There is this one video that comes to mind were Dawkins makes a case for the need of elitism. Needless to say the video was not well received and it's possibly the only video by BigThink that has ever gotten that much backlash. That being said, emotions aside, does he have a point?

img src

Equality, the idea

I happen to love the ideals behind the concept. That is, that we strive to create a system where everyone is equally as important. It sounds beautiful, poetic even, to imagine such Utopia. But, would there be a socio economical consequence for creating such system? I ask with sincerity, because often this part of the conversation is left out of the table.

Even the most famous of speeches is popular because it's holding these ideals up high, on the highest of pedestals although most offer no roadmap to be followed. It almost seems as if I'm dismissing their validity, or their ramifications, but that is not my intent, not in the slightest. They've had repercussions but their are identifiable now, decades later.

Elitism

Is the idea that there are those who are the most adequate to do certain tasks, to understand certain subjects. Of course, we can't believe that all jobs are equally as important in a macro sense, but this is the opposite at a micro level. Simply put, a gardener that makes a mistake is not deciding the fate of the country, but a president is held to a different standard, or at least should be.

We ideally want the best people working on their fields of expertise, key word being ideally. Is this always the case? of course not, but it's hard to argue against efficiency. Unless someone can creatively make a case for the positive impact of negative results.

This is easier to analyze if we attempt to use ourselves as the point of reference. For example: Do I want the best Doctor performing surgery on me, or would anyone do? - The answer is too obvious to even need much explaining.

Foundational Knowledge?

I remember outlining some ideas on this concept and falling short of completing something cohesive. Simply because as much as I've tried to come up with a list of minimum knowledge everyone should have, the spectrum that we represent, the sapiens, is to vast, too anecdotal for a one size fits all list.

Not that I've given up completely on the idea, but I've decided that it might something applicable to a second level, if I am even to call it that. I realize it's getting confusing, but here is my best attempt:

If I decided to be a cryptocurrency enthusiast, if that was my choice. Then, it would be in my best interest to posses a specific foundational knowledge to be effective on the field I've chosen. Could I surf those waters without having these concepts assimilated? Possibly, but the more important question is, Would I want to?

Why?

Seems like some weird philosophical post, even for me. But, I can't help but to find myself having conversations that show me, in my subjective opinion that is, that we have many people in the water, who have never operated a boat.

Does that sound mean? I fear it does, but It's not my intention to offend, not at all. Maybe that is why I think the focus on education is so important for the future of the movement, because until there is enough people with sufficient foundational knowledge, we might keep talking past each other, we just might. Is that elitism again? If so, I apologize.