Sex education, on the other hand, is not just biology. It also expresses values and may recommend practices that parents consider inappropriate. — T Clark

Education is just education. Values do not come into DNA replication; it happens in amoeba, earthworms and wombats just the same way it happens in people. Who says any health teacher is recommending any 'practices'? Just tell the kids how it works - not how to do it.

Community concerns should be taken into account. — T Clark

Of course. Some communities are concerned about outbreaks of herpes, hepatitis and AIDS; some trust none of those things will happen.

What you prefer isn't the question. — T Clark

True, I asked what you prefer. And you have been very clear. Thank you.

I strongly disagree. — Benj96

I think only because I worded my response ambiguously. I meant that the purpose of not allowing ethics and critical thinking to be taught in schools, including university is to render the young helpless and prone to manipulation.
I've quoted this before

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education,

all of which i strongly support

but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”

while I believe religion has no place in school. Good citizenship, yes - informed citizenship.

We must teach young people two things: 1). Reasoning and 2). Ethics. For without either they're helpless and prone to manipulation. — Benj96

That's exactly to purpose of shutting down debate, restricting college courses, hiding (and burning) controversial literature.

I'll say it again - not everything children need to know has to be taught in school. — T Clark

That's a valid opinion. In the case of religion and politics, I agree. But encouraging basic civility is not out of place in a classroom or a textbook - especially in a world so racked with acrimony. I would prefer parents to teach values, courtesy and empathy, but I don't feel they are always the best source of useful information - especially on subjects of which they are either ignorant or ashamed.
As for biology, I disagree: it is just as factual as any other science, as factual as math. It can be very damaging - in some situations, deadly - for young people to be misinformed about the health and function of their own bodies. Not knowing about reproduction until they're of reproductive age is only inconvenient in a tolerant, supportive society; life-destroying in a repressive, punitive one. And ignorance of sexual predators.... well, let's say, having worked in forensic pathology, I've seen distressing evidence of the results. (also of bad and inadequate parenting)

is that all that will be left of us in your scenario?
Now you are looking through that mirror you mentioned, too darkly! — universeness

No. Those seed banks libraries, archives and DNA repository are being prepared for the people who will restore biodiversity and agriculture after the climate crisis has passed. These are very optimistic and ambitious projects undertaken by dedicated specialists.

Did you write a dystopian sci-fi book? — universeness

The exact opposite. I wrote a utopian one. That/s why I dislike the disparagement of utopian ideology.

But I sincerely cannot see it working if people don't talk openly about their ideas, convictions, beliefs, misconceptions and prejudices. It seems to me that all official (legislated, legally enforced) censorship tends toward propaganda. Even if with the most benign intentions, the group in power will always legislate in favour of the status quo, however unjust or misguided its world-view. And there is no way that legal standard can be nuanced enough to fair in all cases; a great deal of unjust prosecutions and persecutions get swept up in a general intention to protect the public. (And of course, we can't really depend on all governments to have the best intention.)

I wonder if it will take something like a catastrophic event such as climate change payback to unite us as a single species that currently exists on a single pale blue dot of a planet? — universeness

I believe so. (Well, I have to believe it; I wrote it.) But it would take a very long recovery, even with the excellent provisions some of our long-sighted people are making to preserve knowledge, seeds and DNA.

Wad some power the gift ti gie us.
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us. — universeness

Please, gods, no! The mirror is quite frightening enough.

Are you attracted to the concept of a world government via uniting nations? — universeness

Absolutely! Always have been an advocate of the universal charter of human rights and would like to see all legal codes based upon those principles. I've also long advocated global disarmament and conflict arbitration under UN auspices. (Think of the money we'd save!!) I'm less sure about uniting the nations and erasing the borders. Ideally, that ought to be done, but people are rather attached to their national identities, so it might be a better approach to adjust the borders in as equitable a territorial division as possible. We'd simply have to accept that some peoples prefer to be ruled by a demagogue... unless the people brought a complaint against their own ruler and the impeachment brought before the international tribunal. All those issues could be decided without nuclear missile. Obviously, law-enforcement and tax collection would be a whole lot easier through international agencies.

And also, just as obviously, communications media could be regulated much better than they are. I'm sure a central megavac computer program could fact-check and classify packets of information passing through its web. It might be set up to filter out incitement to violence type posts and let everything else pass through labelled as F(act), E(ditorial) S(peculative), S(tatistical) H(istorical) Sc(ientific) O(pinion) P(olitical) R(eligious) Pr(ivate) and so forth.

