BrothersJudd.com
Loading

Home | Reviews | Blog | Daily | Glossary | Orrin's Stuff | Email

Listen to a bestseller for $7.49 at audible.com!
Download and Listen to any Audiobook for only $7.49. Save 50% for 3 months on over 100,000 Titles.

    Those who dare to undertake the institution of a people must feel themselves capable, as it were, of changing human nature, of transforming
    each individual into a part of a much greater whole, of altering the constitution of man for the purpose of strengthening it.
        -Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    The aim of this book is to argue that [Aldous] Huxley was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology
    is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a "posthuman" stage of history. This is important, I will argue,
    because human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experience as a species. It is, conjointly
    with religion, what defines our most basic values. Human nature shapes and constrains the possible kinds of political regimes, so
    a technology powerful enough to reshape what we are will have possibly malign consequences for liberal democracy and the nature
    of politics itself.
        -Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future

When, some thirteen years ago now, Francis Fukuyama published his famous essay The End of History, he argued that Man had basically reached the end form of government in the liberal democratic state.  His decision to call this the end of "history" provoked all kinds of attacks, nearly all of which Mr. Fukuyama has been able to fend off--in my view anyway.  But one criticism proved more difficult to overcome, that unless the progress of science came to a halt, Man's history could not reach an end point.  In this outstanding new book, Mr. Fukuyama answers the scientific critique in frightening fashion : biotechnical scientific innovation may well bring about fundamental changes, but these changes will be so massive that their main effect won't just be to our political arrangements but to our very humanity.  Where the victory of democratic capitalism in the Cold War represented the end of history, the pending victory of medical science over natural mortality and over our very genetic structure may represent the end of Man.

Mr. Fukuyama begins by surveying the state of the art in three major biotech fields : cloning; genetic engineering; and psychopharmacology.  Although the current focus of national debate is on cloning, Mr. Fukuyama is less convinced of its efficacy than are its proponents; ditto for genetic engineering; although he does concede that these and other sciences are likely to result in a dramatic lengthening of the human life span.  The technology that he thinks is most likely to effect large scale changes is psychopharmacology, the use of various drugs to alter brain chemistry.   As examples, he looks at the capacity of Prozac to improve feelings of self-esteem (which ties into his arguments about the "Last Man" from his earlier book) and of Ritalin to stifle rambunctious children.  Later on we may well develop the means to make such changes permanent, by manipulating the human genome, but to a remarkable degree, we can already use available drugs to control human behavior and emotions.

The important thing here though is that we will indeed use such technologies without hesitation.  We're all familiar with the stories about overprescription of Ritalin.  Attention Deficit Disorder may be a real condition, I'm dubious, but what Ritalin has done is provide parents and teachers with an easy and seemingly harmless way to make children behave better.  Our ready recourse to such mind altering methods where even our own children are concerned suggests that we will be willing to do so permanently, via genetics, as soon as the breakthroughs come.  And this is only the most troubling of changes we might make, tampering with the energy, the independence, the rebelliousness, the annoying but essential characteristics of young boys.  It is more difficult to even formulate viable arguments against a parent seeking to enhance their child's intelligence or work ethic or improve their disposition.  So if we allow parents to use drugs on their children that generally only benefit the parents, how likely are we to limit the use of drugs (or forms of genetic engineering) that are arguably beneficial to the child.  Little Timmy might not want the little blue pill that makes him lethargic, but surely he'll want the red pill that helps him pass his math test.  If we force the blue pill on him are we going to deny him the red?  And once we can achieve the same results through genetics, the choice will be completely taken away from Timmy--the changes will be made in utero or wherever.

So we are headed towards a future where we may make significant inroads against human mortality and where we may be able to make fundamental changes to human behaviors; but what is left of humankind, other than a mere scientific classification, if we begin to gain control of or even eliminate the fears (of mortality) and the behaviors (the capacity for sin) that have historically defined us?  Mr. Fukuyama nowhere suggests that either of these things are remotely possible at the moment, and I don't mean to either, but perhaps we can demonstrate the larger point by asking ourselves whether Man would still be human if he was immortal and no longer selfish or greedy.  That may be a consummation devoutly to be wished, but the being that would exist at that far flung point would simply not be a human, not in the sense that we understand the concept.  And I would ask, though Mr. Fukuyama does not, whether any responsible human being should collaborate in our own demise.  To the extent that you are willing to try and achieve this future, aren't you a Quisling against our species?

