From the original post:
During the first 15 years humans shouldn't be taught any subjects about how other humans have experienced this world. I mean nothing. Zero subjects. Children should only be taught how to think and not what to think.
Would you agree to "children should be taught to question what was thought by those who came before them?"
On a large scale, if children were never taught what other people thought, would the United States exist today? Most countries in history were bound by a religion taught in the home (and church) throughout childhood. Indeed, raising a child is nearly synonymous with teaching what you and your community believe.
The founding of the US with a seperation of church and state as a core tennant was a risk. To provide the glue needed to unify the nation, children were taught what to think. About underrepresentation, freedom of religion, equality, opportunity, and all the other things that drove people to migrate to the US from countries where the primary community bond was religion. I'm sure you have heard, "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it," and without knowing why the U.S. was founded, what would stop one community bound by their religion from breaking off and building laws that impose the will of their religion?
On a small scale, younger minds are simply more inclined to be selfish and gravitate towards immediate rewards or solutions. Romeo acted against how he was told to think, which is pretty equatable with acting how he wanted as if he had not been told how to think. Fiction, but could you not not picture a similar outcome (at least 5 dead) if a whole generation was raised to beyond the start of puberty without any moral guidance?
RE: Science Is Not The Answer to Everything