Do you think 'people power' in the future, could reform the united nations into what it really could be, the conduit to a world government?

That's a much more difficult question. In principle, yes. Realistically, no. Pessimistically, I don't see a future for humanity as we have known it.

The unlikely, even the very very very unlikely, is only so until people make it happen — universeness

Power to the people!

Who then do we censor and how? How do we know who to believe? — Benj96

I think the problem there - as in many other subject areas - is thinking terms of "us" or "we". There is no collective that can make decisions or determine a path forward. Every issue is what a friend of mine calls "an n-dimensional rope-pull". Every issue has a temporary local resolution, yet remains undecided globally. And yet, communication, like economics, takes place on a global scale now. No presently existing entity is equipped to deal with those issues. The UN comes nearest in scope, but still lacks the power.

Individually, we make these decisions every minute, often without even having to think about them, because, as adults, we have each developed our own habits and coping mechanisms. We have learned to trust certain sources of information more than others, on the basis of past experience; we have a personal archive of knowledge by which to measure new data; we disregard some outlets entirely and have our staple references for statistics, charts, timelines, scientific facts, etc.
This is because in our formative years, we were exposed to multiple sources of information. In my case, that was long before the internet: it was school, libraries, periodicals, television and bookstores. Those were far more coherent in their organization than the internet, and so much easier to navigate. I believe young people coming up today are often set adrift on a bewildering ocean of unsorted fact, biased news, partisan jingo, opinion, propaganda, hostility, mis- and disinformation. They're also living in a very much more dangerous world than I did. They need some guidance in discovering and assessing the information they will have to use in difficult decisions in difficult situations. They'll need every erg of critical thought they can muster.

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
The Spirit Level by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson

So let it be a case that individual wrongs are corrected in context of how they came about. — Benj96

That would be nice, but it doesn't seem to me practical. Some private owners of social media have imposed their own standards of acceptable discourse on their own platforms, and even that is being legally challenged... ironically, by the DeSantis administration, which rejects textbooks for "prohibited subjects"

The law, which is called the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, was proposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in January 2021, shortly after then-President Trump was banned or suspended from multiple social media platforms — most notably Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube — for encouraging the January 6 insurrection of the Capitol building.

So, I can't see North Korea or Sudan or Venezuela going along with whatever rules the UN might set up.

Why would you possibly bring anything political or social into a math textbook. — T Clark

I wouldn't. That's why I asked. I have not been able to discover exactly what was meant by a "prohibited topic". Neither have many of the publishers.

8 x 4 = 32 is definitely what I would call a commonality. — T Clark

I don't think there is any controversy over that one. I didn't realize what you meant by commonality. Some facts are just facts, but some facts are disputed and become controversial.

Sensible liberal and conservative parents don't want their second graders to have to figure out what it means to be transgendered. — T Clark

When I was in second grade, no adults would discuss any aspect of sex, which made it so much more confusing when a friend of the family made some lewd advances. (Yes, those kind of people have always existed.) As for reproduction, I was told by a fourth-grader, who was herself woefully uninformed, which resulted in a good deal of unnecessary anxiety - exacerbated by the secrecy and shame with which adults shrouded the subject, so I couldn't ask anyone who actually knew. Thank goodness for the encyclopedia!
Thing is: at six, seven or eight, all children want to know where babies come from: younger siblings appear in their own or their classmates' families. Curiosity about the world and how things work hasn't been killed out of them yet. It's a good idea for parents to be prepared for this, so that when (not if) their children ask, they can probe for exactly what aspect of the process the child is interested in at the moment, and answer specific questions directly and truthfully, without laying out all the biological detail at once. For many parents, the subject is uncomfortable, because it involves them personally. If it's taught in school, they're spared that long, speculative stare. Plus, all the kids of the same age get the same facts and can't misinform one another, that's a bonus. When my children were that age, we went to the library and found a very useful picture-book aimed at their comprehension level.

Another aspect of this is: if adults insist on pretend everything is beautiful, not only does nobody tell them why one kid is being picked-on and bullied, but, as with sex, they tacitly understand that they shouldn't ask. Either they have to figure it out on their own (especially if they're the victim) or accept it as normal and join the bullies.
(This may be why some textbook publishers include comments on thinking and acceptable social behaviour. Obviously, not all children are learning it at home. Just why is bullying such a big issue as I keep hearing about?
Or maybe it isn't and the media exaggerate it?
I honestly don't know, because it wasn't an issue in my schools or the ones my kids went to.)

