The Future of Humanity: What are the Scientific, Ethical and Political Obstacles and Possibilities?

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this post because it is an area which I think and read about so much. It is also partly in response to discussion which I had with Pattern-chaser today about the nature of capitalist values and the possibility of extinction of humanity. I would add that while I speak of human extinction I am not wishing to focus on humans entirely because if events of a catastrophic nature occur it is not only people but all sentient beings who are likely to become extinct.

One book on the topic is, 'On the Future: Prospects For Humanity', by Martin Rees, (2018). In this he speaks of the risks which affect human beings, future generations and the planet. He suggests the importance of global and long term effects being taken into consideration in thinking about threats which are apparent. He suggests that the,
'future depends on making wise choices about key societal challenges: energy, health, food, robotics, environment, space, and so forth. These choices involve science. But key decisions shouldn't just be made by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate.'

Rees was thinking of catastrophes and risks prior to the time of the pandemic of Covid_19 and the war tensions in Ukraine. One of the key issues was climate change. In creating this thread, I am thinking of all these significant issues and how catastrophes, disaster and risks can be thought about in terms of science, ethical and political values. I am hoping that in linking these together that I am not creating a topic which is too wide in scope or overwhelming. However, the rationale for linking them is that the various catastrophies, including war, ecological crisis and impending risks have profound implications for the future, dependent on how they are approached, especially by political leaders.

What are your thoughts and ideas about the areas of concern at this particular point in history? How useful is philosophy in thinking about science, ethics and politics in these matters and in thinking about the future?

[Sy Borg]

The future for all life is death, and the future of all non-living things is dissolution.

In the meantime, we can expect increasing inequality and separation between the ultra rich and the rest, with the middle class shrinking. That is, humanity's fates are not shared, but variable. As other species are increasingly made extinct, the poor will take their place at the bottom of the ladder.

I can certainly see value for stoic philosophy in difficult times. Theism will not doubt boom because, the more people there are living in abject poverty, the more the tendency to think "There must be something better than this life". Existential thought, not necessarily the philosophical school, but generally large-scale thinking can prove useful for those seeking to find objective meaning.

[heracleitos]

the nature of capitalist values

The problem is the fiat banking ("bankstering") system, and not capitalism:

Allah has permitted trade but forbidden usury.

We live in a world where the banksters conjure money up out of thin air, and lend it to speculators for a usurious fee. Head, they win. Tails, the taxpayer pays.

Would they bail you or me out if we lost at gambling?

We live in a socialist world dominated by welfare payments to corporate interests. We do not live in a capitalist world.

'future depends on making wise choices about key societal challenges: energy, health, food, robotics, environment, space, and so forth. These choices involve science. But key decisions shouldn't just be made by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate.'

So, that amounts to letting the same people, who created the problem in the first place, to do that all over again.

There is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

Therefore, instead of allowing them to tell other people what to do, and to spend other people's money, the solution is rather to force these people to put skin in the game. Let them finally prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

Rees was thinking of catastrophes and risks prior to the time of the pandemic of Covid_19 and the war tensions in Ukraine.

It is the Statist covid panic football that caused a catastrophe, and not the virus itself.

Same for Ukraine.

The plan has always been to stoke war tensions in Ukraine in order to effect regime change in Russia. They have always wanted Putin gone, and they definitely intend to fight till the last Ukrainian to achieve that.

They have even blown up the Nordstream pipelines to prevent Europe from reconciling with Russia.

Still, now that the Pentagon has largely been neutralized by the Afghan hill tribes, the last thing standing between the world and peace, is the end of the dollar. Fortunately, that seems to be approaching fast now.

[Sy Borg]

One obstacle to progress is the existence of ever more people who are absolutely certain about their unreliable opinions. This dynamic may yet destroy democracy.

[GrayArea]

I am writing this post because it is an area which I think and read about so much. It is also partly in response to discussion which I had with Pattern-chaser today about the nature of capitalist values and the possibility of extinction of humanity. I would add that while I speak of human extinction I am not wishing to focus on humans entirely because if events of a catastrophic nature occur it is not only people but all sentient beings who are likely to become extinct.

