The only real use I can see for an internet forum about philosophy is people who for one reason or another aren't in a position to participate in the academic philosophical dialogue but who find the subject interesting and want to talk to other people who also find it interesting. — Pfhorrest

I think one motivation is also as a form of "philosophical self-help". Ie. when people have a real problem IRL and they are trying to make sense of their situation via philosophical insight, so they come to a forum like this and discuss it here.
It's the old tradition of the consolations of philosophy.

So maybe I should amend my claim to “good discourse is the best remedy for bad ideas.” — DingoJones

The point is that that's too general.

Which doesn't work either. It's trivial to get a racist, for instance, to agree that such and such a deed or situation is regrettable: you'll see that here. Iirc I got NOS to agree that BLM aren't entirely unjustified pretty easily. Then they go to bed, go to that great reset button in the land of nighty-night, and come back reiterating the same shit as the day before. That's the problem with highly emotive irrational beliefs. — Kenosha Kid

Hence the methods for refuting irrational beliefs, such as Albert Ellis' here (I parsed and highlighted the text for clarity and repaired the strange hypenation):

If you want to increase your rationality and reduce your self-defeating irrational beliefs, you can spend at least ten minutes every day asking yourself the following questions and carefully thinking through (not merely parroting!) the healthy answers. Write down each question and your answers to it on a piece of paper; or else record the questions and your answers on a tape recorder.
/.../
Disputing (D) your dysfunctional or irrational Beliefs (iBs) is one of the most effective of REBT techniques. But it is still often ineffective, because you can easily and very strongly hold on to an iB (such as, “I absolutely must be loved by so-and-so, and it’s awful and I am an inadequate person when he/she does not love me!”). When you question and challenge this iB you often can come up with an Effective New Philosophy (E) that is accurate but weak: “I guess that there is no reason why so-and-so must love me, because there are other people who will love me when so-and-so does not. I can therefore be reasonably happy without his/her love.”

Believing this almost Effective New Philosophy, and believing it lightly, you can still easily and forcefully believe, “Even though it is not awful and terrible when so-and-so does not love me, it really is! No matter what, I still need his/her affection!”
Weak, or even moderately strong, Disputing will therefore often not work very well to help you truly disbelieve some of your powerful and long-held iB’s; while vigorous, persistent Disputing is more likely to work.

One way to do highly powerful, vigorous Disputing is to use a tape recorder and to state one of your strong irrational Beliefs into it, such as, “If I fail this job interview I am about to have, that will prove that I’ll never get a good job and that I might as well apply only for low-level positions!”
Figure out several Disputes to this iB and strongly present them on this same tape. For example: “Even if I do poorly on this interview, that will only show that I failed this time, but will never show that I’ll always fail and can never do well in other interviews. Maybe they’ll still hire me for the job. But if they don’t, I can learn by my mistakes, can do better in other interviews, and can finally get the kind of job that I want.”

Listen to your Disputing on tape. Let other people, including your therapist or members of your therapy group, listen to it. Do it over in a more forceful and vigorous manner and let them listen to it again, to see if you are disputing more forcefully, until they agree that you are getting better at doing it. Keep listening to it until you see that you are able to convince yourself and others that you are becoming more powerful and more convincing.


This is a treatment that a professional psychologist devised, and it's aimed for people who take up the effort of changing their beliefs on their own accord.

It's conceivable that something similar can be facilitated for an individual person by other people, even in a forum setting. But it would take a prohibitive amount of effort.

I think one motivation is also as a form of "philosophical self-help" — baker

That is certainly the case. Over the years quite a few participants have laid out personal problems, sometimes ethical dilemmas, and identifiable mental illnesses for "the group" to discuss. Serious cases (there were some) were strongly urged to seek psychiatric help. Depressed people, who number in the millions, are frequent philosoph-therapeutic 'patients'. Quite a few of our long-term regulars have experienced depression. My own experience with depression has been that IF one can change one's life circumstances to suit one's preferences, depression can get a whole lot better. Unfortunately, a lot of life circumstances just aren't easily changed. Bad jobs, difficult relationships, long commutes, loneliness, rage, boredom, anxiety, debt, and a dozen other conditions can't just be waved away. IF ONLY...

