FUEL FOR THOUGHT

A new treatise that urges educational overhaul, political inequality, and atheism as potential strategies for revitalizing civilization.

Software engineer and product manager Wilensky surveys fundamental aspects of modern society that he feels are desperately in need of a rethink. Chief among them, he asserts, is an educational system that teaches children nothing but conformism and soon-to-be-forgotten factoids; instead, he argues, instructors should stimulate kids’ curiosity and creativity, teach them critical thinking skills, and raise them to be “thinking machines” who “reason reflexively.” Wilensky also condemns religious belief as the fountainhead of irrationality, intolerance, conflict, and so much “false and often foul doctrine” that “religious inculcation…of young children is equivalent to child abuse.” To counter such conformism, he recommends “changing the environment” so that everything children are exposed to “reflects in some way a worldview embracing science and reason, while at the same time rejecting religion and belief in the supernatural.” The author also takes issue with one-person-one-vote democracy, which he says yields a “mediocracy” in which ignorant people are manipulated into electing corrupt hacks. Wilensky presents his opinions in lucid, plainspoken, but high-minded prose: “It may sound obvious, but we need to make a conscious effort at every turn of our lives to be more virtuous, compassionate human beings.” He offers some engaging explanations of complex concepts, such as the Darwinian evolution of human moral intuition and the falseness of unfalsifiable arguments, and he explores some imaginative potential reforms, such as teaching all kids chess and debate skills to sharpen their wits. Sometimes, though, Wilensky’s drive to optimize society launches into dystopian notions that many readers will perceive as incompatible with freedom, such as a requirement to obtain a parenting license to have children and an elitist electoral system in which a so-called superb class of voters, who score high on critical-thinking tests, have votes that count more than those of people the author calls “subpar.” Such ideas are likely to strike readers as alienating and even frightening.

A bold but not always appealing blueprint for the future.