Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Does Trump Mean the End of the End of History?

A review of Francis Fukuyama's book on the threat of identity politics of the right and left to Western liberalism

Francis Fukuyama may yet prove to be right in predicting the end of history. But there is no doubt that he was premature. The idea that people have Francis FukuyamaBruni Meya via Newscomreached an "end point" of "ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government" quite obviously seems out-of-step with our political reality in 2018. It could still happen one day. But it surely hasn't happened yet.

Fukuyama knows this. However, to ensure that this is only a temporary setback — not a permanent blow — for his thesis, he has penned Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment.

A political scientist at Stanford, Fukuyama catapulted to well-deserved intellectual superstardom nearly three decades ago when he wrote a potent essay (later expanded into a book) declaring that with the collapse of Soviet communism, Western liberal democracy and the free market had triumphed and history had reached its "end" — its ultimate fulfillment and the true purpose of all that came before. Humans had finally formed a political organization in harmony with their inner nature, exactly as German philosopher Friedrich Hegel had predicted. And though nations still on the other side of history could certainly cause trouble for liberal democracies, they could not offer a serious alternative — and so would ineluctably find their own path to the same end.

It was a cheerful prognosis. But what Fukuyama, a former neoconservative who gave up on foreign nation building after the Iraq debacle, didn't anticipate was that liberal democracies might face mortal threats not from the outside but from within. The simultaneous rise of an authoritarian demagogue like President Trump in America and populist right wing "identarian" movements all around Europe have jolted Fukuyama out of his Hegelian certitude. And so he has hurriedly written Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, a book that goes back to the beginning of Western thought and retraces its evolution to see where it took a wrong turn.

Identity is a dazzling 180-page guided tour of every major Western political philosopher. What emerges from it, however, is not a new way forward but an old and beaten path of income redistribution and a national unity program. Basically, Fukuyama's solution is to redirect the ethnic identity politics of the left and the right into a renewed "creedal identity" that satisfies the natural human need for dignity and recognition that Hegel said was the main driver of history.

No one can quarrel with the goal. But it's unclear whether such a Big Government roadmap will actually work or make matters worse.

Hegel postulated that as human consciousness evolved so would human institutions or social organizations until all the internal contradictions of the psyche were resolved in a final rational polity. Hunter-gathering and tribal societies developed into slave-owning ones that morphed into monarchies or theocracies that finally modernized into liberal democratic polities.

So why are liberal democracies in trouble? Because, notes Fukuyama, they have ignored a core psychic need.

Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers believed that thymos, or pride, was as essential a part of the human soul as desire and reason. And it craved satisfaction just like the others. But they also believed that this part was in tension with itself. On the one hand, individuals wanted equal recognition of the fundamental worth or inner dignity of human beings (isothymia). On the other hand, they also wanted to be recognized as better than everyone else (megalothymia). Megalothymia results in constant jockeying for power and domination in every facet of human life, especially politics.

Hegel's great insight was that recognition achieved through domination is self-defeating because people crave the recognition not of their inferiors (slaves) but superiors (masters). The minute they succeed in dominating someone, that person's recognition becomes worthless. The quest for recognition can thus only be satisfied in a society of equals. For Hegel, the quest for dignity and recognition — or identity politics, in our parlance — has been the ultimate driver of history, and will end in an egalitarian liberal democracy with a commitment to individual rights and justice.

Two developments have prevented liberal democracies from delivering on Hegel's utopia, as Fukuyama explains.

First, the rise of income inequality. Thanks to globalization and productivity growth between 1988 and 2008, the world has become immensely richer. However, the lion's share has gone into the pockets of the rich, hollowing out the middle class. Fukuyama does not claim that this growth has necessarily hurt anyone. To the contrary, he admits that those in the 20th to 70th percentile experienced bigger income increases than those in the 95th. However, the global population around the 80th percentile — which corresponds with the working middle class in the West — experienced only marginal gains. These trends were most pronounced in Britain and the United States, the two countries at the forefront of the "neoliberal revolution" that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan spearheaded.

