Optimization > Competition

I keep revisiting Francis Fukuyama's, and in general the idea of the "end of history," a popular sentiment that arose at the close of the Cold War. Fukuyama argued that this "End of History" was the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy as the final form of government, the capstone to an extensive ideological debate.

It's an attractive idea in itself, but Fukuyama's vision has ultimately been proven incorrect on a couple of different levels. The idea that there would be no more conflict between nations in the future is flawed, because knowledge disparities still exist between nations; not everyone has followed this ideological debate and hence knowledge disparities will continue to work to reduce themselves, through conflict or through networking (as we are seeing from modern globalization). Fukuyama's "End of History" is also very Western Philosophy centric. Maybe it can be argued that Hegel's and Marx's philosophies are built upon philosophical theories, debates and conclusions reached by prominent philosophers from throughout human history, and therefore throughout the world. But it's still a very Modernization Theory centered idea, and currently we still live in an age with deviations from this rule, such as China, which has developed quite differently from the rest of the world and continues to do so. But the belief that some kind of democracy will prevail in China isn't entirely immature; leaders continue to die, and new leaders continue to step into the fold, whether or not elected by people or by happenstance. The fact that many of the world's happiest nations have prospered as liberal democracies shouldn't be ignored; perhaps it really is the final form of government. It's certainly the most desirable in a majority states. Time will only tell it truly is the "final form of government."

Granted, liberal democracy remains incredibly flawed and turbulent, thrown for a loop by new technologies and information dissemination, as new alliances and new forms of alliances take place between states, as new forms of warfare beyond the conventional continue to evolve that will make the human identity the new battleground. How can a state defend it's people against that? Will liberal democracy be able to triumph over this? Who knows. 

I return to Fukuyama's "End of History" because, while his theory is rather flawed and many would say has been proven wrong, the sentiment still reigns, long after the end of the Cold War. This "End of History" sentiment still prevails. 

Is it just a bout of euphoria in the knowledge that unrestricted conventional warfare between our global leaders is effectively no longer possible over? Is it just the sense of completion we have from finally completely mapping our globe, reaching the stars? Is it an inevitable understanding that the nation state will no longer be the main engine of war? Is it a reassurance of the long peace? 

I am entirely unsure. I like to refer to the sentiment as just "Millennium Existentialism", because that's really best way I can describe it. It's a form of existentialism risen from the end of the Cold War and the turn of the Second Millennium of the Common Era. It's a moment of reflection of our success on getting this far, but also our blank slate of a future. 

Really, I believe it's a combination of factors, such as achievements in science and peace, and on the basis I'd like to posit another theory, a theory for the main focus of modern, developed humans in the next century or even Millennium. I refer to it as the "Great Optimization."

Essentially, I believe that the next stage in global human society (at different rates, of course, depending on levels of regional development) will be focused on optimizing the human quality of life, rather than the aggressive technological development that has been rampant for the previous centuries, and that instead of competing for technological superiority, we will be collaborating on spreading technological welfare and equalizing social welfare across the world. 

We've entered an age where technology empowers the human individual more than ever, allowing us to reach across borders without working through state apparatuses. We're in an age where universal values are shared across borders and fought for across borders. We're in age where machines render many of our time-consuming everyday tasks automated, and allow us to focus on other things like building meaningful relationships, cultivating our families, learning about other cultures, and this, along with the liberal values enshrined in liberal democracy, and other universal human constants such as art and science, will keep us together, and prevent war. Even as nation states try to draw lines in the sand and control their citizens with new information technology, the inherent values of freedom that almost every human seeks to reach will win and continue to win. 

The trouble here is that the resources on our planet our limited, but neoliberal capitalism commands no limits to the extent of exploiting resources. Modern capitalism is very much exploitative of mother nature and her resources, and this is a logical perspective conducive of technological development. But our values and our quest for universal freedoms will prevail, and as it stands, neoliberal capitalism undermines the freedoms of our neighbors, and therefore creeps in as a threat to us. This kind of economic polarization is dooming them to fall, whether of their own volition or that of the masses, for values  If left unchecked, these disparities will tear apart the fabric of society apart. 

