Emeka, comments as yours make my writing worthwhile. You call me “DEAD wrong” but you took an effort in understanding my point and explaining your position. I learned from you as well.

Now, let me point a few weaknesses in your reasoning. You say that now “schools are no longer as useful as they used to be.” I doubt that human nature is now any different than a few generations ago. Schools did not change much either. The difference is in attitude toward school, as represented in Anastasia’s article. This makes schools not working as well as before.

I advocate for more math, because math helps us understanding things as astronavigation or car racing theory, that you ask for. Math cannot explain love; I learned in school that only fools can claim that they can explain love. But I agree that schools need to prepare a young person to be a whole human being, not a part of this or that machine.

I do not agree that challenges we have are ahistorical. As once a mediocre Polish politician said, history repeats itself, but never repeats itself literally. Future has great past, as one of my mentors used to repeat too often. Lastly, climate is not the problem.

You are wrong about essay writing. As a political writer, I often approach a new text with preconceived notions. But, as soon as I start putting my thoughts in writing, the rules of logical presentation that essay demands, force me to change my original view of the subject. In this sense, every day, we need to “write an essay” when presenting our case to wife, children, superiors, colleagues and so on. We lost this ability to communicate efficiently. Influenced by sitcoms, we try to win by witty lines, instead of reason and wisdom.

I skimmed a few of your articles. Did not have time to read them, but some I want to go back to. Nice meeting you.