Not art
Art is an expression of ethics, emotions. It's not something that can be taught. However, meddling in early ethical development can lead to problems. I.E, what if a socialist teacher was to show only protest art to a class? Shape their future political views?
It's possible, but that's why parents should get involved to make sure the trust invested in a teacher is well spent and teachers should be trained and screened to be teachers, not shills. If you're not going to take the chance to better the next generation for fear that someone's going to abuse the system somewhere no matter what, you're declaring the venture forfeit without actually viewing its merits.
No comment, as I sit in my picturesque house surrounded by a city of brutalist, renaissance and post-modern architecture. A POX ON YOU
But seriously, you're wrong on this one for the lesser reasons.
Dirty peasant. Surrealism is where it's at. Melting Big Ben at twelve bong? Wonderful.
Actually, I would disagree. Due to indoctrination by socialist art teachers...
I DECLARE MIGHT OF SOVIET REALISM SUPREME
Here I was saying simply how the schoolyard, socialising, all that can do wanders for those two attributes.
True enough. Art for empathy's really just an additional benefit, not a basis for implementation.
Ideas are easy, expressing them can sometimes take some help. What should teachers be able to do?
That's the thing. I don't know. Maybe a centralised curriculum from some art authority to prevent government meddling.
Like a board of education founded by teachers? That'd be how I would do it, at least from the start.
Not a lot more. They accomplished incredible things, but they can't just " More tanks! More troops!" They could make lots of incredible things, but just not really incredible things.
NASA has sent a rover where?
The only reason why a spacebot harvesting minerals with lasers seems normal is because NASA has made it seem normal to us. They're really underfunded.
Yes, but in general these are used to kill people with greater efficiency, not to better humanity.
Technology sought after to better kill humanity will also result in technology sought after to better counter the technology used to kill humanity. Arms races result in leaps of innovation and applied technology.
Generally R&D is an area of institutions that I would put as much as would be sensible into, no matter if it be say; medical or military. To say all military R&D is for killing is a massive overstatement, a lot of this stuff will end up in the civilian markets and a lot of our survival orientated tech. comes from guys with guns, glasses and labcoats.