The End of History

[infoterror]

As its title implies, there is a duality of hope and fear in the vision Fukuyama describes for history. His thesis: history is a linear process which will produce an ultimate system of government that addresses all human needs, and therefore, history will stop "evolving" or cycling through different types of government or society. This ultimate system of government works by rewarding the individual with economic prosperity and "freedom" (not defined in the book).

Francis Fukuyama - The End of History and the Last Man

 

[hibernal_dream]

While I haven't read it, I agree with the summary above. Mankind progresses through its mistakes. Were we to live in a perfect society we would have no needs beyond it and would not be impelled to evolve

 

[speed]

I highly disagree with the underlying thesis presented by this Fukuyama. History has not been linear in any sense of the word. Technology since the enlightenment has been linear, but mankind and out societies have not. We have and continued to repeat the very same mistakes, become engaged in the very same wars (the U.S. looks like a mirror image of Imperial Britain right now in its foreign policy). And furthermore, liberal democracy (if thats what it can be called) brings with it too many externalities to become the final solution: power and wealth becomes centralized, pollution, health, and the overall psychology of the populace becomes undermined. It is far too destructive both enviromentally and psychologically to last forever.

In essence, this is a Christian view strangely held by Marx as well--this idea of a future utopia. I know infoterror disagrees with Mr. Fukuyama. however, liberal democracy has brought the greatest amount of material and economic prosperity man has ever known, at the cost of creativity/art, spirtuality, and community.

 

[Sacred Profane]

I disagree. As mentioned, man repeats the same mistakes over and over. Mostly because it is in our nature to fight.

And freedom and prosperity is defined in a different way depending on the person and/or the culture.

 

[Mikobass]

I disagree. As mentioned, man repeats the same mistakes over and over. Mostly because it is in our nature to fight.

And freedom and prosperity is defined in a different way depending on the person and/or the culture.

If that was the case, we would never have evolved pass the Stone Age. But I do agree to say that sometimes Humanity's learning curve is not very steep...

 

[derek]

Only once the psychology of man has changed, a spiritual and mental revolution/evolution if you will, can we even begin to think that a future utopia may exist. While this goes back to an age old debate of what men are at their base, I'd tend to - by experience - associate myself with Hobbes and ergo see this theory as unworkable, given the overwhelming violent notions of man at this present time in our existence.

 

[Darkmatter]

History is certainly not linear, even as far as technology is concerned. Look at civilizations that have come and gone i.e. Mayans, Egyptians... it takes a while for later generations to really discover the incredible technological advances these societies had made. So it's more of a roller-coaster of sorts, and the ride, I think, is never ending. You'll always have elements in society that believe in the contrary, which balances out the equation at times. But lukily and overall, mankind has been able to move "upwards" to the benefit of many and the disdain of some.

 

[A Dying Breed]

Only once the psychology of man has changed, a spiritual and mental revolution/evolution if you will, can we even begin to think that a future utopia may exist. While this goes back to an age old debate of what men are at their base, I'd tend to - by experience - associate myself with Hobbes and ergo see this theory as unworkable, given the overwhelming violent notions of man at this present time in our existence.

The whole problem with utopian thought is that it seeks to fundamentally change the nature of man. A good example of this can be found in Eros and Civilization by Marcuse, which is a huge crock of shit that suggests basically that by providing material abundance, and removing the need to struggle for survival, the human psyche will modify so that it no longer desires what infoterror calls "spiritedness" in his article - the need for meaning, struggle, and accomplishment, resulting in a world of emasculated, hyper-sensitive hippies who reject all forms of objective discernment with regard to lifestyle, art, everything. Utopia is hell.

 

[derek]

I had no pretensions that a utopia was as you just outlined. I only thought it possible that the human condition may eventually allow us to live in a state best summed up by the connotations of utopia.

For the record, bland and moronic theories regarding what we need to do to achieve this perfect state of mind so oft mentioned, don't fly with me either. Some of them, however, do sound rather appealing

 

[hibernal_dream]

I disagree. As mentioned, man repeats the same mistakes over and over. Mostly because it is in our nature to fight.

And freedom and prosperity is defined in a different way depending on the person and/or the culture.

Just how far back are you looking? A few hundred years maybe?

 

[Sacred Profane]

Just how far back are you looking? A few hundred years maybe?

Look at history as a whole.
Besides, the whole thing of a government that adresses all human needs is just... not possible. Because human nature means everyone adresses their own needs first. Needs between different people conflict and thus someone ends up being on the losing side of things.

 

[derek]

It's a pretty contentious issue to declare what human nature is. or is not.