And sometimes events intervene and problems get resolved and life gets better--much to our surprise.

(My own experience with depression has been that IF one can change one's life circumstances to suit one's preferences, depression can get a whole lot better. Unfortunately, a lot of life circumstances just aren't easily changed. Bad jobs, difficult relationships, long commutes, loneliness, rage, boredom, anxiety, debt, and a dozen other conditions can't just be waved away. IF ONLY... — Bitter Crank

Yeah, last time I went to a therapist about as far as we ever got was a loop of her saying "there are two ways to change how you feel about a situation, change the situation or change how you feel about it", and me responding "yeah, I've tried and failed to change the situation, so now I'm here to change how I feel about it. How do we do that?" and never getting a straightforward answer.

This connects back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread, about giving people support and letting them know they're not alone in their views. Feeling all alone applies an irrational social pressure. When I'm the only person arguing for one side of a disagreement, I can feel the irrational social pressure to just give up and agree with the others, a feeling like I'm a bad person for disagreeing with "everyone else", even if rationally I see no merit to their arguments.
/.../
If it feels like there are others who will make my same points for me, or at least others who agree that the other side of the disagreement is wrong, then I don't feel social pressures at all -- I don't have to fight this fight, someone else will, or we can just be separate "tribes" and not be forced to engage -- and so I am more free to treat the discussion as a purely intellectual exercise, and make more reason-based decisions in it.

That's exactly why an important part of rhetoric is communicating to the audience that you are a good person who's on their side, trying to help them think through something, rather than attacking them. If they're in a social-conflict state of mind, they're not going to be open to reason. If they feel like they're among friends and figuring something out together, then they might be. — Pfhorrest

I can see your point, but a few signs of token appreciation just don't do it for me. In fact, it has the opposite effect.

So I guess you think membership into another group? Thats a superior remedy in your view? — DingoJones

Yes, to a very great extent. Although in such large amorphous groups as we move in nowadays, it's often virtual or imaginary social groups constructed by media.

But it being a criteria for social group membership isn't the only reason for adopting an idea. I'm just saying it's a very significant one among those who adopt ideas which, on the face if it, are very difficult to support rationally. Having adopted such an idea is a fairly strong indication that such a person isn't particularly swayed by an idea's being easy to support rationally. If they were, they'd unlikely have adopted the one in question.

And that's really the key problem By debating with such people, you're giving them an extra reason for holding their idea - it's taken seriously enough to be discussed by pseudo intellectuals - now they get to be members of both social groups, whatever one had the idea as its membership criteria, and those people serious enough to discuss ideas, it just makes them think "well, at least I'm being taken seriously, there must be something in this".

What's worse for a would-be intellectual, being disagreed with, or being ignored? Why validate the idea with a back-story that it might actually be one of the viable options in the great 'marketplace of ideas'?, even if the the satisfaction is double-edged (there've been numerous posts I've made that I would have preferred a full-throated attack on to the disinterested atrophy of mutterings that actually followed)?

I think that's the reason behind the phenomenon. As @Echarmion put it, which I pretty much agree with...

They all seemed to have a very rigid position with respect to some topic, or a style that would lead to never ending discussion.

My guess would be that getting banned was the only way they could claim they upheld their position "to the end", without giving ground. After all, when you're banned, you can't reply, even if you want to. — Echarmion

... like a junkie looking for an ever bigger hit, there's a desperation not to lose the attention the posts are getting from the illuminati, and to ensure that, the unreasonableness which caused the responses in the first place has to be constantly ramped up until it's eventually too much for the rules to accommodate. You see the same among the 'celebrity' polemicists, an ever increasing extremity to maintain their position in the spotlight.

That's exactly why an important part of rhetoric is communicating to the audience that you are a good person who's on their side, trying to help them think through something, rather than attacking them. — Pfhorrest

It's funny you should say this because it's pretty much the same reason I use to reach the conclusion about academic precedent which you evidently don't agree with, so it'd be interesting to hear how you manage to reach such a radically different conclusion from the same premise.

