See: https://flarum.ueberreguliert.de/d/11-academic-resources
These thoughts I have concluded while researching the root cause of what it is that annoys me so much about the modern state of Academia. I have opted to put them here, to keep things sensibly compartmentalized. They are not particularly refined, for I have a lot of work to do and may be revised later on.
One could conclude that Academia is the world of university, education, school and such. While these institution should teach the tools necessary to act with scientific rigor and ethically engage with the process of scientific discovery and it's results, the current state of affairs showcases a growing chasm between Academia and Science in itself.
Scientific discovery can be incentivized in many ways, e.g. intrinsically by curiosity (which can lead to building things like a Christmas Tree Cannon or a Titanium-Damascus Axe or a laminar flow rocket engine or the "Science Madness" and its community), or by necessity (the parental figurehead of invention) like during times of war, times in which many of the technologies we currently use have been pioneered or perfected (jet engines, radio communications, radar, sonar, ...) through sacrifice and literal blood, or industrious means.
Academia has - in the west - emerged first from the works of Philosophers , then became more and more institutionalized into a form that could be considered "Feudal". This is not surprising in the way that Academia was tightly integrated with both worldly affairs (think of Galileo Galilei, who did the minimal required effort to keep his patrons happy while he was more obsessed with physics,astronomy and mathematics. Ironically, one could consider his works the basis of modern navigation, rangefinders, even GPS - it certainly had a role in shaping such systems, as they rely heavy on ... physics, astronomy and mathematics) and the Church, which funded a lot of a scientific progress (but oftentimes would have preferred other results). Industrial pioneers too have advanced humanity, oftentimes taking existing ideas and making them more applicable to modern day life (see Tesla v. Edison, or Rockefeller).
The point is, scientific advancement can be motivated by many things, from intrinsic (curiosity) to extrinsic (e.g. war, for Oppenheimer and such might not have wanted to build the bomb, but they might have felt they had to). In the current state of Academia, the main driver for pursuing the career path of "Science" is the acquirement of a degree, e.g. a Bachelors, Masters or PhD title. The reason for pursuing these careers may be initially out of a desire for knowledge, but more often than not it is because they have become a requirement: "Degree inflation", "Credentialism" and similar have led to a situation where if one were to apply for an employment opportunity, one is not taken seriously as the company will state they wish for "at least a bachelors degree". But once that has been acquired, the "minimum is now a Masters degree". And finally, once that has been acquired, "a PhD". Yet, all jobs that would be available to the uneducated are also not possible - unless one is intransparent about ones education - as suddenly one is "overqualified".
Thus the original scientific curiosity is "beaten out" of the student, they must learn to become pragmatic and morally flexible, to learn political games and so on if they wish to have any chance at what is perceived as "success" in life. If it is really "success" is debatable.
Legacy systems like publishers exacerbate the issue, they cling to relevancy in a world where they are becoming more and more irrelevant, and thus must come up with strangest of mental gymnastics and quantifications (or adopt a sensible quantification, only for it to be then corrupted by the hubris of Academia, see h-index).
The person who refuses to play along in such a dysfunctional system, who takes a step back and considers the system in it's entirety from the outside, after having been on the inside, could be considered a lunatic. They must burn bridges, do things that they might not agree with to maintain their own integrity, principles and morality, and burn themselves out. On the other hand, maybe the person who decides to consider the situation they are in holistically in a differentiated manner - it is not that Academia is inherently evil, but that it has been disrupted/corrupted by the incredible advancement of technology, especially the internet - could paradoxically also be considered the sanest of them all.
The worst advice I have received in my entire life is to "just clench your teeth and get through it, for it is temporary only, and then it is not your problem anymore" when noticing systematic issues within school and university. I disagree with this whole-heartily, for this exact approach is what leads to accumulation of the little things, which in turn grow into bigger issues, which in turn lead to systematic issues like labor exploitation, the abuse of those on the lowest rungs of hierarchical systems. Ironically, the best advice I have gotten in my time in Academia was from a Professor, who I deeply respect, and it was "Do not underestimate the power that student have".
