Is it the 'end' of history?

[JackDaydream]

I am referring to the area of thinking referred to by the postmodernist writer Jean Baudrillard, who explored underlying implicit assumptions about the idea of the end of history. He was writing in 1994, and at the time there were fears about the end of the millennium. 2000 passed and there were even some fears about 2012 and the end of the Mayan calendar. However, I would argue that while fears about the end of history have often arisen and , been bound up with religious belief systems, the thought of the end is different in the context of the twentieth century because there is major threat of mass destruction through nuclear warfare. Aso, with climate change there is so much concern about the way humans have destroyed the planet and the view that the future may be uninhabitable for future generations.

Baudrillard spoke of the nature of the idea of the end in the following way,
'The end of history is, alas also the dustbin of history. There are no longer any dustbins even for disposing of old ideologies, old regimes, old values.Conclusion: if there are no more dustbins of history this is because history itself has become it's own dustbin.'
He is emphasising an underlying thought about a potential imminent end which he saw as prevalent in culture. He argued that it was bound up with a linear conception of history and interconnected assumptions about history as something which may finish.

I wonder about his idea of the 'end' now and connect it to fears about climate change and other threats to the planet. Where is humanity going and can the threats be averted, and on what level can the human race survive? Could Western civilisation be on the brink of collapse equal to the fall of Rome? Is it like the REM song, 'The End of the World( As We Know It)? I find that the possible end of humanity disturbs me more than the thought of personal death. But, to what extent is it the end of history, or is the idea of the end a myth?

[Belindi]

The end of history is Judgement Day masquerading as a new idea. I agree with Baudrillard, and thanks for including Baudrillard's idea.

Judgement Day and Almighty God are to be considered poetic and thought experiments.

[JackDaydream]

@Belindi
One aspect which I am concerned about is the way ideas of the 'end' could create a self fulfilling prophecy. In particular, in the twentieth century there was fear around the end of the century, which was compounded by Nostradamus's ideas, and it may have lead to human beings thinking that they were the last inhabitants on the planet. This may have contributed to the irresponsible use of resources and got the world in the ecological state which it has arrived at currently. So, I am suggesting that demystifying the idea of the end of history is important as an aspect of thinking about the future and what can be done for the wellbeing of future generations and other lifeforms.

[JackDaydream]

I will just add that my aim in starting this thread discussion is to think about the 'doom and gloom' thinking about the planet critically. I do believe that humanity is at a critical juncture with so many real problems looming. There are so many warring tensions and conflicts, including terrorism. In the future petroleum resources are likely to run out. Climate change is escalating on a scale far worse than imagined. The pandemic has thrown up social and economic problems which were developing amidst a possible collapse of consumer materialistic culture. So, there are many pressing concerns. So, the debate which I am trying to think about is the problems which appear before humanity, especially world leaders, which make it feel like the 'end' in a critical but positive way.

[Belindi]

@Belindi
One aspect which I am concerned about is the way ideas of the 'end' could create a self fulfilling prophecy. In particular, in the twentieth century there was fear around the end of the century, which was compounded by Nostradamus's ideas, and it may have lead to human beings thinking that they were the last inhabitants on the planet. This may have contributed to the irresponsible use of resources and got the world in the ecological state which it has arrived at currently. So, I am suggesting that demystifying the idea of the end of history is important as an aspect of thinking about the future and what can be done for the wellbeing of future generations and other lifeforms.

I endorse all of the above. Further, the climate crisis has brought us to the point of having to accept responsibility for it and having to act with no expectation of help from benign Providence nor the fatalist's end of history.

[Belindi]

I will just add that my aim in starting this thread discussion is to think about the 'doom and gloom' thinking about the planet critically. I do believe that humanity is at a critical juncture with so many real problems looming. There are so many warring tensions and conflicts, including terrorism. In the future petroleum resources are likely to run out. Climate change is escalating on a scale far worse than imagined. The pandemic has thrown up social and economic problems which were developing amidst a possible collapse of consumer materialistic culture. So, there are many pressing concerns. So, the debate which I am trying to think about is the problems which appear before humanity, especially world leaders, which make it feel like the 'end' in a critical but positive way.

