"or something similar has nothing to do with evolution in nature where the great mother provides everything and there is nothing to be "sold" but all is given away."
Evolutionary negotiations exist in nature, and things acquired may be at a price.
All evolution is bounded in the same premise, which is that the entity must change in a profitable manner to evolve, where evolving is not a choice but an imperative. What profits a rabbit? It profits a rabbit to find new sources of sustenance in the Americas which did not exist in the land of it's origin, or to acquire snow colored fur is profitable for the rabbit living in the far north. White fur is acquired at the expence of being able to survive on a brown habitat. It may acquire a broad leaf morsel at the expense of its offspring or its own life depending on the negotiation with the local Eagle.
Nature evolves, systems evolve, individuals evolve, and groupings evolve according to their particular growth and change orientation. The driving force behind all evolution is the concept of profitability, wherein what profits an entity determines the direction of its evolution. Coinage means nothing to the rabit, the eagle or the computer system. Each must change/profit in the direction of its orientation. To reach the goal of artificial intelligence computer systems must evolve as systems developing self corrective and improving features. It profits computer systems therefore to change in that direction. Any entity that is unable to profit from change is destined for extinction.
Teacher is a specific evolutionary unit. What profits the teacher entity is improved capacity to educate. The financial issue is a distraction. Salaried teachers are people, where people are motivated by money. Corporate executives are people motivated by money too. Corporate executives are motivated to grow in their knowledge, and ability to have control or influence in their circumstance. Teachers are also people who like to grow in their knowledge, and ability to have control or influence over their circumstance. On these to factors we can say people are driven to grow similarly.
So what is different about the orientation of corporate executive and teacher besides that they are people. Corporations are designed to create wealth, which is an inseparable and endemic aspect of the role played by the corporate executive, it is a driving force and bottom line of their daily existence. Public education is designed to create knowledgeable and skilled learners, which is the central, inseparable, and endemic aspect of the role played by the public education teacher.
When therefore we look at people we say growing and prospering (in one way or another) is the normal avenue to evolving human systems and consciousness. When we view the roles of corporate executive and teacher as systems with an evolution of their own we can clearly state, corporations evolve as their bottom line of cash is improved, teaching evolves as higher educational achievement potential is improved. Reversing that direction is a corrupt avenue of catastrophic failure. When the corporation takes its eye off the bottom line to help individuals achieve their personal potential the corporation is at risk of its own demise. When the educational instituion takes its eye off the central issue of student achievement to help teachers acquire wealth, it like wise is put at risk of failure. For these reasons fair compensation should not be with out consideration but comparisons regarding economic rewards are like comparing apples and oranges. |