One book on the topic is, 'On the Future: Prospects For Humanity', by Martin Rees, (2018). In this he speaks of the risks which affect human beings, future generations and the planet. He suggests the importance of global and long term effects being taken into consideration in thinking about threats which are apparent. He suggests that the,
'future depends on making wise choices about key societal challenges: energy, health, food, robotics, environment, space, and so forth. These choices involve science. But key decisions shouldn't just be made by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate.'

Rees was thinking of catastrophes and risks prior to the time of the pandemic of Covid_19 and the war tensions in Ukraine. One of the key issues was climate change. In creating this thread, I am thinking of all these significant issues and how catastrophes, disaster and risks can be thought about in terms of science, ethical and political values. I am hoping that in linking these together that I am not creating a topic which is too wide in scope or overwhelming. However, the rationale for linking them is that the various catastrophies, including war, ecological crisis and impending risks have profound implications for the future, dependent on how they are approached, especially by political leaders.

What are your thoughts and ideas about the areas of concern at this particular point in history? How useful is philosophy in thinking about science, ethics and politics in these matters and in thinking about the future?

I could offer an example. The technological singularity. It will either permanently alter the fundamental core of our existences, or will simply wipe us out in the process. Personally I think the innate human nature to seek progress will inevitably lead us to the singularity anyway. If you ask how useful philosophy is in thinking about the science of these matters, I suppose it can help with thinking about how consciousness is created, and whether it can be created within computing systems too. In terms of ethics, one could wonder in a deep philosophical sense, about whether it is morally / ethically correct to subjugate our individualities and freedom to an almost all-powerful Artificial Superintelligence in exchange of multiple benefits, such as longer lifespans etc. Lastly, there will also be some decent amount of politics involved in this matter too. A country's capability to develop a sentient A.I may or may not pose a large threat to other countries (Given that one is able to alter the goals and agendas of sentient A.I during its creation) , just like how nukes do in the current day and age.

[LuckyR]

One obstacle to progress is the existence of ever more people who are absolutely certain about their unreliable opinions. This dynamic may yet destroy democracy.

Such is the nature of the Post Truth era.

Or to put it another way, after the Information age, came the Opinion age (frequently uninformed).

[JackDaydream]

k
The future for all life is death, and the future of all non-living things is dissolution.

In the meantime, we can expect increasing inequality and separation between the ultra rich and the rest, with the middle class shrinking. That is, humanity's fates are not shared, but variable. As other species are increasingly made extinct, the poor will take their place at the bottom of the ladder.

I can certainly see value for stoic philosophy in difficult times. Theism will not doubt boom because, the more people there are living in abject poverty, the more the tendency to think "There must be something better than this life". Existential thought, not necessarily the philosophical school, but generally large-scale thinking can prove useful for those seeking to find objective meaning.

What seems to be occurring is that more people seem to think that the end of humanity or 'The End of the World(As We Know It)'as the REM song says is inevitable. I am wondering if that is really true, because so many people seem to think that the climate change is escalating so much. At times, I begin to wonder if the media are exaggerating the problem, although the harsh reality definitely appears to be that weather is becoming more extreme and turbulent throughout the world. It does seem that scientists and political leaders are alarmed at the dramatic pace at which global warming and climate change is increasing.

There is also a sense in which there is a belief that the source of the problem is down to the corruption of humanity. In the discussion which I had earlier today on another thread with Pattern-chaser, we were discussing the problem or danger of capitalism. This is connected to the value based economic growth and materialistic consumption. Even though thinking about this is different from religious ideas of sin, it still leads to a sense of blame attached to human beings.

Also, one other relevant issue is to what extent do human beings have control over nature? There is definitely great destructive potential of humanity, literally and symbolically, with the capacity of nuclear warfare. However, there are limits to human control because humans do not have complete mastery, because there are forces beyond and natural disasters, such as tsunamis and unpredictable aspects of weather. There are patterns of forces beyond human control, such as the affect of the sun and other forces upon the earth. I am not saying this to dismiss the devastation human beings have unleashed.

[JackDaydream]

the nature of capitalist values

The problem is the fiat banking ("bankstering") system, and not capitalism:

Allah has permitted trade but forbidden usury.

We live in a world where the banksters conjure money up out of thin air, and lend it to speculators for a usurious fee. Head, they win. Tails, the taxpayer pays.

Would they bail you or me out if we lost at gambling?

