Just cut out the arts then they will all be feral children. REH
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:01 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Another injustice in the job stakes > We are already "dumbing down" smart kids so they will "fit in" and not be > called nerds. And we are skipping through dumb kids so they will "seem" to > be smart. > > So even though it may not be true that "all men are created equal" we darn > well intend to use the best of science and techn to achieve that outcome. > > Note to Ray: Beware those who are "excessively creative." Somehow got to > dampen their enthusiasm. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:45 AM > To: Harry Pollard > Cc: Selma Singer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Another injustice in the job stakes > > > Harry, > > Besides the necessity of affirmative action in the case of American blacks > at university and job selection and perhaps in the army and politics, too, > perhaps we ought to have affirmative action in the case of another > unfortunate inequality which affects people's prospects in life. > > I refer to the gross injustice of being short in stature. There is > compendious evidence that if you are tall you not only tend to be better > than average at basketball and tennis, you also get the best chicks in > teenagerhood, and the best jobs in adult life. I think we ought to consider > the necessity of injecting carefully measured aliquots of growth hormone > into young boys at puberty so that all males grow to be exactly the same > height when they become adult, so that the "coming through the door effect" > when attending interviews is equal for all. > > Indeed, the beginning of this new Orwellian scenario might actually be > happening now -- as you can read in the following NYT article by Natalie > Angier: > > <<<< > SHORTCHANGED > Short Men, Short Shrift. Are Drugs the Answer? > > Natalie Angier > > Hail America, land of the speedy and home of the shaved, where the list of > short things we love keeps getting longer. We love brief wars and > abbreviated weapons, instant messaging and prescient gratification. A > duchess said you can't be too trim; editors say the same about stories. > > But the one thing we don't like short and never have is our men. There is a > harsh rule of thumb about male height, and it measures six feet and > counting. As study after study has shown, tall men give nearly all the > orders, win most elections, monopolize girls and monopolies, and > disproportionately splay their elongated limbs across the cushy unconfines > of first-class cabins. By the simple act of striding into a room, taller > than average men are accorded a host of positive attributes having little > or nothing to do with height a high IQ, talent, competence, > trustworthiness, even kindness. > > And men who are considerably shorter than the average American guy height > of 5-foot-9 1/2? These poor little fellows are at elevated risk of dropping > out of school, drinking heavily, dating sparsely, getting sick or > depressed. They have a lower chance of marrying or fathering children than > do taller men, and their salaries tend to be as modest as their stature. If > they are out striving to make their mark, they are derided as "Little > Napoleons." Call them whatever you please, and chances are you won't get > called on it, for making fun of short men is one of the last acceptable > prejudices. > > Small wonder, then, that an advisory panel for the Food and Drug > Administration has just recommended that the agency approve the use of > genetically engineered human growth hormone for healthy children who are > "idiopathically" short - that is, children who are at the bottom-most tail > of growth curves, yet who, unlike a small subset of very short children, do > not suffer from growth hormone deficiency. Children with innate hormone > deficiency are given hormone shots to very noticeable effect without the > treatment, they would be true midgets, perhaps under four feet tall as > adults; with the shots, they are brought up to low-normal heights. > > Yet ever since the biotechnology business began synthesizing potentially > limitless supplies of the drug 20 years ago, doctors have been using it in > off-label fashion to treat children who for unknown reasons are quite > short, maybe in the lowest three percentiles of their age group. The > results have been what might be called whelming, in some cases adding as > much as 3 1/2 inches to a person's projected final height, in others maybe > no more than an inch and change. Still, the scientists on the advisory > panel were persuaded > enough by the hormone's relative safety and measurable if modest effects to > recommend all-around treatment for the seriously subcompact among us. > > Whether the F.D.A. takes the advice will not be known until later this > summer, if even then. Yet already the moral trichotillomania has begun. Why > are we so obsessed with height, particularly among men? Women, after all, > often like to be called petite, though women in law, business and other > high-powered professions who are below the female average height of > 5-foot-5 claim that their diminutive stature makes it hard for them to be > taken seriously. > > ARE we really willing to subject our kids to buttock or thigh injections > three to six times a week, year after year, just so that the local Dudley > Dursley will taunt them about their big ears and good grades, rather than > their stature? Aren't people like the Dutch, among the tallest populations > on earth, with an average male height of over six feet, really the human > equivalents of SUVs, barreling heedlessly along, sucking up more than their > fair share of precious resources like oxygen? And who will pay for the > treatments anyway, which can run $20,000 a year? > > "If the F.D.A. approves the drug for wider use, insurance companies won't > have to pay for it, but it may be harder for them to say no," said John D. > Lantos, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical > Ethics at the University of Chicago. "Then the cost of the treatment ends > up being collectively subsidized, and we have to wonder, is this the best > way to spend limited health care dollars?" > > Can't we instead tell our short child, listen, Brunelleschi, the founding > architect of the Italian Renaissance, was short, and ugly too; Picasso was > only 5-foot-4 and Voltaire an inch beneath him; and one way to stand tall > is to do stand-up? > > "There's some interesting data that short men are overrepresented among > comedians," said Henry B. Biller, a co-author of "Stature and Stigma The > Biopsychosocial Development of Short Males." > > To which this 5-foot-3 1/2-inch woman can only sigh, Ha! The data in favor > of lofty stature is too mountainous to ignore. For every extra inch of > longitude, a man adds 2 percent to his yearly income. Maybe 60 percent of > American chief executives are six feet or taller, and according to Nancy > Etcoff of Harvard Medical School, author of "Survival of the Prettiest," > only 3 percent are 5-foot-7 or shorter. American presidents are also big > offenders, a tradition begun by George Washington, who at 6-foot-2 loomed > by at least eight inches over most of his contemporaries; and since then, > nearly half of our presidents have been of Dutchly dimensions. Famously, > the taller of two presidential candidates nearly always wins the election. > Carter beat the taller Ford in 1976, but couldn't dodge Reagan's three-inch > advantage four years later. > > Tall men certainly know the allure of their height. In the personals of a > recent issue of New York magazine, for example, fully half of the men > seeking women described themselves as tall. Women, by contrast, if they > mentioned their height at all, tended to give an exact measurement, perhaps > to discourage men below that mark from writing in. Dr. Etcoff notes that in > one study of married couples, less than one-half of one percent of the > women were taller than their husbands. > > Yet ultimately, height may be as much a matter of attitude as of altitude. > In one recent study, Andrew Postlewaite, professor of economics at the > University of Pennsylvania, and his colleagues Nicola Persico and Dan > Silverman, determined that what really counts for a man's professional > success in life, heightwise, is not his adult height, but the height he was > in high school. > > "If you take two people who were 5-foot-6 in high school, and one grew to > 5-foot-7 and the other to 6-foot-1," said Dr. Postlewaite, "there would be > no predictive difference in their adult income." Whether that is because > one's physique in those critical years of puberty sets the thermostat of > self-confidence and swagger, or whether short teenagers, who tend to avoid > sports and other group activities, fail to master the nuances of team > spirit considered crucial throughout most of the business world, Dr. > Postlewaite > cannot yet say. "Clearly something happens in high school that has > important long-term effects," he said. > > Maybe you can't go home again, but with homeroom, you can never leave. > >>>> > > New York Times 22 June 2003 > > > > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