The Green Party has long been forceful in Germany, and is now on the rise in the UK.
Trumpism is on the decline in the US. There are many more well- educated youths than a few years ago who now see what is good and what is bad about economic growth and consumerism. Some priests deliver sermons about human rights and responsibilities. The media are supporting women and black people against police forces' ignorance about their duties of care.
All of the above may be too slow to evolve into political action, and our best hope is in technology.

[Pattern-chaser]

I will just add that my aim in starting this thread discussion is to think about the 'doom and gloom' thinking about the planet critically. I do believe that humanity is at a critical juncture with so many real problems looming. There are so many warring tensions and conflicts, including terrorism. In the future petroleum resources are likely to run out. Climate change is escalating on a scale far worse than imagined. The pandemic has thrown up social and economic problems which were developing amidst a possible collapse of consumer materialistic culture. So, there are many pressing concerns. So, the debate which I am trying to think about is the problems which appear before humanity, especially world leaders, which make it feel like the 'end' in a critical but positive way.

The Green Party has long been forceful in Germany, and is now on the rise in the UK.
Trumpism is on the decline in the US. There are many more well- educated youths than a few years ago who now see what is good and what is bad about economic growth and consumerism. Some priests deliver sermons about human rights and responsibilities. The media are supporting women and black people against police forces' ignorance about their duties of care.
All of the above may be too slow to evolve into political action, and our best hope is in technology.

If our wish is to carry on as we have been since the Industrial Revolution, then technology is surely our only hope. Although it seems a somewhat forlorn hope; probably an impossible dream.

But the manifestations of environmental pollution and destruction, and of climate change, are serious enough now - today - that we must surely consider the possibility that the solution to our problems is not to act - via technology or otherwise - but to stop acting? Specifically, to stop consuming. [Actually, we can't literally stop consuming or we will all die anyway.] But we do need to radically cut our consumption. Not by 1% or 10%, but by 90% or 99%.

I think this is the real problem we face today: facing up to the magnitude of the changes we must make, changes that we are violently opposed to even considering. Our prosperous and luxurious lifestyles cannot be sustained. We have to think about giving up all kinds of things we hold dear. I don't know exactly what, or how much, but the list might include some of the following:

• Air travel. All of it, leading to the closure of all our aerospace industries.
• Personal powered transport. All of it, leading to the closure of our car industries.
• Fashion and cosmetics. Especially including the mindset that encourages us to discard items that remain usable, because they're last month's fad.
• Billionaires. Maybe millionaires too.
• Capitalism, which has caused the current eco-disaster, and which still nurtures the struggle to continue, and accelerate, the destruction.
• The internet, which consumes so much power...
• Concrete and cotton, both of which (in different ways) consume vast amounts of resources in their creation.
• Fossil fuels. The extraction and use of all fossil fuels must cease.

The list is seemingly endless, and only a prophet could say for sure if only some of these things need to go, or if it's all of the above and a lot more too.

Once we set ourselves to do what needs to be done, technology will surely aid us in all kinds of ways. [It's my assumption that this is what you were referring to in your post, Belindi. ] But the one thing it can't help with is to allow us to carry on destroying all that we touch, as we do today, in every 'Western' country, and in many others too.

[Belindi]

I will just add that my aim in starting this thread discussion is to think about the 'doom and gloom' thinking about the planet critically. I do believe that humanity is at a critical juncture with so many real problems looming. There are so many warring tensions and conflicts, including terrorism. In the future petroleum resources are likely to run out. Climate change is escalating on a scale far worse than imagined. The pandemic has thrown up social and economic problems which were developing amidst a possible collapse of consumer materialistic culture. So, there are many pressing concerns. So, the debate which I am trying to think about is the problems which appear before humanity, especially world leaders, which make it feel like the 'end' in a critical but positive way.