We live in a socialist world dominated by welfare payments to corporate interests. We do not live in a capitalist world.

'future depends on making wise choices about key societal challenges: energy, health, food, robotics, environment, space, and so forth. These choices involve science. But key decisions shouldn't just be made by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate.'

So, that amounts to letting the same people, who created the problem in the first place, to do that all over again.

There is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

Therefore, instead of allowing them to tell other people what to do, and to spend other people's money, the solution is rather to force these people to put skin in the game. Let them finally prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

Rees was thinking of catastrophes and risks prior to the time of the pandemic of Covid_19 and the war tensions in Ukraine.

It is the Statist covid panic football that caused a catastrophe, and not the virus itself.

Same for Ukraine.

The plan has always been to stoke war tensions in Ukraine in order to effect regime change in Russia. They have always wanted Putin gone, and they definitely intend to fight till the last Ukrainian to achieve that.

They have even blown up the Nordstream pipelines to prevent Europe from reconciling with Russia.

Still, now that the Pentagon has largely been neutralized by the Afghan hill tribes, the last thing standing between the world and peace, is the end of the dollar. Fortunately, that seems to be approaching fast now.

I do share your cynicism about governments and I am not sure what this says about human nature and collective attempts to find leaders. As far as your claim that we don't live in a capitalist world, that is open to dispute because the values of capitalism have been so strong, even impacting on the third world countries. The division between capitalism and socialism may vary throughout the world but it does seem that in spite of welfare systems there is so much poverty and inequality of resources available for so many even in Western society and it is getting worse. For example, I read that food banks in England are low on food because some of the people who were donating them are now resorting to using them.

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this post because it is an area which I think and read about so much. It is also partly in response to discussion which I had with Pattern-chaser today about the nature of capitalist values and the possibility of extinction of humanity. I would add that while I speak of human extinction I am not wishing to focus on humans entirely because if events of a catastrophic nature occur it is not only people but all sentient beings who are likely to become extinct.

One book on the topic is, 'On the Future: Prospects For Humanity', by Martin Rees, (2018). In this he speaks of the risks which affect human beings, future generations and the planet. He suggests the importance of global and long term effects being taken into consideration in thinking about threats which are apparent. He suggests that the,
'future depends on making wise choices about key societal challenges: energy, health, food, robotics, environment, space, and so forth. These choices involve science. But key decisions shouldn't just be made by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate.'

Rees was thinking of catastrophes and risks prior to the time of the pandemic of Covid_19 and the war tensions in Ukraine. One of the key issues was climate change. In creating this thread, I am thinking of all these significant issues and how catastrophes, disaster and risks can be thought about in terms of science, ethical and political values. I am hoping that in linking these together that I am not creating a topic which is too wide in scope or overwhelming. However, the rationale for linking them is that the various catastrophies, including war, ecological crisis and impending risks have profound implications for the future, dependent on how they are approached, especially by political leaders.

What are your thoughts and ideas about the areas of concern at this particular point in history? How useful is philosophy in thinking about science, ethics and politics in these matters and in thinking about the future?

I could offer an example. The technological singularity. It will either permanently alter the fundamental core of our existences, or will simply wipe us out in the process. Personally I think the innate human nature to seek progress will inevitably lead us to the singularity anyway. If you ask how useful philosophy is in thinking about the science of these matters, I suppose it can help with thinking about how consciousness is created, and whether it can be created within computing systems too. In terms of ethics, one could wonder in a deep philosophical sense, about whether it is morally / ethically correct to subjugate our individualities and freedom to an almost all-powerful Artificial Superintelligence in exchange of multiple benefits, such as longer lifespans etc. Lastly, there will also be some decent amount of politics involved in this matter too. A country's capability to develop a sentient A.I may or may not pose a large threat to other countries (Given that one is able to alter the goals and agendas of sentient A.I during its creation) , just like how nukes do in the current day and age.

The development of artificial intelligence is likely to involve political aspects, especially inequalities in access to the benefits. Also, if lifespans are increased for all there would be just so many more people alive, although it could mean a greater proportion of women being above the reproductive age. However, if lifespans were increased, such as through transhumanist agendas of enabling ways of maintaining the body through body part upgrades, it could result in an elite master race who would have power over the masses.