One aspect of this that should be troubling to citizens of a democracy, to Americans in particular, is that this is a future where humankind, or whatever follows, may be considerably less free than we are now. We may have no sooner reached the triumphant end of history than we turn around and throw our accomplishment away.  To demonstrate this, Mr. Fukuyama proceeds to bring forth a series of possible, even probable, effects that the extension of life spans and the capacity to alter human behavior may have on our political system.  Right now, for instance, the might of the West stands largely unchallenged across the globe, but what might be the fate of a super-aged society that comes into conflict with the type of youth heavy societies we see in the Islamic world and in Africa?  Who will fight our wars for us, against these cultures that are frequently hostile to ours, or will we have to immediately resort to weapons of mass destruction just to save ourselves?  Mr. Fukuyama has done something very savvy in asking questions like this one, rather than the predictable ones about eugenics and the like; he's chosen largely political grounds for the most confrontational discussion, rather than religious/moral grounds.

This is useful because right now, on issues like cloning and genetic engineering, the discussion has broken down on such starkly ideological lines that there's really no discussing going on.  For a religious person, one who believes in God, there is just no way to get past the fact that these technologies require that human embryos be treated as fungible private property.  If the commandment to "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is to have any meaning, it must at least make one uneasy about the destruction of nascent lives which are by definition like us.  Meanwhile, many of those who no longer have religious beliefs have substituted a faith in science in their stead.  This faith partakes in many of the qualities that in the past have defined religion : confidence in science's ability to explain all of existence; willingness to accept scientific assertions as truth regardless of the paucity of evidence to support them; elevation of scientists (as priests before them) to a lofty rank in society and great deference to their judgments; and an extreme reluctance to allow the mere political sphere to intrude on science's sacrosanct domain.  So on one side you have religious moralists, making arguments that proceed from a certain set of assumptions about what it is to be human, that the other side rejects utterly, along with even the possibility of deriving moral principles in a wholly naturalistic world. And both sides cling to their positions with irrational metaphysical certitude.   When even a responsible and reasonable public philosopher like Andrew DelBanco has said that "[religious] belief is really not an option for thinking people today", there seems little point in trying to conduct a discussion on morality.

So Mr. Fukuyama wisely addresses many political questions instead.  Never mind whether we should try to live forever; how would we pay for all the old retired people if we started to?  That this tactic is ingenious is amply demonstrated by the refusal of cloning proponents to even try to answer such questions.  For the most part they seem content to smile beatifically and claim that none of these problems shall ever come to pass or that science will solve them and that those who doubt are possessed of too little belief in science.   They resemble nothing so much as the Christian missionaries of old, sallying forth ill-prepared into the wilderness while vowing that "God will provide".

Mr. Fukuyama, who is not a religious believer himself, also tries to derive principles of morality, human dignity, and human rights from the natural world.  This synthesis has been notoriously difficult to achieve--requiring, as it essentially does, that we be able to find entirely natural reasons to adopt Judeo-Christian morality--so it's no surprise that this section of the book, though interesting, is ultimately unsatisfactory.  There seem to be insurmountable difficulties in coming up with a set of natural rights that natural man must observe.  For every time we violate them we can simply say, nature requires it.  Being only the sum of a series of natural processes, any action we undertake must be natural too.  Not only is it not "wrong" to behave amorally, it is logical and natural to behave amorally, since our actions are per se natural. There's no way to break out of this circle so long as you accept that Nature is all there is.  Morality can only exist if something (someone) preceded Nature, in fact, created Nature.  Preclude that possibility and you preclude the possibility of morality.

The book gets back on firmer ground in the discussion of what should be done about biotechnology and all of the questions it raises.  Mr. Fukuyama shows that the regulation of science is hardly unusual, even the banning of certain scientific experimentation.  He references nuclear technology as a field where our government and others throughout the world have barred free experimentation.  He also cites the early work in Recombinant DNA, wherein the scientific community actually set guidelines for itself, out of fears about where unlimited experimentation might lead.  When the technology proved not to be particularly dangerous, these guidelines were accordingly relaxed.  Opponents of regulation have argued that it is impossible to enforce such schemes and that they will totally retard research, but these examples show that enforcement can work (today, nearly sixty years after the first atomic explosion there are still only seven nations with nuclear weapons and despite the occasional efforts of an Osama bin Laden, no individuals) and that these decisions do not freeze the situation forever (Recombinant DNA research goes on).  Moreover, he notes that we do have a regulatory scheme in place for agricultural biotechnology, which, although it is fairly lax, means that we have stronger controls in place for experimenting on corn than for experimenting on human embryos.

