The 'End of History' Revisited | Francis Fukuyama
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2020
- Frank Fukuyama's 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man" had profound and lasting impact with its declaration that science and technology, the growing global economy, and liberal democracy are leading history in a quite different direction than Marx and Hegel imagined. In this revisit to those themes, Fukuyama examines conflict with and within Islam, the need for a diffuse form of global governance to deal with problems like climate change, and the deeper implications of biotechnology.
"'The End of History' Revisited" was given on June 28, 02007 as part of Long Now's Seminar series. The series was started in 02003 to build a compelling body of ideas about long-term thinking from some of the world's leading thinkers. The Seminars take place in San Francisco and are curated and hosted by Stewart Brand. To follow the talks, you can:
Subscribe to our podcasts: longnow.org/seminars/podcast
Explore the full series: longnow.org/seminars
More ideas on long-term thinking: blog.longnow.org
The Long Now Foundation is a non-profit dedicated to fostering long-term thinking and responsibility. Our projects include a 10,000 Year Clock, endangered language preservation, thousand year+ data storage, and Long Bets, an arena for accountable predictions.
Become a Long Now member to support this series, join our community, and connect with our ongoing work to explore and deepen long-term thinking: longnow.org/membership
Like us on Facebook: / longnow
Follow us on Twitter: / longnow
Subscribe to our channel: / longnow - Věda a technologie
"'The End of History' Revisited" was given on June 28, 02007 as part of Long Now's Seminar
00:00 - Introduction
01:50 -
02:44 - 1st , cover the misunderstandings from reading comprehension
02:56 - Then discuss 4 objections
03:36 -Objection 1 : Confusion in reading comprehension of writings of Islam
03:43 -Objection 2 : Lack of International collective democracy
03:51 -Objection 3 : How modernize away poverty
03:59 - Objection 4 : Technology
04:01 - What was THE END OF HISTORY & THE LAST MAN about?
04:20 - Islands of Papua New Guinea < < undeveloped - - Spectrum developed - - Japan > >
05:18 - IS development purposed or Accident?
06:07 - Basically a theory believed by intellectuals about modernization
06:32 - The pre-1980s believed end of history would be communist
07:25 - A modest thesis : We will exit the development train one stop early
07:42 - The various written UNIVERSAL HISTORIES
08:28 - Enlarge the story . . . 10,000 years
_________ Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation
_________ and Enlightenment by Robert Wright Aug 8, 2017
.
The Evolution of God by Robert Wright Jun 8, 2009
.
Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright Dec 20, 1999
.
The Moral Animal by Robert Wright Jan 1, 1997
.
09:14 -
10:01 - The Clash of Civilizations & the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington HC - 19 NOV 1996
Thank you!
"02007" is that 2007?
Thank you.
I guess we haven't run out of history quite yet
History in the making right now, if anything we are generating too much history! Pretty dumb idea.
This video will stay in endless history.
More people have criticized his book than those who actually read it. If you came here to listen from the real author, Congratulations.
Because the theory by this charlatan is full of holes lol
@@accountantthe3394 Yet he (the book title) sold millions of copies
@@geopoliticallycurious No shortage of fools (and their money to part with)
Both he and Marx are brilliant writers. 😁
Dugin mentioned this gentleman on Tucker and so I'm here.
I’ve just read the famous book so this was invaluable. Thanks so much for posting 🇬🇧 👏
Professor Francis is absolutely correct on some points, i have really enjoyed this very timely and accurate presentation .
great stuff
Well, China is an odd subject that professor Fukuyama will have to get around with his ‘end of history’ theory. Now China is the second largest economy with over 10k GDP per capita, but the grip of the political system is just getting tighter and tighter and Chinese people seems pretty ok with it. How to explain that?
