by Heineken » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 13:36:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')My position is that formal education is likely to devolve to that level. ("one room school houses")
And the evidence against your position is that the very same universities were huge before tho oil age and there is no reason to believe that that wouldn't be able to achieve the same stature after the oil age.
Your counter claim is an ill advised opinion, nothing more, the evidence and history, two things lost on you, suggest you are wrong.
And your views, of course, are accepted fact, and not opinion?
After economic and environmental collapse, nothing people do will be "huge." Human activity will get smaller, more limited, and more localized. There'll be no foundation for nanotech research and other arcane, fantastically expensive pursuits (which is my whole point, which has flown cleanly past you).
Your view of history is distorted by the fact that, until now, history has proceeded more or less along a vector supported by underlying and
seemingly limitless resource abundance. Growth. Dissemination. Flowering. A long period of economic exploitation.
This is all about to reverse, permanently.
The old colleges and universities were not huge by today's standards, BTW. They were relatively small and quaint, intent on training gentlemen by imbuing them with Latin and Greek and perhaps some maths and philosophy; the sciences, though gaining ground, were at the fringes until relatively recent times (by which "times" I include many in the list of luminaries you rattled off).
A few miles to the west of me is a university with 15,000 students. It has facilities and pursues research that would have made a teach at Olde Oxford gape.
Your biggest error is in assuming that we will return to the same level of prosperity after the Oil Age that existed before the Oil Age. (Such as it was, of course.)
Wrong. The foundation for that prosperity---a healthy, abundant natural world---will have been knocked out from beneath our feet, and the energy needed to extract what little remains will be expensive and scarce, not cheap and "inexhaustible."
What we'll be left with will not be sufficient to support exotic research at the frontiers of science. After collapse, where will those multi-million-dollar research grants come from? The facilities and equipment and supplies and materials? The highly trained personnel? The transportation and communication systems necessary to connect it all?
We'll be more concerned with daily survival, in fact.
I don't dispute that my position is a matter of opinion.