Middle-class stagnation, in Fukuyama's telling, is more problematic from a thymotic standpoint than an economic standpoint because the real purpose of income, once you reach a certain point at least, isn't to feed material needs but positional ones. So even if the middle class in the West has suffered no absolute loss of income, the relative loss of status makes these people feel ignored and invisible.

The other factor is the rise of the wrong kind of dignity or identity politics.

The individualistic kind of identity politics seek to honor the inner "dignity" of individuals by extending basic state protections to all citizens irrespective of race, caste, creed, or religion. This is noble, but in practice has transmogrified into a "therapeutic state" whose main aim became to rescue what the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau called the innate "goodness of man" from the corrupting demands and conventions of society. Self-actualization rather than social cohesion became the political project. As but one example: California formed a task force to "Promote Self-Esteem and Personal Social Responsibility." The 1990 manifesto could have been plucked out of the Esalen Institute. (Sample statement: "The point is not to become acceptable and worthy, but to acknowledge the worthiness that already exists.")

This type of identity politics has uncorked personal pathologies that religion had kept in check, particularly an unquenchable narcissism that social critic Christopher Lasch famously called out because it sought external social validation from the very society it constantly undermined.

The collectivist identity politicis, however, rejects the notion that respecting some generic inner dignity of individuals while ignoring or denigrating the particular racial, cultural, religious, linguistic and other connections of marginalized groups could satisfy their thymotic needs. Fukuyama acknowledges that this sort of identity politics has done some good. After all, blacks couldn't launch their struggle to end the atrocities of the Jim Crow era without building black pride. Similarly, women couldn't dislodge engrained social "discrimination, prejudice, disrespect, and simple invisibility" without a feminist movement that celebrated womanhood.

But the advent of multiculturalism took things too far, Fukuyama believes. It encouraged an ever-proliferating panoply of micro-identities to seek not equal treatment from society but separation from it because, ostensibly, each group's "lived experience" of victimization — another concept borrowed from Rousseau, Fukuyama points out — was different and inaccessible to outsiders. Multiculturalism built silos instead of bridges with broader society.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Sorry, but anyone who takes Hegel seriously can safely be dismissed out of hand.
    Once he discovered he was unable to think his way through a problem without contradicting himself, he elevated that bug into a feature. And gullible morons have been lapping it up ever since.

  • ThomasD||

    "No one can quarrel with the goal."

    This place has gotten ridiculously lazy.

  • rocks||

    TDS consumes 100% of one's mental energy. Reason has nothing left after screaming at a wall with Trump's picture on it all day and night.

  • Nardz||

    "180-page guided tour of every major Western political philosopher."

    Sounds thorough

  • Eddy||

    Sounds like a fairly dizzying Disney-style ride, Philosopher World.

    Which actually makes it sound interesting. I can't speak for the book.

  • CLM1227||

    Just needs Godspell's "Babel" for soundtrack and we are good to go.

  • ThomasD||

    More like Yakkity Sax

  • Eddy||

    "...Western countries need an aggressive program of domestic nation building that subsumes narrow identities of both the left and the right under a broad creedal one"

    I don't know exactly what Western countries need, but I think this should be really near the bottom of the list of options.

    Unless of course there's a war or a tsunami or what have you, in which case national unity would be a byproduct of some other goal - like fighting off invaders, rescuing disaster victims, etc.

    In peacetime, aggressive nation building is kind of a turnoff for me. Would other countries understand that we're not threatening them, just trying to cement national identity?

  • Eddy||

    I mean, look at it this way, when we hear about, say, the Chinese building up their national identity with big government programs, do we think "oh, how cute"?

  • Eddy||

    Oh, and national greatness includes being on a pay as you go basis in peacetime, incurring debt only in emergencies. Massive debt to meet peacetime obligations isn't something a great winning nation does.

  • John||

    "National greatness" inevitably ends up meaning settling old scores or trying to remake the world in your image. The idea that you could have some kind of a national greatness identity that remains totally internal and benign towards the rest of the world is something as Orwell would say "so stupid only an intellectual could believe it".

