Hi Ed, I think we'll have to call our argument a draw. I don't think either of us can persuade the other any further in the terms we've discussed it so far. However, if I have time later today I'm going to try and get back to analysing Hartington's (and your) case a little further by reference to his seminal essay of 1993. (He backs his argument by giving five reasons for his thesis and I would maintain that these are either specious or irrelevant.)
For now I just want to write a few words on what might be your (wrong) assumptions on what Fukuyama's 'end-point' might be. Of course, I don't know how Fukuyama himself would discuss this, so what follows are my views alone. For this purpose I have detached the final paragraphs from your last message: (KH) > So all this is why I believe that Fukuyama is not only on the right track, > but also why the rest of the world will inevitably get to an American way > of life -- or perish in the attempt. (EW) <<<< I've already given my reasons why I believe Fukuyama is very wrong. That America or the American way of life somehow represents 'the end of history' is complete nonsense. >>>> The point I want to make here is that although Fukuyama talks of an 'end-point' -- that is, that most peoples and nations want to arrive at a non-ideological liberal type of civilisation, perhaps best represented by America -- he doesn't necessarily equate this with a particular way of life, namely the American. I'm sure he doesn't, and I certainly don't believe so. Indeed, I'm sure that the American way of life will have to change beyond all recognition in the decades to come because economic circumstances will force this. This doesn't mean to say that (in Fukuyama's terms) 'History' will change (even though 'history' will) because I believe that transition to a new way of life can only take place peacefully within a non-ideological, liberal, free market context. Very briefly, let me give one certain example of how the American way of life will have to change. As oil and gas reserves decline steeply in the coming decades because of increased demand from China and other developing countries then the cost of fuel will rise enormously. There'll be considerable diversification into new energy technologies, of course, but none of these can produce cheap fuel and chemical feedstock for many industries as now. (I've already made reference to this in my posting a few days ago about the Hydrogen economy.) Among all the huge changes that will take place, the widespread use of private motor cars and inland transportation by manufacturers will decline substantially. The British Government (of both political parties) have been aware of this for years, and have said so from time to time. (Five years ago at the beginning of the 'New Labour' government, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minsiter, said that he would announce a "comprehensive transport policy". He hasn't done so -- nor will he ever.) It is political dynamite to propose specific solutions and, so far, no serious attempts have been made to legislate in order to guide the population into new modes of travel and industry into cheaper modes of production and seaboard placement of factories, etc. The American love of the motor car and, indeed, the very cheapness of his fuel so far, means that the imposition of taxation (and other changes such as road tolling, etc,) from above in the usual way by legislation is fraught with problems. If, for example (I can only speak of England with any authority), the government were to bring about widescale road tolling (which will be necessary one day) then there'd be a revolution. The only way that politicians can make changes is by saying to the electorate that there is no escaping from the iron law of economics -- supply and demand. That they, as politicians can't modify basic environmental circumstances anymore than they can stop the tide. I would maintain that these huge changes will only be able to take place peacefully within a liberal non-ideological context by means of education first (and repeatedly) and legislation second. But, so far, politicians haven't had the courage to spell out the basic problems of energy supply. Keith P.S. This is a pre-breakfast offering and I don't think I'll have time to write further today but meanwhile (unless you are already well-acquainted with Hartington's case), you might be interested to read his essay (the basis of his book presumably if you have not read it) which is to be found at www.sundaytimes.co.uk. I find it an elaborate tapestry of words without real substance or reference to the economic basics which have driven the development of cultures throughout history. ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