The Green Party has long been forceful in Germany, and is now on the rise in the UK.
Trumpism is on the decline in the US. There are many more well- educated youths than a few years ago who now see what is good and what is bad about economic growth and consumerism. Some priests deliver sermons about human rights and responsibilities. The media are supporting women and black people against police forces' ignorance about their duties of care.
All of the above may be too slow to evolve into political action, and our best hope is in technology.

If our wish is to carry on as we have been since the Industrial Revolution, then technology is surely our only hope. Although it seems a somewhat forlorn hope; probably an impossible dream.

But the manifestations of environmental pollution and destruction, and of climate change, are serious enough now - today - that we must surely consider the possibility that the solution to our problems is not to act - via technology or otherwise - but to stop acting? Specifically, to stop consuming. [Actually, we can't literally stop consuming or we will all die anyway.] But we do need to radically cut our consumption. Not by 1% or 10%, but by 90% or 99%.

I think this is the real problem we face today: facing up to the magnitude of the changes we must make, changes that we are violently opposed to even considering. Our prosperous and luxurious lifestyles cannot be sustained. We have to think about giving up all kinds of things we hold dear. I don't know exactly what, or how much, but the list might include some of the following:

• Air travel. All of it, leading to the closure of all our aerospace industries.
• Personal powered transport. All of it, leading to the closure of our car industries.
• Fashion and cosmetics. Especially including the mindset that encourages us to discard items that remain usable, because they're last month's fad.
• Billionaires. Maybe millionaires too.
• Capitalism, which has caused the current eco-disaster, and which still nurtures the struggle to continue, and accelerate, the destruction.
• The internet, which consumes so much power...
• Concrete and cotton, both of which (in different ways) consume vast amounts of resources in their creation.
• Fossil fuels. The extraction and use of all fossil fuels must cease.

The list is seemingly endless, and only a prophet could say for sure if only some of these things need to go, or if it's all of the above and a lot more too.

Once we set ourselves to do what needs to be done, technology will surely aid us in all kinds of ways. [It's my assumption that this is what you were referring to in your post, Belindi. ] But the one thing it can't help with is to allow us to carry on destroying all that we touch, as we do today, in every 'Western' country, and in many others too.

To be honest I have to agree with you Patternchaser. I have not done the sums but it looks as if you have done the sums.

[Sculptor1]

I am referring to the area of thinking referred to by the postmodernist writer Jean Baudrillard, who explored underlying implicit assumptions about the idea of the end of history. He was writing in 1994, and at the time there were fears about the end of the millennium. 2000 passed and there were even some fears about 2012 and the end of the Mayan calendar. However, I would argue that while fears about the end of history have often arisen and , been bound up with religious belief systems, the thought of the end is different in the context of the twentieth century because there is major threat of mass destruction through nuclear warfare. Aso, with climate change there is so much concern about the way humans have destroyed the planet and the view that the future may be uninhabitable for future generations.

Baudrillard spoke of the nature of the idea of the end in the following way,
'The end of history is, alas also the dustbin of history. There are no longer any dustbins even for disposing of old ideologies, old regimes, old values.Conclusion: if there are no more dustbins of history this is because history itself has become it's own dustbin.'
He is emphasising an underlying thought about a potential imminent end which he saw as prevalent in culture. He argued that it was bound up with a linear conception of history and interconnected assumptions about history as something which may finish.

I wonder about his idea of the 'end' now and connect it to fears about climate change and other threats to the planet. Where is humanity going and can the threats be averted, and on what level can the human race survive? Could Western civilisation be on the brink of collapse equal to the fall of Rome? Is it like the REM song, 'The End of the World( As We Know It)? I find that the possible end of humanity disturbs me more than the thought of personal death. But, to what extent is it the end of history, or is the idea of the end a myth?

At any given point in time any thinker, could have or can still declare the end of history, and for exactly the same reasons as did Jean Baudrillard, you might also want to ask Francis Fukuyama.