    I am by far the most unapolegetic nationalist on here. And even I find this idea repellent.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Western liberal democracy and the free market had triumphed and history had reached its "end"

    I like Douglas Murray's prognosis that the West [falsely] believes it can "take time off from History".

  • Dont Tread On Womyn||

    "Identity is a dazzling 180-page guided tour of every major Western political philosopher. What emerges from it, however, is not a new way forward but an old and beaten path of income redistribution and a national unity program. Basically, Fukuyama's solution is to redirect the ethnic identity politics of the left and the right into a renewed "creedal identity" that satisfies the natural human need for dignity and recognition that Hegel said was the main driver of history.

    No one can quarrel with the goal. But it's unclear whether such a Big Government roadmap will actually work or make matters worse."

    -No one can quarrel

    -It's unclear

    -Big Government roadmap

    ..... This has to be satire. It reads as satire, and if it is, genius. Is Shikha secretly OBL ?

  • John||

    . Basically, Fukuyama's solution is to redirect the ethnic identity politics of the left and the right into a renewed "creedal identity" that satisfies the natural human need for dignity and recognition that Hegel said was the main driver of history.

    You know who else liked Hegel? What is "creedal identity" other than an obscure substitute for nationalism? Hey, lets make nationalism the new identity politics. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Nardz||

    It would totally work...

    if it weren't for those damn jews!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    What is "creedal identity" other than an obscure substitute for nationalism? Hey, lets make nationalism the new identity politics. What could possibly go wrong?

    In America, Fukuyama believes, the left needs to return to a class-based politics that unites various marginalized groups around pocketbook concerns. ... At the programmatic level, it means a renewed embrace of redistribution programs on the scale of the New Deal and the Great Society. He also wants a "national service" program that replicates the military's stellar success in assimilating recruits of diverse backgrounds.

    With a nice big side order of socialism...

  • ThomasD||

    "What is "creedal identity" other than an obscure substitute for nationalism? "

    One could posit that

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    is our creed. And some might even swallow the bait.

    But note that the creed is not primary, the creed merely hides the hook, and the hook is identity.

    So, ultimately, it's collectivism in disguise.

    Hard pass.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    The quest for recognition can thus only be satisfied in a society of equals.

    My personal experience has been that anyone not a mathematician using the word "equal" is best just ignored.

  • JesseAz||

    What is a society of equals? Liberals seem to equate it with equal economic stature. Other sane people just conclude it is an equal opportunity.

  • John||

    I can think of few people who deserve academic stardom less than Fukayama. The "End of History" was always comically foolish to anyone with any experience in the world outside of academia. You don't have to be much of an academic superstar to understand that there is more to life for people than material well being or that people pursue Utopian ideologies for reasons that have nothing to do with their effectiveness at bringing about a better world. In fact, Fukayama's case may prove being an academic superstar is required for you to be dumb enough not to understand that.

  • juris imprudent||

    Fukuyama was the anti-Spengler, and to triumphalist Americans what could be a more potent opiate? It was pure Truth, Justice and The American Way!

  • John||

    How could anyone be so stupid as to believe everyone in the world, if given the opportunity, really wants the American version of justice and government, whatever that is? I honstly cannot fathom how any person who didn't live in a cave could believe such a thing

  • juris imprudent||

    In fairness, there are people from every corner of the world who want what we have. Thus, the immigration dilemma. The false conclusion that flows from this is, all of the people around the world want this, not just the malcontents of all of those countries.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    This.

    And thanks for making the point about malcontents. People leave and go somewhere else because they think it sucks where they are. They might be chasing better employment, or to get away from war or repression, or even to find a better dating pool: but it's guaranteed they weren't happy where they we're Happy people don't leave, and if made to leave, they feel homesick.

