AS GOOD AS IT GETS? REALLY?

            I just finished a book by Francis Fukuyama entitled “THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN”.  From the title, you might think this is a science fiction story about the end of time and the demise of humanity.  You would be incorrect.  Mr. Fukuyama is actually a well known political scientist and the book is a New York Times bestseller about the evolution of man’s various attempts to govern himself.

            For purposes of the book’s discussion, HISTORY is not merely the ongoing occurrence of events, but rather should be “understood as a single, coherent, evolutionary process, when taking into account the experience of all peoples in all times.” His argument is that liberal democracy such as that existing in the United States and many other countries today is the supreme approach to governance, given mankind’s inherent nature.  Different forms of governance such as monarchies, communism, aristocracies, totalitarianism, fascism, feudalism, and many others have all been tried and have eventually given way (or will soon) to liberal democracy as he defines it. The author describes the various aspects of human nature driving this process of change and argues that democracy is the only form of governance capable of satisfying man’s basic inherent nature; therefore, the evolution of governance is done. It can get no better than this.

            Oh, he agrees there is work still to be done, but mainly in the implementation of democracy, not in the development of new models or approaches to governance beyond what we currently have. I found his premise fascinating in one sense and disturbing in another sense.

            Fukuyama argues that the advent of the scientific method and the corresponding continuing development of technology will result in people demanding the type of governance that can best support a society in which they will have access to the benefits of said technology. Such a society demands both individual equality and a degree of liberty that will ensure the rational allocation of resources. This is kind of an economic development argument and makes a great deal of sense to me.  The breakup of the Soviet Union, and current trends in China are strong evidence for this position.  His rationale for why mankind would desire access to technological benefits harks back to Plato’s Republic and a discussion of thymos, or the human approach to establishing value.  The desire for recognition and the role of self esteem are cited as factors which I had never thought of as principle drivers in the evolution of governance.

            On the other hand, we are in the middle of the 2012 presidential election cycle.  The negativity and constant blatant attempts to take advantage of voter gullibility, prejudice, and ignorance are exceptionally depressing.  I confess that I have become somewhat more liberal with the passing of time; still, I note that both sides are too often guilty of reducing complex nuanced problems and issues down to bumper sticker slogans.  The inability of the media or anyone else to rise above the demagoguery causes me to question how effective our form of democracy can really be. Thus, when Fukuyama says this is as good as it gets, I wonder what the future holds for us. It seems to me that our technology is driving us in several different directions at once.

One of those directions is toward ever higher levels of fragmentation and distraction. We used to get the news from a handful of sources, and (for better or worse) received relatively consistent presentations as to what was happening in the world and why. Now we have 500 TV channels and the Internet. There is no consensus explanation of what or why things are happening. We are left to sort through it all and increasingly wind up choosing those sources that appear to generally fit our preconceived world views which may or may not coincide with reality.

Economically, we seem to be dividing into the “haves” and the “have-nots”, with much less class mobility than we used to have. Part of this is our education system, part is the changing cultural values of our society, part is simply the side effect of a globalizing economy. Still, the change is happening so quickly I wonder whether a lot of people will be able to make the transition.

On the bright side, the total volume of knowledge is expanding exponentially. I really do believe it will be possible to dramatically extend human life spans within my time. I fully expect to see people with some kind of chip implant that gives them access to the internet, etc walking around just like people do with smartphones today. That could give rise to some kind of “just in time” education. Continuing advances in robotics will mean manufacturing and agriculture will become even less labor intensive. What people will do for a living is just beyond me; maybe we will just all continually be learning how to use the technology that will be coming out every day.

What would all this mean for our form of governance? I don’t know. The vast array of information sources should mean we are less prone to manipulation and control by the “elite” who might exploit us. Our changing cultural values may get to the point where most of us won’t care what happens as long as we have access to our favorite drug or virtual reality. Maybe some kind of artificial intelligence will arise that we will recognize as always being right and we will turn the whole governance thing over to it. At least it seems that more people with more access to more information should generally make better decisions. It will still come back to what value systems we are using to weigh the various choices. In any event, it should be fascinating to watch.