It is a very broad question. If you honed in on a particular instance then maybe I could offer up a more precise answer. — I like sushi

Yes, it was quite broad, because I was interested in whether people approved of censorship in general, or in some venues and not in others, or on some topics and not others or by some agencies and not others.
Here is a narrower version: Should the state be in charge of deciding what material is available to the public at large? If so, where should it be applied, through what mechanism should their decision be arrived-at and how should be enforced?

What they can know about and what they should learn in school are not the same thing. In school, especially elementary school, it makes sense to me that the focus should be on commonalities in understanding and values among the citizens of the country. — T Clark

Rather than what? What is it that would be harmful in a math book that meets the educational standard?
How is a math book, or a short story collection supposed to present 'commonalities' in a deeply divided nation? More interestingly - to me, at least - why should elementary school students have the truth concealed from them? Would they not notice on the street or on the news that everybody isn't the same, and wonder why their school books don't reflect reality?

One-size-fits-all is a myopic approach. — I like sushi

What does that mean, precisely? One size of what, fits all of whom? Where and by whom was it suggested that this should be the case?

I personally would look to forming several bodies to assess information, if needed, — I like sushi

Which is why I suggested that the authority that knows most about the particular venue - home, school, public library, news-stand, bookstore, movie theater, video game shop, art gallery or museum - respectively, should be in charge of deciding what material they each make available to their clients.

The UN could certainly provide some expertise as it had a history of trying to manage complex cultural and political interactions. — I like sushi

It could, but very few nations would allow it to interfere in their internet communications. That would have to be far too co-operative a project for a great many, of not most governments to undertake, even if they could agree on the principles, and none would want to give up the right to edit its own history.
For fact-checking, I was thinking more about the random postings of bloggers and tweeters and political parties. But I don't see how they can be internationally controlled, either. Childish bullies ... some of the mechanisms mentioned above might work, at least to degree.
I think we'd have a better chance of making the citizens aware of the manipulative methods and more canny about assessing their own reading material.

I wouldn't be unhappy as a parent if the elementary grades focused on basics without a lot of controversial issues being discussed. Younger children need to see the physical and human worlds as coherent and enduring and that adults have some sort of consensus understanding of how things work. Of course it's more complicated than that, but I don't see any harm in waiting till middle school to start getting into that. — T Clark

Does that mean the state/church should dictate what children under - what age? 12, 13, 14? - cannot know about? What happens when they catch their first glimpse of the evening news?

In some circumstances freedom of information makes more sense than in others. — I like sushi

Who should be in charge of deciding?

I'm in favour of the UN setting up an international monitoring committee for the internet, assuming no major powers have a veto... and I know that it's about as realistic an expectation as that commercial owners of communications media will fact-check every item they print or broadcast or that politicians dependent on the support of special interests and religious sects would make informed, unbiased choices of topics to promote or suppress in public education.

Yes, the family unit has the right to ban some reading materials from their household. — L'éléphant

By 'the family unit', I imagine you mean some kind of collective decision-making mechanism. In real life, it's usually one person with all the power to decide what everyone less powerful is allowed to do, have, read and say. That person, patriarch or matriarch, usually also has the power to enforce their decision through punitive measures.
However, that's parental control, not 'censorship', which is normally a function of the state and its designated agencies.

If you or an organization starts censoring the family unit of that banning, then where does that leave all of us? — L'éléphant

The state already does that by limiting what's available and unavailable to the family. Banning material it doesn't approve of from libraries, schools and bookstores, so that the parental unit doesn't have any freedom of choice in what comes into his house. That is where a great many people in the world have been left.
In a relatively free-speech country, the children of narrow-minded, oppressive parents may still learn about the world beyond those blinkers at school or in the public library. They have a hope of setting their minds free once they've flown the stifling nest. But not in a state ruled by the same kind of despotism that prevails in their childhood home. Nor, in such a state, do liberal parents have the freedom to help their curious children expand their horizons.

It makes perfect sense to pick what students learn and the order they learn it in. Does a pedagogical system necessarily have to be framed as ‘just’ or ‘unjust’. — I like sushi

I didn't do that. I asked whether, in your [subjective] opinion, it's okay for anyone to tell everyone else what they may or may not read, look at and listen to. I've already expressed the opinion that teaching material for schools should be chosen by pedagogues and library stock chosen by librarians (rather then clerics and politicians) , that parents should be in control of what comes into their home and retailers in the choice of what they stock in their store.
I'm not interested in this issue in a legalistic or judicial sense, but in a social context.
What do you think is better for society: freedom or constraint of information?

