Problem-posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor. No oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why?

Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in “changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them”; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated.

Implicit in the banking concept [of education] is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others…In this view, the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside.

https://envs.ucsc.edu/internships/internship-readings/freire-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed.pdf

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    There's a difference between valuing kids as actual human beings, and wanting to bring more people into this world of suffering.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally really have problems with the "world of suffering" argument because my grandparents were born born while China was being invaded by Japan after years of civil war, and my parents were born during the Great Chinese Famine.

      They all had or have had more than their fair share of suffering but never once did I hear them regret their lives.

    • Nakoichi [they/them]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Voluntary extinction is abdicating our responsibility to undo the suffering we brought on this world and the suffering that would likely only get worse if we just all snapped out of existence.

      Anti-natalism is reactionary no matter how you try to spin it.

      This is a problem we created and a problem we have a responsibility to address no matter how many generations it takes.

      We have already set the apocalypse into motion. To bow out now is cowardice.

      • FuckyWucky [none/use name]
        ·
        1 year ago

        and the suffering that would likely only get worse if we just all snapped out of existence.

        Suffering for who?

        • Nakoichi [they/them]
          hexagon
          ·
          1 year ago

          All the shit we have dumped into the environment, the shit we would leave behind in the form of decaying factories and mines and oil rigs.

          It is our responsibility to do something about that. It is still going to exist. All the forever chemicals. We can't just opt out and walk into oblivion with a clear conscience. That is the coward's way out.

          • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            you'd need scifi technomagic to actually clean up all the microplastics and shit. I don't really understand what you expect future people to do that you'd have conscripted into cleaning up a mess made before they were born.

            • UlyssesT
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              deleted by creator

              • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                diminishing returns on resources and effort put into environmental cleanup is hardly "positive improvement is impossible".

                we can clean up a lot, certainly more than capitalists ever would but

                All the shit we have dumped into the environment, the shit we would leave behind in the form of decaying factories and mines and oil rigs.

                is a ridiculous proposition even with global communism, and saddling future generations with our problems seems like a shitty thing to do to them.

                • UlyssesT
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  deleted by creator