In science, there's probably a few score researchers in any specific field that might intersect with a philosophical outlook, maybe even into the low hundreds. In philosophy, lower numbers, but still relevant. All of them putting a considerable amount of effort into the "thinking through something" you're referring to. How much indication do you think it gives to them that you're on their side if people completely ignore all of their efforts when positing their 'theory', in favour of blank-slate declarations of what they 'reckon' is the case?

If you want people to read your arguments and say "me too..." then why not extend the same courtesy to everyone in academia who have been wrestling with the same topics your arguments relate to or touch on?

If you want people to read your arguments and say "me too..." then why not extend the same courtesy to everyone in academia who have been wrestling with the same topics your arguments relate to or touch on? — Isaac

Firstly, because I'm not in any kind of dialogue with them personally. It's not like they're hanging around forums like this for me to talk to. Also, a lot of them are dead. I can't personally tell Mill and Kant what I think about their ethical disagreements; I can only tell others alive today who visit the same places I have access to what I think about those prestigious dead people and their thoughts.

Secondly, because I don't do this for a living and so can't dedicate all of my time to being abslutely sure that I've read absolutely everything on a subject of interest to me before discussing it with others. If you insist that nobody share any of their thoughts on anything until they've done a thorough survey of all the most cutting-edge research in the field, you're asking that nobody but PhDs in a given topic ever discuss that topic, and so for informal discussion forums like this to stop existing.

(That is the overall impression that I get from you: that you're bothered that people who aren't perfect experts are talking about things, and basically want places like this to stop existing).

One thing I hope to learn by discussing things with others in places like this is who else has said what on the subject in question, from other non-professionals who may have a different incomplete picture of everything that's ever been said thus far than I do. And to do likewise for them. So we can all learn a little bit more about this topic that we're unable to dedicate our lives to being perfect experts at, but still find interesting nevertheless.

I see. So basically a difference between a consequentialist ethic and virtue ethic, I guess. I wouldn't disregard their contribution, not because they can (or do) actually read what I write, but because it's not polite to do so, regardless of the circumstances limiting the consequence. Same reason I wouldn't condone shouting racist expletives into an empty room. It's not right regardless of the fact that no-one can hear them.

Your second reason seems more odd though. I find it difficult to understand the seemingly contradictory stance of being interested enough in a topic to formulate a theory, refine it (evidently) and post it to a public forum, but not interested enough to type the question into a search engine (or better still a preprint server) and see who else has already put the time and effort into researching it.

There is a happy medium between making stuff up without a shred of preliminary research and doing a "a thorough survey of all the most cutting-edge research".

you're bothered that people who aren't perfect experts are talking about things, and basically want places like this to stop existing — Pfhorrest

I'm neither.

My interest is twofold. Firstly, I think there are circumstances where promulgation of ideas without evidence can be harmful and I'd like to see that minimised, but that's a fairly limited set. Secondly, my interest is in how people think. When I see some behaviour I think might have an interesting mechanism, I like to pursue it. This idea of wanting to discuss a topic with lay people but not wanting to read what experts have to say about it is just such a behaviour. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want to do that, yet evidently it is very popular. That intrigues me.

I'm guessing people want to give their ideas validity but without the risk?

This idea of wanting to discuss a topic with lay people but not wanting to read what experts have to say about it is just such a behaviour. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want to do that, yet evidently it is very popular. That intrigues me.

I'm guessing people want to give their ideas validity but without the risk? — Isaac

I think it's a kind of classism, sometimes reverse classism. It's about "knowing your place".

For example, the local university sometimes holds open philosophy lectures (well, it used to, before the lockdowns). But I wouldn't go there (again), even though I am interested in the topics (usually for tangible personal, practical reasons).
I am vividly and painfully aware that I am "not one of them", so I don't go. I wouldn't go to a philosophy forum that is "more serious" either (as in, where the requirement is that one has a degree in philosophy).

There's also the personal experience of professional philosophers looking down on me. Some pity or casual contempt. I certainly don't feel free talking to them, even when the opportunity presents itself.