It's very simple: he was just wrong
Lol, as a Chinese, I must tell you two that the end of history, or at least a particular end, is already here. The evidence is staring at us all squarely in the face. Namely, we're all speaking English and not Chinese (不是吗，若非古人错过各种机会，英文就不会泛滥开来). It is upon this generation to undo that history. As an aside, the "liberals" of the "free world" would suggest that, given the opportunity to undo history, the Chinese would choose to go back to overthrow the Communist government, presumably in favor of the Nationalist one, which was a dictatorship backed and funded by the Americans. My response to these "liberal" scumbags exercising their liberty in excess is this: given the opportunity to undo history, I would go back to prevent the likes of Columbus from ever being able to sail out of Europe. That way, I will have prevented a boat load of genocides. Moreover, I would not be speaking English today. Now, since going back in time is impossible, I shall undo history by precision striking the "free world" each time they dare to step out of line. And since they find overstepping boundaries irresistible, I will have plenty opportunity to wear them down. Finally, since the Chinese Communist Party is about the only party that will stand up against the "free world" and secure Chinese interests, I support the Chinese Communists wholeheartedly and wish them well. Moreover, I hope to one day serve China as a Chinese Communist.
Liberal democracy is nascent, its still evolving, who knows it may coincide with some level of authoritarianism in the future.
A correct political system is subjective, its about what works for you. Liberal Democracy works for the West at the expense of destabilization in developing countries. Doesn't give it a right to be innately and genuinely correct.
@@bilal59446 lol liberal democracy is not nascent, so please correct yourself, after all, liberal democracy has been responsible for enough crimes against humanity around the world. In colonial times, the criminals would say, if only these people had my religion, theneverything would turn out great. Oh sorry, we're still living in colonial times, it's only that the religion has changed from Christianity to Liberal Democracy. Besides being an excuse to persecute others, Liberal Democracy is already as authoritarian as it gets
@@aaabbb-py5xd you just reiterated and consolidated my argument that it only works at the expense of subjugation of other societies. Neo-colonialism does exist, Yes, in the form of International institutions and sanctions. What I meant with nascent was that after the fall of the USSR and the end of the cold war, the ’90s was the first time when there were more Democratic countries than non-Democratic countries ever in history. Most people thought that, Yes, this is it now, including Mr. Fukuyama, which certainly wasn’t the case. With the rise of China, the stint of the Unipolar World seems to come to an end and we shall witness changes in the liturgic and the concept of liberal democracy.
That into made me think I was entering Mr.Rogers neighborhood lol Rip Fred Rogers
Was huntington the answer on his book the end of history .....
biggest intellectual blow in history of thinking - it is not a small achievement
True but mainly because in the history of ridiculous ideas this is likely the most ridiculous ideas that was ever taken seriously. It defies common sense, the study of history and politics, informed understanding, the few hard and fast laws of human nature that can be conclusively nailed down, etc.
Who is really terrible towards others and the whole humanity? Those selfish and accusing others
Now, with a name like Fuk u, ya ma, I like this guys point of view on politics 👍😁
He is very clever and at some point, he said recalls that hegemony is not always the solution, as states and people are different have different norms and values exst, but also young western Muslims had identity crisis, after 9/11, what they have seen and the sudden change alienations had an impact on them and somehow, some thugs came along and recruited them, to fulfill their agendas, the only thing i do not agree with is that China and India and imprisons and marginalised Muslim, he should not compare to US, Europe or some parts of the world.
I don't want the Enlightenment/Modernity to be a failed experiment :-( I like the idea too much. :-( plus I like sitting around drinking coffee and discussing 'philosophy!'
What is needed is a brief period of totalitarian massacre, to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with me (i.e. ppl who are Wrong,) followed by utopia.
Should work. Bright future here we come...
This guy needs to read Graeme Gill (2003) and Wael Hallaq (2009).
History will never end because it will repeat itself again and again until the doom of humanity
So it does end, you think.
@@socrateos Good one.
There shall never be a time timeless ; history not visible or audible shall never end in itself , it is an extremely unrealistic view of time and us!
Interesting that he believes the present-style participatory democracy is the final form of political economies in prosperous circumstances, when we might-as participatory democracies-achieve post-scarcity in terms of everyone's basic needs. (That's food, shelter, etc.) Or if, say, bioengineering someday lets us photosynthesize well enough that so long as we could sunbathe, humans might barely need to eat. Such a dramatic change in human needs would make equally dramatic changes to an economy.