Deciding no to include a book because a significant number of people in the community find it offensive is not necessarily unreasonable. — T Clark

No, it isn't. That's why I would leave it to the librarians in each community, rather than have a state-wide ban on any literature that contradicts the state legislature's POV.

Keeping books that include sexual content, violence, and difficult social issues out of elementary school libraries is also not necessarily unreasonable. — T Clark

Assuming that elementary schools actually have libraries, that's why I would leave it up to the elementary school teachers to decide what's age- and reading level-appropriate for their students, rather than the state legislature or a vociferous religious lobby.

I wouldn't have wanted my children, all adults now, to have to deal with that stuff. — T Clark

What if "that stuff" that's being kept from them is about people who are unlike them in some way? (Yes, if Billy-Bob says he's really a girl, he's a girl. It's okay to stop feeling guilty because you were attracted to him. Yes, the people in China are also human beings, and they didn't invent the Covid virus. ) Or factual history? (No, the Civil War was not stolen, the Confederacy lost; General Lee did not ride proudly into the glorious sunset and Jim Crow was not a very good policy...)

I think you'll find that most banning or challenges take place through local school districts or governments. Given the peculiar fascination with and dread of sex in our Great Republic, my guess would be that most books proscribed have to do with sex. — Ciceronianus

A much stronger political motivator is a POV that doesn't fit the far right's alternate history, alternate America, parallel universe.

The bans have largely targeted books that focus on race and LGBTQ issues, and a large number of the banned books are written by non-white or LGBTQ authors.

They came to prominence over the desergragation of schools and they have never altered that position.

while in school, particularly in elementary and high school, how many books which you were compelled to read as a student influenced you in any significant respect? — Ciceronianus

I was fortunate enough to grow up in Toronto in the late 50's and early 60's. While the school library didn't stock anything raunchy or communist, the public libraries were quite liberal. What influenced me in the literature curriculum: Frost - come to think of it, most of the assigned poetry was inspiring - Dickens, Shakespeare, Hardy. I can't recall what novels we took besides 'Mayor of Casterbridge'' (which prompted me to go read Hardy); I know I went on to Trollope, Thackeray, Lawrence - was quite taken with 19th century Brits for a while, which led naturally to 19th century French and Russian writers... Oh, yes, 'Heart of Darkness' gave us a lot to chew over, though I never came to like Conrad. Thing is, whether the subject matter is politically controversial or not, good writing is worth getting to know. If it is controversial, it's worth discussing. If it engages the student's imagination and curiosity, it will have an influence.
That's what they're afraid of, the science and Civil war and democracy deniers.

If they want to read them, they'll find a way to do so regardless of any ban. — Ciceronianus

How would they know they want to read something the don't even know exists?

Is there a book or even a pamphlet title that for you, would be a step too far? — universeness

For me, there are many. I would not let young children read anything I had not previously vetted for horror, violence and sadism - a lesson I learned the hard way when I inadvertently gave my son what I thought was an adventure story that turned out to be a week of night-terrors and insomnia. If it's just a question of adult content, I would want to know what they're reading and watching and take time to discuss it with them.
School books are a difficult proposition, because there is always the question of accuracy, pertinence and grade-level of the information, which is difficult for lay persons to judge. I'm far more inclined to trust teachers with the selection of textbooks than any outside body.
Similarly, I think what's available in the public library should be decided by the library staff (not any one person) who are probably better judges both of literature and the public's wishes than any government agency. What's available in a bookstore should be up to the owner.
I would be tempted, however, to label or grade literature, as well as video games and graphic entertainment. I appreciate the warning on television programs. (even though they're often too general to be useful. Smut shops and sadistic games should be labelled as clearly as cigarette packages. In practice, I don't think such warnings deter anyone, including children and youth, from seeing whatever they want. All those titles,

How to be a better criminal (100 tips to escape justice).
The terrorist/freedom fighters tool kit.
How to control people.
Best ways to kill yourself.
Why the white way is the right way. — universeness

and much worse, are available on the internet.

I believe that a much more effective approach is simply awareness and factual information. I believe that parents and teachers need to take responsibility and have authority over their own spheres of influence. That is, separate spheres of influence, so that, if their philosophies diverge, the children are exposed to both sides of the issue.
More importantly, though, I think we should support public broadcasting outlets and empower factual, in-depth journalism, discussion, review and analysis.

new Star Trek Generation is "group think" and less individualistic. — Athena

I know it's off topic, but as an SF aficionado, I have to defend the Star Trek personnel. Starfleet is a military organization, with a chain of command and uniforms and all that, (and Kirk was a bit of a maverick) They're not supposed to be independent individuals. There is plenty of individualism and scholarship in the civilian population of their time, as well as entrepreneurship - just no money used in the Federation.

