|
|
|
|
|
|
by haskellandchill
524 days ago
|
|
|
For those without means understanding is a luxury, for many with, it is merely aesthetic. Matching drive with opportunity could unlock humanistic discovery but it is far more likely to be done artificially given the way we organize our societies. |
|
|
Saying that those without wealth are barred from genuine understanding reduces learning to a matter of money. Plenty of us with limited resources develop deep insights by way of libraries, conversations, online education, or other active seeking in the margins of what time and means permit.
That proposition also throws away personal agency by framing understanding as something that happens only if external conditions allow it, rather than admitting each person’s power to seek knowledge and push beyond circumstance.
Your second sentence feels more balanced, setting up a good question: how do we bootstrap Gene Roddenberry’s future fairly while still recognizing personal drive, differences, and merit?