Today’s color is #9c5288
Three Questions + Four Creative* Lines:
Which historical army would best utilize muskets if some time traveler taught them hot to make it? What historical nation, given a few more decades, would have discovered a game-changing type of weaponry? What innovations had the most effect on war, and when did weapons become more of a factor than training? Has it ever? It is known that most soldiers are better with training, and 100 well trained and experienced soldiers with 50-year-old guns can beat 100 greenhorns with guns made yesterday, but for that, we need to define a base level of training, after which there are diminishing returns? Does modern weaponry simply increase the danger level of an individual, or does it make you reach the point of diminishing returns in training earlier? Maybe the reason technology is valued so highly is not that training is less effective but because conflicts have a high fatality rate, and that training can only do so much to stop that. It’s not that training is less valued, but it’s far easier to lose a well-trained soldier, and one ambush can even the fields.
So training becomes this group of better-trained soldiers has a 59% chance of surviving this conflict with x number of casualties, instead of 52%. And on that morbid note, I’ll move on to the next one.
Are our teachers better than they were in the past? Or do we simply have a larger pool of base knowledge and facts we can build our opinions on? Does the existence of the scientific method and our approach to solving problems as a society affect the quality of our teachers? Or is it just their teachers and teaching methods?
But, if we were to invent a new better teaching method, how would we get it implemented? Would the existing teachers resist? Probably, it would be untested at first, but do we really want to test something at risk of our children’s future; as a society, we put great value on education, so do we want to test changes? Well, some people would be willing, those who believe it works. But we don’t want to let people’s lives be ruined in case they are wrong, so we assign the responsibility to the government to hold invocation at bay, because the risks are great eve, if only a few are affected. But what if there is great harm caused by our current system? And we don’t know because we don’t know better. Better education would have an effect on everything, crime would drop, innovation would increase, we would live greener healthier lives.
What is the best thing? The things most people would agree on is good? Or the thing that if you made a goodness measure where people had to put in 1 to 10 on their own subjective goodness scale, what would have the highest average score? But is what people think is good the things which are most good? On one hand, we are the measure, on the other hand, people do things which we would see as despicable and have no problem with that. So philosophers may debate the answer to the first, and I would like there to be an answer to be second, so I’ll check that when I’m done with this, there probably is something for some countries but not worldwide, and move on to the next thing for now.
What isn’t bad is good.
What isn’t good is bad.
How does it stand in your head?
The in-between came later, we defined individuals by their actions and sometimes they were neither good nor bad enough. Then we started judging ideas and actions as we judge people. And now we judge actions that were not judged before, is eating good or bad? Yes, for it sustains us, but no for by our judgments we eat too much.