    I chuckle every time I read about immigrants wanting to bring their system of government with them. Considering what a piece of crap our government is, and yet it's still better than most is the others, that's extremely unlikely. The majority of immigrants I've met have horror stories about how bad the corruption or sheer ineptitude of the governments back in their home countries. And I know people originally from places as diverse as Venezuela, Iran, France, Ukraine, and the UK. Not one would say it was better back home. They were all malcontents.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    On the bright side, Shikha is not shreeking about illegals.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Speaking of identity, it appears the Boston Globe is unwittingly suggesting Elizabeth Warren might have committed fraud on her application to Harvard. Appears her DNA shows she ranges from 1/32nd - 1/1024th full blooded Native American.

    I believe the Globe already had to correct their story once after initially reporting she was 100% full on, undiluted 1/32nd Cherokee.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Correction, I guess Warren didn't claim on her Harvard application has being Native American, Harvard apparently pushed that narrative themselves. So, lulz all around.

  • damikesc||

    And I wonder WHY Harvard thought she was Native...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's an interesting question. I read a politifact article on it (I think) that said the law school asked students in a separate form if they had any minority identifications. If Warren answered on that form the truth has been "lost to history", but yes, Harvard found out somehow and I suspect that probably came from Warren.

    Whether or not Warren personally benefited either monetarily or otherwise, I'm not sure.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're probably right.

    Harvard just picking Warren an an AmerIndian seems unlikely. More likely that Harvard ran with something a Lefty Alum of theirs (Elizabeth Warren) told them.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Not to defend Warren, but I wonder this: Is it possibly that, back when she was young, she had long, straight, shiny black hair and lovely high cheekbones, plus often wore those leather moccasins that were popular with students back in the late 70s and early 80s? Maybe the Harvard officials just assumed she was a minority and were too embarrassed to ask.

    Nah, probably not.

  • ThomasD||

    "And I wonder WHY Harvard thought she was Native..."

    Because they are racists who assumed a woman with high cheekbones from Oklahoma simply must be aboriginal.

  • John||

    Three things; first, most tribes require you to be at least 1/32nd to be a member on the rolls, second, most tribal roles are closed such that people who are full on 100% Indian cannot get on the rolls because their ancestors understandably said screw that when the government asked them to put their names on a big list, third, her heritage such as it is is six generations removed, which ends any idea of there being any truth to her claim that grandpa was an Indian.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I believe some tribes require 1/4 (25%) and a many require 1/16th. Whether there are some obscure tribes out there that are more loosey goosey, I can't say.

    Most tribes require a specific percentage of Native "blood," called blood quantum, in addition to being able to document which tribal member you descend from. Some tribes require as much as 25% Native heritage, and most require at least 1/16th Native heritage, which is one great-great grandparent. If you don't know who in your family was a tribal member it's unlikely that you would be able to meet the blood quantum requirement.
  • ThomasD||

    Out west they are often much more strict. Twenty five percent may be sufficient, but only if you reside on the reservation, or have an immediate family member who is already an enrolled member.

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • Cathy L||

    I believe the Globe already had to correct their story once after initially reporting she was 100% full on, undiluted 1/32nd Cherokee.

    You really shouldn't repeat fabricated right-wing nonsense you know.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    By right-wing fabricated nonsense, you mean the Boston Globe?

    Correction: Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024.
  • JesseAz||

    The Warren DNA test didn't even prove she had native dna. They used markers found in Peruvian, Mexican, and Colombian people to show she statistically may have had native American blood. No actual traces of known native dna.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Definitely no recognized AmerIndian tribes.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    non-AmerIndian blood would not help her win an American presidential election.

  • mswen||

    Because Peruvian, Mexican, and Colombian people aren't descended from natives? Both sides are milking this BS story for all its worth.

  • smalleyd||

    A few points:

    1. It seems that he's basically saying that "well, it didn't work out as my glorious mind had predicted, so the humans are wrong and we need bigger government to make my prediction come true."

    2. He believes "In America, Fukuyama believes, the left needs to return to a class-based politics that unites various marginalized groups around pocketbook concerns." Wait, don't progressives do this already?

