Yeah, I call BS. I don't know any insect with more than half a dozen specialized roles. Mankind surpassed that before we built pyramids.

Just think about how many unique professions are required before your daily job even starts to make sense. Someone is being paid to monitor a tank of fluorine compound so that it can be used to etch silicon wafers.

I don't think he's saying that a single species of insect will have specialists in many different roles. I think he's saying that there are millions of species of insects and each species usually specializes in one thing so that they can survive in a specific environmental niche.

I don't think specialization by humans is bad, but I agree that specialization can go too far sometimes. If the person being paid to monitor a tank of fluorine loses the ability to do their own laundry or hold a conversation because they are spending so much of their time developing fluorine tank monitoring skills it's kind of a waste. Part of the human experience is learning and doing lots of different things. Even if our economy rewards hyper-specialization that doesn't mean that a person's entire life has to be focused on their hyper-specialized job.

That's the whole point though: you don't need "to monitor a tank of fluorine compound so that it can be used to etch silicon wafers" if you're computing with clockwork or fluidics. (I'm not knocking silicon, just pointing out that there are alternatives.)

Also, humans are the only species that can run a marathon, swim a lake, and climb a tree. We are generalists.

Diversification is a huge luxury, which you can afford if you are worth over a 100 mil and focus your life on being diversified. Even then it's questionable whether you are able to bring it all together ala DaVinci, Alexander, Caesar, etc. Seems we are past that point in history.

Anyone ever figure out if even Heinlein himself accomplished those skills? Because, frankly, it makes a nice trope or whatever, but I question the literal seriousness Heinlein had when he wrote that. Perhaps as an early prototype of The World's Most Interesting Man, but not to be taken as a literal bucket list.

As an engineer and military officer that made a career of writing, was active in real estate and silver mining and politics, knowing not a single other thing about him, I assume (and I am, admittedly, erring a little on the side of generosity in my assumptions, but my goal is to aim for "is it plausible?" not "did he definitely?"):

-to change a diaper

-plan an invasion (navy officer)

-butcher a hog

-conn a ship (navy, engineer)

-design a building (engineer)

-write a sonnet (writer)

-balance accounts (numerate)

-build a wall (engineer)

-set a bone

-comfort the dying

-take orders (officer)

-give orders (officer)

-cooperate (officer)

-act alone (probably)

-solve equations (engineer)

-analyze a new problem (engineer)

-pitch manure

-program a computer (engineer)

-cook a tasty meal

-fight efficiently (officer)

-die gallantly (officer)

15 / 21 ain't bad, and the remainder aren't implausible either. A little googling suggests he was born in 1907 in Missouri, so he probably gets butchering a hog and pitching manure. Cooking a tasty meal is a fairly low bar for any functioning human to meet - that's 18/21.

He didn't have kids, so I'm not willing to grant him diaper-changing without a reason to. I can't find any medic training, so I won't give him setting a bone. And I'm not sure anyone knows how to comfort the dying.

18/21 is quite plausible. The remaining three are possible.

That list really irritates me.

> - to change a diaper

Ok? What if one never intends to have kids.

> -plan an invasion

For goodness' sake, why is that important outside of the military?

> -butcher a hog

Irrelevant to most people.

> -conn a ship

So? Are we in the navy or maritime service? A gent in Montana has no need of this,

> -design a building

Design, engineer, or build?

> -write a sonnet

Popular for schoolchildren. Says little. Interpretation of sonnets says more.

> -balance accounts

I'll give heinlein that.

> -build a wall

So?

> -set a bone

Useful enough, sure.

> -comfort the dying

Yeah, that's good.

> -take orders

Still not in the military

> -give orders

Still not in the military

> -cooperate

Sure!

-act alone

Sure!

-solve equations

What kind of equation? Arithmetic, algebra, calculus, analysis?

> -analyze a new problem

What kind of analysis? This is extremely specialized.

> -pitch manure

If manure matters in your life, otherwise: so what

> -program a computer

Useful to me, but not relevant to most people

> -cook a tasty meal

Sure.

> -fight efficiently

Still not in the military.

> -die gallantly

Baloney. The Great War should have cured him of this dream.

