How the ‘end of history’ illusion is holding us back

A permanent cognitive prejudice limits our politics, potential and progress, because Heath Hasemer for making mistakes according to the end of the present history.

The Cold War in 1989 was close to the political scientist Francis Fukuyama Now he has published a famous article End of History? He argued that humanity has reached the final stage of political evolution. Thousands of people after civilization liberal democracy, ‘The final form of the Human Government’.

Fukuyama’s idea has been widely challenged since then. History, as it emerged, did not end in 1989. But Fukuyama is not the only person who falls into the trap of believing that we have reached the end of history. Actually, we’re almost all of us.

The end of the illusion of history

Basically, END OF HISTORY It is a cognitive prejudice that causes us to underestimate how significantly things will change in the future. Incidentally, we think that the world we grow up is normal and natural, and we assume that the future will be normal and natural. But our current time is neither normal nor natural. Our political and economic systems, social and cultural norms, personal values ​​and beliefs are temporarily and constantly changing.

Imagine you traveling 100 years ago. The year is now 1925. Benito Mussolini like Il duce. In Germany, Adolf Hitler Publishes Mein Kampf. In the UK, Children are working 12 hours a day in mines. Doctors in the USA Recommend to smoke For various disorders. The world is a very different place. In today’s world, most of what we see is normal and naturally.

Now imagine that one out of 1925 returned to 1825 or one out of 1825 returned to 1725 – what would they see? Again, most of the dominant political orders, ideas and values ​​would definitely feel foreign. A lot has changed for every century. So why would this change stop now? Would not. In fact, the rate of change in human society is accelerating. At a time from 2125, the traveler would find today’s world as we would find 1925 as foreign and strange – even though it wasn’t more.

The key to overcoming the end of the illusion of history is to admit that the world around us exists as a temporary moment in history rather than a natural end of development. The only constant of history is change.

Limit the political vision

When leaders suffer from the end of the illusion of history, visionary policies and ideas restrict their potential. Leaders often think that the political order is built on deeply established social and political norms. They usually think that going beyond these norms will be punished by voters and will harm their parties and personal careers.

This means that the leaders have lower probability of proposing and defense of new, different and visionary policies. There is definitely the risk of going too far, and leaders are the right to be pragmatic. However, when we step back and look at the last century, we can see how significantly our resident agreements have changed.

To explain the issue, let us consider the existing norms in our tax system. In Australia, the highest marginal income tax rate is currently 45 %In the USA 37 %. Changes in the tax system can lead to media destruction and political crises. In other words, it seems to have a strong social and political consensus that does not want to accept significant tax increases.

It is easy for politicians to restrict their visions on tax reform. However, when we step back, we can see that the dominant norms around the tax system are much more flexible than the first glance. The highest marginal tax rate in Australia in 1951 75 %. And this liberal was under the prime minister Robert Menzies. It reached the highest marginal tax rate in the USA 91 % Under the President of the Republic in the 1950s Dwight Eisenhower.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbar54gpj4

Can you imagine the turmoil that will cause if the President of the United States tries to increase the highest marginal tax rate above 90%? Completely unimaginable. Nevertheless, this was the norm for a lifetime.

This historical case study shows the potential of important generation changes in our social and political consensus around the key policy issues directed by effective leaders who generally want to solve the most urgent problems of their country. At a time when many countries face complex, interconnected problems such as climate change and housing, leaders have the opportunity to demonstrate visionary policy, reshape social and political unity and create a better future for their peoples.

Calm our moral code

When a society begins to believe that it reaches the end point of historical progress and moral evolution, it may be at risk of developing a solid, non -flexible moral code. Just like our political systems and technologies, our values ​​continued to develop over time.

Now we are at a point where the equality of all people is known in many countries of the world (at least in theory). Shortly before a century, it would be incomprehensible to almost all citizens of this world. It is important to know how rapidly our moral codes and values ​​continue to develop as the moral and cultural wars become an increasingly painful basis for political division. The humility and empathy in our moral judgments and claims can help us navigate in these constant changes.

This argument was implemented Leo Tolstoy inside War and PeaceMagnum opus on Russian aristocracy during the Napoleon wars. Tolstoy, who wrote in the 1860s, examines historians’s curved and contradictory judgments that evaluate the actions and decisions of the Russian Tsar. Alexander I.

Tolstoy writes:

But even if we assume that I was wrong about what Alexander was good for people fifty years ago, we should inevitably assume that the historian who thinks that Alexander was wrong after a while, thinks that he was good for humanity. This assumption is more natural and inevitable, because while watching the movement of history, we see every year and every new writers about what is good for human changes.

Limiting personal potential

In addition, as individuals, we underestimate how important we will change in the future. A group of psychologists in 2013 Science This included 19,000 participants between the ages of 18 and 68. The participants were asked to evaluate how much they have changed in the last decade and predict how much they expect in the next decade. In all age groups, people believed that they had changed significantly in the past, but they would change relatively less in the future.

Since we underestimate how significantly we will change in the future, we can give priority to existing preferences at the expense of our future selves. In addition, we can play a less active role in our personal development, but we can still be blurred with the belief that we do not have much change. By recognizing our potential for change, we can play a much more active role in our own development.

Solution

The world will continue to change – we will do so. When we know this, we will be active participants in this change. We give ourselves the opportunity to shape a better future for ourselves and the world around us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eced7vdjcyy

Heath Hasemer is a climate and energy policy consultant working with state and federal governments to reduce emissions and distribute clear zero technologies.

Support independent journalism subscribe to IA.