If we haven't reached a final form of economic organization, then we haven't reached the final form of politics that works for human societies.
in his books is there much about Kojeve?
Yep. An entire section in The End of History and the Last Man.
@@kiwikiwi1779 awesome i will try to check it out
At what point will we know if he is right or wrong? Even if the world turned democratic what about 100 years or 1000 years after that?
I would agree with Samuel Huntington
When people think of the term conservative, this is the man they should imagine. Francis Fukuyama, not the reprobates that have seized control of a major US political party.
Imaging ancient Romans claimed their system was the best ever, and there will be no better system in the future…yeah
How's that going now buddy
It took all of "checks notes" 30 years for major conflict to come back to Europe and for Russia and China to match or even outmatch America. lmao. Trash theory
@@ChromiumCastle if China invades Taiwan while this is happening then that'll be the tombstone on the grave
he's fucked
Maybe I’m missing something but he seems to gloss over the impact of global imperials from the us and other western states on the Middle East and “developing world”.
I feel like you need to mention the rise of Islamic extremist groups as a response to western invasion and neo-colonialism. Not just as a result of their culture heritage.
He is a neoliberal, he will ignore it because it is inconvenient.
Oh, now U know U were wrong...NOW the big media won't give a shit about what Fukuyama is saying, because It won't help the big conglomerates this tims
I think that Fukuyama’s hypothesis is incorrect because of an unforeseen weakness in liberal democracies. Give it 20 years as he said and you will see more and more of these weaknesses exposed. It’s not because authoritarian modernizers have some sort of hidden resilience.
@Quid Malmborg - Total non sequitur response to my comment.
@Quid Malmborg - Please explain how your comment even addresses the point that I raised in my original post. I’m truly confused by your attitude. A non sequitur is “a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow the previous argument or statement” which is exactly how I used it. So, this would be the part where you explain how your comment does or does not address the point and why if you were a mature adult about serious conversations.
Do you know what that weakness is?
What weaknesses?
@@ElusivePlatypus96 As we've seen, a strong weakness of liberal democracy seems to be a susceptibility to populist nationalism, which one can argue has been facilitated by globalization, which in itself is facilitated by technological progress. I think what Fukuyama could not foresee was how technology could disrupt politics, which would eventually undermine the economy, if society loses stability. A key example is the January 6th Capitol riots.
When did this talk take place?
I think it was October 2007
it's in the video description.
He's remarkably humble. Willing to have his ideas be falsified.
his theory is also falsified by COVID-19
@@hanhan8293 why?
@@juanpablodo12345678 Many people believe that China - the representative authoritarian growth state - had a better response than the United States - considered to be the representative democratic state (but probably not correctly) exactly because China could step in and do draconian lockdowns. I don't think this is justified. Even taking claims on their face, Korea had less than half of the death toll of China. With respect to China I think you are seeing is the typical authoritarian claim that the repression is actually so just and efficient. "The trains run on time". Fukuyama has his own answer somewhere else but I forget what it was.
Falsified lol
I might be late to the party but any way, the falsification is a pillar of the scientific method and you can read to carl popper for more info, the idea is a theorie is good if we can put it into experiences that try to falsifie it and prove wrong the future outcome this theory predicts, thus the more your theory stands against those falsifying experiences the more it is solid and "true". And also every mistake found is a huge opportunity for advance and evolution in that field, science is the history of its mistakes.
39:19 mf was so embarrassed about being his bs theory that he forgot to take the cap off
39:19 = Hara Kiri for trying to drink in a closed water bottle
Adorno thought too (maybe where he is coming from there) that education will eliminate wars, but did education arrested violence, no, in WWII a lot of people didn't know how to sign their name today they all do have elementary, highschool at least but it didn't make an expected difference;
Lots of high school educated war-mongers out there now, not the usual suspects, but ordinary do-gooder folks and housewives driven to a frenzy by the mainstream media showing them images of dead babies. Very surprising. They are the grass-roots who act like demented implacable lemmings and urge on our politicians to order the troops into battle. You can see them spouting their lust for warfare on any youtube comments section on Ukraine. They think they are being brave and virtuous. Scary.