In a just society, it is the responsibility of each individual of the collective to ensure a legacy that advances humanity, and thus, it is the responsibility of each individual of the society to create better conditions for the generations that follow. Many times I have been confronted with the old "But I didn't have it any better, I had to do ..." as if this were a justification for maintaining inherently unjust systems. This it is not, instead, it is a measure of character: It shows a willingness to put the own Ego above others, to be willing to carry over the own trauma onto those who come after. Yet, "burning down" a legacy system is also not the correct way of enacting change. This is the mistake that Ted Kaczynski had made, despite his intelligence he came to the conclusion that killing people (which is in most cases inherently unethical, and in others questionable at best) would be the best way to raise awareness. It is the same mistake that Luigi Mangione allegedly had done. While the actions of United Healthcare are reprehensible, unjust, disgusting, unethical and so on, the solution is not killing people.
The only sensible way to enact a change towards a more just society is to build, to do better and to lead by example. It is to say "No", firmly, when being subjected to conditions that one finds unbearable and to question why the situation is unbearable.
Even people who objectively try to do good, with which many I have worked, have the capacity for cognitive dissonance: While they say that nurses and such should be paid fair wages, they at the same time have no problem with companies exploiting students in Thesis projects or Internships. It is not because they are evil, but because they do not know better, that they act in this manner. It is because they have went through such exploitation themselves.
The current state of the world seems insane. We have had, in Europe, many years of peace since the end of World War 2. We have rebuilt and prospered. It cannot remain unstated that the success of Europe is built on the backs of the third world, on the back of the miners in Africa who acquire the rare materials and minerals in hazardous conditions, who sacrifice themselves for us. Not because they want to, but because they have to.
Earth is a bountiful and beautiful planet. It is our own hubris that creates the suffering, our incessant drive for more. While that is certainly depressing, it is not a reason to fall into apathy or inaction. Change is on the horizon. Recently the European Union has adopted a new regulation to make smartphones repairable again. Circular economy and similar philosophy is starting to emerge, one could say, but this concept has existed throughout the ages: "Waste not, want not". The comment section upon the Hackaday post is a most amusing read.
Technology in general is a triple edged sword: The splitting of the atom can be used spin things really fast which can make a lot of electrical energy. The same principle can be used to quickly and effectively depopulate (kill) a city. Imagine for a moment the "Killdozer" guy had access to the same technology as Ukraine has in the ongoing conflict - they pioneered the usage of drones for surgical strikes deep within enemy territory. The scary part is: Anybody with sufficient resources and motivation could do so.
In some fictional works, technological achievement is revered - such as the "Adeptus Mechanicus" in Warhammer 40K, who utilize technology but don't really seem to understand it (from the little I have been exposed to W40K, I prefer WD-40). The concept that things may have souls is nothing new, like the Kami in the Shinto practice in Japan, Hinduism, some Finnish or Samà beliefs, Daoism (in a way), and much more animism style practices. In the time I have spent with precision mechanics - people who build machines that manufacture the parts for cars and such - I have been taught to "listen to the machine song". This practice has raised a few eyebrows - in a recent project, I have worked with an American, and a pump sounded wrong. So I told him the pump is problematic, and the American didn't understand what I meant, because it seemed to be working. It was a good pump, and the issue resolved itself - later investigation found it was a piece of rubber that had made it's way into the system and was being mangled by the pump. As such, I treat a machine as if it had a spirit, as something one could consider having a type of spiritual conversation with - the point of that is not spiritualism or occultism, but it forces one to respect the machinery. By listening to the sounds it makes, the shifts in pitch and frequency, a trained ear can already determine that something is about to go wrong, and an experienced craftsman might even be able to tell you what exactly will go wrong, for such a person understands the machine intimately. Such skills can only be acquired by experience and practical work, they are difficult to teach.
In Academia, I have come to notice that almost all my knowledge pertaining to such issues has come from outside of the formal education system, with the notable exception of craftsmanship - which was a required internship. While I still believe that no work should go uncompensated, for to expect labor without monetary compensation is inherently exploitative and unethical unless the person voluntarily agrees to do so, without being coerced into doing so by circumstance (e.g. to say that unpaid internships are ethical because a student may have agreed to do so is incorrect in my opinion, as the intent of the student in the current state of Academia/Economy is not the pursuit of knowledge, but because businesses demand experience and either do not provide any alternative to gain such experience or do not recognize such alternatives) it remains unethical and exploitative.
To be continued, I have work to do...(and probably should place these thoughts into another section, for it is now not compartmentalized, and I cannot stand that).