Do you believe in this theory?
Why?
-
- 2006-10-20 @ 23:58:48
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:09:15
Intriguing Sussie.
Do you think ideologies will ceased to exist? -
-
-
welshceltgirl
- 2006-10-20 @ 23:59:26
Sorry never heard of the book
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:10:17
Really?
It seems end of any debate before begining.-
-
welshceltgirl
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:11:33
I love books and often listen to programmes about new books whilst in my car - but no this is a new one on me. Sorry hun
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:39:46
This is quite old book now in this age of 'speed of thought'welsh.
-
-
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:01:07
I will answer in the same way as you answered last
Yes and No
I have talked about Fukuyama before. The Bush Administration corrupted his thesis by over-zealous use of military solutions.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:12:04
Can anything be corrupted without there is nothing in the theory that can help such coruption blighty?
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:02:57
What made you post this vox pop?
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:06:51
Being student of History I want to discuss this fatal attack on our fraternity.
-
-
GilraenH
Pro - http://www.gilraen.blog.co.uk
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:15:42
Student of history, eh? I'm intrigued....
We learn a little more about you everyday Vox.
Sorry, that's the only smiley I can actually do on the comments pages.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:41:46
Yes, I would like to reveal myself bit by bit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Znethru
Pro - http://www.febland.net/
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:09:47
History appears to be more at an end right this precise second than ever before - agreed there. There are many reasons for this, but let me quote you just one from a website called 10,000 reasons civilization is doomed -
http://www.10000reasons.org/
Reason #4782: The fact that following works
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:54:36
What is this? Every time I open this site, my pc get doomed and I have to restart.
Is it reason no. 4782 or 100001 z? -
-
-
-
GilraenH
Pro
- http://www.gilraen.blog.co.uk
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:29:29
So - given that no-one has ever read this book, what are the main theories behind it then Vox? What is the premise? Can't really comment on just a book cover - or was that the point?
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:38:01
No I don't mean just discussion on the book. What I want is theoretical debate.
If I describe the theory I guess there will not be much debate as I will put it in my perspective.-
-
GilraenH
Pro
- http://www.gilraen.blog.co.uk
- 2006-10-21 @ 00:42:24
OK. So the book cover.
'The End of History and the Last Man'
Where do we start? What do you want the discussion to be about?-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 01:09:38
1) According to author 'end of history' did not mean that the natural cycle of birth, life, and death would end, that important events would no longer happen, or that newspapers reporting them would cease to be published. It meant, rather, that there would be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions, because all of the really big questions had been settled.
2)According to him a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism. More than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government,” and as such constituted the “end of history.” That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions.
Thus the most superior, ultimate and perfect form of government is achieved in the form of 'liberal democracy' and there will be only events and not 'directional progress' towards advanced form as suggested by concepts of 'history'.
So there will be 'end of history'. This is the main argument of this theory alongwith its resultant implications.
Now do you subscribe to this view?
-
-
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 01:01:29
Fraternity? Explain? You are taking Fukuyama literally. He means the end of inter nicene struggle and liberal democracy becoming the settled universal form of governance.
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 01:18:41
Human fraternity, who never stops changing.
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 01:07:02
Its was an obvious conclusion for him to reach. As the soviet socialist system imploded. And western capitalism expanded. China was on the brink of implosion too, but they made an executive decisionn to embrace the free market
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 01:17:09
Obvious things are often misleading.
Collapse of one form of society or government cannot suggest obvious sustenance value of other form of government or society. And further end of the whole process of development of better form of society and government. -
-
-
- http://bloggitygoodness.blog.ca
- 2006-10-21 @ 01:23:37
Do you? Why?
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 01:30:15
I do not.
I don't think we have yet reached the final form of human society which is evolving and will keep taking shape. History has not ended and will not end. -
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 02:01:26
http://realies.blog.co.uk/2006/10/17/failure_of_the_bush_doctrine~1233073
[The inflexible application of Neo-Conservative foreign policy has resulted in strategic failure. a policy with much to offer, has been spoiled by misuse. I dont think that Leo Strauss or William Kristol are discredited intellectuals, just because of the miscalculations of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rice, and so on. Wrong time. Wrong place. They screwed up. Enthusiastic Neo-Con and Bush policy advisor, Francis Fukuyama, gradually became disilussioned by the militaristic advancement of essentially sound neo con philosophy. He likened the Bush Doctrine to the way Leninism became sullied by the Bolshevik revolution. Criticism coming from the mouth of another key neo-con intellectual, and founding member of the Project For The New American Century, the think-tank that lobbied Clinton in 1998 for regime change by other means in Iraq.]
There are few references to Fukuyama in my blog, but as you know, my blog got hacked. So I couldnt tell you were the other refs are, or i've even uploaded those posts again yet.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 02:15:42
I will surely go through all those posts.
"He likened the Bush Doctrine to the way Leninism became sullied by the Bolshevik revolution."
But wasn't there a close relation between Leninism and the Bolshevik revolution with very thin lines of differences? -
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 02:19:03
I like Fukuyama, but his vision to me is imperfect, Because I see the end point as being privacy not democracy. Indeed it could be argued that democracy has inherent contradictions or rather tries to homogenise the contradictory elements. Democracy is superior to totalitarianism, socialism, and all the other collectivisms. But I see democracy as being as at best being an evolutionary staging post towards complete privacy and individualism.
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 02:22:51
So you believe there is an end point?