Capitalism only succeeds insofar as there are resources to exploit, but we are reaching a period of "technological satisfaction," a point where society is both satisfied with the technology at our disposal and curbs the demand for development, and the point at which we are at the limits of what resources there are to exploit; legislation and common values limit this exploitation. Capitalists therefore perpetuate and create exploitations artificially, resurrecting issues that should have been long ago solved by undermining individuals that can be undermined. The result is a society where inequalities grow. 

At the same time, our own development is swallowing our humanity; mental health issues are increasing and the unstudied impacts of our own newest and most advanced technologies are beyond our own comprehension. Not only are our own systems and knowledge becoming too complex to fully understand as individuals (encouraging more collaborative networks) but the desire to learn these complicated tasks will decrease in response to the values of freedom. Complex issues beyond those of our chosen employment, such as political issues, will become more work than our own employment itself, that is, if we are to ensure the full functioning of our informed democracies. In short, our own technological development is outpacing our evolutionary development, and if we don't manage our speed then we shall soon be falling over our own feet. The complexity of our society has to be managed, and if we are to have informed, functioning democracies and conquer our most pressing issues, it is necessary to make our everyday lives as parsimonious as possible, for all citizens. 

This isn't just a semantic truth, it is a survival truth. The complexity of our society continues to blind us to more abstract issues of survival, such as climate change. Traditionally domestic issues have become global issues, on which we try and fail to resolve at the level of the state. And yet, the state appears to be the only true entity that can tackle these issues and regulate international corporations and the such; NGOs, whilst powerful, simply don't hold the same sway and support of nation states. But nation states are swept up in a variety of issues domestically, which need to be resolved before people can concentrate on global issues. The nation state is simultaneously weakened by hyper-globalization and yet the only true entity that is powerful enough to resolve issues of global consequence. 

The simple truth is that individual humans can no longer deal with the complexities of being an individual in society responsible for their own welfare and at the same time deal with issues of global complication that are pertinent to our own survival as a race. The world is more complex than we can deal with, and so our divisions are not based so much on fundamental disagreements on critical issues, but really disagreements of priority between critical issues. People choose to tackle climate change over abortion rights, racial inequalities over gun laws, Internet freedoms over basic income. You aren't choosing your views, but you are choosing what views are the greatest priority to you. No doubt that all these issues are critically important, but the truth of the matter is that some issues are really of greater consequence of others. The paradox as it seems is that our most immediate threats are our most complex ones, and they're impossible to defeat without everyone participating. But we can't get everyone to participate and prioritize in our greatest issues if we're all dealing with closer, more personal threats to our own survival. 

On top of all of this, we're being pacified by new forms of entertainment, where, for the first time in history, people have free and ready access to more content they want to consume than they can consume, and they distract us from the major issues and stoke apathy. 

If we're truly to tackle the most diverse range of issues a society has ever been aware of at one point in history, we need to make time for these issues. We need to optimize the human individual so that we can easily work to resolve these issues together. What is truly ridiculous is that none of these issues are technological in nature, they are all issues of policy that we should be able to resolve here and now. But no, these are issues arisen from knowledge disparities, between cultures, between people of different economic statuses, of a diverse range of backgrounds. It isn't the issue of people prioritizing the wrong issues, but more that the uneven distribution of resources and the continuous undermining of access to these resources by the hyper-capitalist elite perpetuate the existence of the major issues. Our biggest problems right now don't need technological solutions as offered by tech companies and their affluent CEOs, our biggest problems need the coordination of the masses, and for that coordination to work everyone needs to be healthy and stable to make the radical changes to our society. We need to operate on a consensus, but the very nature of neoliberal capitalism has made reaching this consensus evermore difficult than before to achieve by perpetuating a slew of issues. Indeed, climate change will not be an issue we can solve until everyone is equally affected by it's wrath and the many forms it will take, and it will affect everyone equally. 

Optimization is a necessity for survival. Rodrik's "thin globalization" is paramount to curbing hyper-globalization and neoliberal capitalism and all that it reaps from us. Even without the threat of climate change, we've reached a time where we have all the technology to be comfortable but we don't have access to it because of how the economy has been manipulated. The next century will be focused not on technological development, but ensuring everyone can have access to it so that our greatest issues can be tackled in the only way possible; with changes to the consumer and consumer society. If we even out economic inequalities, our greatest problems will resolve themselves. We will have time for healthy competition later.