Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bridgette
I don’t think that FIRST is trying to decrease respect for the rich and famous as much as increase respect for others. FIRST offers great opportunities to thousands of students. These students are able to not only explore the possibilities of science and technology, but also the skills that they possess but just never realized they had. By encouraging talents that popular culture seems to shun, FIRST is already changing the lives of thousands of people.I think FIRST could someday have the ability to cause a change in the way society views science and technology.
If this sea change in society ever happens, then the way that entertainers are treated is going to change as well. While music and TV are very important parts of culture, I wish that the people who are truly changing the world received as much recognition as those with musical and acting talent.
|
Maybe I worded my original post incorrectly. I don't think FIRST is trying to decrease respect for popular culture icons. I said that
some people think that.
I agree - when FIRST gets engineers/scientists/etc. enough respect as other icons - it will have succeeded in one part of its goal.
Now, on to mtrawls comments:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mtrawls
How can you measure how much someone deserves a job? Or who is more worthy? Who gives you the moral superiority to say without a doubt that "those people deserve" the job "far more" than the greedy American who wants to "wear Nike shoes" and own a "Ford Excursion"?
|
For example, do certain FIRST sponsors' "unsavory" (I put it in quotes b/c morality is not univeral) behavior mean they are less fit to be FIRST sponsors? Does Microsoft's antitrust suits mean they are worse sponsors? Not at all.
I agree completely with mtrawls. But the greatness of capitalism
is a discussion for another thread...