Unless your education was complete crap, you still learned what you were supposed to learn which was a skill with certain KINDS of tools, allowing you to move on and use better tools than what they used in your classes. At worst you learned what not to do and what tools not to use, which is still very valuable knowledge.

Hell it doesn't even have to be "sharing" so much as reciprocity and symbiosis. It's not like you were born fully formed with the knowledge you now have. Your parents were not the only ones that supported your existence, after all who supported theirs?

If someone really doesn't want to give in return, there is always the option of leaving...

We live in a system and the system has to be looked at as a whole. The give and the take. Investing in the well being off others pays dividends in your improved quality of life.

Why would things be different under the proposed system? We don't have slaves now, and those jobs get done. They typically have higher pay to compensate for the undesirable aspects of the job or risk associated with them. Someone is choosing to do those jobs instead of other more desirable jobs.

In one scenario you have a choice between Y+0 compensation for job J_Y and X+0 compensation for J_X, Lets assume that J_X is the more undesirable job. The proposed scenario is that you would have a choice between Y+B and X+B, where B is a minimum stipend to cover the cost of existence in society. At worst, Y is going to be commensurate with B. The relevant metric is going to be the ratio (X-Y)/B. In the worst case scenario that boils down to X/B - 1. If the difference in pay for the undesirable job was high, then (X-Y)/B is high and you would still choose to do the undesirable job for its higher compensation. If (X-Y)/B was small then the difference between X and Y is small and if you're smart you would be working the more desirable job for slightly less pay.

The only places where B would have a negative impact on jobs is when X/B-1 is negative. Its better compensation for doing nothing. Since B is so small anyway, any job where X/B-1 is negative is essentially exploitation. You shouldn't be working that job anyway as it doesn't sustain your existence.

To a computer there is no difference between "good instructions" and "bad instructions". Any ability to update or improve existing code is also a vector for getting infected by malicious code. You can either allow updates and risk infection, or you can hard code the firmware and disallow updates, but then you're stuck with whatever the firmware is at the outset.

It's not broke. It's just upgradable. Unless you have solid protocols to control who can upgrade and what upgrades are applied, you are at risk of getting a malicious "upgrade". Even with good protocols, an attacker can mimic the appearance of an authorized upgrader and fake the certification of the upgrade to get a malicious payload installed.

Nature is riddled with this kind of phenomenon. Undesirable mate X tries to present itself as desirable mate Y to inject its dna into the replicator.

They have a new crafting skill specializing in tomato farming!?!

Atheism vs. Religion creeps its way into everything, eh? I am neither religious, nor atheist, nor would I label myself agnostic. I think if we look below the surface of the mantra "atheism is a lack of belief" we will find that there is still an ardent position at play. I've always found it curious how a lack of belief about something could still lead to an intense/defensible position. There is some personal identity wrapped up with the self-label of being a particular theist sect or atheist. The philosophic position of Atheism is a corollary to a general epistemic disposition: Do not believe in the existence of something without significant evidence for its existence. I don't know what the proper label is for someone whose belief system is such. Perhaps we should just call it part of being rational.

There is something going on when a person points to Atheism and Atheist, over simply being rational. Why fixate on the particular sub-domain. Why fixate on the conflict specifically with those who are religious? If we honestly take the time to examine ourselves we will find that we are not rational in many of our existential beliefs. So fixating on the demand to be rational about religion but not broadening our scrutiny to other domains is indicative of something more than just a "lack of belief in theism". The narrowed focus onto the specific topic of theism is putting a chip on one's shoulder. It's a line drawn in the sand and saying anyone that crosses this line is going to get at least my scorn.

To me this is where the "atheist" (subscriber to atheism) becomes religious (defensive) about their belief in the rightness of their lack of belief in a deity.

History IS a shared mythos. Unless you're an archaeologist and cross referencing all the primary sources to get your own accurate picture of what happened in history, you're trusting someone else who claims to know what happened. It is in essence a mythology that everyone is "educated" into believing that it actually happened. And even as an archealogist/historian, you are interpreting the evidence with confirmation bias through the history you were taught to believe in.

Giving Johnny an F because he didn't parrot the history text book on an exam or paper is no different than giving Johnny an F in bible class for getting his bible stories wrong.

History is Mythology. It's the same kind of faith applied to a difference in grandeur in the objects being believed in.

It starts out at 0 for being posted by an AC. Likely no one has modded it one way or another.

That or they just like to brush after every meal, trust their fellow bathroom users not to scrub the toilets with their brush, and can afford to keep duplicates of their hygiene utilities at the place they spend around half their waking hours. ... Neurotic I tell you, they're all neurotic.

Ah yes, the old snort signature. Using the resonance of a person's nasal and sinus cavities as they inhale their blow vigorously through a $100 bill. I hear they still use children blind from birth to identify the snort signatures of perps. No FFT algorithm has been able to compete.

No, but you can get some semblance of your freedom back. (modulo any trauma endured during incarceration which alters your personality and decision making.)

loyalty is an antiquated concept. Loyalty implies a sacrifice of autonomy and critical thinking. A loyal dog will protect its master regardless of whether or not the master is truly worth protecting. Loyalty is a component of social or group-identity. Often loyalty is part of a pyramidal power structure. Those at the top demand loyalty from those at the bottom in order to maintain their control over the bottom. Loyalty is already a divisive and conflict oriented mentality. An independent rational critical thinker has no need for loyalty. They will form alliances with those who share the same values, but the "loyalty" is to the values, not to the persons they are in alliance with.

Think of all the uses of loyalty. Knights are loyal to their king, employees loyal to the company they work for, sons and daughters loyal to their parents, and relatives loyal to the family. In all these cases, that which is "loyal" is placing blind trust in something they do not really know to be trust worthy. They have to turn off their critical scrutiny in order to be loyal...

Well you've certainly gone liberal with your use of grammar....

Does the genetic component matter as much as the memetic component? It's about the ideologies. And the question then is how is Hilary different ideologically from Bill. Given that they weathered a sex scandal and still together, I'd say their ideologies are in alignment enough to create a very strong attraction to each other.