The Elegance of the Hedgehog gives an account of this phenomeon, albeit the lady protagonist doesn't discuss stuff on the internetz (and I think she has a way too high opinion of herself and her philosophical abilities and knowledge).

It's a quick read. I think it will offer some answers to your question, if you haven't read the book yet.

There is a happy medium between making stuff up without a shred of preliminary research and doing a "a thorough survey of all the most cutting-edge research". — Isaac

I'm not sure if you're talking about me in particular here or about people more generally, but I do have a BA in philosophy and I have also read about it casually in the decade plus since graduation, so I myself am not coming at this from a point of zero preliminary research. If anything I would think "you have a degree in the topic already" would be too high a threshold for participating in discussion, even if "degree" only means BA (or even AA) and not PhD.

And I for one certainly don't look down on people who come here posting things unaware of the research that has come before them. I'm happy that they're interested in a topic that I can share knowledge about, and I like to encourage them when I think they're on the right track, point out counterarguments when I think they're not, and give them the names of authors who have written more on the subject if they want to read more.


One thing about you personally and your accusations of "making stuff up" that I've noticed is you seem to disregard the distinction between philosophy and psychology, such when someone proposes a philosophical framework as an interesting or useful way of thinking about things, you seem upset that they're not aware of empirical psychological research to the effect that people tend not to think about things that way, when those two things are not in conflict.

"X is a useful way to think about things" and "Y is how people tend to think about things" can both be true, no matter the X and Y. So people saying things like "try thinking of it this way, it dissolves problems with thinking of it that other way" doesn't contradict any scientific findings that people do think that other way. It's a matter of direction of fit: how do we think vs how should we think.

Interesting. What's odd about that phenomenon, if it's true, is that the condescension (perceived or otherwise), would be presumably based on exactly the course of action the offended parties then pursue in response to it - to make claims without research.

It's not as if the academic elite are above having to research and cite sources (albeit each other).

I don't doubt that there's snobbishness in academia, but it seems rather a bizarre wish that one be welcomed into a group for behaving in exactly the opposite manner to the accepted behaviour of that group. It seems a bit like being offended at being chucked out of a football club for carrying the ball.

Thanks for the book recommendation though. It does sound like an interesting read.

I'm not sure if you're talking about me in particular here — Pfhorrest

No, just your comment as quoted.

I'm happy that they're interested in a topic — Pfhorrest

...is the element I'm having trouble with. To me 'interested in a topic' starts with reading a book about it, or some journal articles. It doesn't start with presuming whatever I happen to reckon about it after a few minute's thought is probably right and I'd better broadcast it publicly.

when someone proposes a philosophical framework as an interesting or useful way of thinking about things, you seem upset that they're not aware of empirical psychological research to the effect that people tend not to think about things that way, when those two things are not in conflict. — Pfhorrest

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. That there's a distinction between how it might be useful to think and how people actually do think seems trivially true. The whole of clinical psychology is based on the premise. But these are not the claims I'm interested in at this level. I wouldn't respond to any claim of "we ought to...", with "you're wrong because people don't... Do your research!".

I wouldn't respond to any claim of "we ought to...", with "you're wrong because people don't... Do your research!". — Isaac

In another thread recently I was putting forth a philosophical conception of how (the concept of) willing should be understood in relation to (the concept of) desiring, with analogy to (the concepts of) perception and belief, and you replied with something derisive to the effect that I was making something up, as though you thought I was postulating a way that humans empirically do tend to think, rather than suggesting a useful way to think.

I'm suggesting in this thread that you seem to sometimes read what should charitably be understood as philosophy -- about the usefulness of concepts, even when it's not spelled out with "we ought to..." -- with claims about empirical psychology.

you thought I was postulating a way that humans empirically do tend to think, rather than suggesting a useful way to think. — Pfhorrest

Interesting. So how are you measuring 'useful'? I kind of presumed that any assessment that a way of looking at things might be useful would at the very least be based on the idea that it might somewhat reflect the way things actually are.

