The conversion of cultures into a single global society was probably an inevitable result of the dynamics of human history. However, would we be living in the same world if history replayed itself? We can certainly imagine other outcomes. Although we don’t really know the answer to that question, an examination of two crucial characteristics of history can provide us some clues.
It is an iron rule of history that what looks inevitable in hindsight was far from obvious at the time. Was it obvious that Christianity would take over the Roman Empireback in 306 when Constantine assumed the throne? No - Christianity was little more than an esoteric Eastern sect. In fact, the Roman Empire faced a wide horizon of religious possibilities.
Historians can describe how Christianity took over the Roman Empire, but can’t explain why this particular possibility was realized.
History cannot be explained deterministically because it is chaotic. So many forces are at work and their interactions are so complex that small variations produce huge differences in outcomes. History is considered a ‘level two’ chaotic system.
History isn’t deterministic, but there are constraints created by geographical, biological and economic forces. These constraints leave ample room for surprising developments, which do not seem bound by any deterministic laws. To acknowledge that history is not deterministic is to acknowledge that it is just a coincidence that most people today believe in nationalism, capitalism and human rights.
Then why study history? Unlike physics or economics, history is not a means for making accurate predictions. We study history not to know the future but to widen our horizons, to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable, and that we consequently have many more possibilities before us than we imagine.
Ever more scholars see cultures as a kind of mental infection or parasite, with humans as its unwitting host. Cultural ideas (parasite) that live inside the minds of humans (host) multiply and spread from one host to another, occasionally weakening the hosts and sometimes even killing them. As long as the hosts live long enough to pass along the parasite, it cares little about the condition of its host.
For example, cultural ideas - such as belief in Christian heaven above the clouds or Communist paradise on earth - can compel a human to dedicate his/her life to spreading that idea, even at the price of death. The human dies, but the idea spreads.
This approach is sometimes called memetics.
The dynamics of history are not directed towards enhancing human well-being. There is no basis for thinking that the most successful cultures in history are necessarily the best ones for Homo sapiens. Like evolution, history disregards the happiness of individual organisms.
Around AD 1500, history made its most momentous choice, changing not only the fate of humankind, but arguably the fate of all life on earth. We call it the Scientific Revolution.
Humans have sought to understand the universe at least since the Cognitive Revolution, but modern science differs from all previous traditions of knowledge in the following three ways.
Past:
Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. The gods and wise people of the past possessed all-encompassing wisdom, which they revealed to us in scriptures or oral traditions. It was inconceivable that the Bible, the Qur’an or the Vedas were missing out on a crucial secret of the universe.
Present:
The willingness to admit ignorance has made modern science more dynamic, supple and inquisitive than any previous traditions of knowledge. It openly admits collective ignorance regarding the most important questions. This has hugely expanded our capacity to understand how the world works and our ability to invent new technologies.
Past:
Premodern traditions formulated theories in terms of stories. When traditional mythologies and scriptures laid down general laws, these were presented in narrative rather than mathematical form.
Present:
Modern science has a common core of research methods, which are all based on collecting empirical observations and putting them together with the help of mathematical tools. And a new branch of mathematics was developed over the last 200 years to deal with the more complex aspects of reality: statistics.
Past:
Until about AD 1500, humans doubted their ability to obtain new medical, military and economic powers. The typical premodern ruler gave money to priests, philosophers and poets in the hope that they would legitimize his rule and maintain the social order. He did not expect them to discover new medications or invent new weapons.
Present:
During the last five centuries, however, humans increasingly came to believe that they could increase their capabilities by investing in scientific research. Modern states call in their scientists to provide solutions in almost every area of national policy, from energy to health.
The contrast between past and present is most pronounced in weaponry. Up until the 19th century, the vast majority of military revolutions were the product of organizational rather than technological changes. However, today’s wars are scientific productions. In fact, the world’s military forces initiate, fund and steer a large part of humanity’s scientific research and technological development.
Scientific research can flourish only in alliance with some religion or ideology. The ideology justifies the costs of the research. In exchange, the ideology influences the scientific agenda and determines what to do with the discoveries. The discoveries provide new powers that are used to obtain new resources, some of which are reinvested in research.
Most scientific studies are funded because somebody believes they can help attain some political, economic or religious goal. It would be impossible to finance pure science unaffected by political, economic or religious interests because our resources are limited.
To channel limited resources we must answer questions such as ‘What is more important?’ and ‘What is good?’ And these are not scientific questions. Science can explain what exists in the world, how things work, and what might be in the future. It has no pretensions to knowing what should be in the future. Only religions and ideologies seek to answer such questions.