. Culture is an effect of man's evolutionary process, not a cause. Any discussion of culture must be in the vein that man changed, then the complexity of his culture (behavior) changed. This is not to say that all behavior is strictly specified in detail in the coding of the DNA. No complex animal is completely instinctive. There are memory and reason in all. If a behavior in a culture should drift to an action so bizarre that it adversely affects the evolutionary birthrate, evolution, if unrestrained, will quickly nip it in the bud.
The behavior of man (his culture) can affect his ability to survive as a species. An example would be the result of man allowing his population to expand without control, by that threatening two catastrophic consequences: (1) When a population is expanding, natural selection is not allowed to remove degrading mutations from the gene pool unless they are immediately catastrophic. The result is a general degradation of all of man's characteristics such as intelligence, longevity, health, and the passions such as mothers' love, compassion, cooperation, etc. along with the substitution of their opposites. The resulting culture drifts toward self-destruction. These characteristics are visible today. (2) The worldwide ecology, on which man feeds, is limited in resources. Over-population brings disease, starvation, and death.
Are cultures unique to man?
Each mobile complex organism has a pattern of individual behavior unique to that species. This set of behaviors is the culture of that species. That culture provides survival enhancement for that species. All cultures of all animals, including man, are based on instinct. Some species are able to establish intellectual control over some or all of their instincts, by that optimizing the combination. Man is capable of this. At one time he did this. He does not do it now, except in isolated tribal pockets.
Long before man began his journey as a bipedal animal, he had a culture that described his actions. There were language restrictions (one grunt for food, two for sex.). There were food restrictions. There were food gathering strategies. There were food sharing strategies. There were strategies in defense against predators. There were restrictions in working hours. Sleep required certain preparations. The care of the young was paramount. These were instinctive. This early animal had a small amount of memory and was capable of decision making. He was, therefore, capable of certain limited behavioral variations. He was quite capable of surviving. Otherwise, we would not be here.
As man developed, some instincts were strengthened and other instincts were added (e.g., tribal cooperation, tribal defense, etc.). Added memory allowed extensive variations in serving this growing variety of instincts. Food sharing strategy instincts were teamed with tribal cooperation instincts intellectually to serve both instincts, giving birth to our need for a compassionate culture.
Once man became tribal and his tribes became militantly isolated, cultural details diverged. The same instinctual needs were served by these separate cultures but in slightly different ways. Tribal isolation added to the cultural complexity. Speech, dress and hair styles were deliberately different to show tribal loyalty and provide a defensive symbol of defiance against all other tribes. In times of battle they served as identifiers to separate friend and foe. This cultural divergence is visible today in the ghetto invented language, dress and cultural background. They are trying to be a tribe that is separate from all others and they do this by providing diverging cultural identifiers.
Other cultural elements, intellectual products without instinctive roots, have been invented. Hierarchies in the culture (pecking order) were invented to maintain group control. They were necessary once, when tribes were small and quick decisions were needed that could not wait for debate and consensus. They are of doubtful value now.
So, in modern terms, and within our species, what is a culture?
A culture is an agreement by a group of people that establishes personal behavioral standards for that group. A culture is a restriction of individual freedoms in exchange for a uniform cultural environment, one that fits the needs of the consensus. The purpose of a culture is to enhance the enjoyment and security of life of its members. In this vein it provides a uniform societal environment on which each member can depend in making his behavioral decisions. It provides a comfortable and predictable environment in which to live, work, raise a family, enjoy recreation, etc.
Some cultures are more successful than others, where success means species well-being and survival over the long term. Surprisingly, the most successful cultures (on those terms) are the most primitive, such as isolated tribes in Borneo, Australia and South America. Due to their isolation from the species gene pool, gene flow is minimized between their very small gene pool and the vastly larger species gene pool and its rapid accumulation of destructive alleles. Even with large families their numbers remain stable. The limited gene pool size and high death rate provide conditions that make the gene pool simple for evolution to maintain. If they maintain their isolation, birth rate and tribal population, their genetic structure will remain trim and healthy.
It must be admitted that this is doing it the hard way. Culture and evolution control may be integrated so that all may enjoy the current bounty, without sacrificing our future generations to degeneration, degradation, starvation, countless genetic diseases and eventual extinction. Unfortunately, these cultural compromises are not acceptable to cultures steeped in dogma, whether the dogma is religious or socialist.
What makes the difference between cultures? What is required of a stable one?
1. Cultures must have clear-cut and well-expressed rules of conduct. What to do and what is taboo must be shown in unmistakable terms. A rule of conduct that states that anything goes is not a rule. It is an absence of a rule. It is a rule against having rules. There is no such thing as a null culture, a culture without individual freedom restriction. Anarchy is not a culture.
