The Wild Adventures of Eddie Cayton

The education system today mainly teaches children skills that will help them get jobs in the future, but it doesn’t focus much on shaping them into self-aware, self-reflective, and self-improving individuals. Instead, it teaches them to worry about how society sees them and how to fit in, rather than helping them understand themselves. Schools impose discipline from the outside rather than teaching students how to develop inner motivation. They don’t encourage a lifelong love for learning or a growth mindset, nor do they focus on critical and nuanced thinking. The result is a society that lacks people who are multifaceted, subtly nonconformist, reflective, humble, lighthearted, candid yet profound, empathetic, emotionally discerning, skeptical, and altruistically realistic. Yet, these are the very qualities the modern world needs for humanity to advance.

Another major flaw in the education system is that it doesn’t focus enough on STEM, which are the fields that actually drive technological and societal progress. STEM education in schools is fundamentally flawed in the way it is structured and delivered. From a young age, children are unconsciously pressured to see math and science as the only path to success, with the constant subtle message that failing in these subjects leads to a mediocre future. This creates unnecessary stress and turns STEM into something to fear rather than explore. Instead of nurturing curiosity, schools emphasize memorization over understanding, rushing through syllabi that leave little room for deep thinking. Concepts are often introduced in an abstract way, favoring children who naturally excel in abstract thinking while leaving behind those who need a slower, more intuitive approach. This problem is worsened by the fact that students are frequently asked to accept ideas without questioning them, with time constraints used as an excuse. As a result, they develop a fragile foundation that eventually haunts them when deeper understanding is required. Math, in particular, is taught as a rigid set of rules rather than as a logical, intuitive language that explains the world. The focus remains on solving test problems rather than on problem solving as a skill. The syllabus is rushed, disadvantaging students who think slowly, deeply and critically, and instead of making STEM accessible, it is treated as an elite subject, causing many to resent it as they grow older. Furthermore, STEM education rarely integrates real world applications, interdisciplinary connections, or historical context, making the subjects feel disconnected from everyday life. Hands on experimentation is often sidelined, and schools fail to inspire students by showing them the human side of science, the struggles, breakthroughs, and stories of great thinkers. A key solution to these issues would be for schools to have dedicated research departments focused on improving teaching methods. A team of psychologists, sociologists, and education experts should conduct real time research on students, developing strategies that accommodate different learning styles. This not only enhances education but also creates new jobs, ensuring that the system evolves based on actual student needs rather than outdated teaching methods. By shifting the focus from pressure and memorization to curiosity and understanding, we can make STEM an engaging, accessible, and meaningful part of every child’s education. But, worse, education divides students into two categories, those who are good at STEM but have little knowledge of history and society, and those who understand social issues but lack scientific and technical skills. The first group often falls into the trap of extreme capitalism, believing in “survival of the fittest” and developing a false and simplistic understanding of history and human nature. They are often sold the idea of the lone genius, someone who, through sheer brilliance, can single handedly create revolutionary change or develop innovations that uplift humanity. The education system fails to break their illusion and show them that progress is always built on the foundations of past discoveries, with each breakthrough being an incremental improvement rather than an isolated stroke of genius. In today's world, no individual can achieve groundbreaking success alone, as the easier problems have already been solved by past thinkers. To tackle the challenges ahead, we must collaborate. Many in this group overestimate their individual potential while neglecting self-reflection, which is how we end up with the overconfident 'tech bros' of silicon valley or the academic 'Feynman bros' who excel in their field but remain socially and emotionally underdeveloped. The education system does little to make them aware of this because industries favor highly specialized individuals who are laser focused on a single domain, often at the cost of a more balanced personal and intellectual development. Of course, these are stereotypes, and not everyone fits this mold, but I acknowledge that I am simplifying my point by using such black and white comparisons, and I am not proud of doing so. The second group is more in touch with themselves and fights for social change, which is important, but change driven only by ideology and not by technology is slow. In reality, new technology often forces social changes more quickly than activism alone. The issue is that if we only focus on workers’ rights without investing in science and technology, we create an unsustainable future.

For example, instead of mindlessly protecting manual labor jobs, we should be investing in automation and AI so that there are no more jobs that involve repetitive, low intelligence tasks, like sitting in an office just to process paperwork. AI can do these tasks much more efficiently. Automation will definitely take away jobs, but it will also create massive profits that can be used to retrain people for new jobs that will emerge in the AI era. For this to work, the education system must prepare students to be flexible and adaptable instead of making them seek only job security. The government should provide that security through strong democratic institutions so that individuals can take risks to improve themselves. However, the problem is that right now, big tech companies are the only ones benefiting from AI. They won’t provide universal basic income to the people they displace, nor will they fund retraining programs. This is a huge threat to both social stability and innovation. That’s why AI and automation must be regulated properly by governments, which should also invest in these technologies themselves. This way, governments will have control over them without killing competition. It is good to support the working class for reasons of social justice, but not out of tribalism.

Beyond AI, governments should also invest in nuclear fusion, quantum computing, and other groundbreaking technologies. At the same time, it is crucial to listen to scientists who are critical of these technologies to ensure that the industry is not overhyped or driven by unrealistic expectations. But to do that effectively, they need competent leaders with good management skills. A major problem in developed countries today is mismanagement. Smart governance is about making good choices the easiest and most rewarding ones instead of just banning things or forcing people to comply. Good managers create incentives that encourage positive behavior, making unhealthy food less convenient while making healthy options more available, making fossil fuels more expensive so that renewable energy becomes the cheaper and smarter choice, focusing on preventing crime rather than just punishing criminals, and ensuring that businesses make more money by being ethical rather than by cutting corners. Instead of relying on bans and punishments, this approach naturally guides society toward better habits and long term success by making the right choices easier and more beneficial. liberal and progressive political parties often have good intentions, but they lack capable managers. On the other hand, conservative and libertarian parties, apparently, tend to have all the managers but hold deeply questionable self-centered values and are inherently driven by greed packaged as liberty. The real issue here is that good governance is missing. AI could help solve this problem by improving decision making for progressives and making governments more efficient. Moreover, AI isn't a greedy self-centered manager.