You speak of modern economic realities that I know very little about. — Athena

I wouldn't bother too much about the mechanisms whereby money is moved around and hidden away: they change almost daily, to stay ahead of international law-enforcement and monitoring agencies. The point is that capital is mobile while government (and its ability to levy tax) and the work-force (not so much citizens as 'human resources') are stationary.

How does a government step in and recycle assets? — Athena

Regulation, tax reform, public works, welfare legislation. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/great-depression-and-world-war-ii-1929-1945/franklin-delano-roosevelt-and-the-new-deal/ Similar measures were taken by the Bennett government in Canada. In some other countries, of course, the political upheaval knocked down existing regimes.

I think if we are serious about defending our democracy, we also need to get serious about replacing the autocratic model of the industry with the democratic model. — Athena

The trouble is, not enough of you (and not enough of us, either) are serious enough about it to stop the large minority that are eager to destroy it outright. The destroyers have a huge advantage: they're never hampered by truth, principles or scruples.

Do we want a future that is ruled by a force of arms and self-promoted mercenaries? — Athena

It doesn't much matter what 'we' want. They are what is.

Oh, oh, I think we are getting further and further off the topic of labor and technology, — Athena

Not really. Big Religion, like Big Business, is in the business of enriching and enlarging itself through its control of governments and populations. It reinforces the authority of the ruling elite and trains the peons to know their place and obey their betters, as wells the aforementioned boostership of overpopulation and subjugation of women.

Greeks. Those oddballs didn't think highly of a god of war and they were too retarded to have an empire. Although they did colonize much of the known world. — Athena

That sounds suspiciously like an empire to me.

I have a problem with Jesus saying to turn our backs on family and put God first. I think there are good reasons to put family and community first. — Athena

The Seventh Day Adventists and some other despised sects managed to balance both. So, oddly enough, have some Catholic monastic orders. In relatively small numbers (my guesstimate is, under 3000) groups of people can sort out their priorities and the division of labour in an equitable arrangement of some kind. Many kinds of arrangement can work.
Don't blame Jesus for the craziness of Big Church; he was just giving a handful of discontented men an excuse to leave their lives of oppressed drudgery - neither the Abrahamic Judean state nor the Roman occupation gave them a lot of scope for personal meaning.
It's the large organized religions, washing hands with the secular elites, that promoted uncontrolled fecundity, to ensure unlimited cheap labour and expendable armies for their wars.

No worry, no one is paying for wars in the US because we do them on credit. — Athena

I did mention the world's debt-load - with three links to graphs illustrating it. That's what will break the capitalist system. It runs on the expectation of future growth. When expectation outruns the capability for growth, you get a recession or depression. Then the government has to step in and recycle the assets. But now, the assets are not available to government: they've been block-chained and bit-coined and legerdemained out of reach.... if they ever existed in the physical world where people need food and shelter.
Wars used to grow the economies of the victorious nations, both in the arming phase and the rebuilding phase, because patriotic [mostly female] people worked their asses off for little pay to produce munitions and supplies for the [mostly male] troops and the soldiers got paid and spent money like there was no tomorrow, which for many there wasn't. The war profiteers raked in the money and hired more people and invested in peactime construction and made more money, leaving the government to care for with all the damaged men who came back.
When you wage war on margin, you're gambling with your national economy. And when wars are waged not for territory and resources but hegemony, there is no material return for the winning nation. Once the government runs out of credit, runs out of funds, nobody will supply all that stuff we blow up in wars or the drones that drop the the explosives.

n the future what will organize the people and how will that organization be maintained? — Athena

Local war-lords. By force of arms. Except, they won't be able to get into the rich people's bunkers, which will be occupied by the late rich people's ex-servants and ruled by the self-promoted ex-mercenaries.

You see the same dangers I've pointed out, but you need to drive them to their conclusions first. — Christoffer

I did. My conclusion was a little more conclusive, is all.

The AI that actually will be used, and is already being used to a great degree, is advanced algorithmic AI, synthetic intelligence, neural network intelligence. This is simply an AI that is specifically tailored to a specific function. — Christoffer

Yes. So when I asked "For whom? To what end? What motivates AI?" That is what I was asking. Who drives it, and for whose benefit? That's the central question of the future. AI doesn't just churn out product willy-nilly, or design environmental clean-up operations for its own amusement: somebody has to program it to do those things; somebody has to want those things done.
Who? Why? For whose benefit? To what end?

