The Dumbest Generation

       In "The Dumbest Generation", Mark Bauerlein makes an argument that the current generation is in fact the dumbest. By choosing to immerse themselves in social media and other brain-degenerating diversions, today's children are preventing themselves from gaining important skills needed to be successful in the world. Bauerlein argues that the declining intellect of the current generation is abnormal when compared to previous ones, thus making this generation's kids the dumbest. He cites several studies and surveys that reflect this trend.
        Bauerlein believes that today's children are not taking advantage of the resources they are gifted with, and are thus the dumbest generation when compared to previous, less privileged generations. In Bauerlein's eyes, the huge public libraries and the speedy, extensive Internet ought to be exploited by today's kids. With such an enormous reservoir of information available, kids today have more opportunities to expand their knowledge bank than any generation before them. Though this statement neglects the achievements of a large portion of the current generation, I agree with Bauerlein's general assessment in regard to the overall public. During school days, I am constantly reminded of the idiocy of many of my classmates. For example, not only had they failed to realize that Nelson Mandela had died the day before, but they had failed to give a description as to who the man even was. Of course, not everyone was this dumb, but enough were to make me concerned. What were they doing as they endlessly surfed the web the day before? How had they failed to notice such an important piece of information? The answer is because they simply did not care. In a world of self-importance, humiliatingly perpetuated by selfies, world events are simply not important. Books are suddenly less interesting than the movie showing next Friday, and kids would rather listen to Katy Perry than Beethoven or Mozart. On the other hand however, several kids are taking full advantage of the opportunities they are given. Student advances in technology and medicine, just to name a few fields, are rising like never before. The "Dumbest Generation" has given rise to some of the most talented individuals, and Bauerlein fails to acknowledge these prodigies.
          But how important is this 'fundamental knowledge' the Dumbest Generation apparently lacks in the new, developing world? Will students really have to know which president added a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine when they have the ability to find the answer on their phones in less than a minute? Is it even an efficient plan to allocate so much time to studying such facts when they are mostly unneeded in the future? I do not think so. Though I agree that  retaining such information is valuable as a personal achievement to some, it is not necessary to function well in the world that we have created. As the world changes, so do desired skills. As cell phones become popular, demand for people skilled in the Pony Express dies off. This is simply the economy of skills. I do however, see why historical, literary, and scientific knowledge is valuable and extremely necessary in discussions and debates; referencing others' important arguments is key to advancing one's own. I would not say, however, that someone who is unable to reference Machiavelli in a debate is 'dumb' if they otherwise create a compelling argument.
        Ultimately, though I believe Bauerlein's argument accurately summarizes many habits of the 'Dumbest Generation', I also feel it fails to acknowledge several important groups of intellectuals from the current generation. As times change, so do skills, and Bauerlein must recognize this. I'm sure that if he were to look at the general population of any other generation, he would see similar trends.

Give Them All Our Money!

     "Whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away". This is Peter Singer's solution to end poverty. The idea itself blares controversy.

      But what if all people had their basic needs? Wouldn't the world be so much better? There wouldn't be any more beggars on the streets, extremely malnutritioned children in impoverished countries, or homeless people downtown. If just the top 1% of the wealthiest people would donate their 'unnecessary' money, a huge chunk of the world's poverty levels would decrease substantially.

      So why aren't the big guys saving the world and covering all the poorer people's expenses? Well, perhaps the most obvious answer is that they don't want to. Some of them have worked hard for their riches and feel they deserve to spend what they have earned on whatever they like. It is not their problem that others cannot provide for themselves. Survival of the fittest, remember?

       Ignoring the many problems with the mindset described above, let's consider Singer's solution. Just because the idea is not practical, it doesn't mean that it fails to function as a solution to the poverty problem. There is no doubt that if everyone on the planet were to donate their extra money, poverty levels would decrease incredibly, and perhaps even vanish. It is what we should do.

        So Singer's solution, while impractical to carry out, is ultimately good at heart, as should be considered for what it is: a solution.