Given a real choice, what would people choose, should be the question. I think they would choose maximum freedom, certainly for themselves. No one is given that choice, anywhere. We don't trust others to choose correctly. So the choices have to be made for us. However, there is a good compromise that I believe would serve the greater good in all parts of the world and indeed would unite the world. It is liberal democracy with a twist. A tweaked democracy in which all the candidates from hard right to hard left and various other ideologies and religions would all be asymmetrically elected based on the number of votes cast for each. The centrists would get more votes than the hard-liners and jihadists and they would carry more weight. But the extremists would be kept in the loop and might moderate their views as they progressively lost votes in each annual election. If there were ten candidates in each constituency then the voters would each have ten votes to cast as they preferred. In 2019 the number of candidates on average in the UK was 5.1 per constituency. I think twice as many would stand if election was guaranteed. Maybe many more but there has to be an agreed limit. I submitted the above to ChatGPT. It took about one second to study it and respond thus:
Your proposal suggests a form of proportional representation where voters have multiple votes to distribute among various candidates. This system aims to ensure that a broader spectrum of political ideologies is represented in government, with an emphasis on moderating influences.
Proportional representation itself is a recognized electoral system used in various countries, and it comes in different forms. Your suggestion adds an interesting twist by allowing voters to cast multiple votes and assigning different weights to candidates based on their ideological positions.
The idea of encouraging a more diverse representation while still giving more weight to centrist candidates is an attempt to strike a balance between ensuring representation for a range of views and preventing extreme ideologies from dominating. The hope is that, over time, this system could incentivize candidates to moderate their views to attract more votes.
However, the success of such a system would depend on various factors, including the political culture, voter engagement, and the willingness of candidates to adapt their positions. Additionally, striking the right balance in the weighting system would be crucial to avoid unintended consequences.
It's worth noting that different countries have different political landscapes and historical contexts, and what works well in one place may not necessarily work in another. Implementing significant changes to an electoral system often involves a complex process and careful consideration of potential implications.
Your proposal, though, raises important questions about how to balance representation and moderation in a democratic system. Public discourse and informed debate on such ideas contribute to the ongoing evolution of political systems worldwide.
There should be a copy of the...order and .....decay somewhere, unless the .....decay has taken its...... order and the book is no more. For that I owe you a simple unassuming thank you at minimum.
I have also seen that you have made a (ask me anything) type of interaction, and as a consequence my question is this...!
What do you know about Byzantine architecture?
Using great time and consequently all of its applicable resources, in order to tell people exactly who are, or should each vote for, (supposedly), consequently hiding what people are, or what people each should vote for..... Simply makes possible for repeat business in reverse, that is use great time and consequently all of its applicable resources, in order to tell people exactly what are, or what should each vote for (supposedly), consequence hiding who people are, or who people each should vote for.
It might sound liberal, but it is manipulative and counterproductive, meaning self canceling, causing enormous bureaucratic financial problems, making it underlyingly undemocratic to begin with, and eventually undemocratic as a certainty, making it nothing comparable to X.
the sound when he takes a sip sounds nasty
Thanks for your informative comment nincompoop
If Frances Fukuyama was running for president I would run to the polls. Most of the conservatives and liberals today are the opposite, intellectually dishonest. Can you image a single politician these days say something like this:
“It all depends on what you mean by socialism. Ownership of the means of production - except in areas where it's clearly called for, like public utilities - I don't think that's going to work. If you mean redistributive programmes that try to redress this big imbalance in both incomes and wealth that has emerged then, yes, I think not only can it come back, it ought to come back. This extended period, which started with Reagan and Thatcher, in which a certain set of ideas about the benefits of unregulated markets took hold, in many ways it's had a disastrous effect. At this juncture, it seems to me that certain things Karl Marx said are turning out to be true. He talked about the crisis of overproduction… that workers would be impoverished and there would be insufficient demand.”
