Copy

The History of Bad Ideas: Part 4

Dear Listener


In this issue, we return to our History of Bad Ideas, examining outdated claims of modernisation, Fukuyama’s widely contested notion of the ‘End of History’, the ‘steady state theory’ as a discredited alternative to the Big Bang theory, and the problematic process of party members choosing party leaders. There’s also a piece by David on the assisted dying debate and, as usual, some connected links from the PPF archive.


Warmest regards,

Team PPF

Episode Guides

Throughout the 20th century, British politicians frequently touted the country's technological innovations as evidence of their leadership in the global race for progress. The optimism surrounding these advances often suggested that they would shape the future. Yet, looking back today, many of these innovations now seem quaint or even outdated. Indeed, while some innovations revolutionised industries, others serve as reminders of the uncertainty surrounding predictions of the future. Generally, these politicians were protesting too much; they were also a little hung up on the hovercraft.

A timeline of Technological Boosterism

Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’ argument, often misrepresented, did not claim the end of events but rather the ‘end point of mankind's ideological evolution’. He argued that liberal democracy had triumphed over other ideologies after the Cold War, positioning it as the final, most resilient form of governance. Fukuyama acknowledged that history would continue, but the ideological contest had concluded with liberal democracy's global dominance.

The case for:

  • In the late 1980s and early 1990s, liberal democracy did appear triumphant, even if only from a Western perspective. Theorist Charles Krauthammer hailed the end of the Cold War as the ‘unipolar moment’, in which the US stood as the undisputed global leader. Fukuyama’s argument resonated deeply with those celebrating the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of democratic governance across Eastern Europe.

  • With the 1990s marked by a wave of democratisation across Eastern Europe and beyond, Fukuyama's thesis seemed validated. New democracies in places like South Africa and Latin America reinforced the notion that liberal democracy was becoming the global norm.


  • Proponents pointed to the spread of market economies and the increase in global trade as evidence that liberal democracy was the natural and effective order, delivering wealth, peace and stability. The integration of the EU was also seen as a model of peaceful cooperation through democratic values.

The case against:

  • Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ theory (1993) criticised Fukuyama for overlooking the role of cultural and religious divides, arguing that future conflicts would emerge along civilisational lines, especially between Western and non-Western cultures.

  • Rather than embracing democracy, several nations, including Russia and China, were and are embracing authoritarianism. The resurgence of autocratic leaders contradicts Fukuyama’s notion of a liberal democratic consensus.

  • Critics such as Zygmunt Bauman have argued that Fukuyama ignored the growing economic inequalities exacerbated by globalisation. The financial crises of the 21st century and the rise of populist movements show that liberal democracy could not address issues of deep inequality and social fragmentation.

  • The thesis is insufficient in addressing modern challenges such as climate change, digital surveillance and the rise of populism. 

On balance, the case against has it.

The steady state model of the universe was an early alternative to Big Bang Theory – the latter now near-universally accepted by the scientific community as the best understanding of our expanding universe. Whilst the steady state model does not deny that the universe is expanding – which had been known since the ‘redshifting’ of light from distant galaxies was observed in the 1920s – it argues that the density of matter in this expanding universe remains the same, as new matter is continually created to compensate (see diagram). The distance in both models between the red and green dots remains the same; what matters is what lies between.

Fred Hoyle (1915-2001)

From a West Yorkshire upbringing as the son of musicians, Hoyle read mathematics at Cambridge and following work on radar during the Second World War, quickly made a name for himself in astrophysics. His work on the origins of chemical elements – which he demonstrated to be created by nuclear fusion in stars – culminated in the landmark 1956 paper B2FH, named after its authors’ initials (Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, Hoyle). Aside from this pioneering work, however, Hoyle applied his radical style to other problems in physics.

 

Hoyle coined the term ‘Big Bang’ to describe the idea of an explosion of matter from a single point at the origin of the universe (he later denied that he had done so dismissively). His opposition to the idea that the universe had an ‘origin’ was in some ways a rejection of religious perspectives, as he thought it pseudoscientific to search for a beginning (i.e. God) of the universe. Despite increasing evidence supporting the Big Bang, Hoyle died in 2001 still questioning its validity.

 

Hoyle’s views became increasingly out of touch with mainstream physics and wider science. Some of the ideas he espoused included:

  • Panspermia, the notion that life did not begin on Earth but in space, and was seeded here through comets, which also carried viruses and bacteria. Whilst the view that comets contain organic matter – now widely accepted – was then highly controversial, the rest of the theory runs against mainstream evolutionary theory. Indeed, Hoyle’s partner in this work suggested their aim was for a middle ground between Darwinism and creationism.

  • He came to argue that certain dinosaur fossils (Archaeopteryx) were fakes, that flu epidemics were correlated with sun spot cycles and that the holes in the stones of Stonehenge were used to predict eclipses.

After becoming increasingly disenchanted with academic backbiting in Cambridge, Hoyle resigned his chair in 1972. In line with his maverick approach to criticism, he once remarked: ‘It is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right’.  Hoyle moved to the Lake District after his resignation from Cambridge and became a prolific author of science fiction novels. His eccentric legacy remains in the city, however. St John’s College (his alma mater) maintains a collection of his personal papers, including several ice axes, a pair of walking boots, dental x-rays and an unpublished opera.


Some Political Regrets

‘Other people said it was the act of a moron, and I confess to having been one of the morons.’

‘I hope all those people that put Liz Truss in Number 10, I hope it was worth it … because the damage they have done to our party is extraordinary.’

‘The quiet man is here to stay and he’s turning up the volume!’

Do the Americans do it Better?

Follow this straightforward flow-chart to uncover how to vote in an American presidential primary. It really couldn’t be simpler! 

From the Archive

This Talking Politics episode from 2020 offers an in-depth discussion focussing on Fukuyama’s best-selling book, ‘The End of History’.

David talks with historian Robert Saunders about Blair’s 1997 Election, where New Labour meant ‘New Life for Britain’.

Follow the link above for an online archive of our previous newsletters.

Questions?


Ideas spark ideas. If you have something you’d like to share with the show, please go ahead and email ppfideas@gmail.com or click the link below to access our contact form. Don’t forget to follow @PPFIdeas and tag us in your comments and questions on X/Twitter or Bluesky.

Written by David Runciman, Zach Foster, Tia-Renee Mullings and Gabriel Rubens