[Count Lucanor]

I am referring to the area of thinking referred to by the postmodernist writer Jean Baudrillard, who explored underlying implicit assumptions about the idea of the end of history. He was writing in 1994, and at the time there were fears about the end of the millennium. 2000 passed and there were even some fears about 2012 and the end of the Mayan calendar. However, I would argue that while fears about the end of history have often arisen and , been bound up with religious belief systems, the thought of the end is different in the context of the twentieth century because there is major threat of mass destruction through nuclear warfare. Aso, with climate change there is so much concern about the way humans have destroyed the planet and the view that the future may be uninhabitable for future generations.

Baudrillard spoke of the nature of the idea of the end in the following way,
'The end of history is, alas also the dustbin of history. There are no longer any dustbins even for disposing of old ideologies, old regimes, old values.Conclusion: if there are no more dustbins of history this is because history itself has become it's own dustbin.'
He is emphasising an underlying thought about a potential imminent end which he saw as prevalent in culture. He argued that it was bound up with a linear conception of history and interconnected assumptions about history as something which may finish.

I wonder about his idea of the 'end' now and connect it to fears about climate change and other threats to the planet. Where is humanity going and can the threats be averted, and on what level can the human race survive? Could Western civilisation be on the brink of collapse equal to the fall of Rome? Is it like the REM song, 'The End of the World( As We Know It)? I find that the possible end of humanity disturbs me more than the thought of personal death. But, to what extent is it the end of history, or is the idea of the end a myth?

The end of history and the end of the world are two different concepts. The end of history was originally produced within postmodernist thought by Francis Fukuyama and it meant the end of political forms that until the collapse of the Soviet Union were considered alternatives to capitalism, and the arrival to a new, definitive state of social organization, identifiable with liberal democracy (capitalism). Of course, just after a few years after Fukuyama's claim, it became evident that his capitalist utopia would never materialize, and so recently he even regretted ever making such a claim. Baudrillard's commentary on the subject of the end of history revolves around this concept.

The end of the world is more like the end of a way of life dependent of material resources and economic processes that are not sustainable. It is also related to apocalyptic views related to natural or human-made catastrophic events.

[JackDaydream]

@Pattern-chaser

I think that it will come down to a mixture of mindset and technology to address the problems arising in our time, as it is extremely complex. I don't see how any one solution can lead to the level of understanding needed to tackle the problems of these times. It is so complex, but probably needs such level of understanding in the way technology is used.

[JackDaydream]

@Belindi
I was a little disappointed by your last post, because while I am aware of the complexities of the issues, I think that the social and ecological issues of our times are so important. I wonder about philosophers sitting back debating whether mind or matter is more real, as the world around them dissipates in collapse as part of the decay of civilisation.

[JackDaydream]

@Sculptor1

Declaring the end of history is a significant point, but the point that I think that you are not recognising is that Bauudrillard was not simply doing that. He was looking at the idea, but with a view to a critique, and that includes a possibility of trying to hold on to the possibility of future civilisation rather than simply seeing humanity at the worst situation of the end of history.

[JackDaydream]

I am just thinking that the area of thinking about where humanity is going and the possibility of an 'end' is probably such a difficult area to think about and that the thread will probably sink so soon as being an unpopular as it probably involves less fun than discussing metaphysical questions .However, I do believe that it is important for future generations. I have not brought any children into the world but I am concerned about what the future will bring. As much as I enjoy exploring questions about metaphysics, I do feel that the issue of future history is important too even though it is extremely difficult, involving thinking about what changes may need to be made politically and practically.

[Sculptor1]

Declaring the end of history is a significant point, but the point that I think that you are not recognising is that Bauudrillard was not simply doing that. He was looking at the idea, but with a view to a critique, and that includes a possibility of trying to hold on to the possibility of future civilisation rather than simply seeing humanity at the worst situation of the end of history.

This is not a response to what I said.
As I did not imply what you are suggesting here.