For comparison, let's look at how we learn things about the past now. It is quite easy to look back 50-100 years and know how things were, but it gets ever more increasingly difficult as we go back further and further. Mostly due to lack of information. When we study 15th century europe, we base our information on letters and texts. Cross-referencing them with others and comparing what is legitimate and what is exaggerated. With little information to go on, this process is often quite difficult.
Indeed, trying to figure out what it was like in the BC era proves quite difficult, and often merely speculation --albeit educated speculation.

It should, then, follow that with all the information we have today, that people hundreds, even thousands, of years in the future will be able to easily get a picture of how the world is. My problem with this is, if somehow all of our information that is stored electronically gets stored --or even more terrifying, if only bits and pieces get stored-- then future historians will have an incredibly difficult time trying to figure out what's what.

First, if somehow all information is stored --or at least most-- Can you imagine trying to decide whether UFO's have actually visited earth, when there are probably 50,000 web-sites and articles claiming they have, and probably just as many saying they haven't? How much time will it take to cross-reference the information against eachother and decide what really happened? The thought of it scares me.

But what scares me even more is if only parts of our electronic data are stored and recovered in the future. Imagine a future historian researching the 2008 election. He has found from government files and other hard copies the names of the candidates, and goes out searching for information on the lives of each. Imagine, then, that this historian stumbles upon a collection of images of Sarah Palin --photoshopped with great detail-- in an american flag bathing suit holding a rifle at a party. Or some other photoshop of Obama in gay porn.
What kind of message will this send about our time?
What if only the silly or absurd information is un-earthed. Look around the internet, there are sites for just about anything, and half of them are 100% bull-shit.

I don't know, maybe I'm just looking into it too much, I just think that the internet needs to be wiped clean of all the bull-shit. Or at least the overtly shitty web-sites. I just hate the fact that we allow our "future-history" to be tainted with such silly and, indeed, wrong information. I do not want our time period --with all our technological advancements and ingenuity-- to be remembered as a bunch of dim-witted tabloidists who believe everything they are told and then exploit the false information.

But, alas, perhaps it's best this way. I mean, if that is the way we are, then that is the way we should be remembered --the ancient Egyptians didn't get to edit what they would leave behind, why should we?

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

Fun Fact:Pigs can fly, and Jesus is chinese.

Post edited at 12:46 pm on Dec. 11, 2008 by whoami111

-------
Anyone can make great ideas, but it does not make
them a genius; true geniuses proves his ideas works.

Superchris4000:
It is obvious that with all of our technology the core of our society will show through. I am not arguing that people in the far future will look back and call this era a paradox. What I'm saying is that with all of the extra information it will become difficult for them to accurately judge things. And all of the blatantly false information might not be taken as false when it is "dug up" so to speak.

There are groups on the internet --many of them-- which actually claim to be in contact with an alien race. Can you believe that? I'm just saying that I think it sucks that in the future, we will probably be looked at as a curious bunch of folks, but with WILD imaginations and no real grasp of the "real way things are" as a species. I mean, now that i'm talking about it I understand that it is probably important since this IS how we are. I guess I just think it is sad.

Post edited at 12:51 pm on Dec. 11, 2008 by Event Horizon

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

Regarding Palin photoshops:

suppose that they future peoples in question have knowledge of photoshops, they therefore accept the possibility this is a fake.

thus they look for further evidence:

suppose they find two articles, one from lets say, an unknown bloke claiming the photo's authenticity, and another article from a respectable newspaper writing a scathing attack on Palin:

we can logically deduce the following:

1. the respectable newspaper is more likely to report the truth.

2. Since the intention of the article was to attack palin, if the photo were real, surely it would be mentioned in the article. (assuming the dates of publication fit)

3. But they did not mention the photo, therefore we can suppose that they did not belive it was real, or were ignorant of its existance.

4. Since other bits of evidence suggest to the future people that presidential candidates were throughly reasearched, and that the newspaper in question had both the funds and ability to reasearch palin, it is unlikely that no mention of the photo is due to the journalists ignorence.