What Mr. Fukuyama proposes is that rather than try to draw up the kind of intricate set of regulations that really could stifle worthwhile and relatively less controversial research, we should draw a series of "red lines", of defined points beyond which we forbid people to go.  He specifically suggests banning reproductive cloning, then suggests that we differentiate between research that is aimed at therapeutic purposes vs. that which is aimed at enhancement.  Therapeutic research would be that which seeks to heal a specific condition; it would be remedial.  Enhancement-type research would be that which is aimed at "improving" the species in some sense, making a child smarter, faster, stronger, etc.  He proposes that Congress act (pretty quickly) to craft legislation along these lines and that an entirely new agency be created to implement the rules we come up with.

He finishes the book with some very sobering thoughts about why it is important for us to act and act soon.  One of the reasons that The End of History was so successful was because Mr. Fukuyama tapped into the zeitgeist, but it also helped that it flattered us.  He told us that we in the West (most especially America) had by chance or by choice arrived at the nearly perfect political, social, economic arrangement in the form of liberal capitalist democracy.  What American wouldn't want to hear that our political system, what Ronald Reagan was fond of calling "the last best hope of Man on Earth", had actually proven to be the apotheosis of all Man's aspirations?  But now Mr. Fukuyama is warning that the American system may not be able to withstand the effects of the biotech revolution.  Set aside for the nonce our quarrels over the morality of all these new technologies and how we propose to use them, doesn't it make sense to pause and consider what the political fallout may be when we start radically changing the species?

If this fallout may tend to create drastic inequalities in the capabilities of individuals, so that discrimination would be not the product of mere bigotry but of genuine differences in the quality of the beings in question, this is something worth considering before we allow science to proceed.  If the fallout may make us so long-lived that we will no longer worry about mortality or reproduction, then we will have severed ourselves from two of the core concerns that have driven Man since he first became self-conscious; this can not be taken lightly.  If the fallout will tend to make us less free (as we try to pay for these technologies and fund the leisure lives of the perpetual retirees), less concerned about our spirits and leave us solely concerned about leading lives of eternal sensual stimulation; shouldn't we first determine that we've had enough of freedom?  History may have ended for Man, but are we prepared for Man to end too, for us to cease to be identifiably human?

It may well be that the answer to this question is : yes.  We may decide, as a society and as a species, that what Man has achieved is all too inadequate and that it is time to move, or at least to try to move, beyond Manhood.  But let us so decide, before we discard ourselves on the scrap heap of history.  Let us not stumble blindly into that future, what Mr. Fukuyama appropriately calls the "Posthuman Future".

N.B.--In the spirit of Mr. Fukuyama's book, and with liberal borrowing of his ideas, I've come up with Ten Questions for Clonophiles:

Ten Questions for Clonophiles :
                                      The only permissible faith in modern society is faith in science. Even as decent and reasonable an intellectual as
                                      Andrew DelBanco has said that : "[religious] belief is really not an option for thinking people today". This
                                      effectively removes the possibility of raising religious/moral objections to pretty much any idea or practice
                                      amongst polite company. Yet, so long as a hypothesis is scientific in nature, one can speak of it as if it were fact,
                                      wield it in an argument as if it were"truth", and portray anyone who fails to pay it obeisance as anti-science,
                                      superstitious, god-addled, a luddite, or worse. If you question the progress of some particular aspect of science or
                                      the wisdom of its practice you are assumed to oppose science itself, to pose a threat to the very age of reason.
                                      And so, at least among the elites, the dispute over cloning and genetic engineering has quickly degenerated into a
                                      kind of medieval Inquisition, with anyone who suggests that it might be inadvisable to allow unfettered
                                      experimentation being treated as if they were mouthing the Albigensian heresy.