[JackDaydream]

One obstacle to progress is the existence of ever more people who are absolutely certain about their unreliable opinions. This dynamic may yet destroy democracy.

Such is the nature of the Post Truth era.

Or to put it another way, after the Information age, came the Opinion age (frequently uninformed).

The 'post-truth' was mentioned long before it became a reality, by George Orwell in his novel, '1984'. In some ways, post-truth may be seen as a fragmentation of knowledge. However, the extreme is fake news. I have definitely come across a few bits on my phone. During lockdown, I read that all sale of alcohol was going to be banned from sale in shops and I believed it. I also read that the chain, Woolworths, were going to open some shops and was disappointed that wasn't true. Nowadays, looking at my phone I don't assume everything I read is true and find this as confusing. But, I guess that news in general is often biased or there is only so much revealed,
and a lot which is going on beyond the scenes of the headline stories.

[Sy Borg]

k
The future for all life is death, and the future of all non-living things is dissolution.

In the meantime, we can expect increasing inequality and separation between the ultra rich and the rest, with the middle class shrinking. That is, humanity's fates are not shared, but variable. As other species are increasingly made extinct, the poor will take their place at the bottom of the ladder.

I can certainly see value for stoic philosophy in difficult times. Theism will not doubt boom because, the more people there are living in abject poverty, the more the tendency to think "There must be something better than this life". Existential thought, not necessarily the philosophical school, but generally large-scale thinking can prove useful for those seeking to find objective meaning.

What seems to be occurring is that more people seem to think that the end of humanity or 'The End of the World(As We Know It)'as the REM song says is inevitable. I am wondering if that is really true, because so many people seem to think that the climate change is escalating so much. At times, I begin to wonder if the media are exaggerating the problem, although the harsh reality definitely appears to be that weather is becoming more extreme and turbulent throughout the world. It does seem that scientists and political leaders are alarmed at the dramatic pace at which global warming and climate change is increasing.

There is also a sense in which there is a belief that the source of the problem is down to the corruption of humanity. In the discussion which I had earlier today on another thread with Pattern-chaser, we were discussing the problem or danger of capitalism. This is connected to the value based economic growth and materialistic consumption. Even though thinking about this is different from religious ideas of sin, it still leads to a sense of blame attached to human beings.

Also, one other relevant issue is to what extent do human beings have control over nature? There is definitely great destructive potential of humanity, literally and symbolically, with the capacity of nuclear warfare. However, there are limits to human control because humans do not have complete mastery, because there are forces beyond and natural disasters, such as tsunamis and unpredictable aspects of weather. There are patterns of forces beyond human control, such as the affect of the sun and other forces upon the earth. I am not saying this to dismiss the devastation human beings have unleashed.

Then again, it's been the end of the world for thousands of years now. Every generation thinks it's game over. In a way, the doomsayers were right. Civilisations and empires have fallen. Chaos has ruled for a time.

I think human self-flagellation is a function of overpopulation and increasingly uneven resource distribution. When you have more people, with not enough to go around, then people get in each others' way. Very large groups fail to cohere, and factions don't identify with one another. That othering leads to conflict, which leads to population reduction, which returns things to a steady state. However, due to ecosystem breakdowns and climate change, there's less to go around, reducing the numbers at which we are relatively stable and suatainable.

[GrayArea]

I am writing this post because it is an area which I think and read about so much. It is also partly in response to discussion which I had with Pattern-chaser today about the nature of capitalist values and the possibility of extinction of humanity. I would add that while I speak of human extinction I am not wishing to focus on humans entirely because if events of a catastrophic nature occur it is not only people but all sentient beings who are likely to become extinct.

One book on the topic is, 'On the Future: Prospects For Humanity', by Martin Rees, (2018). In this he speaks of the risks which affect human beings, future generations and the planet. He suggests the importance of global and long term effects being taken into consideration in thinking about threats which are apparent. He suggests that the,
'future depends on making wise choices about key societal challenges: energy, health, food, robotics, environment, space, and so forth. These choices involve science. But key decisions shouldn't just be made by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate.'