5. Therefore, it is highly probable that the photo was a fake.

another point, the future may also develop more sophisticated ways of obtaining evidence and assessing its reliabilty.... a "time machine" is an obvouis example of such.   but less clear, but none the less useful, would be huge advances in scientific fields such as psychology and biology.

e.g suppose a record of Hitlers DNA survives til the year 9098, our understanding of genetic influences might be so advanced at this point in time that, we could now things about Hitler that were not known in his own time, or shortly thereafter.

E.g. There has been speculation as to whether hitler was gay, well, with his DNA record future peoples might be able to prove this one way or another.

In short:  (1) future people are likely to be inteligent, and therefore use logical reasoning to deduce facts, and (2) have more sophisticated means of assessing evidence and gain evidence for hypothesis.

A simple example would be that us, in the year 2008, probably know more about the year 10AD, than people living in the year 210AD did,  (due to our understanding of carbon dating, of fossils, and so on) despite the fact those in 210AD would have had an overwhelming amount more evidence than we do today (more surving fossils, for example) .  

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

I agree with you mostly. Especially the second half of your response. I think that most of what I was trying to get out was not that the future will not be able to figure us out --even though that is the bulk of the damn topic-- but that we will look silly as hell. I think what started this topic was my constant awareness of the overall silliness of the world today.

I get embarrassed when I watch dumb ass commercials and think "these stupid things ACTUALLY work on people" or when I stumble around on-line and fine 6/10 websites about scientific stuff to be false, or at least not-accurate.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

Pulease. What you suggest is tantamount to censorship, abolishing the freedoms of speech and creating a totalitarian internet.  

What defines whether a site is "shit", or not worth being on the internet - other than law?

Post edited at 2:47 am on Dec. 16, 2008 by Bacon

-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.

---

Yes, let's "clean up the shit" on the internet because future civilization might think negatively of us..

Pulease. What you suggest is tantamount to censorship, abolishing the freedoms of speech and creating a totalitarian internet.

What defines whether a site is "shit", or not worth being on the internet - other than law?

---

Are you kidding me?
Look I'm not advocating cleaning it up --though, I think it would be nice-- I'm saying that I am embarrassed by what we've done with this freedom.

have you looked around the internet? half the sites that contain "factual" information are wrong. Another third are just plain stupid and seemingly written by an angstful 13 year old. Then there is the rest of the useful information out there.

A shitty website is a shitty website, I don't give a fuck about the fact that it is that person's right to make it. Sure, make it, but I have the right to tell you that it is a stupid ass website.

I was just saying that these things are embarrassing and I question, "Do you really want us too look like this to future people?"

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Quote: from Bacon at 5:46 am on Dec. 16, 2008

---

Yes, let's "clean up the shit" on the internet because future civilization might think negatively of us..  

 Pulease. What you suggest is tantamount to censorship, abolishing the freedoms of speech and creating a totalitarian internet.    

 What defines whether a site is "shit", or not worth being on the internet - other than law?

---

Are you kidding me?
Look I'm not advocating cleaning it up --though, I think it would be nice-- I'm saying that I am embarrassed by what we've done with this freedom.  

have you looked around the internet? half the sites that contain "factual" information are wrong. Another third are just plain stupid and seemingly written by an angstful 13 year old. Then there is the rest of the useful information out there.  

A shitty website is a shitty website, I don't give a fuck about the fact that it is that person's right to make it. Sure, make it, but I have the right to tell you that it is a stupid ass website.  

I was just saying that these things are embarrassing and I question, "Do you really want us too look like this to future people?"

---

Who the fuck cares whether they believe we were stupid or not. Hell, stupid, ignorant people are in every era - but we try to look at the people that made some kind of difference when we look at history.

Plus half these sites probably won't even exist by the time we're ancient history, or they'll still be created by people that are stupid/uneducated/ignorant at that time.

After all, the Internet will probably follow humanity into the far future - in some shape or form.

-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.

There are so many ways I can say each and every little thing you've mentioned is wrong.

We know an enormous amount of what life was like BC, due to letters and texts and archaeological work. We know how people lived, what they did and social classes, etc.

The 15th Century presents no problems of knowing what life was like then that I'm aware of.

There is no possible way that the future will ever think UFO's landed due to the vast number of educational works done on these.

We do not consider in contemporary history the work of amateurs as historically accurate and do not consider it accurate 4000 years ago either

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?