Slog

Therein lies the problem with all analysis of history; that it depends on linear rather than systematic reasoning. Humanity will see a drastic decline in the richness and complexity of our civilization before we will reach another period of enlightenment, mainly because most individuals, nations, companies, operate in terms of means to an end rather than the process itsself.

Thank you, Charles. Fukayama is full of shit and always has been.

It seems to me that this whole idea of "The End of History" relies on the assumption that major historical events are all under the control of humans.

Much of the Middle Ages and even the Enlightenment were reactions to sociological happenings that were caused by medical and environmental phenomena.

Even if human culture reached "The End of History" all it would take would be a New York-sized meteor to smack us back a couple of centuries, or millennia.

What happens when we start to run out of food? There aren't enough resources on the planet for everyone to enjoy an EU standard of living today. What happens if we continue to reproduce like this? The current estimated carrying capacity of Earth is something like 25 billion, with predicted technology enhancements on the table. We'll hit that by the end of the 21st century. What do we do then? Restrict reproduction? The right to reproduce seems as basic as any.

And, what happens, if all else goes well, when we venture into space? What happens to human culture when it takes minutes or hours for people to communicate with each other? Are there then two histories, or three or four? When does which end?

There will be no "End of History." The arrow of time only moves in one direction, and it doesn't stop to hover over pockets of human stability and happiness.

I should probably get back to work now.

I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. Clearly.

remember how punk was the "end" of rock?

there is no end, its a fallacy to discuss it.

fukayama, you can fuk ya mama, PNAC short-sighted neocon enabler.

The End of History - just as with the first two decades of the 20th century, and the centuries before that, eventually we'll all realize it's an artificially insane way of thinking about things and get beyond this End Times garbage.

Happened before. It will happen again.

I thought history was just stuff that happened before now? How the fuck do you end that?

This guy reminds me of that guy, Ray Kurzwell, who says that all our problems will be solved with the development of new technology and that we will soon reach the singularity where our technology will create a utopia where every one will live as long as they want blah blah blah.

Hoping and dreaming for a better future are great ways to explore new ideas and possibilities, but it is idiotic to take it to the application of policy and as an expectation of how things will be.

Fuck you and your crystal ball Fukayama.

@3,


The human population is slated to level out at 9 billion sometime at the end of the century. That's still way too large to guarantee an EU standard of living to more than a small percentage of the population. (Some scientists suggest that our population needs to be between 1.5 and 2 billion in order to guarantee a decent quality of life to everyone.) Nevertheless, we're not heading toward the hell that would be 25 billion people clinging to one planet.

This post raises numerous questions: What can we know? That is, what can we be sure we know, or sure that we know we knew it, if indeed it is at all knowable. Or have we simply forgotten it and are too embarrassed to say anything? Descartes hinted at the problem when he wrote , "My mind can never know my body, although it has become quite friendly with my legs."

@8 - yeah, right.

@ # 9:

I never realised that Rumsfeldian was a derivitative language of WoodyAllenSpeak! LOL

Great post Mr. Mudede!
Ignore those haters that sometimes decry your posts and keep up the good work!

thanks!