Rees was thinking of catastrophes and risks prior to the time of the pandemic of Covid_19 and the war tensions in Ukraine. One of the key issues was climate change. In creating this thread, I am thinking of all these significant issues and how catastrophes, disaster and risks can be thought about in terms of science, ethical and political values. I am hoping that in linking these together that I am not creating a topic which is too wide in scope or overwhelming. However, the rationale for linking them is that the various catastrophies, including war, ecological crisis and impending risks have profound implications for the future, dependent on how they are approached, especially by political leaders.

What are your thoughts and ideas about the areas of concern at this particular point in history? How useful is philosophy in thinking about science, ethics and politics in these matters and in thinking about the future?

I could offer an example. The technological singularity. It will either permanently alter the fundamental core of our existences, or will simply wipe us out in the process. Personally I think the innate human nature to seek progress will inevitably lead us to the singularity anyway. If you ask how useful philosophy is in thinking about the science of these matters, I suppose it can help with thinking about how consciousness is created, and whether it can be created within computing systems too. In terms of ethics, one could wonder in a deep philosophical sense, about whether it is morally / ethically correct to subjugate our individualities and freedom to an almost all-powerful Artificial Superintelligence in exchange of multiple benefits, such as longer lifespans etc. Lastly, there will also be some decent amount of politics involved in this matter too. A country's capability to develop a sentient A.I may or may not pose a large threat to other countries (Given that one is able to alter the goals and agendas of sentient A.I during its creation) , just like how nukes do in the current day and age.

The development of artificial intelligence is likely to involve political aspects, especially inequalities in access to the benefits. Also, if lifespans are increased for all there would be just so many more people alive, although it could mean a greater proportion of women being above the reproductive age. However, if lifespans were increased, such as through transhumanist agendas of enabling ways of maintaining the body through body part upgrades, it could result in an elite master race who would have power over the masses.

I believe that the rapid technological development, as it alters enhances our physical forms, will also do the same for our intelligences and morality. But given the singularity is when this technological development reaches its peak, perhaps at that point our morality and agendas will have been altered far, far beyond our comprehension. So we never can easily predict what people would "do" at that point in time, as much as what would happen to them.

[Pattern-chaser]

We live in a socialist world dominated by welfare payments to corporate interests.

A socialist world would not shower benefits on "corporate interests", but on the poor and needy.

[JackDaydream]

k
The future for all life is death, and the future of all non-living things is dissolution.

In the meantime, we can expect increasing inequality and separation between the ultra rich and the rest, with the middle class shrinking. That is, humanity's fates are not shared, but variable. As other species are increasingly made extinct, the poor will take their place at the bottom of the ladder.

I can certainly see value for stoic philosophy in difficult times. Theism will not doubt boom because, the more people there are living in abject poverty, the more the tendency to think "There must be something better than this life". Existential thought, not necessarily the philosophical school, but generally large-scale thinking can prove useful for those seeking to find objective meaning.

What seems to be occurring is that more people seem to think that the end of humanity or 'The End of the World(As We Know It)'as the REM song says is inevitable. I am wondering if that is really true, because so many people seem to think that the climate change is escalating so much. At times, I begin to wonder if the media are exaggerating the problem, although the harsh reality definitely appears to be that weather is becoming more extreme and turbulent throughout the world. It does seem that scientists and political leaders are alarmed at the dramatic pace at which global warming and climate change is increasing.

There is also a sense in which there is a belief that the source of the problem is down to the corruption of humanity. In the discussion which I had earlier today on another thread with Pattern-chaser, we were discussing the problem or danger of capitalism. This is connected to the value based economic growth and materialistic consumption. Even though thinking about this is different from religious ideas of sin, it still leads to a sense of blame attached to human beings.

Also, one other relevant issue is to what extent do human beings have control over nature? There is definitely great destructive potential of humanity, literally and symbolically, with the capacity of nuclear warfare. However, there are limits to human control because humans do not have complete mastery, because there are forces beyond and natural disasters, such as tsunamis and unpredictable aspects of weather. There are patterns of forces beyond human control, such as the affect of the sun and other forces upon the earth. I am not saying this to dismiss the devastation human beings have unleashed.

Then again, it's been the end of the world for thousands of years now. Every generation thinks it's game over. In a way, the doomsayers were right. Civilisations and empires have fallen. Chaos has ruled for a time.