Here you actually start to get to the point I'm talking about: the actual collapse of capitalist culture. — Christoffer

Of course: it's the obvious conclusion. One of the reasons it will happen is automation. As mentioned previously: Workers become unemployed by by the thousands, then the millions and billions. They stop getting paid, they stop buying luxuries, they stop paying taxes. It's never been easy for governments to tax the rich in proportion to the wealth they suck up; it's considerably harder with global mobility and electronic concealment of assets; it's not going to get any easier when the profits dwindle due to an impoverished consumer population. Even if a government is able to - in spite of fierce resistance by capitalist interest blocs - pass UBI legislation, collecting the funds to cover even the barest subsistence level payout will be damn near impossible - and become absolutely impossible as corporate profits and taxes dry up.
Household debt is already close to a breaking point and inflation isn't helping. National debts are high enough; corporate debt is not so far behind. Once the banks own all of everybody's imaginary future assets, what happens? Everybody defaults. What happens to money? What happens to capitalism?

throwing the world into a total capitalist collapse and soon follows, as a natural outcome of that chaos... war. — Christoffer

We already have lots of wars. Climate migrations will start some more. So will the totalitarian backlash that's engulfing more and more democracies. Once the economy breaks down, who pays the warring armies? Who buys the munitions? Who makes the machines? When money stops making money, there will be no more investment; no more capitalists. Once they're gone, whoever takes over the broken pieces of civilization will have to decide what leftover automation they want to keep and to what purpose. I don't know who that will be. Whatever we think of it now won't matter then.

I don't think ethics enters into the picture or the process.

The more people who sit down for a pie, the less pie is available. Therefore, you need growth. — Outlander

Where to? Pie is round; the Earth is round. Finite.

I think you forget about the reality I describe. — Christoffer

Not so much forget as discount.

With advanced automation how much "work" do you think will be done? — Christoffer

As much as people want to do.

If an AI can plan with more precision towards something like a better environment in the future, — Christoffer

For whom? To what end? What motivates AI to do that?

why would anyone assign or accept that work to be done by a human? — Christoffer

For the sheer joy and satisfaction of doing it!

people cannot fathom a society without work because it's so ingrained in our psychology that we cannot detach ourselves from that reality, we cannot think through other concepts than it. — Christoffer

People like the feeling of satisfaction when they have completed a task they set for themselves; the elation of overcoming a challenge, solving a problem. People enjoy exerting their physical capabilities, in sports, but it's more meaningful to do so in the creation of something concrete. People also enjoy sharing work that serves their sense of community, like a pot-luck supper or barn-raising. Have you ever seen men happier - in the sense of abiding contentment, rather than momentary joy - than when a group of them is huddled over a malfunctioning engine or a recalcitrant tree stump? I can't prove it, but I have a feeling most sick people and little children would prefer to be cared for by a loving adult than an efficient robot.

But almost all other jobs can, with enough algorithmic AI development, be turned over to robots. — Christoffer

The fact that something can be done, doesn't mean that it must be done. Besides, given that fact that most automation (that's not military) is controlled by commercial interests, as it keeps eroding its paid work-force, it incidentally erodes its customer base and the government's tax base; it has to reach a point of diminishing returns where no money is changing hands at all. UBI is a temporary stop-gap, as it also depends on redistribution of money.
Once there's no more profit to be made, who directs the robots? This, to me, is the central question about automation. (Based on the very large assumption that the whole house of credit cards doesn't collapse before that vanishing point, and all the billionaires head for the mountain strongholds.

But what I'm talking about is actually teaching moral philosophy as a core part of the curriculum, that is not in motion today. — Christoffer

Very much the opposite is in motion in America. Introducing moral philosophy, depends on a sensible school board operating under a sensible government with a generous budget. In Finland, you may be able to do it; in the USA, not under the current political trend.

Except when that ends up being the norm for a majority of people, then we need a society tailored around a non-work existence. — Christoffer

Non-work is not the same as non-job. As mentioned earlier, people can work for their families their communities, the environment, the future, the protection, welfare and enrichment of their fellow humans, the welfare and rehabilitation of other species, their own betterment. There is plenty of work to do that's far more rewarding than the pittance bosses dole out.

A truly liberal society free from religion requires the people to understand morality as a system that is logical and not decided upon them.

That is exactly what a liberal public education would promote, and that is exactly why all demagogues hobble and cripple public education wherever they can.

Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education: – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

If people start thinking, they may stop fighting one another for the crumbs off the rich man's table. They might put down the placards and talk to one another. They might even stop supporting power-mad leaders.