                                      Let us then try to shift the plane of the argument slightly. Forget for a moment any questions of science or
                                      morality--proponents refuse to acknowledge moral ramifications; opponents don't think the scientific promise can
                                      ever surmount the moral concerns; so why bother continuing to bang our heads on that wall. Let's assume for the
                                      sake of argument that all forms of cloning and genetic manipulation are to be allowed and will work perfectly and
                                      that we have no moral qualms about them. Here are a few purely political questions we'd like to have answered:
                                       (1) How much are we willing to pay for all this? Make no mistake, it is we. The taxpayers in general are going to
                                      end up paying for all this stuff because we aren't going to allow only the rich to have access to such technology;
                                      those days are long gone. Medicine today is by and large socialized, a shared expense of the population generally.
                                      So how much are we willing to see our taxes go up and our paychecks go down in order to pay for the life
                                      extension that this technoilogy promises?

                                      (2) How are we going to pay for the results? Suppose that all of the various biotechnologies that are being
                                      developed right now result in a twenty year extension of the average lifespan of those of us who are alive right
                                      now. Sounds great, right? But we're all aware that Social Security and Medicaire are going to go broke in a few
                                      years and we haven't been willing to confront this fact. How then will we pay for people's golden years when
                                      their retirements last longer than their working lives? (N.B.--The easiest answer, that we'll just require people to
                                      work longer runs up against that the old will control political decision making and may choose not to.)

                                      (3) On a related note, how will our politics change when the preponderance of our citizens are retirees, dependent
                                      on government for their livelihood? What is the future of freedom in a society where the majority requires ever
                                      increasing transfers of wealth from the minority (working age people)? Why would the young stay here? Will a
                                      nation of immigrants turn into a nation of emigrants?

                                      (4) Even beyond the tension that will arise between young and old, what kind of tension can we expect between
                                      the old and the super-old. Right now, when you reach 65, you can reasionably expect that your kids will be on
                                      their own and your parents will be dead, or close to it. You are essenially free of familial duties. What heppends
                                      when our parents start living longer and longer and a substantial portion of our "retirement" turns into a period of
                                      caring for our very elderly and infirm parents?

                                      (5) One of the arguments that is frequently made in favor of this kind of science is that if we don't do it, we'll fall
                                      behind others. Point taken. So now suppose that the industrialized West moves ahead with this kind of medicine.
                                      The population becomes even more preponderantly elderly, but only here in the West. In the Islamic world,
                                      Africa, and elsewhere the population continues to get younger. How does an aged nation protect itself, militarily
                                      when war is historically the province of the young? Will these decrept societies have to be prepared to resort to
                                      their greater technology--nuclear, chemical, biological--in order to fend off adversaries?

                                      (6) We are well aware of the great reluctance with which those who have power surrender it. What is the future of
                                      a culture in which those who have power are capable of retaining it for years even after their mental capacities
                                      begin to diminish? Keep in mind, we're not just talking about Alzheimer's here or some other catastrophic illness
                                      that might be cured by this technology but just the normal deterioration of brain function that sees scientists,
                                      mathematicians and the like peak by the time they are thirty.

                                      (7) What kind of restraints are we going to put on corporate America, which would has an obvious vested interest
                                      in employees who are healthy as oxen until they are 65 but then drop dead? Presumably we'll gain great
                                      knowledge about genetics and life expectancies and the like. Is it permissible for employers to cherry pick not on the basis of race creed or color but on the basis of likely health and time of death? If not, what kind of new government interference do those who advocate this science think should be allowed on corporate America, interference which they normally oppose?

(8) How do we restrict the rights and privileges of this dominant voting block as their capacities diminish? Do we really want Great Grandpa driving around town when he's 110? And if not, how do we stop him?

(9) How do we prevent them from restricting the rights of the young? We've heard in recent years about court cases where grandparents seek visitation rights to see their grandchildren. These cases have so far been decided against the grandparents. Will this remain true in a future where grandparents dominate? The aging of the population has already produced age discrimination laws, next it may produce affirmative action type laws for the aged, who have, of course, historically been discriminated against in the workplace (as with mandatory retirement). How will we restrain these impulses of the majority?

