The End of History and the Last Wank

[Alkahest]

Recently I've been thinking a bit about the thesis driven in Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, that the triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism has led to the "end of history", or rather, the end of significant sociocultural evolution. While I'm sure many of you doubt the conclusions drawn by Fukuyama and I myself see several problems with the thesis, it got me thinking about other "end of history"-scenarios involving non-democratic polities.

If one of the classical world dominance-interested empires we know and love to wank (Romans, Mongols, British, Nazis, take your pick) actually succeeded in establishing a stable global political hegemony, could a similar situation as the one described by Fukuyama arise, a world where there may be events such as scientific discoveries, civil wars and whatnot but where sociocultural evolution for all purposes has ended, barring natural catastrophes and such? Or is this evolution naturally drawn towards more democratic forms of government? Or do you have another view entirely?

Related to the above questions, how would purely cultural evolution look in a world where the struggles against hostile ideologies and polities had ended? What would centuries of prosperity and unchallenged power and ideas do to the mindset of the classes that benefit from the state of affairs?

(I'm not sure in which forum this thread would fit the best, if a moderator thinks it should be moved, feel free.)

[Cymraeg]

Originally Posted by Alkahest

Recently I've been thinking a bit about the thesis driven in Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, that the triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism has led to the "end of history", or rather, the end of significant sociocultural evolution. While I'm sure many of you doubt the conclusions drawn by Fukuyama and I myself see several problems with the thesis, it got me thinking about other "end of history"-scenarios involving non-democratic polities.

If one of the classical world dominance-interested empires we know and love to wank (Romans, Mongols, British, Nazis, take your pick) actually succeeded in establishing a stable global political hegemony, could a similar situation as the one described by Fukuyama arise, a world where there may be events such as scientific discoveries, civil wars and whatnot but where sociocultural evolution for all purposes has ended, barring natural catastrophes and such? Or is this evolution naturally drawn towards more democratic forms of government? Or do you have another view entirely?

Related to the above questions, how would purely cultural evolution look in a world where the struggles against hostile ideologies and polities had ended? What would centuries of prosperity and unchallenged power and ideas do to the mindset of the classes that benefit from the state of affairs?

(I'm not sure in which forum this thread would fit the best, if a moderator thinks it should be moved, feel free.)

Sadly we're only human, so there's always going to be ideologies that clash. I'm Welsh and we're constantly dividing ourselves up as we squabble (for the record my family is a Skewen-Pontypridd combination, which means that we don't get together that much).
As for politics, may I remind you that the Republican party alone has had two major schisms in the past 30 years. And they weren't for the best either.

[Alkahest]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg

Sadly we're only human, so there's always going to be ideologies that clash. I'm Welsh and we're constantly dividing ourselves up as we squabble (for the record my family is a Skewen-Pontypridd combination, which means that we don't get together that much).
As for politics, may I remind you that the Republican party alone has had two major schisms in the past 30 years. And they weren't for the best either.

Naturally there's still going to be political and philosophical debates, but I think Fukuyama's point is that this "end of history" constitutes a situation where the fundamental assumptions and structures of society aren't seriously challenged.

[The Ubbergeek]

He was full of it.

The economical DEEP issues, the rise of Altermondialism, etc... This disprove his theories perhaps.

[Alkahest]

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

He was full of it.

The economical DEEP issues, the rise of Altermondialism, etc... This disprove his theories perhaps.

Even if he's wrong about out own society being in such a state, is it possible that an "end of history" could arise in another TL?

[The Ubbergeek]

Originally Posted by Alkahest

Even if he's wrong about out own society being in such a state, is it possible that an "end of history" could arise in another TL?

No, the problem is his very idea.

The Capitalism as we see it may have DEEP issues, and one may not have to be far-left or anarchist to realise it.
Like the problem of ressources. Do you know there will not be NO MORE *IRON* in more than 50 years, unless we find new deposits or recycle like mad?

[Alkahest]

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

No, the problem is his very idea.

