Is there an "end" to history, in a teleological sense? Think of modern "progressives", for instance. By the very definition of the word they must be progressing towards something, a quantifiable end-goal or final conclusion.
Does this mode of thinking belong in the dust-bin with Whig history and Marx's historical inevitability?
>>556281
History ends when we finally kill everyone
>>556281
Fukuyama pertains to this race of fake historians and true ideologists. That's all, really. Their hate and fear of socialism leads them to the most ridiculous attempts, like trying to deny the very existence of the matter to discuss.
>>556304
Would you describe yourself as a socialist, anon?
>>556337
Yes, bolchevik.
Things will probably settle down considerably as far as we're concerned when the metasystem transition finishes.
>>556370
What does that mean ?
I think anyone with eyes to see can understand that there's definitely a forward-facing progressive trend for *some*, and if you're part of that minority you'd have to be insane to want to live 100, 200 or 1000 years ago for the sheer abundance of conveniences and quality of life improvements that have arisen, from one source or another. The equally obvious problem is that it's difficult to define what makes the present and the approaching future better than the past, as for all the luxuries we see the world is increasingly unequal and exploitative with every new Bangladeshi say that's born and dies in a sweat-shop making Adidas.
At the current rate (if technological innovations can be "measured" at all) with the lowest-hanging fruit entirely depleted, you might see a gasp of genetic engineering among the privileged few who afford it to completely assert their position of power in a way the rest of the world will simply never be able to recover from. That's the biological perspective, at least, and a cynical one.
>>556281
No, for there to be an end to history there needs to be an end to human evolution.
Which is never going to happen.
>>556389
Hasn't the structure of modern society in many ways insulated people from natural selection? the sick, the crippled, the elderly, the poor, and all those others who cannot provide for themselves are kept alive artificially, through the work of conscious society and culture rather than blind natural forces.
If anything you could say human genetic evolution has been superceded by cultural evolution, where the adherence to law and principles like universal human equality have become more dominant than kin-selection.
>>556377
The human groups that fully integrate into superorganisms will eventually dominate all others, to the extent that individual humans will no longer have much influence at all.
>>556414
Correct anon. I could imagine someone suggesting that these new "conscious" forces would simply produce differing criterias for section than that of the old "natural" ones. This though assumes that these same pressures act on an individuals desire to reproduce, rather than their position in society (i.e. most people can find someone to fuck with them regardless of where developing society has left them).
>>556414
Natural selection never stops unless selection becomes artificial. Modern society (Which in itself is a vague term, but I understand what you mean) has merely shifted the selection away from what it was, say, 100 years ago.
Humans take a long time to breed. It takes, at minimum, about 12 years for a human female to get to breeding age, but the only societies that breed at that age are also the ones where only 1 out of the 9 children produced by a couple will survive to puberty. Female dogs get to breeding age in 5 months. Fruit flies take about 10 days. Observing genetic changes in humans is hard because of the sheer time scale of the endeavor. The past 100, 500, I'd dare to say even 1,000 years have not impacted the human species severely in any (irreversible) way.
We may no longer be selecting heavily for certain traits, but we're still selecting. Those with Down Syndrome are unlikely to breed, so the mutation that can lead to down syndrome is being selected against, for example.
As for OP's question, no. There is no "end" to history as it has no beginning except the arbitrary point of "The first written records" because anything before that becomes much less clear. Western Liberal Democracy is not the final form of government. It's pointless whiggism.
>>556441
I'm not sure to fully understand because I don't know what is a "superorganism" and what you are calling "human group". But notwithstanding, how could you say that individual humans will no longer have influence ? Isn't it already the case ?
>>556337
>25 years later, he is still butthurt
>>556414
Yeah but we value more than physical ability, Stephen hawking is more than a crippled body. The ability we have to transform our environment allows us to look beyond our physical manifestations which is really the end goal of humanity and our greatest suffering.
>>556458
Wikipedia defines superorganism as "a collection of agents which can act in concert to produce phenomena governed by the collective". A human group is a group of humans. It is already partially the case, as better-organized groups have tend to win out over the less-organized militarily, economically, academically, but there is nothing to stop it progressing much further than it has yet.
>>556463
capitalist pig pls go
>>556281
100 trillion years in the future the last white dwarf stars will burn out. Anything left alive will be without energy and quietly shut down.
>>557519
[citation needed]
>>556414
You misunderstand natural selection so terribly, that I'm going to assume you're a marxist from /lit/
There is no end to history because life is change.
Since life is change, natural selection is always playing a role in one way or another. Even in ways you would not expect. Cultural evolution cannot supersede human genetic evolution because culture is a byproduct of genes. Humans still have sexual preferences, and certain behavioral traits are influenced by genetics so certain traits still become more predominant in certain population that will become more apparent over time.
>its a political """"""scientist"""""" deliberately bastardizes philosophical terms episode
>>557620
You could have said the same thing without the " and >