2. A successful culture will provide for the teaching of its rules to its members. The time-honored method of teaching a culture is the family system. Parents obey the personal restrictions of their culture and teach their children to do so. School augmentation insures completeness and uniformity. Some rules are also so important that they must be codified into criminal law.
3. A culture must hold its members responsible for their own actions. The instant that the culture is used as a basis for the breaking of the cultural rules, that culture ceases to exist. The instant that the breaking of rules by one is allowed to be justified by the actions of another, then it ceases being a rule of the culture. The purpose of a rule in a culture is to obtain predictable behavior. If it does not, then the rule becomes invalid. If enough rules are thus declared invalid, then the culture, which consists of these rules, also becomes invalid.
4. The culture must satisfy tribal instincts. If a culture exists, it must have a reason for existing. The only valid reason for a particular culture is that it provides a value for its members perceived by them to be greater than that offered by any other culture. It must differentiate in some manner. If a member of a culture is not loyal to that culture, he should move to a culture in which he is comfortable or abandon all culture. Remaining in a culture (or being allowed to do so) while antagonistic to it is not acceptable in any culture. If many members rebel, the culture collapses, as can be seen in the American culture today. The only successful cultures in America today (if there are any) are the subcultures. Only there can the tribal instincts be served.
5. To be a successful culture, one that provides a dependable environment for all members, rules that describe all human interaction must be provided. These standards include language, dress, ethical values, life philosophy, family structures, customs, music, art, sexual behavior in and out of wedlock, even facial expressions. Each such rule should be required only for species comfort and longevity. No rule should exist which allows the unbridled satisfaction of any instinct.
6. A culture is useless if it does not enforce its rules. A culture that defies its own rules, is a con. It has a purpose other than the health and well-being of its members. A culture that espouses a set of cultural rules that it has no intention of following, is a hollow culture. Living in a hypocritical manner is worse than anarchy. Such a culture mocks itself.
7. A culture that does not condemn those who do not abide by its rules has no meaning.
8. A culture based on knowledge and reason must not have any rule without basis. Every rule must be backed up with an intellectual reason for being. This is absent in all current cultures.
Compassion is emotionally driven, and is an instinct (as are all other cultural forces). When it was developed by evolution, it was a survival tool. The tribe that showed compassion between its members could survive better than one that consisted of selfish individuals. Their world was a harsh and dangerous one. Accidents and sicknesses were common. Floods and famines were common. When an adult was sick or hurt, others helped him care for his children. Food was shared during food shortages. Sympathy, empathy, family love, tribal love, and tribal cooperation are all part of this survival aid. This instinct is under siege. It was successful if it reacted within a small group. When welfare is provided with personal contact, there is a repayment in personal pride and satisfaction, a joy in seeing the results of the sacrifice. When the tribes became huge so that personal contact was lost outside the immediate family, this instinct failed on any charity outside the immediate family. Now that the family unit is also disintegrating, antagonism rather than cooperation is becoming the norm in all social interactions. The modern teaching of personal rights (I have my rights and you are supposed to be tolerant of whatever I do) as opposed to personal cooperation, causes compassion to fall into disuse. Even our government works against the instinct for compassion by taking our money at gunpoint and giving it to a stranger (who we suspect is undeserving) and doing it inefficiently as well. This instinct is falling into disuse (due to lack of personal compassionate behavior). Mutations are occurring which are degrading that instinct. Since we have a population that is increasing rapidly, natural selection will recognize this degradation as successful and spread it around in the gene pool so that everyone will eventually become demanding and hostile toward his neighbor.
The development of culture
A.ramidus was an ape with feet instead of another set of hands. He brought his behavior from the trees. That behavior was then modified because of his feet. The species just before ramidus had hands on both ends since it was before both the ape and the hominid, and the apelike tree dweller was the father of both. Its behavior would be transferred directly to Ramapithicus, the ape that was contemporary with ramidus, since Ramapithicus retained all four hands and did not require behavioral change. ramidus, however, had suffered physical change and was by that compelled to develop new behavior. Primates do not tend to large groups, foraging is much easier if the group is small. Primates do not tend to cooperative defense patterns against predators. The trees are always a quick retreat from danger. Primates do not tend to have groups of males who will rally to the defense of the young and female (an exception is the baboon). ramidus lived on the ground and was a poor climber, even if he happened to be close to a tree. He had no choice but to develop strategies that would allow him to survive. Otherwise, his tribe would have perished. For the same reason, ramidus was forced to develop larger tribes for defense. Still, ramidus did not develop the new cultural patterns. It was evolution by way of instinctive and intellectual changes to ramidus.