The Capitalism as we see it may have DEEP issues, and one may not have to be far-left or anarchist to realise it.
Like the problem of ressources. Do you know there will not be NO MORE *IRON* in more than 50 years, unless we find new deposits or recycle like mad?

I would prefer not to derail this thread into a debate about capitalism, but I tend to see potential resource shortages as technological, not political, problems.

Regardless, the idea of an end to significant sociocultural evolution is older than Fukuyama and does not rely on his ideas about capitalism at all. One of the most well-known proponents of the idea, Karl Marx, would probably agree with very few of Fukuyama's thoughts but still acknowledge that "history" can "end" in the Fukuyaman sense.

[basileus]

Originally Posted by Alkahest

I would prefer not to derail this thread into a debate about capitalism, but I tend to see potential resource shortages as technological, not political, problems.

Regardless, the idea of an end to significant sociocultural evolution is older than Fukuyama and does not rely on his ideas about capitalism at all. One of the most well-known proponents of the idea, Karl Marx, would probably agree with very few of Fukuyama's thoughts but still acknowledge that "history" can "end" in the Fukuyaman sense.

Well, Marx postulate a new phase, don't know if he considered even that "definitive" and "eternal". As far as he could see, socialism was the horizon.
As far as Fukuyama can see, the point of his nose is the horizon.

[The Ubbergeek]

Originally Posted by Alkahest

I would prefer not to derail this thread into a debate about capitalism, but I tend to see potential resource shortages as technological, not political, problems.

Regardless, the idea of an end to significant sociocultural evolution is older than Fukuyama and does not rely on his ideas about capitalism at all. One of the most well-known proponents of the idea, Karl Marx, would probably agree with very few of Fukuyama's thoughts but still acknowledge that "history" can "end" in the Fukuyaman sense.

The problem is not technological. It is a problem of ideas, of society. It is unescapable, and maybe a form of dirigism - NOT ncessarly socialism - is unescapable,a s ressources may get kes and less.. planing. There, I said the bad word. Planning.

And I agree a bit with one of your points - ALL productivist ideologies like marxist-leninist communism - are potentialy THE problem. But the problem is that while you can have non-productivist socialism... capitlist IS productivism by its very design.

And the Market may be impotant to help us plan and take care of ressources and scarcity.

[Alkahest]

Originally Posted by basileus

Well, Marx postulate a new phase, don't know if he considered even that "definitive" and "eternal". As far as he could see, socialism was the horizon.
As far as Fukuyama can see, the point of his nose is the horizon.

I think that's a bit unfair. I'm no Fukuyama fan, but it should be acknowledged that he sees the future liberal democracy as far more European than American, and that he thinks the US to be far from the end of history as it looks right now.

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

The problem is not technological. It is a problem of ideas, of society. It is unescapable, and maybe a form of dirigism - NOT ncessarly socialism - is unescapable,a s ressources may get kes and less.. planing. There, I said the bad word. Planning.

And I agree a bit with one of your points - ALL productivist ideologies like marxist-leninist communism - are potentialy THE problem. But the problem is that while you can have non-productivist socialism... capitlist IS productivism by its very design.

And the Market may be impotant to help us plan and take care of ressources and scarcity.

I don't think I've posted a brilliant critique of productivism, but in any case I don't think this discussion is entirely relevant to the subject at hand.

[tallwingedgoat]

Well in the Fukuyaman sense, there was no "history" for much of humanity when we lived in primitive communities and had no government. Then there was that period when the Pharaoh/king was divine. Eventually it was figured he was no better at making decisions than an informed electorate. But what if one day we invent a computer which can make better decisions than the collective wisdom of humanity, does history begin again?

[Alkahest]

Originally Posted by tallwingedgoat

Well in the Fukuyaman sense, there was no "history" for much of humanity when we lived in primitive communities and had no government. Then there was that period when the Pharaoh/king was divine. Eventually it was figured he was no better at making decisions than an informed electorate. But what if one day we invent a computer which can make better decisions than the collective wisdom of humanity, does history begin again?

I believe that may be part of the reason the man considers transhumanism "the world's most dangerous idea".