"Heinlein really likes the military" is my take away. Most of his vaunted list is deeply irrelevant to outright obnoxious to me. It's like reading a "bet you couldn't solve these problems 1850s kids had to solve" thing. Anchored in the past and a different priority system.

Should you be able to provide first aid, cook well, and work with others? Yes. Do reading, riting, and rithmatic? Yeah, sure. That's kind of what the point of the school system is for.

Honestly. No one will know everything, and no one should strive to be ignorant, misanthropic, and uncultured. I could size up my life and write a similar list, but it'd only be a reflection of my priorities in life.

> - to change a diaper > Ok? What if one never intends to have kids.

Then...one should still have that skill. I mean, I didn't have kids until my 40s and the only decade of my life where I didn't apply that skill was the first.

> -plan an invasion > For goodness' sake, why is that important outside of the military?

It's not, but Heinlein—and while some of the list might be more Long-the-character than Heinlein though the broad outline is clearly Heinlein, including at least the outline of the military focus of not the particular examples—(hardly uniquely in US history, one might note—this was a common belief among the founders) viewed military service, including leadership, as something one should be prepared to assume at need (whether on behalf of or against one’s government, as dictated by the need) not a profession for a distinct and isolated caste whose skills the rest of society could afford to neglect, and viewed the contrary view as incompatible with liberty. (I imagine that, had our adulthooda overlapped, as they didn't quite, I'd have been pretty far from Heinlein politically. But on this point, we could agree.)

> The Great War should have cured him of this dream.

That someone should be prepared to die gallantly at need does not imply that the Great War (or war generally) is particularly the occasion where such death was most likely to be called for. Certainly while Heinlein clearly believed it was possible that that could occur, one could hardly read his body of work without recognizing that he saw that possibility outside of war and, likewise saw much, if not most, death in war as pointless and unnecessary.

> Anchored in the past and a different priority system.

It may have been written a half century ago by someone whose formative years were a century ago, but I don't see anything particularly dated about it. It may speak to a different set of ideals than you hold, but I don't know why it is surprising or irritating that disagreement on that level exists.

The point is that we should have the ability to be self-reliant and shouldn’t rely on school or government to set the agenda for what’s important to learn. Make your own list. Step outside the bounds of what your job is and learn some other skills. Build a deck, drift a car, deploy containers in k8s, make jam, grow a garden, fight city hall, etc. The list is irrelevant just make one.

> Because, frankly, it makes a nice trope or whatever, but I question the literal seriousness Heinlein had when he wrote that.

I wouldn't take anything Heinlein put in Lazarus Long’s—or any other fictional character’s—mouth as representing his simple literal view unless Heinlein also said it directly in a nonfictional context.

You're not far off talking about "The World's Most Interesting Man". It's a quote from Time Enough for Love, which is about Lazarus Long, a genetically modified human who lives for 2000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long

Also consider that it's not as impressive a list as it rhetorically seems. If you spit into a crowd of people at least 30 years old, you'll probably hit a person who has done at least 10 of them, maybe more.

Also he doesn't say a human should have done all of them, only that they should be able to.

Which is an even lower bar, is it not?

I grew up reading books espousing this type of stuff, but the older I got, the more I realized how much of a pipe dream it is. As a kid, you think you can master everything, as an adult, you realize how much maintenance each of these skills take. So even if you "learn to fight" or "program a computer" well once, it will quickly fade if not maintained...for an hour or two a day. You can see how that short-circuits the list quickly.

See Lafferty's The Primary Education of the Camiroi for a satire of the genre.

(Carver Mead's "tall thin person", or the IBM "T-shaped" knowledge, is still possible, however.)

Once you start digging deep enough into problems to make a difference there is not enough hours in the day to be more than a dilettante in a more than a limited set of topics.

One does need some general skills, some of those listed above, but you'll definitly need first aid skills like stopping bleeding before learning how to set a bone. School is about the only place that systematically teaches general skills to everyone, not just people with paretns with enough time, skills and energy to do so or hire someone to do that for them.

Written, not by the author of Clan of the Cave Bear, but by the author of Stranger in a Strange Land.

Interesting.