We've tried to strip out the science and the religion from these questions and to consider only the political implications of biotechnology. It seems to me that we are inevitably headed towards a future that is considerably less free as a result of these technologies and their unintended consequences. That is why it is so perverse that the main advocates, at least on-line, of this future are self-desribed libertarians. One has to assume that they've not thought their own positions through and are instead responding solely on the basis of their fetish for science and their visceral disdain for religious beliefs. But beyond religion and science lies politics and it is their blind leap into the political thicket that troubles us and should the thoughtful among them.

4/19/02


(Reviewed:)

Grade: (A)

  

Websites:

See also:

Francis Fukuyama (2 books reviewed)
Science
Francis Fukuyama Links:

    -ESSAY: Shattered illusions (Francis Fukuyama, 29jun04, The Australian)
    -ESSAY: Nation-Building 101: The chief threats to us and to world order come from weak, collapsed, or failed states. Learning how to fix such states-and building necessary political support at home-will be a defining issue for America in the century ahead (Francis Fukuyama, January/February 2004 , Atlantic Monthly)
   -ESSAY: Our Foreign Legions: Lessons and cautions from Europe on assimilating immigrants. (FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, January 31, 2004, Wall Street Journal)
   -ESSAY: Beyond Our Shores: Today's "conservative" foreign policy has an idealist agenda (FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, December 24, 2002, Wall Street Journal)
    -ESSAY: Housekeeping, Post-Saddam: It's time to get U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. (FRANCIS FUKUYUYAMA, 4/20/03, Wall Street Journal)
   -REVIEW: The modern Prince : Philip Bobbitt seems too keen to smooth over Machiavelli’s hard edges : a review of The Garments of Court and Palace: Machiavelli and the World that He Made, by Philip Bobbitt (Francis Fukuyama, Financial Times)
   
-REVIEW: of The Great Disruption (David Gordon, Mises Review)