FTR - All assertions and assumptions regarding my state of mind are incorrect. I do not read other people's thoughts and emotions; I simply answer their written words to extent I see them as applicable to the topic. If I got "upset" at the opinions of anonymous strangers in cyberspace, I'd have imploded 2 decades ago. Nitpickery aside, I think I have already covered this topic to the best of my ability.

I believe education is essential to democracy. — Athena

I know that. Also the other way around. There are very powerful forces pitted against public and democratic education in the US right now, and they've been making considerable gains.

Republicans, and white conservatives, have long been hostile to public schools. School desegregation drove white evangelicals to become the strongest Republican demographic. Ronald Reagan promised to end the Department of Education in 1980. Trump put Betsy DeVos in charge of the Department of Education,

At the same time, the same states that curtailed women's reproductive rights and ban books.

There has been an “alarming” surge in book censorship in the United States since last year totaling 1,586 book bans or restrictions in place, according to the director of PEN America, a nonprofit focusing on free speech and literature.

The "we" to which you belong is being pushed to the margins.

what if we replaced the autocratic model of the industry with the democratic model? — Athena

Wonderful idea! How? Who are "we" and where do "we" get the power to take decision-making out of the hands of corporate boards? Before anything positive can happen in education, industry, utilities or infrastructure, you need to clean up the democratic process. At this point, that's a helluva tall order!
It's still doable, but only with a huge surge of support from the polity. At 51/49% split in electoral clout, I don't see whence that impetus can come.

I think that's quite intimidating towards ↪Vera Mont
. She is entitled to her opinion. — Benj96

Thank you for that. I didn't intend to be a vampire; it must have happened in my sleep.

I'll go away then.

The proposition was that the folklore was non-Hungarian tales imported from Germany. — god must be atheist

There was no "proposition".

So did I [read Hungarian fairy tales] only to find out much later that they were not really Hungarian, most of them. They were Grimm and Anderson and translated from German - sort of pan-European fairy tales. — Vera Mont

You found an exception to translations, and that's lovely; I'm sure there is a similar one in Wales and Ireland and Euskal Herria - in fact, in every small country that's been annexed by a big one. Its morals, if any, are in the Arthur/Clovis/Eric the Victorious etc genre : semi-legendary patriarchal figures around which the group identity solidifies. They don't need to be derived. They arise spontaneously all around the world; these heroic long-ago leaders become the repository national pride and hope. They carry a very particular kind of message. Human make stories for all kinds of reasons.

I wished you would have served up an example of a realistic alternative to the status quo, which you very conveniently did not. — god must be atheist

I don't recall assuming an obligation to serve you up anything.
The very problematic word there is "realistic". I don't know exactly what you mean by that, and there is obviously no opting out of a totalitarian system, so all rebellion that doesn't aim at and succeed in overthrowing the ruling elite is unrealistic - which fact I may already have mentioned as a reason to eschew self-immolation for the cause.
However, here you go: https://www.ic.org/

intentional communities offer more sustainable and just ways of living together

In the Middle ages - source of material for the majority, but not 100% of pan_European moral tales - any community that declared an alternative belief was promptly eradicated as heretical.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/
The Hutterites and Romani fared no better under the foot of monarchies (The model for Monty Python's is presumably the emperor in new clothes) . So, not a whole lot of surviving examples to serve up. Much the same happened to the alternative lifestyles of American, African and Oceanic cultures in the era of Christo-European conquest. Some folklore remains, and some nations are trying to rebuild their own way of life, where they are allowed to.

This is why all peasant revolutions in the middle ages failed. They had the power, they had the numbers, but they had not the idea. — god must be atheist

Or any weapons, supplies, fortifications, armour, horses, trained leaders or soldiers. I don't think an idea would have got them past the moat.

unless I do a sneaky attack, at night, when all your church going, republican supporting neighbours are sleeping — universeness

It might also be a little disorienting, seeing as how you'd be sneaking around the wrong country.

Writer's block — universeness

Not exactly - plot hiccup. What I want to happen next can't, so I need to figure out how to get from here to there.

Cosmologists/leading edge physicists would make the best presidents of America imo. — universeness

I suppose they couldn't do any worse... of course, I don't know their politics, but I guess at least NASA would get full funding again.

If we do not figure out a working system, this will lead to future wars and conflicts. — Christoffer

I'm thinking, the first salvo of war # 28 or 29 by this weekend... But that won't be about automation.
The only question we need to decide what's the ethical response to any technology :
Is man made for the factory or is the factory made for man?
(And once that's settled, the logical questions of any new inventions: Does this machine do humans and the world they live in enough good that justify and offset the harm it does? Do we know how to nullify or mitigate the harm? Will there be lasting fallout? Is there a less harmful alternative?)