Whichever of our mental processes you're describing a 'useful way of looking at', they are carried out by a real and actual brain, and if the workings of the real actual brain preclude the mechanism you're advocating we imagine, I struggle to see how you might still judge it likely to be 'useful'. I would have thought a fundamental conflict with the way things actually are is a pretty good indication that a way of looking at them might not be so useful.

I do wonder about where humanity is going and it something which I probably have thought about since childhood. The last few years have raised so much query about the climate and ecology. The pandemic has raised questions about the stability of many cultures as well.

I find it hard to imagine what is going to happen exactly because life is becoming unpredictable. A year ago we would not have imagined that life would have been turned upside down as it has been. But while it is hard to predict, I think that it is about the most important topic for philosophy but perhaps many just flee from the intensity.

I think that it was great that the topic popped into this thread last night and probably took many by surprise. However, I would imagine that the topic won't really be discussed properly here. It is becoming a great long thread, with a jumble of ideas. One possible are for the discussion is in the matter could be in the thread I have going on disasters and where are we going? It is probably not the most popular thread but there were a certain amount of partakers in the discussion. Alternatively, one of you might wish to start a new thread if you think that you might catch a new audience.

Some ideas that REALLY ought not to be tolerated:
- eating babies
- performing scientific experimental surgery on unwilling living people without anesthetics
- inciting insurrection, riots, and revolutions
- effectively hiring others to kill a particular person
- exchanging recipes of untraceable deadly poisons
- grabbing Poossys
- poisoning the water supply of a city
- polluting the environment
- non-zero carbon emission
- global warming
- smoking (but vaping Cannaboids is okay)
- vaccing and waning

poisoning the water supply of a city — god must be atheist

Now you're really trying to annoy the right. :P I mean, take their liberties, their guns and their platforms, but don't tell them that companies can't kill hundreds of thousands of people through wilful poisoning of their water supply. Du Pont are heroes to these people.

I find it hard to imagine what is going to happen exactly because life is becoming unpredictable. A year ago we would not have imagined that life would have been turned upside down as it has been. But while it is hard to predict, I think that it is about the most important topic for philosophy but perhaps many just flee from the intensity. — Jack Cummins

The act of you already realizing that the future of society is unpredictable is already a clear symptom of the decadence that afflicts our civilization.

Like it or not, this current "globalization" is not sustainable for long periods of time. Homogeneity, on the other hand, is - it is not by chance that we had a 1000 years of a homogeneous and culturally similar Europe and Middle East during the Middle Ages -.

Again I will quote Rome:

- The old period called "Pax Romana" - Roman Peace - from 44 BC to 180 AD - - was a period of economic, social, cultural and moral prosperity within the already established society of Rome. Since you can currently travel from the USA to Russia moderately easy, the Britons could travel from their homeland - Britannia - to Egypt with such ease as well. The current global economic structure is a reflection of the "global" economy of antiquity - where the economies of the Roman Empire, Sassanian Persia, Han China andAksumite Ethiopia, were dependent on each other in a clear example of an economic organism -. It just takes that this peace lasts for a long period of time for humanity to stagnate. And after stagnation, what comes is decay.

It just takes that a group of events of gigantic scales decide to happen in the same space of 50 years for any society to collapse - a political, economic, and biological crisis was enough to bring Rome to its knees - where the Roman civilization would only rise again thanks to the drastic reforms by Diocletian - where the period named "Dominate" begins, a time of despotism and autocracy that would last throughout the following, Middle Ages - which completely changed the life of the Roman citizen - therefore, what guarantees that our civilization will be more resistant than that of Rome?

Where in Rome, the citizen became the serf, the warrior became the soldier, and the "Princeps Civitatis" - First Citizen - became the "Imperator" - Emperor -, in the west the citizen will become the proletariat, the soldier will be the revolutionary, and the President, the Dictator...

Interesting. What's odd about that phenomenon, if it's true, is that the condescension (perceived or otherwise), would be presumably based on exactly the course of action the offended parties then pursue in response to it - to make claims without research. — Isaac

It can be based on that. But in my experience, it's just a general disregard for lays, as in "Ah, you haven't actually studied philosophy at university, so you don't actually know anything, and so there's no point talking to you."