Both the right and left politicians and pundits have muddied the intellectual waters so much that this sentence can not be spoken. Fukuyama neither indulges in the ongoing right wing red scare nor the left wing hyperbole that we should be ashamed of our national identities.
What is wrong with an imbalance in both incomes and wealth? You first need to explain that. Marx didn't like it but most normal people are fine with it, it's the natural state of human society. Most people are not jealous of their richer fellow humans, they concentrate on their own lives and accept their own social position.
Why shouldn't intelligent and hard-working people have more money than stupid and lazy people? That seems OK to me. As long as there is a mechanism to enable poor intelligent and hard-working people to climb the social ladder if they so wish - i.e. an apprentice system or an accessible education system, either publicly funded or by private scholarship. Reject Marxism, manipulated and unnatural human societies do not turn out well, as history has shown - USSR, Communist China, etc.
This was a load of conceited arrogant myopic nonsense 30 years ago, I like to revisit and laugh at it every time the tectonic plates shift under our feet as they have at dizzying speed over this time.
Well he's scammed a life long money making career from this rubbish so I suppose he's had the last laugh at us.
LOL
as a chinese who knows US reasonably well, what I know is that many Chinese strategic thinkers/planers thanks Fukuyama a lot.
The title and content of this specific book was insane who got basic training of dialetic thinking: how can history ever ended?! which is contradict basic logic of dialetic thinking.
but the title of this book was attractive to American exceptionism, which basically believed that CPC's attempt to modonize China will be deemed to fail.
Thanks again to author's contribution to blind US ruling elites for China's rise.
Chinese infrastructure is crumbling and revolution is but mere decades away, grass mud horse.
Democracy lost once and forever.
Winner is capitalism, not democracy.
Francis Fukuyama is a Brilliant writer like Karl Marx. Both their books somehow affected the entire world at large................😂
Yes... I read both ......
I might be late to the party but any way, the falsification is a pillar of the scientific method and you can read to carl popper for more info, the idea is a theorie is good if we can put it into experiences that try to falsifie it and prove wrong the future outcome this theory predicts, thus the more your theory stands against those falsifying experiences the more it is solid and "true". And also every mistake found is a huge opportunity for advance and evolution in that field, science is the history of its mistakes.
ben jij nederlander?
No, i am moroccan. Do you know someone with the same name in nederland?lol
@@hichamoujamaa591 Yeah, I do. Your spelling mistakes are very Dutch-like (theorie, falsifie) so I thought maybe you're Dutch lol
@@HGZie hahaha yeah you are right, those are french words, in french the "y" becomes a "ie", i hope the content was clear! Or if you have anything to add to it
@@hichamoujamaa591 Nope, I agree with you. I had Philosophy of Science in university so I know about Karl Popper fortunately!
I have spent over a half a century studying the actual end of history and quite fantastically enough, I ,as a child, decided to write the very last book upon which man laid his eyes. Having authored over five million words, I am well on track to do precisely that.
What exactly does the end of history actually mean? With no reader or observer, the principal is completely bereft of meaning.
As the most prolific producer of original thought on the planet I am uniquely qualified to make sense of this seemingly vacuous proposition and I, unlike Mr Fukuyama, am able to provide intelligent and cogent context for "The End of History".
you just sound like a delirious narcissist
The end of history? Apparently not, as recent events prove out the old adage that history repeats itself. The war in Ukraine, with all of its implications, is another episode in conflicts that have raged in that country for centuries.
That’s the point. Russia as a totalitarian regime is engaging in antics that is very destructive towards it’s political stability. Economically compared to the hit that America took it’s a papercut.
Let’s have another go; it will be different this time.
Before the new liberal order (neoliberalism) there was an old liberal order.
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s - neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 - Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising nationalism and extremism
1940s - World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
Everything is progressing nicely and we are approaching the final destination.
This is what it's supposed to be like.
Right wing populist leaders are what we should be expecting at this stage and it keeps on getting worse.
