The advances in technology and the unprecedented levels of knowledge-sharing in the last few decades could be extrapolated to suggest that the human race as a whole will eventually converge to perhaps become a single people with a single language and culture, sharing the same system, and possibly generating very similar life experiences for each person. While there are obvious advantages to this, how would this homogeneity affect human knowledge as a whole?

Does human knowledge perhaps need disparate cultures and systems to generate unique lines of thought? Is a chaotic system of generating human knowledge better than a uniform one? (Or will our new ability to better store our collective knowledge perhaps offset any drawbacks?)

  • 2
    Can you unpack this a bit more? What might you be expecting in an answer? What have you found out so far? – Joseph Weissman Jan 21 '13 at 16:34
  • 1
    the processes of scientific inquiry have been carefully crafted to transcend cultural biases and the variety of individual experience, so I don't know why you'd be inclined to think advancement of knowledge would depend on them. – Matthew Plourde Jan 21 '13 at 21:15
  • Any system becomes a thesis which, inevitably, creates its own antithesis, thus continuing the dialectical process. So the mixing of many cultures and points of view does not lead to a meanings mushy soup but rather a richer source of new theses, which can keep the process alive. So, somewhat as the world views of women, of cultural minorities, and of differing orientations enriches a culture, so the world-wide interplay of knowledges (there's not just one) make for an exciting, if not simple, future. – user2086 Jan 23 '13 at 3:55
  • 1
    This question is too broad to generate a short answer that is typically appreciated in this site. Is it not a platitude which diversity brings creativity to the scientific's hypotheses? – Annotations Jan 23 '13 at 13:24
  • 1
    To me it sometimes surprising how similar human cultures were in some respects already in distant pasts (see e.g. here on Axial Age). – Drux Jan 25 '13 at 0:10

I offer my opinion. In that we will eventually homogenize as a race. But we do not know where knowledge ends. It perhaps could be anticipated that the life experience will become predictable and limited to a specific number of directions. And this actually resembles the lives of animals.

Right now we live inside a bubble of discovery in physics and physiology, but animals live inside a world of nature. Nature is their limitation and perhaps eventually will be ours too. What if we discover how to live inside a virtual world that has no material possessions or necessities? Or even more outlandish, a world where the mind controls all the needs. Then this man made reality becomes obsolete and our evolution might resemble some alien who can transport themselves through the world or universe. This sounds like fantasy but I compare it to how science only discovers what is alreaady in nature. And if life is solipsistic we might already be some floating rock in space with an antennae on our head imagining all this. Good morning!

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I'd rather say that we will not homogenise until we have established the limits of knowledge, and this won't happen until more people become interested in metaphysics and the possibilities of experience. If we stick rigidly to scientific research then there'll never be a reason for us to give up our metaphysical opinions and they'll vary forever as they do now. If philosophers cannot agree then the same will go for the rest of us and we'll all go our own way. – user20253 Feb 4 '19 at 12:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.