[Mind-numbed Robot]

Fukuyama argues that our liberal democracy is a construct of our human nature and that the reason why the system is so successful is that it has best met the needs of humanity. The problem, according to Fukuyama, is that potential advances in biotechnology promise to change human nature. Our political systems, therefore, will have to adapt to a new humanity. Instead of our benign society, he argues, we will leap into an uncertain future filled with genetic class warfare and the end of our brand of humanity.

His fears are justified based on his premise, but his hypothosis is only one of many possible ones. Regardless, it is a restatement of the chicken or egg dilemma, or, do we shape our environment or does it shape us? Was prehistoric man's basic nature really the same as ours today? Even without genetic meddling, will our basic nature be the same a million years from now?

[gordgekko]

Even without genetic meddling, will our basic nature be the same a million years from now?

That's actually an interesting question given the recent pronouncements by some scientists that humans have stopped evolving because we can now deal with any environmental change and we no longer choose our mates based on the principles used by our distant ancestors.