Read the OP title, it asks what job do people take too seriously. I answered. Anyone who ignores we did just fine without our current system of teachers for centuries is already doing exactly that, taking it too seriously. It has nothing to do with your strawman of me thinking a teacher was mean to me.
And you somehow genuinely feel that the average person's prosperity was, relatively, better in that period?
Working 7 days a week, morning to night, producing that prosperity and trade for the educated class in exchange for a pittance. Whilst eating your table scraps in the dark, you can hope you don't die of a disease you have no idea how to prevent contracting.
You can measure the prosperity of an era by contemporary descriptions of their health, including how tall people were. So we definitely have proof people fared better then.
It feels like it might impact your view a bit if you did.
As good as it is to be marginally taller for 30-40 years, or be a super tall person who died an infant. Not that the article you linked has any description of heights related to whichever "golden age" you might refer to, but whatever.
Pick your golden era and then show me an article that indicates the average height was greater in that period than it is now, if this is the point you really want to focus on.
Read the OP title, it asks what job do people take too seriously. I answered. Anyone who ignores we did just fine without our current system of teachers for centuries is already doing exactly that, taking it too seriously. It has nothing to do with your strawman of me thinking a teacher was mean to me.
Go back to being an illiterate, muck raking peasant or die young in a workhouse then, I guess. Fucking hell.
People in all the past golden ages did just fine without having the teaching system we have currently.
You know who the "Golden Age" was golden for? The relatively few educated people.
And for general relative prosperity and trade.
And you somehow genuinely feel that the average person's prosperity was, relatively, better in that period?
Working 7 days a week, morning to night, producing that prosperity and trade for the educated class in exchange for a pittance. Whilst eating your table scraps in the dark, you can hope you don't die of a disease you have no idea how to prevent contracting.
You can measure the prosperity of an era by contemporary descriptions of their health, including how tall people were. So we definitely have proof people fared better then.
Would you want to factor in life expectancy at all?
Did I not?
It feels like it might impact your view a bit if you did.
As good as it is to be marginally taller for 30-40 years, or be a super tall person who died an infant. Not that the article you linked has any description of heights related to whichever "golden age" you might refer to, but whatever.
Is it not implied when they mentioned economists research height (if not there's more I can provide)? It's also why North Koreans are famously shorter than South Koreans.
Pick your golden era and then show me an article that indicates the average height was greater in that period than it is now, if this is the point you really want to focus on.
Here yo go.