<p>When historical records will be more detailed than they used to be, the details of individuals are recorded in more detail than they used to be, and when the amount of knowledge about the past could only increase?</p>
<p>Personally, I think that history is usually biased with respect to the last 100 years (that is, IF the last 100 years did not go into an intellectual rut much like the Dark Ages of Europe - in that case, medieval scholars paid more attention to Greek/Roman history than to the “past 100 years of their time”). With that all said, what of the major periods? Do you think that Greek/Roman history will still be taught in as much detail as it is now? (seeing that the emergence of extant ideas had to emerge somewhere - and that people tend to be interested in “what happens first?”) And do you think multiculturalism will divert some of the teaching? There are only a finite number of minutes in a day, after all.</p>
<p>I also think that history will be taught more as a series of events that tend to respond to trends (trends such as the distribution of resources and that of ideas). Perhaps specific historical periods will be treated as “case studies” of more general phenomena, rather than “one damn thing after another”. Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” might be a model as to how one approaches history.</p>
<p>Haha, guess I’m not the only one who has run this thought experiment through his/her head. </p>
<p>My general assumption is that classes and education will take an even longer period of time. With knowledge in general increasing exponentially (and history not only being knowledge, but also the study of knowledge), we could find more stratification and specialization on history itself - even more so than now. But I think history would be biased more to the more “recent” happenings since they have more direct influence on the present. Of course, this would make older knowledge more obscure even if it may turn out more relevant. </p>
<p>haha, the problem with that is that you can’t educate people for too long - otherwise the costs will outweigh the benefits. The problem is that people always cost more than they give back to society as long as they are going through education. And extending school for too long will strain society out.</p>
<p>True. But I also assume that technology will also improve exponentially so that work doesn’t need to be done much by humans. Instead, it will be an Athenian-esque society where we can spend the days debating politics and learning :P</p>
<p>i think common events in the course of human history will have revealed an emerging sort of pattern. history will be looked at like as a continuation of different overlapping “concepts” and significant triumphs and failures will be more thoughtfully examined. i think bias will be just as big a problem then as it is today.</p>
<p>I doubt that the material being taught will change much. All I think is the methods of teaching will differ. Assuming that there are going to be technological advancement, and not several world wars, then it’s logical to assume that how the information is taught might change, yet the actual information will not. And only the major covilizations, and achievement of those within them will be greatly stressed. Meaning that some of the little details that actually made a huge difference will be left out or neglected.</p>
<p>It’s presumptious of us to assume that the human race will be around in 1000 years, let alone the school system will be the same, let alone the way history is taught will be the same.</p>