So ramidus developed a different culture from that of ramapithicus. That difference was caused by a physical change. The new culture was not a product of intelligence. Ramidus had a small brain. He was almost entirely instinctive. He did not say to himself one day: "You know, I've got to be more protective of my mate and the kids, otherwise my species is in danger of extinction." The new behavior was a product of evolution. New coding on his DNA dictated social change in ramidus. The more pugnacious, protective and cooperative male could raise more children. The more males that stuck together and fought off predators, the more children they collectively had. The male that picked up a stick and used it to drive off a predator became a better protector and could raise more children. New intellectual capacity allowed him to form larger groups and collectively protect the young and female. It was as simple as that, and that is the way a culture is formed.
The ramidus brain lives to this day, buried deep within our own (evolution patches over and adds to, it does not houseclean), and, in fact, handles most of our instinctual chores. It is the part that makes one jump at a loud noise. It causes a mother to love her children. It turns you on when you see cute buns. It further handles the chores of transmitting the things that we reason (the few that are reasoned) to the motor centers that translate thought into action. It acts as a filter, where instinct says to reason on the way through, "Are you sure you want to do this?" If you are working in an objective area, such as with a piece of iron, it cares less what you are up to. Yet let it catch a thought about food, sex, social interaction or survival, and it becomes very interested. This is why we are so good at building airplanes and yet so poor in providing a rational culture in which to live.
Ramidus moved out on the plains and became a herd herbivore. Then came aferensis, followed by africanus. Two million years proves that the ancient hominid and his resulting culture were successful. By then, evolution had given him a modest increase in his brain size to handle the complexities of some needed improvements in his culture (they came after the brain increase and were the result of the increase). When mutations provided a slight increase in brain power (either instinctive or rational) the recipients improved in their ability to handle cultural complexity and were by that able to raise more children. A successful animal tends to increase in population. Increased populations bring competition for food and space. Africanus had learned about basic weapons in defending his tribes from predators. The stage was set for the competition of man with man.
When a group of animals forage, the small group is more efficient than the large. This is caused by the overrun of an already foraged area. If one is behind others foraging, he will come upon a foraged over area and must walk through the others to find a fresh area. If only a dozen are in the foraging party, the walk-through is swift. If a couple of hundred are foraging, the walk through uses up time needed for feeding This is especially critical for herbivores. Herbivores eat low energy food, so they must eat all day. The time lost in walking effects how much food is gathered. While small groups are more efficient in feeding, they are vulnerable to predators. A small child would have little chance with a pack of wild dogs, for example, if his only protectors were his parents. Larger groups can pool their protection resources. A conflict exists between the two requirements (obtaining food and avoiding predation) and different animals use different herd sizes and other strategies.
The strategies adopted by the early hominid were successful. They survived. Their population grew. When a hominid tribe became too large, part of the tribe separated and went to the other end of the valley. The valley now contained two tribes. As long as the valley was big compared with the number in each tribe, there was no problem. Still, both tribes grew, the valley was not big enough for four tribes, and no one knew what was on the other side of the mountain. Each tribe thought the whole valley should belong to them. There was no fraternizing between the tribes. Every time a male stole a woman from another tribe, he brought home the flu or something worse. Strict rules had to be made. The tribe that had to make do with a trickle of water out of a spring was jealous of the neighboring tribe that had a lake. There was always that competition over foraging territory. The tribes became militantly isolated.
Homo habilis came, with a larger brain and a more complex society. He invented the use of fire. He was now able to tenderize some of his food. He could roast roots and tubers. Meat could now be cooked so that he could eat it. He no longer had to wait for a carcass to get half rotten before he could treat himself to some real protein. He could now kill his own and have fresh meat, medium rare, right off the spit.
