I reject the notion that we should coddle our children. The teacher is there for a reason. To provide context to what the child is being exposed to. And that can make all the difference.
Yes, you can die. Yes, it is dangerous. Yes, these brave men risked their lives and they lost. And if they had to do it all over again, they would risk their lives again.
Because if it wasn't for men like them, we would still be sitting in a cave poking a fire with a stick.
Language has power, and using "men" in this context makes invisible the contributions and bravery of these women and others like them. Sorry to seem PC, but it's important to get this stuff right if we want our kids to grow up in a better world.
That's ridiculous. When people use men in this context, they refer to humanity as a whole. Don't confuse your lack of English understanding as being PC.
So "women" is a collective noun for a group of humans all of whom are female, and "men" is a collective noun for a group of humans who are some mixture of males and females. There's no collective noun for a group of humans all of whom are male? Doesn't that strike you as a bit asymmetric?
I understand that "men" is sometimes used in the way you describe, but I believe that people who do so consider male the default gender of humans.
Brevity is the soul of wit. You certainly lose accuracy, but honestly, nobody wants to read a wall of text.
If you want to presume some sort of conspiracy sexist default supremacist undertone in what I wrote, fine, but I think that says more about you than about me.
I couldn't agree with this more. Life is filled with risks, pretending otherwise is not good for anyone. But pushing the frontiers, exploring the boundaries comes with much greater risks.
Yet those risks can come with great rewards when they pay off and it is only by accepting those higher risks that society can advance and improve.
"Because if it wasn't for men like them, we would still be sitting in a cave poking a fire with a stick."
Because of them, we now have large sticks which take us to space by poking the Earth with fire. :)
I agree with your entire comment. Think about the explorers of old, crossing oceans and continents, in hazardous conditions, with little technology to aid them, and with even less knowledge of where their journeys would lead. We stand on the brave shoulders of the countless who have come before, and it would be an insult to their accomplishments if we, as humans, suddenly abandoned, in the name of ultimate safety, the wonder of exploration, and the courage required to see it through.
I think we misunderstand. I'm arguing that children don't need to watch potentially disturbing imagery to ensure that they contribute to furthering science in the future.
The argument "we should not coddle children because science" rings false to me. "Coddling children" is a bit of a strawman; there are things we don't tell children because of their innate immaturity. As are most things, it's a spectrum.
I would argue that hiding things from children the way we do only works because we aren't always successful at it. If we were able to hide things from children with 100% reliability, we'd end up with young adults incapable of functioning in society.
But in order for children to mature, they must be exposed to circumstances that challenge their naive understanding. Maturity is only correlated with age, not caused by it.
Watching a shuttle explode on TV is not the same as, say, witnessing first-hand the gruesome death of one's own parents at the hands of a psychopath.
I agree that a balance has to be struck, but I think you've lost sight of where that balance is.
The cost of a million school children watching a space shuttle explode is the cost of the million conversations with parents and other adults that occur afterwards. These should be conversations that help develop each child's understanding of the world and the risks, challenges, and rewards of great human endeavors.
I've thought about this for a few minutes and I really don't know. What are you getting at? I'm not even sure if the dollar value of the cost is negative or positive. It was a tragedy, sure, but what's the lesson the kids take? Not to go into the sciences? Or to think about heroes who take on great risks to earn the knowledge that they're now learning in school?
I honestly don't know how to incorporate that aspect into the dollar cost/benefit the article proposes.
Invaluable. That's a wonderful opportunity for the million schoolchildren to develop a more nuanced and deeper understanding of the real world and the existence of failure.
Children should be exposed to the world, not sheltered from it. A parent's job is to prepare the child for the world, not hide the world from them with some naive and damaging attempt to keep them innocent. Sheltered children wind up unprepared for reality when it hits them smack in the face when they get on their own.
No, that's exactly what it's not missing. Our fear of catastrophe is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. Probably no single event in the history of space exploration contributed more to that fear than Challenger (and to a lesser extent, Columbia).