I remember now, it was Keynesian capitalism that won the battle of ideas against Russian Communism.
These liberal phases never end well.
It sounds so good, but ends so badly.
WWIII next stop.
The newly developed mythology about liberalism wasn’t based on past experience.
This is what it’s like.
A complicated admission that "I overspoke". Not difficult to understand a nationalistic desire to push a continued liberal democracy dominance. No need to wait 20 yrs. Fukuyama should start preparing to explain how China prevailed inspite on his next revisit on this discourse, perhaps this time with more water to sooth ........and a stronger Marxist approach.
China's doing well (not prevailed yet) because of capitalism, because it's economy is tied to America's and other capitalist economies. Before that it was disastrous. But China's story is not finished, it is not at all a certainty that authoritarianism will have a happy ending in China. Now the Chinese population's main focus is economic freedom, once that is secured it's very conceivable they'll want more personal and political freedom too. Especially the future generations born with economic security. China may yet become a democracy in the distant future.
time to admit he was wrong
@Class is Fundamental There won't an end of history as both are of theories of what the ideal human social mechanisms and coordination is instead of a historical theory - to which historians are part of the humanities and not the social sciences that deal with history. When it comes to the concept of imperialism, that temrs gets spread around a lot to no end as one side is imperialist while the other is not, when in reality every culture, state, and civilization is imperialist as its resisting and expanding through its own institutions with or without the control of capital. We can see this in the days before and after capitalism. The notion that there is an end of history is really a modernist one that is outdated in terms of both Fukayama and the followers of Marx, as we can see history not being on a type of line instead of an erratic series of events that can progress, stagnate, and regress regardless on the dominant ideology and social organization. When applying historical materialism through history, it's rather arrogant to only use that as it's one form of historiography and there's no definitive retelling of history, to which we can see the influence of postmodernism do that with post-Marxists and the Frankfurt School establish what's now called "Critical Theory." When it comes to dealing with humans, the social sciences, and the humanities, trying to put forward a universal ideal or theory isn't going to last a few decades as we can see with both versions of the "End of History."
This lil homie had the Corona virus.
it was in 2007
@@wrabyapta history ended in 1991 tho?!
@@birdworldist you are not philosophy reader. you can't understand because the idea is for Hegel.
The End of History was doomed as an academic study. It is not universal knowledge based but clearly western educated. Liberal democrazy? No, you left out "Meritocracy" as first practised by Singapore - a small nation state but a powerhouse of eficiency, Oh, then there is Gordon Chang still forcasting the "downfall of China"!!! China is presently a "liberal socialist with chinese characteristic" practising what Singapore has taught Deng Siew Peng. As for the western nations, "too many heads spoil the soup" for their democratic kitchen!
Politically, how we can classify China as liberal? Would love to hear from you
False on all claims lol. He was wrong. Did you even listen to his talk? No.
China is not a liberal state. China is an anti-liberal state, which, Fukuyama predicts, will end in failure.
The introduction is cute. So, I guess people got refunds on his book? Or that is a little too "honest?"
He seems to talk in circles and endless sentences that do not really come to a definitive point. I will listen to the end though.
Afghanistan has ended the "end of history".
No, not necessarily end of history, because the growth of strong muslim identity in afghanistan was a response to perceived threat from soviet invasion.
Eventually if taliban plays by rules, soon enough there will be no external enemy to protect from, which will either make them more radical or just make them dilute their religious identity.
I wonder if Putin was a fan of his book? No doubt Putin had other ideas and wanted to create more material for our depleted history books. Looks like we will need a bigger library to house the new volumes.
No. He pointed out a simple fact that Islamic extremism has not won anything except few people who lost identify in their own society - in his first argument against the criticism.
Although material life and achievement are necessary, spirituality, namely knowledge of God and ethics are the most significant
He must hate China very much lol.
Most people do not like authoritarian state. That's obvious.