Ideally, the world should move toward a future where humans are no longer doing repetitive work but instead using their intelligence and creativity, while machines handle the labor. There are so many scientific possibilities that could drastically improve human society, but we need to ensure that they don’t become tools for a handful of greedy individuals to exploit everyone else. Governments must step in to protect the public. Libertarian ideals don’t fit well in this scenario because if we let the free market take over, the benefits of technology will be hoarded by a few corporations while the majority suffer.

Some people think that just because we have always managed to find solutions to problems in the past, we’ll do it again. They take for granted the work of scientists, engineers, managers, economists, etc, failing to see that innovation requires continuous investment in education. But not just the outdated kind of education that produces obedient workers who don’t think for themselves. We need to completely rethink what education means. Is it just about being good at math and memorizing historical facts? Or should it also teach people how to think clearly, question their biases, and develop lifelong learning habits? If the education system doesn’t change, people will turn to self-proclaimed “gurus” on YouTube and other platforms, which are unregulated, leaving them vulnerable to misinformation and manipulation. This is especially dangerous for people who are highly educated but were never taught to question their own biases. When these people grow older, their brains become less flexible, and they become a burden to democracy. A functional democracy needs people who constantly reinvent themselves. If that doesn’t happen, democracy will collapse and be replaced by authoritarian systems.

Many political discussions today focus on surface level problems rather than addressing the root cause, which is education. People are hard to change when they’re older, so the solution is to encourage children to be open minded and adaptable from the start. People live in their own bubbles, each with their own unique worldview. Kids should be taught how to jump from one bubble to another with ease, momentarily letting go of their own perspective and fully engaging with someone else’s. Instead of making them chase security, the government should ensure their security in the first place so that they don't worry about it and can focus on improving themselves. Imagine being so rigid and resistant to change that your child, feeling unheard and disconnected, turns to strangers online for comfort and conversation, even while sitting right next to you. The generational gap has grown so wide that they believe you are incapable of understanding their struggles, their emotions, or the new challenges they face. They don’t come to you because they don’t see a point, you’ve shown them that your mind is closed, that their problems don’t fit into your worldview. Think about that. 

This is far more meaningful and powerful than all the self help spirituality nonsense sold online. Yes, science doesn’t have answers to everything, but that doesn’t mean spirituality does either. At least science, or more specifically the philosophy of science, is honest. Unlike modern decentralized spirituality that lacks rationalism and promotes unverified beliefs, which often claims to have all the answers, science admits when it doesn’t know something and works to find the truth. Science is more humble because it acknowledges its limitations, embraces uncertainty, and continuously refines its understanding instead of claiming absolute knowledge. It doesn’t pretend to be humble by saying 'we don’t know everything' only to mislead people into irrationalism or harmful skepticism after that, instead, it genuinely keeps an open mind while insisting on rigorous testing and evidence.

Take, for example, the question of whether God exists. This cannot be experimentally tested, so logically, one must remain agnostic about it. If there’s no way to test whether a god can influence you, then the most sensible thing to do is not believe in it unless there’s proof. Imagine I give you a locked box and tell you that there might be a billion dollars inside, but you can only open it when you’re drowning in debt. How would you live your life? You could go on believing the money is there, fantasizing about what you’ll do with it and enjoying the feel good chemicals in your brain. Or you could make a backup plan in case there’s no money inside. The second choice is more realistic and forces you to be independent. If you later find out the money was there all along, great that's cherry on the cake, but blind belief won’t get you far. When something isn’t scientifically testable, you have to think critically about which choice makes the most sense and is the most advantageous.

That said, most people are actually agnostic in practice. They keep their religious beliefs mainly because of the privileges they enjoy from them. Luckily they aren’t dumb. Many don’t actually believe in a god but support religion because they think it keeps people moral. These people don’t trust democratic institutions alone to maintain social order, because democracy is inherently unstable and requires active participation, they don’t believe most people would actively participate in a democracy as they are supposed to. So their real argument is about security vs. human potential, whether people can be trusted to make good decisions or if they need rigid structures to control them. It might be true in the past but we have more room to take risks today. Religion isn’t great for democracy when it’s thriving, it actually holds it back from reaching its full potential but I can see it as a hedge against total collapse, if democracy falls and we’re stuck with dictatorship or pure chaos, it helps keep people united. Even though it’s a superficial system, it can still give society just enough structure to push back against extreme disorder and moral decline. And once things stabilize, democracy might get another shot.

But in the end, all of us will die. The question isn’t whether humanity will go extinct, but how we go extinct. It should be a heroic extinction, not a dystopian one. If climate change leads to famine and war killing billions, knowing that selfish choices by ordinary people led to it because the people in power didn’t provided the right incentives for ordinary citizens to make better choices, though not an extinction nonetheless that’s pathetic. But if an asteroid destroys Earth at a time when humanity was united, pushing the boundaries of science and morality, that would be a tragic but honorable end. This may seem like a separate thought, but in short, all I want to say is, taking intelligent risks is good. We can’t let our genetic tendency to seek irrational security hold us back from progress. We have already set out on this journey, and there is no turning back. We must move forward, reinvent ourselves, and shape a future worth living in. We have chosen to step into the cornstarch pool and now we must keep moving our legs or risk sinking.