I think human self-flagellation is a function of overpopulation and increasingly uneven resource distribution. When you have more people, with not enough to go around, then people get in each others' way. Very large groups fail to cohere, and factions don't identify with one another. That othering leads to conflict, which leads to population reduction, which returns things to a steady state. However, due to ecosystem breakdowns and climate change, there's less to go around, reducing the numbers at which we are relatively stable and suatainable.

It is quite disturbing that amidst overpopulation people are becoming numbers amidst the 'mass'. Living in London, more recently I do feel treated as a mere number a lot of the time, at the bottom of the hierarchy. It is often only in select relationships that one feels valued at all and it may be worse living in large cities, where one is anonymous and invisible most of the time. The economic slump is probably impacting on social life and people are becoming more isolated and often less compassionate. It may be that civilisation is going back to an earlier stage in history and that there is the development of an underclass, of those who are almost cast outside of the system, because they are less able to thrive amidst the competition for scarce resources.

[JackDaydream]

I am writing this post because it is an area which I think and read about so much. It is also partly in response to discussion which I had with Pattern-chaser today about the nature of capitalist values and the possibility of extinction of humanity. I would add that while I speak of human extinction I am not wishing to focus on humans entirely because if events of a catastrophic nature occur it is not only people but all sentient beings who are likely to become extinct.

One book on the topic is, 'On the Future: Prospects For Humanity', by Martin Rees, (2018). In this he speaks of the risks which affect human beings, future generations and the planet. He suggests the importance of global and long term effects being taken into consideration in thinking about threats which are apparent. He suggests that the,
'future depends on making wise choices about key societal challenges: energy, health, food, robotics, environment, space, and so forth. These choices involve science. But key decisions shouldn't just be made by scientists; they matter to us all and should be the outcome of wide public debate.'

Rees was thinking of catastrophes and risks prior to the time of the pandemic of Covid_19 and the war tensions in Ukraine. One of the key issues was climate change. In creating this thread, I am thinking of all these significant issues and how catastrophes, disaster and risks can be thought about in terms of science, ethical and political values. I am hoping that in linking these together that I am not creating a topic which is too wide in scope or overwhelming. However, the rationale for linking them is that the various catastrophies, including war, ecological crisis and impending risks have profound implications for the future, dependent on how they are approached, especially by political leaders.

What are your thoughts and ideas about the areas of concern at this particular point in history? How useful is philosophy in thinking about science, ethics and politics in these matters and in thinking about the future?

I could offer an example. The technological singularity. It will either permanently alter the fundamental core of our existences, or will simply wipe us out in the process. Personally I think the innate human nature to seek progress will inevitably lead us to the singularity anyway. If you ask how useful philosophy is in thinking about the science of these matters, I suppose it can help with thinking about how consciousness is created, and whether it can be created within computing systems too. In terms of ethics, one could wonder in a deep philosophical sense, about whether it is morally / ethically correct to subjugate our individualities and freedom to an almost all-powerful Artificial Superintelligence in exchange of multiple benefits, such as longer lifespans etc. Lastly, there will also be some decent amount of politics involved in this matter too. A country's capability to develop a sentient A.I may or may not pose a large threat to other countries (Given that one is able to alter the goals and agendas of sentient A.I during its creation) , just like how nukes do in the current day and age.

The development of artificial intelligence is likely to involve political aspects, especially inequalities in access to the benefits. Also, if lifespans are increased for all there would be just so many more people alive, although it could mean a greater proportion of women being above the reproductive age. However, if lifespans were increased, such as through transhumanist agendas of enabling ways of maintaining the body through body part upgrades, it could result in an elite master race who would have power over the masses.

I believe that the rapid technological development, as it alters enhances our physical forms, will also do the same for our intelligences and morality. But given the singularity is when this technological development reaches its peak, perhaps at that point our morality and agendas will have been altered far, far beyond our comprehension. So we never can easily predict what people would "do" at that point in time, as much as what would happen to them.

The idea of technological changes affecting intelligence and morality is worth thinking about. It may be that spending so much time on digital devices affects the ability to interact with others and emotional intelligence. Also, it may be that people expect instant information and solutions in a 'fast' pace information culture. Even with written ideas so many people use Wikipedia as if this is an important philosopher. Many are just wish to access information in a summarised form and this may be very different from the art of reading which is about a more intimate process of reading a book and having a deeper interactive process of understanding it on a personal level. The information technology age may be making people become more robotic gradually.