    3. I was worried for a moment that Ms Dalmia wouldn't get to bash Trump but she dug deep to keep her streak alive.

  • John||

    2. He believes "In America, Fukuyama believes, the left needs to return to a class-based politics that unites various marginalized groups around pocketbook concerns." Wait, don't progressives do this already?

    They do not anymore. Once the gentry liberals and the various silicon valley billinaires took over, Progressives went from being the party of the working classes to the party that loaths the working class.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    This.

    The problem with socio-economic class distinctions is that they can easily cut across race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation lines. And of course gender is out of the picture from the get go.

    In order to embrace identity politics, they had to turn their backs on class issues.

  • Eddy||

    Less aggressive forms of nation-building:

    -Vetting immigrants so we admit those we think are have a decent prospect of enjoying and using the rights and responsibilities of U. S. citizenship. (NOTE: Not foolproof in either direction)

    -Trimming the fat and focusing the government on defending vs. external enemies and natural disasters

    -Appreciating what we already have rather than seeking new programs to keep the public excited.

    I just dashed this off - publishers with offers should get in touch right away.

  • John||

    How exactly does a nation create "creedal identity without telling immigrants they must adopt it in order to come? I don't see how they do at all. Is Shika so stupid she doens't realize that or is she so stupid she thinks it is possible to have creedel identity while importing millions of people who reject it in favor of another?

  • JesseAz||

    "The simultaneous rise of an authoritarian demagogue like President Trump in America and populist right wing "identarian" movements all around Europe have jolted Fukuyama out of his Hegelian certitude."

    What authoritarian like actions has trump taken? This type of description gets thrown around a lot without evidence to back it up. Some may call this a bald assertion.

  • John||

    I aways wonder the same thing. I understand that a lot of what hte federal government does is authoritarian as hell. But, what has Trump done that makes him any different than any other President? In fact, isn't Trump's reduction of the administrative state the opposite of authoritarian? Repealling regulations is a pretty odd way to be an authoritarian.

  • Nardz||

    Narrative, bro!
    Narrative

  • ||

    What authoritarian like actions has trump taken? This type of description gets thrown around a lot without evidence to back it up. Some may call this a bald assertion.

    You ask these questions like Dalmia gives two shits about authoritarianism.

  • Red Tony||

    He's used the pen and the phone without being an attractive, well-spoken, nicely-dressed black man.

  • Red Tony||

    Not that I don't disagree with the overuse of presidential power (because I do), but that's basically what it is: he's ripped the mask off. Unfortunately, people who oppose him by and large don't see any problems with the power itself, just it's user, and people who support him are generally happy with what he's doing, so there's no actual push to reduce or revoke those powers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As Libertarians find out come election time, Americans dont want a president who guts every department he can by 90%. Trump wanted to cut some executive agencies and congress effectively said no with the yearly budget.

    Trump knows this and tries to cut where he can. Trump has also exposed Congress for being the protectors of bloated government, since they control the purse strings. Trump is trying his strategy but I wish he would cut more.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "renewed "creedal identity" that satisfies the natural human need for dignity and recognition that Hegel said was the main driver of history. No one can quarrel with the goal."

    I quarrel with the goal.

    1) "Creedal identity" is just a euphemism for groupthink.

    2) Where does it say that all humans need to have their need for dignity or recognition actually met? I have a need to bang all the Victoria's Secret supermodels, but no one owes me satisfaction of my need (certainly not the supermodels), and if my need goes unfulfilled for all my life, no one owes me any apology for it. In other words, desires (and needs) are infinite and resources are finite, so many desires (and needs) will go completely unfulfilled, period.

    3) Who exactly is going to decide what the creed that everyone adheres to is? Gee, I wonder if it'll be the strong central gov't.

    4) Why is one creedal identity better than multiple competing creeds (creedal tribalism)? A monoculture is susceptible to devastating invasion by an as-yet-unencountered outside predator. For example, the Irish potato famine was due to monoculture encountering a new disease.

    Having multiple competing creeds organized in tribes is better for the species as a whole, even if it results in internecine warfare, which itself is not necessarily bad, as it selects for the most fit tribe/creed.

