\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
%\usepackage{multicol}
%\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[pdfborder={0 0 0}]{hyperref}
\usepackage{verbatim}
%\usepackage[cm]{fullpage}
\usepackage[left=5cm,right=4.7cm,top=3cm,bottom=3cm]{geometry}
%\usepackage{setspace} \onehalfspacing
%\usepackage{sober}
%\usepackage{times}
%\pagestyle{plain}

\begin{document}
\begin{center}
Big History course, University of Amsterdam, \\ 
{\em Andreas van Cranenburgh\footnote{\texttt{andreas@unstable.nl}, 0440949}, \today} \\
\end{center}

%                                                          ESSAY:
%          TENTAMEN:
%                                           1. Kies een onderwerp waar je affiniteit
%1. Ongeveer 50 stellingen:
%                                           mee hebt:
%Hoofdlijnen van:
%                                           2. Beschrijf vanuit een 'Big History'-
%                                           perspectief hoe dit onderwerp is
%o Alle colleges
%                                           geworden tot wat het nu is.
%o Alle verplichte literatuur
%                                           Bij ieder college dient u zich af te vragen wat
%                                           de daarin besproken inzichten hebben
%2. Essay                                   bijgedragen aan de ontwikkeling van het door
%                                           u gekozen onderwerp.
%             ESSAY:                                       ESSAY:
%                                           De essays zullen worden beoordeeld op:
%U dient deze vraag thuis voor te bereiden.
%Het resultaat moet uitgeprint worden       - kennis en inzicht        (weegfactor 3)
%ingeleverd tijdens het tentamen.           - opbouw en stijl           (weegfactor 1)
%                                           - creativiteit             (weegfactor 1)
%U dient uw antwoord per college
%zorgvuldig te beredeneren.
%                                           Goed:             1 punt bij tentamenuitslag
%                                           Voldoende:        geen verandering
%Uw antwoord dient per college tenminste
%                                           Onvoldoende: 1 punt minder
%een alinea, en maximaal twee alinea's te
%                                           Geen essay of duidelijk niet uw best gedaan:
%beslaan. In totaal: maximaal 4 pagina's A4                   2 punten minder

\section{Big Optimism: have we reached the end of history?}

\subsection{Big history as of now}
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. From nothingness a sudden
flash of matter and energy emerged, after which matter[s] began to get steadily
more complicated. The universe started out innocent and free of problems. After
some time, a blue planet was formed. This planet became the busy stage of a
dynamic and volatile phenomenon: life. All of its life evolved to exploit
any and all of the resources present, with species going extinct and new ones
taking over in succession. There was no design, purpose or direction to be
found.

This state of affairs did not last, however, because a species appeared which
could adapt itself to new conditions and exploit its surroundings in ever more
sophisticated ways. This cerebral, upright walking primate is known as {\em
Homo Sapiens}. Since nature had a hard time keeping their numbers in check
these humans started to turn on each other in the newfound struggle for
survival and control.  After having developed agriculture, food become abundant
enough to direct cognitive surplus at finding new means of control and
destruction. This culminated in the invention of the ultimate doomsday
device, the hydrogen bomb, capable of destroying the world many times over.
\footnote{It is tragic to note that the process which makes the hydrogen bomb
possible, nuclear fusion, is potentially an abundant source of energy, but
unfortunately it is easier to use for destructive purposes due to the
overwhelming energy it releases. What use is destruction without reconstruction?}

The history of the universe until now has been one of steadily rising
complexity, to the point where one might wonder if we will continue to be able
to handle the complexity. Perhaps the burden will become too great to handle
and society will collapse. Societies of humans have become ever more hungry for
and dependent on energy -- but instead of organizing society around managing
this scarce resource, the dominant organization is one around the free exchange
of goods using common currency.

With so many ways in which things could go finally, ultimately and
apocalyptically wrong, it would appear to be hard to be optimistic about the
future. This is no cause of concern to most people, who go about their lives
unperturbed and blissfully ignorant of such matters. Another class of people
present explicit arguments to support their optimism. This essay focuses on
one such apologist.

\subsection{Liberalism}

Since classical liberalism (Smith, 1776) the free exchange of goods has been
the central dogma of world affairs, ie., laissez-faire economics.  Modern
liberalism (Rawls, 1992) differs substantially by offering positive freedom as
well, through the redistribution of wealth. What has remained constant is a
minimal and simplistic narrative of success and stability through free
enterprise. Liberalism explicitely opposes comprehensive doctrines, unless they
are compatible and can be assimilated to form a pluralistic society.