Book-related and General Links:
    -Francis Fukuyama (George Mason U)
    -DR. FRANCIS FUKUYAMA (Merrill Lynch)
    -Francis Fukuyama (Concerned Women for America)
    -New America Foundation (Board of Directors)
    -BOOKSITE : Our Posthuman Future (Written Voices)
    -EXCERPT : Chapter One of Our Posthuman Future
    -ESSAY : Gene Regime : Imagine the World Trade Organization (WTO) striking down a national ban on importing cloned embryos because it is a barrier to trade. Neither the WTO, nor individual governments, nor scientists, nor ethicists can effectively regulate human biotechnology on a global scale. So who will settle the troubling questions it raises? (Francis Fukuyama, March/April 2002, Foreign Policy)
    -ESSAY : Nietzschean Endgame : Self-enhancement and "immense wars of the spirit." (Francis Fukuyama, March 23, 2002, Reason)
    -BOOKNOTES : Author: Francis Fukuyama Title: The End of History and the Last Man Air date: January 17, 1992 (C-SPAN)
    -EXCERPT: The End of History by Francis Fukuyama (1992)  BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION
    -ESSAY : History Is Still Going Our Way : Liberal democracy will inevitably prevail. (FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, October 5, 2001, Wall Street Journal)
    -ESSAY : President Paradox : It's been another decade of greed. But this time it was OK to feel good about it. (FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2001)
    -ESSAY : Will Socialism Make a Comeback (Francis Fukuyama, May 2000, TIME)
    -ESSAY : Is It All in the Genes? (Francis Fukuyama, September '97, Commentary)
    -ESSAY : What Divides America (Francis Fukuyama, November 15, 2000, Wall Street Journal)
    -ESSAY: FRANCIS FUKUYAMA TRUST STILL COUNTS IN A  VIRTUAL WORLD (Forbes)
    -ESSAY: Asian Values and the Asian Crisis: Do the nations of the East have a distinct cultural identity, and is it the source either of their rapid econmic growth or of their current financial rupture? (Francis Fukuyama, Commentary)
    -LECTURE : Social Capital and Civil Society  Francis Fukuyama (IMF conference)
    -REVIEW : of The Lexus and the Olive Tree.(New Statesman, Francis Fukuyama)
    -REVIEW : of Telecosm: How Infinite Bandwith Will Revolutionize Our World by George Gilder (Francis Fukuyama, Commentary)
    -REVIEW : of Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect by Paul R. Ehrlich (Francis Fukuyama, Commentary)
    -REVIEW : of The Kinder, Gender Military: Can America's Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars? by Stephanie Gutmann (Francis Fukuyama, Commentary)
    -REVIEW : of ACHESON The Secretary of State Who Created the American World. By James Chace (Francis Fukuyama, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of THE STATE OF THE NATION Government and the Quest for a Better Society. By Derek Bok (Francis Fukuyama, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of The Case Against Immigration : The Moral, Economic, Social,  and Environmental Reasons for Reducing   U.S. Immigration Back to Traditional Levels.   By Roy Beck (Francis Fukuyama, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of BLOOD AND BELONGING Journeys Into the New Nationalism. By Michael Ignatieff (Francis Fukuyama, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of CIVIL WARS From L.A. to Bosnia. By Hans Magnus Enzensberge (Francis Fukuyama, NY Times Book Review)
    -INTERVIEW : Economic Globalization and Culture :  A Discussion with Dr. Francis Fukuyama (Merrill Lynch)
    -INTERVIEW : The man who decreed the End of History is worried that capitalism's  victory is not a panacea. So he's decided to tackle the problem of women. (New Statesman, May 23 1997 by John Lloyd)
    -INTERVIEW :Francis Fukuyama (First Measured Century, PBS)
    -INTERVIEW : The End of the Free World :  After declaring the End of History,  what do you do for an encore? Francis Fukuyama told James Heartfield about his new book Trust,  and explained that he's not so keen on liberty after all (Living Marxism)
    -IC Interview: The American  Disruption (Intellectual Capital)
    -INTERVIEW: (Center for Strategic & International Studies)
    -INTERVIEW : Man of Culture (International Finance Corporation)
    -INTERVIEW: Francis Fukuyama: Globalization  "This is an interview with Francis Fukuyama, a professor of public policy at George Mason University in the USA. It focuses on how culture shapes, and is shaped by, the increasing world wide economic integration."
    -INTERVIEW : Interview with Frank Fukuyama (September 15, 1997, CSIS)
    -DISCUSSION : with Francis Fukuyama : Morality in the 21st Century (Washington Post)
    -ARCHIVES : Francis Fukuyama (Think Tank, PBS)
    -INTERVIEW : A Dim View of a 'Posthuman Future' (Nicholas Wade, April 2, 2002. NY Times)
    -INTERVIEW : Recovering Moral Order : Is morality rooted in human nature? (Interview by Michael Cromartie, Books & Culture, Jul/Aug 1999)
    -DEBATE : The Genetic Future Is Now :  Redesigning Humans vs. Regulating Science : Featuring a debate between authors Gregory Stock, UCLA School of Medicine; and Francis Fukuyama, Johns Hopkins University (Cato Institute, March 15, 2002)
    -The NS Profile - Francis Fukuyama   No longer the gleeful young prophet, he is ready to admit his forecasts can be wrong (George Lucas, New Statesman)
    -COLUMN: Fukuyama: 'We've reached the end of history'  (George F. Will)
    -PROFILE: BrainWaves   MAN  OF  CULTURE (International Finance Corp)