  • John||

    Where does it say that all humans need to have their need for dignity or recognition actually met?

    Nowhere. Moreover, telling people they are entitled to such is a wonderful way to create fanatics. A whole lot of bad things are done out of the desire for recognition and dignity by the person doing them. You should respect everyone's dignity as a human being. But no one is owned recognition or some positive affirmation of their dignity. Tellin them they are just gives them a reason to feel slighted when they inevitably do not recieve it.

    Who exactly is going to decide what the creed that everyone adheres to is?

    Top men like Fukyama will decide this. This whole thing is nothing but a fancy way of saying "if everyone would just do what I told them, the world will be better". It really is that silly and stupid.

    Why is one creedal identity better than multiple competing creeds (creedal tribalism)?

    It is not. Note it never occurs to this half wit that competing creeds might weed themselves out over time as people realize certain ones produce results better to their liking than others. No, everyone must adopt one creed that is determined by the top men. If he wasn't so serious and taken serious by so many people, this would be high comedy.

  • DWB||

    1. Dignity comes from within, NOT forcing you neighbor at the point of a gun to "love" you -- they call it self-esteem for a reason.

    2. "History" ended thousands of years ago ... we've been in reruns for years.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Please tell us how "history" can end other than in one huge "bang" that destroys everything?

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    'What's needed now is a renewed commitment to "e pluribus unum," Fukuyama says.'

    In today's world, that makes him an alt-right fanatic.

    Back in 1994, no less than Al Gore claimed that "e pluribus unum" meant "out of one, many".

    How dumb (and anti-American) can you get. This guy actually wanted to be president.

  • ThomasD||

    Basically, Fukuyama's solution is to redirect the ethnic identity politics of the left and the right into a renewed "creedal identity" that satisfies the natural human need for dignity and recognition that Hegel said was the main driver of history.

    A Hegelian solution to the problems of western society are not going to be amenable to classical liberalism. Yes many people have tried to square Hegel with our notions of liberty, Ye,t at best, his is a world of positive rights - where the state permits individual expression of autonomy but only for the sake of specified goals.

    Not surprising that the new and improved Reason is comfortable with this.

  • ||

    This is a good article.

    For Mother Jones.

  • ||

    'The simultaneous rise of an authoritarian demagogue like President Trump in America and populist right wing "identarian" movements all around Europe have jolted Fukuyama out of his Hegelian certitude."

    Lol. Yeh, he's totes going around Congress and breakin' dam laws with Pootin and the Gang.

    Anyone who professes to understand Hegel with certainty did so while on mushrooms.

  • ||

    Maybe Dalmia can skip off the bull shit and specifically cite examples that specifically makes Trump an authoritarian in the classical definition of the term.

    Don't give me none of that 'how he talks and acts' crap because we can play fat loose and fancy with that.

    I want concrete examples where he acted like Chavez and expropriated businesses for example.

    I want a decree or edict of him making the press enemies of the state or about to restrict civil rights for gays.

    Has he unilaterally plunged America into war? Has he nationalized industries?

    What makes him so fricken authoritarian?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump is not and the Lefties know it. They cannot let up on the narrative or Lefties will say Trump is one of the best presidents too.

  • XM||

    "Does Trump Mean the End of the End of History?"

    He's not content to end history. He must end the end of it.

    Thanks to Trump, history is now immortal. We're so facked.

  • Azathoth!!||

    ...Western countries need an aggressive program of domestic nation building that subsumes narrow identities of both the left and the right under a broad creedal one

    So......they need to make themselves great again? Because that's EXACTLY what this is saying.

  • mswen||

    Anyone who declares "The end if History" is full of shit. You might as well predict the Apocalypse.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    Fukuyama's assessment of history is about as well founded as Toynbee's and his predictive prowess is on par with Ehrlich.

  • creativebiogene22||

    Human pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) and embryonic stem cells (hESC) hold great promise in the regenerative medicine.https://www.creative-biogene.com/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online