I don't doubt that there's snobbishness in academia, but it seems rather a bizarre wish that one be welcomed into a group for behaving in exactly the opposite manner to the accepted behaviour of that group.

(Are you American? I found that Americans have difficulty understanding classism the way (at least old-fashioned) Europeans do.)

No, there's no wish to be welcomed to that group. There is a sense of being excluded from it by default.
It's similar with other areas, esp. art. Someone who was raised the old-fashioned European way would consider it inappropriate that a person from the working class would go to the theatre or to a concert of classical music. It's unbecoming. And this belief is held both by upper class people as well as by the working class.

Problems emerge for the working class person who inexpilcably finds themselves with an interest in classical music, literature, or philosophy. Then they see for themselves what it means not to belong.

Thanks for the book recommendation though. It does sound like an interesting read.

Right, do so.

This idea of wanting to discuss a topic with lay people but not wanting to read what experts have to say about it is just such a behaviour. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want to do that, yet evidently it is very popular. That intrigues me. — Isaac

Another reason for this is that people who don't have a formal education in philosophy simply don't know how philosophy is done. They might even think that in order to produce a philosophical text, one simply sits down and puts pen to paper or finger to keyboard, and that's that. They don't see the role of a formal education in philosophy. They don't understand the role of research.

A formal education in philosophy (ideally) provides one with knowledges, esp. the meta-knowledge of the field, that is very difficult or impossible to obtain on one's own.

To be uncharitable, we could say that lay philosophers suffer very much under the Dunning-Krüger effect where they overestimate their abilities and lack the knowledge to be aware of their deficits.

This idea of wanting to discuss a topic... but not wanting to read what experts have to say about it... — Isaac

Sometimes it's just a matter of wanting to know the time without having to build a watch or understand the intricacies and finer points of watchmaking. But certainly a problem when the one asking refuses the answer and insists they already know the time and everyone else is wrong!

An acquaintance in the business of selling a certain kind of professional advice told his friend he would be greatly pleased to advise him for free, for so long as he took his advice. And it seemed to me there is a multi-layered wisdom in this.

I definitely see signs of decadence. Often, the signs of decadence come from religious parts of the population, but obviously we are speaking in a much wider sense. There is so much fragmentation in all aspects of life and it is becoming much more pronounced.

I find your historical picture and would imagine that have probably studied history in some depths. My own background is more a mixture of philosophy and psychology. So, you are probably more versed in the idea of cycles. I definitely believe that there are cycles and probably the way I had conceived cycles was more along the lines of the Hindus. I have even thought in terms of the astrological age cycles, such as the transition from the age of Pisces to Aquarius.

I definitely don't think that what we are seeing is just like the end of the middle ages. I would say that it is equal to the fall of Rome, if not more.The reason I say possibly more, is the whole climate concern and whether the earth could become uninhabitable.

I am just hoping that the whole pandemic might be a wake up call, to enable people to be more aware and revolutionary in thinking. I do wonder if it might be our last chance.

I find your historical picture and would imagine that have probably studied history in some depths. My own background is more a mixture of philosophy and psychology. So, you are probably more versed in the idea of cycles. I definitely believe that there are cycles and probably the way I had conceived cycles was more along the lines of the Hindus. I have even thought in terms of the astrological age cycles, such as the transition from the age of Pisces to Aquarius. — Jack Cummins

You know the phrase:

"Those who do not study the past are bound to repeat it"

This summarizes the entire recorded history of mankind - and I believe that it has been the same in the thousands of years in which we have not developed writing -.

In terms of "cycles", humanity - within history - has already gone through 2 - the "Collapse of the Bronze Age", and the "Fall of the Roman Empire" - and is currently going through another. To what extent we are bound to repeat this cycle cannot be answered, however, I believe in two possibilities for the end of this repetition:

1º: Humanity, at some point in the future, will become extinct, thus putting an end to the cycle.
or
2 º: We will transcend this cycle in some way, be it technological, psychological, biological, etc...