All the same, though, "better brain than brawn". The heroic dead inspire a lot more death, and the Klingons will sing many ugly songs.... but they don't change. Nobody likes Cassandra, anyway; she just doesn't want us to have that nice big horse.

Ok, if that's how you feel about it. If you don't want to be a political activist then all you can do is vote, just like your angry friend did. BUT keep writing and shove that 12 gauge into the basement somewhere! — universeness

All I ever had was a .22 and I didn't keep that very long. Like I said, I'm not combative by nature, aptitude or inclination.

keep writing — universeness

Yeah... that's the thing... why I'm idling away here. There's a glimmer of an idea for how to finish the stuck chapter, but it doesn't want to coalesce on the page. Hate when that happens; it makes me crotchetier than is my wont.

After Spartacus was defeated, the Romans are reported to have lined the Appin way with crucified rebels, yes, but their empire was destroyed by those who were akin in culture and tradition to those crucified ex-slaves. — universeness

This is not a cause-effect relationship. The rebellious slaves were wasted manpower. That's what I don't support. John Brown made his point in the church, not at Harper's Ferry; his death did not precipitate the insane civil war which killed off maybe 700,000 men, plus however many civilians, plus the violence on the back burner, waiting for the next conflagration. The founding fathers did.

William Wallace was hung, drawn, quartered and the 4 quarters of his body were sent back to Scotland. — universeness

One is an example. The next four are heroic. The thousand(s) after that are simply wasted, like the people at Masada. Their death does not alter the course of history.

I didn't TELL YOU to move, I suggested you move if you are miserable where you are — universeness

Yes, and I'M SORRY I SAID THAT! Wasn't intended as combative. I never said I was miserable; I commented only that I can't affect current politics, either by voting or fighting. It wouldn't be any different if I moved to an orange, red or even green riding; it might feel cozy, but we'd be just as outnumbered. It's a downward turn of the wheel, that's all.

Spartacus is no doubt laughing his ass off in whatever afterlife.

Aside from that, there is quite a bit of very modern mythology surrounding the character of just king Mathias. — god must be atheist

Still about a king, though. Even the sainted Stephen was a monarch first and foremost. The whole post-Roman Christian pyramid social structure with lots of peasants at the bottom, gazing worshipfully at the one who 'a'n't got no shit on 'im.

the morals did serve the survival of the status quo. — god must be atheist

That's the main point of it. Know your place and maybe, if you're very good, brave and lucky, someone will lift you up.

And while the status quo provided a horribly skewed distribution of goods and benefits, all members of society fared better IN the society than OUTSIDE of it. — god must be atheist

And that's the secondary point. To promote the idea that there can only be inside or outside of the status quo - no alteration or adjustment to it, no option #3. (Gee, doesn't that sound a lot like the myth-structure of capitalism? "Oh, sure it's unfair, but the other thing is so much worse.")

So the lessons, that promoted accepting common societal ethics, were less palatable to us now than Gypsy tales, but they promoted better a type of social survival systems. — god must be atheist

Better for the aristocracy, obviously. But the subversive, the rebellious, the seditious, the anarchistic other is never far from the popular imagination. In songs, in poems, in folk-sayings, in daydream, a child of the Austro-Hungarian empire (also Great Britain and Russia; I don't know about the Dutch and Portuguese) wanted to run away with the gypsies, the same way an American child of the same period dreamed of running away with the circus. By the 20th century, the industrial age had ground all of that freedom-hungry youth into a homogeneous labour-pool.

I read a lot of Hungarian fairy tales, in my childhood, — god must be atheist

So did I, only to find out much later that they were not really Hungarian, most of them. They were Grimm and Anderson and translated from German - sort of pan-European fairy tales. The illustrator dressed Hansel and Gretel in a different national costume, but the witch a leftover from medieval Christian boogie-lore. They all bear the imprint of Imperial civilization: monarchy, the importance of power, wealth and glitz, with an overlay of the bootstap mythos.
Non-urban, non-rigidly structured societies tend to be far more realistic in their depiction of human nature and the supernatural. Their duplicitous, unreliable spirits are more in line with our real experience than Big Omni, the Virgin Mary and Saint Nicholas.

Still off-topic, innit? Unless I mention the roast pigeon and boar's head coming at the hero in the wish-fulfillment stories. Never a nice big portobello burger or plate of baklava....