Homo erectus made the big jump in culture. A confirmed meat eater, he did not need to forage all day. He could eat a couple of pounds off a kill, make a sling out of the skin, throw twenty pounds of his kill over his shoulder, take his family and friends and go traveling. There was no longer any need for tribal confinement. If it became too crowded anywhere, the tribe packed up and went somewhere else. Wherever erectus went, he formed new tribes The cultures of today are the modern versions of these ancient tribes. In search of food and safety, ancient hominid tribes would travel to the next valley and set up shop. Isolated from other hominid tribes, each developed an ever more differing set of behaviors, dress and language. There was little friendship between tribes, mainly because of the competition for the same food source. Tribal isolation also acted as a deterrent to contagious diseases. As each tribe grew, it encroached on the domain of the other. Often there was trouble. Mostly it would be killings in the ground between the two tribes, but friction could easily develop into open warfare, and it often did. Two million years of hominid tribal life preceded the last ten thousand or less in the open structure of the modern world. Ten thousand years ago (an instant in the hominid history), the world wide occupation of all man was hunter-gatherer. That is a tribal occupation. Man is a tribal animal. He is born that way. It will be another million years before it could possibly be bred out of him. A good tribal man thinks that his tribe is the only one. Those other tribes are at the least a nuisance and quite possibly a real danger. Since the people in the other tribe thought in the same way, it was always a powder keg waiting for a match. One does not love that neighboring tribe, especially when food is scarce. It became time to grab a spear and chase them off. If no one wanted to move on, then the tribe with the most members alive after the battle took over the whole territory. It was a matter of survival. Evolution loved it. Evolution reinforced it by selecting on a stronger and stronger coding for tribalism. Very recently in time, as far as evolution goes, the tribes coalesced into countries or major parts of countries, each with its own unique ethnic culture.
Conclusion: Man needs one central worldwide culture with as much commonality as possible.
Multiculturalism is well meaning and compassionate. Both terms are instinctive. Our instincts no longer fit well with our environment. They were constructed during a four million-year period to be tribal in nature. The tribal instinct is to be militant toward all who are not members of your own tribe. Multiculturalism is irrational. Promoting multiculturalism and diversity makes things worse.
To cram a bunch of people into the same city, they must be made to believe that they belong to the same tribe. That is called integration. Integration is a rational solution to this problem with this instinct. That same relationship can be extended to cover the world. This is not a reasoning problem. It is a problem with an instinct (tribalism), one that cannot be solved by using another instinct (compassion). That tribal instinct has been in the inner brain for at least two million years, possibly four. Only evolution can root it out. That will take a bunch of time, like perhaps millions of years. Don't think for a minute that this problem can be solved by teaching reason (tolerance). The tribal instinct was embedded in the brain first, big and strong, long before reason came.
The tribal instinct can be bypassed, however, by forming one big tribe.
Multiculturalism breeds strife, since it preaches the differences between men and their cultures. It intensifies the tribal instinct by reinforcing it through reason. Integration brings peace since it preaches the similarities of cultural values. It diminishes the tribal instinct by reason. This is not an indictment of any culture, it is an indictment of the emotionally inspired but less than intelligent notion that two tribes can occupy the same campsite without both undergoing major cultural compromises. It sounds reasonable, but old ramidus in there doesn't think so. That is where this tribal instinct is, burned into that inner brain. Ramidus was not much into reasoning. Mention forcing him to live at the same watering hole with another tribe and he starts looking around on the ground for a big rock. We need to convince him that those other guys are friends and they are from the same tribe. And mean it. The way to do it is to have one and only one culture. How long will it take to do this around the world? Anything less than 10,000 years would be a real winner.
Man can be quite intellectual. When working on things (where he is objective and constrained by the characteristics of matter) he does quite well, but he lives subjectively (instinctively). He may not try to spear that guy in the next car but he will do his best to beat him away from the stoplight. He may work quite well on something tangible, but the end goal is usually sex. And there are murders every day from greed or love. Still, instincts are not all that bad. It is instinct that get things done and that is the name of our game. When we build an objective thinking machine, and we will soon, how can it be motivated? If we want it to solve a problem, a man will be required to push the machine into action. It will not have instincts to drive it into action. The most logical thing for it to do would be to sit idle and save electricity. It will need prodding to make it work. On the other hand, man is driven and it is his instinct that drives him. All those instincts must be addressed in a culture.
Our new culture must treat man's instincts with compassion, even the ones perverted by evolution. Not by allowing them full sway. Some of those passions can be quite devastating to society, but even those must be recognized and intelligently dealt with.
An instinct may be satisfied, without yielding to the instinct. All we need to do is understand it and its source, and give it a substitute to chew on.
The problems in reshaping our culture.