I definitely don't think that what we are seeing is just like the end of the middle ages. I would say that it is equal to the fall of Rome, if not more.The reason I say possibly more, is the whole climate concern and whether the earth could become uninhabitable. — Jack Cummins

Don't get me wrong, we are going through something equal to or worse than the fall of Rome.

And if we really fall, this will probably be the first and last time that we will reach the technological level we have today, as our entire civilization today is based on petroleum. The shallower pits have already been completely dried out, and the remaining ones are difficult to reach. If society collapses in any way, the technology for accessing these pits will be lost, and therefore, having no more access to the shallow ones, we - humanity - will be doomed to a technological future of equal levels if not worse than during the Modern Age - 1453 to 1789 -.

Yes, I think that the whole petroleum problem is the biggest one. Anyway, I have a couple of other replies from you on other threads. I will look at them tomorrow because my eyes and brain are tired out for today.

A number of environmentally oriented writers (like James Howard Kunstler and others) have pointed out how critical petroleum, in its many refined forms, is to the existence of the present (1850 - 2021) technological society. There is nothing as convenient and energy dense as gasoline; there is no easy method of replacing the many specialized plastics we depend on; there is no similar, inexpensive, and long-lasting lubricant as oil.

We have probably passed peak oil, which means that in the long run (next 150 years) oil will get steadily more expensive and more difficult to obtain until we can't.

The break of only a few generations of cultural reproduction which an environmental catastrophe could cause would affect everything, pretty much all negatively. The culture would regress back to "a world made by hand" as Kunstler illustrated in his several novels under that title. Gone would be most medicines, most medical equipment, medical training, and so on. The electrical production system would be very, very hard for people, without lots of trained engineers, to restart. Agriculture would continue on, but on an 19th century basis, IF we were lucky.

We probably would not be able to reknit an unraveled civilization.

We probably would not be able to reknit an unraveled civilization. — Bitter Crank

Some of my friends are still optimistic to the point of saying:

"Even if humanity, dependent on oil, collapses completely. In the future, the survivors, in a few hundred years, will develop new methods of technology that will have made them more advanced than even us today!"

Perhaps. But the likelihood of this is minimal. The Middle Ages lasted for a 1000 years. What guarantees that we will not have a 1000 years of stable stagnation in the future as we had in the past?

I can assure you that the current "overpopulation" concern will not materialize. We will probably go back to the 1 billion mark in the next 300 years - for comparison, Rome, in 117 AD, had 1 million inhabitants - the equivalent of a city today having more than 300 million people - and in 200 years, this population dropped to 50 thousand - the equivalent of the 300 million dropping to almost 500 thousand people - -.

I agree, the likelihood is minimal.

A few hundred years for recovery is plausible. I think it would depend on how much literacy were retained, and whether enough print and analog material survived (digitally stored information will be lost forever, most likely). A substantial group of readers with access to basic scientific, technology, and general knowledge books would make recovery much more likely. Knowledge won't make oil gush out of shallow wells, but it could direct efforts to recover, even with substantial handicaps.

This idea of wanting to discuss a topic with lay people but not wanting to read what experts have to say about it is just such a behaviour. I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want to do that, yet evidently it is very popular. That intrigues me. — Isaac

Two more things come to mind:


One, lay philosophers sometimes (often?) have a real problem that they are trying to get some perspective on. Like a dfficult ethical situation with a neighbor or a boss. They want to solve that problem, and they are not interested in philosophy per se. So their focus is rather narrow and they are under pressure to solve the problem, to make a practical decision one way or another (such as whether to file a complaint or not).


Two, some people see research and referencing merely as a necessary evil, or trivial at best. I've known people with college educations (what to speak of those with less) who think this way.
You can see this also in people's atittudes toward (academic) plagiarism -- some people just see no problem with taking an idea or a bit of text from someone else without noting where they got it from. Not necessarily because they'd have no problem with stealing or because they would want to appropriate someone else's ideas and pass them on as their own, but because they have no sense of intellectual property nor a sense for the existence of a network and history of research and researchers in a particular field. (They don't see their own work as being part of that network.)

If you've ever played a MOBA this would be "inting". — khaled

If this is inting, who gets the 300g?