The problem is that there are an overwhelming number of choices when it comes to what to do with one's life. Parents need to at least make it clear that there's a relatively small subset of these choices which are acceptable. (Not a handful of choices, but maybe a couple dozen or so.)
This hits the nail on the head. It's not that people don't understand the syntax or even the semantics of programming languages (well, some people can't write a for loop, but they're just hopeless). It's that they can't see how to use the language to get from point A ("I want a program that does x") to point B (an actual program that does x). For instance, when I first began programming, I struggled mightily with deciding how to represent real-world data. Other people might be able to decide how to represent data, but become hopelessly stuck when it comes to turning their verbal descriptions of tasks into actual algorithms. I think that this is why so many people go on programming interviews and then can't actually solve simple programming problems: they do fine when they're taking exercises from books, but they can't concretely conceptualize the solution to an even slightly ambiguous problem.
While I agree that we shouldn't put people into boxes (figuratively or literally), the problem with what you're suggesting is that people become depressed when they don't know what society expects of them. This may be inconvenient, but it's true. Telling someone, "You can do whatever you want with your life; we're not going to tell you what to do" is effectively telling them, "We're not going to tell you what society values and expects from you; you won't get any guidance from us." It can be almost as bad to have too much choice as it is to have too little.
I don't want people to get the impression that weight-lifting inevitably leads to injury. This guy was seriously overdoing it or had poor form if his body was "shot" after two years. If you want to do low-rep, high-weight lifting, make sure that you get plenty of rest and don't do tons of volume. Find a program designed by a reputable strength-training coach (such as Mark Rippetoe or Bill Starr) and don't modify it. If your form is good, you don't do more volume than you should, and you're eating properly, your body certainly won't be "shot" after two years.
This is going to sound extremely cynical, but I believe that there's another reason why people enjoy coming up with ideas while in the shower or driving or taking a walk or...etc.
When you're doing one of those things, you can't actually do any work towards implementing the idea--but you can imagine all of the things that you're going to do as soon as you're able to (which, of course, you won't do).
In the shower there is no pressure to actually do something. You don't come up with ideas at your computer because you'd be confronted with the fact that if you really wanted to, you could begin implementing one of those ideas immediately.
I agree, with the caveat that it shouldn't be done on a curve. College should be much harder than it is, but it should be theoretically possible for everyone in a class (of super-geniuses) to graduate.
That's what he said. The parents would pay you a flat rate (today's tuition) and you would pay their kid's tuition 10-15 years from now. Assuming the bubble burst before then, you would make the difference in price between today's tuition and the tuition of the future.
Your only valid point is that the replacement organisms might be more dangerous to humans. I find your callousness toward human suffering repulsive. If I could press a button that would instantly wipe out any and all animal species which cause human suffering without any negative consequences, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Maybe we could--GASP!--teach them trades based on their interests and aptitudes. The current system is best described by the following Marilyn Manson lyrics:
"Trained to be stupid/Taught to be nothing at all/We're taught to be nothing"