The main stream American culture was derived from European Christian roots. No longer dominant, its days are numbered. It is being replaced by a culture that negates all of the factors listed above which are normally associated with cultures. They do not believe in a common language. They do not believe in any restrictions concerning dress and think that any personal relationship is acceptable. They are against any fixed policies concerning the conduct of families. They generally oppose punishment for criminals, excepting cases involving racial bigotry or female abuse. They do not believe in racial distinctions, but they fan racial conflicts. They profess no central philosophical beliefs. They voice an active embracing of all cultures, while denying the self-discipline required to conform to any of them. They, in fact, embrace all other cultures while denying a culture of their own. They deny the value system of any other culture, along with avoiding the required self-discipline to be a member of any of them. They call this a culture, where it, in fact, is the denial of the concept of culture. It is an anti-culture. They deplore that others are bigoted, intolerant and insensitive (in areas of race and sex). Whereas they are the most bigoted, intolerant and insensitive of all (toward those who disagree with them). They never argue any point in a rational manner. They, instead, become abusive, emotional and outraged. Be forewarned. These will be the biggest enemies of a culture based on knowledge and will bring out their full lexicon of hateful names to fight it. Unfortunately, this anti-culture dominates the education field. It may very well be that a rational culture is not possible in this country. Perhaps it will be a foreign country, possibly even a third world country, who will spearhead the effort, one that does not have this animosity toward restrictive culture.
Observe modern primitive tribes such as some in Australia, Borneo and Africa. With minor physical and mental hereditary differences, they live an entirely different life from that of the denizens of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, or university faculty row. Few will deny that transporting an infant from those primitive societies, or any other for that matter, to one of ours can produce a well adjusted and perfectly fitting member of our main stream society (the author has two examples in his own family). The intellectual portion of culture is an add-on to the brain. It is a learned process.
This is another reason that the emotional call for multiculturalism and cultural diversity is so silly. It deliberately places social impediments in the path of communication between all mankind. A culture is a learned process. Therefore, it is one that can be learned, even by those from another culture. With an infant, it is a one step process. It becomes more painful and difficult with age, and approaches impossibility at advanced age. So what if it takes a hundred generations to reach a common world wide culture? Ease the transitional pain with time, education and understanding. Allow everyone to maintain their own cultural habits as long as possible while making the transition as easy as possible.
Since culture is a learned process, then education is the key to establishing a new worldwide culture. Since the new world wide culture based on knowledge is a culture foreign to all existing cultures, including our own, the transitional pain will be the same for all. It may be more painful for us than others because a major part of our current culture is an anti-culture, one that seeks to destroy cultural harmony by segmenting and segregating its members to the nth degree and which largely refuses to establish cultural disciplines of its own. We will not only need to replace our current culture, but we must combat counterculture forces as well. It would be far easier to go from the tribe in Borneo, which will be defensive but is accustomed to and obedient to an agreed to set of behavioral values, than to go from our culture that is set against self-discipline with respect to any set of values.
Why do these tribes live as they do? Why do the individuals in the tribes behave as they do? They have the same brains as we. They are as alert and learn as fast. They have the same amount of learned things, age for age, in their brains as we. It is only a different set. A study of their lives gives great insight into ancient man. Early homo sapiens sapiens, too, lived a harsh life. His mind was as active as ours (possibly more so). Yet his communication was primitive, requiring large speech brain power to meet a far smaller communication requirement. Memory requirements were higher than ours, because all knowledge had to be passed down by word of mouth, an error fraught method at best. He had to essentially learn bit by bit for his daily needs, as does modern primitive man. The difference between these primitive cultures and our modern one lies in our ability to collect and record knowledge and hand it down intact. The mechanism for handling knowledge, of reasoning its consequences and forming decisions, is present in all man, a gift from billions of years of evolution.
Education, then, is basic to cultural modification. That education must consist of knowledge (no opinion, no conjecture, no dogma). Give students the information. They can supply the reasoning. To allow full freedom for the mind to manipulate, give it the raw information and let it come to its own conclusion. Do not teach that we should save the whales, teach instead in great detail what a whale is. Let the student see its beauty and its danger. They will be far more militant in saving it. Tell the students the facts, not what they are supposed to reason from the facts. The only time that students need to be taught how to feel about data, is when that opinion is foreign to proper thought. This is why socialism must be taught as answers, not data and questions. Let the students see and understand what their actions should be. Do not act shocked with what comes out. They might just come out with a better set of values than yours.
Our new culture must be allowed to grow naturally. To do that the educational environment must not be restrictive or biased in any direction.Schools must be politically, socially and culturally neutral. This will be the hardest thing for us all to do: Keep our hands off and watch our own little pet bigotries go down the drain.
It is a knowledge-based culture that we want, not the one based on conjecture, opinion, emotion and dogma that we have now. That one is not working. It can't be made to work. Teach these new students as much factual information as we can gather, they will do just fine without the teacher's advice on how to live and what to believe. In a couple of generations, we will have teachers that will not want to cram their culture (or lack of culture) down the student's throats. Ones who will be content with providing good clean fact in the most understandable and unbiased way possible.