@@socrateos the west is authoritarian af you powerless pleb
I think either he is right, or China doesn’t exist. I really can’t tell.
ahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
He is Japanese, so US will blame Japanese group for any mistake he made. If he is right, then it is because he is American.😂
还好意思出来现眼呢… 脸真大
为什么不喜欢他
I respect his humility. That is a virtue we can aspire to have.
accountability feedback loop…… look at trump voters, LMAO
Trump was right - on virtually everything he said and did. Isn't it clear yet?
Nah he was right as he was pertaining on other democracy the countries that are in the higher scale of global democratic index, its just the US government model is very flawed.
Islam will dominate. If Turkey kicks out the USA from the middle east, it's game over. Whoever controls the middle east controls the world.
@@sameersameer-rx1eg Grandeur of delusion. Keep dreaming.
20:53 "In terms of people being lifted out of poverty", major weakness to his argument, he assumes that wealth is the key to human happiness. Totally false. Poor people can be very happy. Humans have lived for most of their existence without electricity, cars and modern conveniences such as washing machines. They were happy in the past, even the peasants - particularly the peasants. If not happy, then content, which is possibly better. All Americans assume that wealth and economic growth equal happiness. In fact wealth creates anxiety, greed, jealousy (always someone richer) listlessness and a questioning of the reason for existence. Poverty and simple living can be the key to happiness and self-fulfilment.
I love to hear this guy's point of view since it allows me to understand how people like him think, but he seems to be incredibly dismissive of criminal and oppressive forces. Does he at some point face the analogy of what happens when in a room with 100 people 1 person with a gun robs them? Just because a population is larger or richer doesn't mean they have either the means or the will to free themselves.
Also, I keep looking at the date, amazed that this guy stated these things only a few months ago. China is the second most powerful country in the world in terms of GDP, yet they are involved in three different genocides in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjang. They have concentration camps and employ slave labor. They do random blood tests on their own citizens to test for compatability for their live organ harvesting program. Their billion dollar public works projects are rife with corruption. How is it possible that anyone can say that China is anywhere near a democracy? Fukuyama says wait 20 years and then ask him? What is happening in China today should be incontravertible proof that wealth does not produce democracy.
This lecture is from 13 years ago.
That’s 02007 to use The Long Now’s convention.
Can you provide any research/statistics references (apart from media propaganda) to all claims you made about China? Thank you.
@@kamoans Sure. Is there anything in particular that concerns you? What is the thing that you find most difficult to believe? It is just that these are big topics, and there are mountains of evidence concerning them. I wouldn't want to dive into all of them. It would take a very long time.
It's not a question of smb's believe. The facts and references are needed for: "concentration camps, slave labor (unless for Apple, GE and similar), random blood tests, for organ harvesting." I would add 'corruption,' but it is widespread in all, democratic and not so, countries...
@@kamoans What is smb? Also, as I said, I won't go over all of it. These topics are simply too large. I can only say "google it". I'm sure it is an unsatisfactory answer, but it is simply too large of a sacrifice of my time to go over everything.
Fail theory is the fail theory!! No need to justify and revisit it. There is no prediction of human affairs. Some wise man said!!!
This is like a flat-earther coming back and telling us "well, maybe there's a slight curve, but the basic theory's fine".
Listen to his criticism of Marxism toward ends of the talk. He basically said the same thing when he said that the history is not predetermined and and that agents of history, human being, is important. It's all depends on what we, the agent of history, do. His argument is why, in the end, people will choose liberal democracy over any other systems.
@@socrateos If you ask people if they would like a political system in which their own party was in power for ever, how many would refuse that?
@@charleswhite758
Ask people in stead if they want to be free or slave.
Islam is perfect already from the very beginning, so it doesn't need anything like protestant or to have someone act as Luther! When Muslims have understand have understood Qur'an in the modern intellectual context , will provide the final social system as in the first 3 centuries
This guy lack too much spirituality, so he can never understand the truth. Science is just one simple aspect of the beauty of human Life, not even the most important one
He puts sanction on famous Russian lovely song about New York..why?!?!?
What’s the go with Muslims and Communists in the comments
Are you the Christ? Tell us please! We need to know!