The danger of this minimal narrative is that there are no constraints or common
goals to shepherd the masses toward progress. All individuals are to maximize
profits and other self-interests, with the sole condition of respecting
individual rights. This has the potential of biasing individuals toward
short-term personal gain over long-term visions that may require unanimous
participation.

%Classical vs. modern liberalism.
%Narrative too minimal to constrain tragedy
%liberal state. Mills Rawls. Gemakszuchtige welfare state.
%Comprehensive doctrines terzijde laten. Stabiliteit creeeren
%Centrale regel:
% 1. each person has equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberty, which scheme is compatible with a similar scheme for all.
%2. social and economic inequalites are to satisfy two conditions: first, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of oppurtunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
% -- p. 191

%It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that
%we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We
%address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never
%talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

\subsection{Fukuyama's thesis}
\begin{quote}
 ``Have we in fact reached the end of history? Are there, in other words, any
fundamental ``contradictions" in human life that cannot be resolved in the
context of modern liberalism, that would be resolvable by an alternative
political-economic structure?" -- Fukuyama (1989)
\end{quote}

Fukuyama (1989) argues that in a Hegelian sense, history has come to an end.
History, seen as the development of ideas in the consciousness of humanity, has
reached its endpoint with western liberalism, having defeated fascism with
World War II, and communism with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Liberalism
is posited as the ultimate ideology, able to assimilate and emulate all former
and future narratives. This thesis has inspired the neoconservative movement,
resulting in such disasters as ``Operation: Iraqi Freedom'' and an attempt to
bring democracy to Afghanistan.

Aside from the {\em prima facie} preposterousness of the phrase ``the end of
history,'' there appear to be a number of problems for its declaration of
liberalism as the optimal organization of society: terrorism, environmental
issues, overpopulation and the question of technology. 

\subsection{Overpopulation and growth}
In a classic paper, Hardin (1968) describes the parable of the tragedy of the
commons, which belongs to a class of problems that cannot be solved by
technical means. The commons is a shared resource which is inevitably destroyed
by its users if they are allowed to follow their own self-interest
unscrupulously. The original example is one of a pasture for grazing animals.
Each herdsman is best served by maximizing his number of lifestock, at the
expense of others. Ultimately the pasture will become overgrazed, utilized
beyond its carrying capacity. The crucial point is that the positive effects of
increasing livestock are fully reaped by its owner, whereas the negative
effects are shared by everyone.

This parable is then used as an argument for restricting reproduction, because
if we view the world as our pasture, with our ever more numerous descendants as
livestock, it becomes obvious that it is a matter of time before unbridled
reproduction and resource use will eclipse the world's carrying capacity.

Hardin stresses that an appeal to conscience will not help, because it is not
within a person's self-interest to mind the planet's resources. Appealing to
conscience is self-defeating because it favours selfish individuals who will
ignore the appeal, at the expense of the moral majority. The real solution
involves regulation, which unfortunately, {\em pace} liberalism, involves
coercion.

The problem is not limited to overpopulation, though. Economic thought has
instilled us with a simplistic measure of prosperity in the form of the Gross
National Product. If production is not on the rise, there has to be some kind
of problem. The result is an unquestioned insistence on monetary growth that
dominates all political decisions. It is ominous and unsettling to realize that
such unfettered growth is not unlike the infamous biological menace known as
cancer . . .

% Liberalism, invisible hand.
These problems can be summed up as the failing of Adam Smith's `Invisible
Hand.' This hand is not only invisible, it appears to be non-existent.

\subsection{The question of technology}

What is progress? The industrial revolution has allowed population to grow
unchecked and exponentially, and its peoples to consume and rely on increasing
amounts of fossil fuel and other hopelessly finite resources. The only way
this can be construed as progress is if there is something intrinsincally
good about larger populations and increasing production. But this is by no
means obvious.  There is indication that hunter-gatherer societies were more
peaceful and much less labor intensive than modern society. Division of labor
has introduced hierarchy and poverty to the world. Technology requires for its
continuing growth and existence an increasingly dedicated population, alienated
from its connection to nature, and subjugated using a master-slave morality.
First humans domesticated fellow animals, but now we in turn have been
domesticated by the iron hand of technology.
%Iron hand as opposed to an invisible hand ...

%Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks
%about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the
%point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will
%destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as
%it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society
%the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of
%labor from proceeding to its limits. -- Chomsky

Kaczynski has been the most vocal proponent of such views. Also known as the
Unabomber (UNiversity and Airline bomber), he carried out a decades long
campaign of mail bombs. He succesfully dodged the FBI until finally he demanded
for his manifesto (1995) to be published, through which his brother was able to
identify and report him. His manifesto argues that technological society has
increasingly limited individual freedom, and that it is ultimately
unsustainable. Reforming the system will not work, as its dogmas are too
ingrained in socialization.  Through a process called `oversocialization,' `the
left,' he argues, focuses on narrow issues such as women's and immigrants'
rights, acting as a surrogate for an authentically meaningful life as defined
by the individual himself. Because of society's expectations and these
surrogates, people have lost their view of the big picture: the destruction of
our natural habitat, and the erosion of human freedom. In order to resolve this
situation it is neccesary, according to Kaczynski, to destroy the system from
within.  Philosopher John Zerzan (1995) agrees with the goals but differs on the
means, which he describes as unacceptable. He argues that foragers lived in
community with their environment, which has been replaced by alienation for
man in industrial society.  Ultimately he blames symbolic language for this
alienation. In between these stages was the agricultural revolution, which,
paradoxically, has introduced famine to humanity (Christian 2004).

While this primitivism seems radical, questioning technology is a well known
literary theme, with examples such as that of Shelley's Frankenstein,
Huxley's\footnote{Technological progress has merely provided us with more
efficient means for going backwards.  -- Aldous Huxley} Brave New World and
D.H. Lawrence's ambivalence towards the industrial revolution. It is also at
the core of Heidegger's philosophy, where it is expressed as Dasein's desire
for authentic life. The challenge to liberalism is whether real freedom is more
than the negative freedom of laissez-faire economics, or whether it should
safeguard a connection and harmony with nature for individuals to flourish. The
darker side is that primitivism has led to terrorism, which is still
threatening the world today in the form of radical Islam, incidentally not
without its own sense of antagonism towards technology.  It would be a
subterfuge to claim that such terrorism is an attack on `our' freedom, rather,
it appears to be ressentiment towards the oppressive decadence of the West.

% Yes: fascism and communism have been defeated, BUT:
% Challenge of technology, terrorism, environmental issues, overpopulation


%conclusion:
%Paradox: overpopulation->regulation, primitivism->anti-regulation.
%Solution: without industry regulation wouldn't be necessary.

\subsection{Competition or cooperation?}
\begin{quote}
``The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the
willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide
ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and
idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of
technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of
sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period there will be
neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of
human history.'' -- Fukuyama (1989)
\end{quote}

This passage epitomizes the cynical mindset that pervades liberalism,
portraying each and every exchange as a struggle, man for himself; be a victor
or be a victim. I submit that the success of Homo Sapiens is better explained
as due to cooperation and coordination, survival of the best nurtured instead
of the fittest. Art and philosophy are very much social phenomena, and social
endeavors seem to be intrinsically rewarding rather than driven purely by such
abstract things as market forces. It appears that the accounts of the death of
history have been greatly exaggerated!

% Taylor 

\subsection{Conclusion}
I conclude that there is not enough evidence to support the thesis that history
has come to an end. Rather, humanity is faced with immense problems and
questions. First there is the question of whether the environment will continue
to be able to sustain us. Second one can and should wonder whether we want to
continue on our current path of alienation. 

Whether mankind could converge
towards a liberal utopia or head towards inevitable doom is a contingent
matter. Most likely mankind will continue plodding along so long as it can as
it always has been. This may sound anti-climactic, but as long as mankind is
around there will be trouble ahead. No to worry, though; aside from being the
supreme throublemakers, we are also the supreme troubleshooters.

\subsection*{References}

\begin{description}

\item[Christian, David] (2004). Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History. University of California Press.

\item[Fukuyama, Francis] (1989). The End of History? \\
\url{http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm}

\item[Kaczynski, Theodore] (October 1995). The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial
Society \& Its Future. Jolly Roger Pr. ISBN 0963420526. \\
\url{http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future}

\item[Hardin, G.] (1968). Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. \\
\url{http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243}

\item[Rawls, John] (1992). Justice as Fairness: political, not metaphysical,
in: Communitarianism and Individualism, ed. Shlomo Avinieri and Avner
de-Shalit, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 186-204.

\item[Smith, Adam] (1776 [1977]). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations, University Of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226763749.

\item[Zerzan, John] (1995). Whose Unabomber? \url{http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whoseunabomber.htm}

\end{description}

\end{document}
