I disagree, to say the least.
If everyone were an engineer, that probably would not be such a terrible thing, but if everyone were a novelist, that probably would.
I disagree, to say the least.
If everyone were an engineer, that probably would not be such a terrible thing, but if everyone were a novelist, that probably would.
Now, once that society is constructed, all of the other stuff is nice to have, but I would not describe those things in morally imperative terms like that.
Oughts and shoulds are the foundation on which rationality in decision-making is founded, but cannot be reasoned to or empirically tested without assuming an axiomatic ought or should to start with.
Unless we respond to this, our human side, our efforts will always fall dead. We can't construct a society that doesn't acknowledge our humanity and expect that people will want to live in it.
Indeed, this dichotomy is one of the problems. There's no reasons "real world training" is mutually exclusive with liberal arts. There's no reason we can't teach you to be a mechanic and let you read Chaucer.