    -ESSAY : Forward, to the union of humanity. (interpreting the U.S terrorist attacks through Immanuel Kant, Francis Fukuyama and Tony Blair)
(Jason Cowley, Oct 15, 2001, New Statesman)
    -ESSAY : Francis Fukuyama  & the end of history (Roger Kimball, New Criterion)
    -ESSAY : Francis Fukuyama's Unhappy Optimism (Marc D. Guerra, Acton Institute)
    -ESSAY : The End of Fukuyama (Wolf DeVoon, The Laissez Faire City Times)
    -ESSAY : Theorist says women will end wars : With more leverage at polls, more power, future holds peace (John Omicinski / Gannett News Service)
    -ESSAY : FRANCIS FUKUYAMAíS  THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN: ANOTHER INTERPRETATION (Fadia Gharib)
    -ESSAY : Putnam, Fukuyama, De Tocqueville,  and Volunteerism in the International Community
(Paul Rich & Guillermo De Los Reyes)
    -ESSAY :  The 'Right' Books and Big Ideas : CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS LAVISHLY SUBSIDIZE AUTHORS WHILE THE LEFT LOSES OUT (ERIC ALTERMAN, November 22, 1999, The Nation)
    -ESSAY : False Heaven (The Economist)
    -ESSAY : Itís still the best idea around  (The Economist)
    -ESSAY : THE END OF... WHAT? (Balint Vazsonyi, December 21, 1999, in The Washington Times)
    -ESSAY :  Capitalism and the Suicide of Culture (Brian C. Anderson, First Things, February 2000)
    -ESSAY : Fukuyama was right about the rise and rise of capitalism (Andrew Roberts, October 2000, Daily Telegraph)
    -ARCHIVES : "fukuyama" (NY Review of Books)
    -ARCHIVES : fukuyama (New Republic)
    -ARCHIVES : fukuyama (Salon)
    -ARCHIVES : fukuyama (Slate)
    -ARCHIVES : "fukuyama" (MagPortal)
    -ARCHIVES : "fukuyama" (Find Articles)
    -LINKS : Civil Society : Fukuyama, Robert Putnam, etc. (Robert Clark)
    -LINKS : Francis Fukuyama (Excite)
    -REVIEW : of THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN By Francis Fukuyama (William H. McNeill, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of The End of History (James Heartfield, THE MARXIST REVIEW OF BOOKS)
    -REVIEW : of The End of History (Marxists.org)
    -REVIEW:   The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama (Alan Ryan, NY Review of Books)
    -REVIEW:  of End of History   (Jeanine C. Marley)
    -REVIEW : of End of History (Ashley Padgen, Technological Change & Economic Development)
    -REVIEW : of TRUST The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. By Francis Fukuyama (1995) (Fareed Zakaria, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of Trust ( Daryl Koehn, Ph.D., Online Journal of Ethics)
    -REVIEW : of Trust (Peter Warshall, Whole Earth)
    -REVIEW: of Trust: The Social  Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity by Francis Fukuyama (Edward Lotterman, Federal Reserve of Minneapolis)
    -REVIEW: Francis Fukuyama: Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (Ankie Hoogvelt, Sociological Research Online)
    -REVIEW : of Trust (Daryl Koehn, Center for Business Ethics at University of St. Thomas )
    -REVIEW : of Trust (Shelley Walia, Tribune of India)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. By Francis Fukuyama (Anthony Gottlieb, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (David Brooks, Policy Review)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order, by Francis Fukuyama (Phillip E. Johnson, National Review)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order, by Francis Fukuyama (Douglass C. North, Reason)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Virginia Postrel , LA Times)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Michael Kazin, Washington Post)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Bryan Gould, New Statesman)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Walter Kirn, New York)
    -REVIEW: of The Great Disruption: The free market or your soul: Two conservative pundits play a game  of moral Twister trying to reconcile consumerism and traditional values. (Gavin McNett, Salon)
    -REVIEW : of  The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order  (Charles Murray, Commentary)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Charles Handy, Management Today)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Charles Handy, Management Today)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Richard Seltzer)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption ( Frank Smitha)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Rod Dobell, Isuma)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption (Model Reasoning)
    -REVIEW : of The Great Disruption by Francis Fukuyama (Brian A. Brown, American Spectator)
    -REVIEW : of Great Disruption (David Shi, Christian Science Monitor)
    -REVIEW : of Great Disruption (David Gordon, The Mises Review)
    -REVIEW : of Great Disruption (William Sheridan, The Thinking Person's Portal)
    -REVIEW : of Posthuman Future (COLIN McGINN, NY Times Book Review)
    -REVIEW : of Posthuman Future (Steven Johnson, Washington Post)
    -REVIEW : of Posthuman Future  (Scott McLemee, Newsday)
    -REVIEW : of Posthuman Future (Steven Martinovich, Enter Stage Right)
    -REVIEW : of Posthuman Future (Cass R. Sunstein, New Republic)
    -REVIEW : of Posthuman Future (Maggie Gee, Daily Telegraph)
    -REVIEW : of Our Posthuman Future (Peter Conrad, The Observer)
    -REVIEW : of Our Posthuman Future (New Statesman)
    -REVIEW : of Our Posthuman Future (Steven Rose, The Guardian)
    -REVIEW : of Our Posthuman Future (Robert Macfarlane, The Spectator)
    -THE 100 BEST NON-FICTION BOOKS OF THE CENTURY (National Review)

Comments: