In A Hundred Years Time, What Do You Think People Will Consider To Be The Great Moral Failure Of Our Era? For The Purposes Of This Question, Let Us Define ‘our Era’ As 2000-2013.


1) Hayek argued that the 20th centuries and its wars would be remembered as an era of mysticism ushered in by Marx and Freud, culminating in the reliigon of Postmodernism (liberalism) – the most recent incarnation of Zoroastrianism – saying false things repeatedly in order to achieve one’s ends.  We have been fighting against this religion in science and technology for a few decades now, and this misdirection, starting in the 60’s and achieving it’s heights in the 1970’s, has consumed much of the research time in academia.

2) it appears that this battle has resulted in a considerable number of insights into technology.  But, as our economy crumbles from having consumed the last wave of technological innovation (information technology), progress on research and development continues.

3) The wildcard is the great upheavals that will happen in the world as western technological superiority for the past 500 years is neutralized by the adoption of consumer capitalism worldwide, and inexpensive labor in previously unindustrialized countries, lowers the RELATIVE advantage of western countries.  THe primary advantage the northern european countries had, as did the anglo countires founded by the british empire, was that the high trust society of the out-bred families (nation as a family) created a homogenous enough culture that this commercial trust could create extraordinary competitive organizations.  I suspect that the cultures that come to dominate these areas will not perpetuate the high trust society and the nuclear family for cultural reasons, and that the continued decline in the nuclear family will do the same. So that the only material cultural advantage of the west will be lost.

4) The reason you cannot judge moral consequences in the future is that morality is a product of the reproductive strategy of people at later times, under later technologies, using later political organizations, and they tend to demonize things that are convenient, not true.  For example, aristocracy and manorialism were very important to western development  as was the church.  WIthout these institutions we could not have achieved our technical advantage over the rest of the world.  We demonized the monarchies in order to sieze power.  But there is very little evidence that supports any of our claims about victorian industrial evils or evils of kings and princes. In fact, the evidence is pretty much the other direction.  SO if we demonize things that were good, and we still admire things that aer terribly evil (socialism and communism) then why should we thing that there is a rational basis for future moral contrivances, other than whatever convenience suits their cause at the time?

Hopefully this provides some thought and context. I suspect hayek will be correct amongst intellectuals if he is remembered for it.  Otherwise, it is just as likely that they will think were are stupid for our form of social security instead of the singaporean – for purely logical reasons.   Why didn’t we adopt the singaporean model of social security?  It might be that they accuse us of doing it for relgious reasons – and they would be right.

Leave a Reply