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 02:53:29
yes it is now.. cos I am sweepy
:zz
goodnight -
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-21 @ 02:53:59
yes it is now.. cos I am sweepy
:zz
goodnight-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 11:18:20
Sorry I slept while typing before your comment came and I could not say good night.
But Good Morning now.
If you are wake up and if the morning is good you will never feel that there is some end point...;b -
-
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 13:14:38
Disagree, because I disagree with Fukuyama's assertion that liberal democracy fulfils the two basic human needs identified by Plato: those of individual recognition and material satisfaction. The latter in particular is inevitably denied to the majority in a capitalist liberal democracy.
I did an essay on this last year... well, not on this but I had to debunk the theory as part of it
God bless, Jenni xx-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 13:22:37
Nice to see someone disagree for valid reason.
I also disagree but I don't believe that there can be any perfect and final form of human society, which will be static.-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 13:31:11
Personally, I'm not sure, but I believe in fighting for the best possible society, which will yield a fairer society than settling for less. I'm a Christian so not sure whether I believe utopian societies are possible in this world, but Jesus prayed that God's kingdom would come on earth, so I believe in fighting for them!
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 13:35:05
Fighting with whom for the best possible society?
Fighting for God's kingdom?
Ae you a crusader?-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 13:37:02
LOL, I didn't mean fighting with people. I meant working hard.
Am I a crusader? Not in the taking over other countries and forcing them to believe sense.
I think building God's kingdom on earth is about compassion more than anything.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 13:46:47
If building of God's king dom is about compassion, why the aggressive word like 'fighting' comes to our mind first?
Is it slip of words or some subconscious understanding of path for building 'God's kingdom'?-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 13:56:56
I think it's just the first word that came into my head. I'm 100% pacifist.
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:01:02
How the word 'fight' comes first to any head which 100% pacifist?
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:02:01
Because I'm a politics student and it's very much part of the language. Anyone who believes in a particular ideology talks about "fighting" for it. We talk about democratic parties "fighting elections". It's just a buzzword.
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:10:53
Leave real politicians even politics student will think and express in ters of war and fight if they take goal of 'building Gods kingdom...Thats what you want to suggest.
The words that appear to have come accidently have deeper links with our psyche and thinking according to one theory.-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:12:37
I don't believe or practise violence, or even really think about violence, so I don't agree with that theory
Unless it's buried so deeply in my psyche that it will never come out: in which case, I don't see the need to worry about it!
If you read Acts of the Apostles, you will see that the early Christians lived together in peace and shared everything they owned. That is my idea of building God's kingdom. It could not be achieved by violence.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:28:07
But only Christians will enjoy living in that kingdom. What anout me who is not more than just a human being?
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:48:15
"Just a human being?" I believe human beings are incredibly valued and important, more so than we realise.
I also believe, personally, that in that Kingdom all needs would be satisfied and it wouldn't be "only Christians" who would benefit.
But I would also be against imposing my chosen way to live on anybody. I believe in true democracy - not the tyranny of the majority.
One of my friends has this vision of "holographic society" where society is made up of a series of communities, each with different ethics and emphases, and between which people can move freely when they feel their present community doesn't meet their needs anymore. I like this idea.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:54:33
I am sure that present community doesn't meet needs and I would like to know more about this concept of 'holographic society'.
I think the 'Christian' have specific historical meaning. How non-Christians can be part of 'Gods kingdom'?
Would the 'Gods kingdom' include non or ex Christians?-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 14:59:52
A question over which there is much debate.
The Bible says that anyone who, for example, sees creation and acknowledges that the Creator is good, or does the best they can for other people, can know and serve God.
I would argue that this means people who don't call themselves Christians will be part of God's kingdom.
Others disagree because of the "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" verse. They interpret this as "only people who explicitly choose to know Jesus can know God". However, I would argue that the verses mentioned above contradict this. I believe that many people know God and Jesus, but not by name.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 15:09:18
"The Bible says that anyone who, for example, sees creation and acknowledges that the Creator is good, or does the best they can for other people, can know and serve God."
HOW THIS CAN MEAN THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T CALL THEMSELVES cHRISTIANS WILL BE PART OF 'gods kingdom'?-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 15:13:20
Because it means anyone who has a sense of there being a benevolent spiritual being, or anyone who is altruistic, knows God. These people might not necessarily consider themselves Christians or even belong to any faith at all.
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 15:23:59
1. What about those who don't believe in existence of God but love humanity.?
2. If that is the case why use word 'christian' with its historical meaning?-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 15:38:02
1) I personally believe that these people would come under the category of "whatever you did for the least of my brothers, you did for me". It is possible to serve God even if you don't know he exists IMO.
2) I believe that Jesus did come for a reason - to enable humanity to have a relationship with God. However I don't believe this is as linear as some churches emphasize. I believe that many people know God and Jesus, but not by name.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 15:52:37
1. It is like playing football with cricketing terms and shouting 'sixer' when person scores a goal or playing cricket with football terms and saying 'goal' when person is bold.
2. Non linear view and Christianity? -
-
-
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-22 @ 06:15:44
"justification through faith alone" Book of James. Dont you believe in personal salvation and accountability before God? How do you conceptualise the crucifixion and ressurection then, as universal unconditional salvation? What you've said reminds me of Aquinas and his natural proofs of God theory.
But hey whats it to me, you're the Christian.
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-23 @ 17:33:30
That's interesting. It's usually the Book of James which is used to criticise "justification by faith alone" in terms of faith without works being empty. It is Paul who stresses justification by faith alone, particularly in Romans.
I do believe salvation is personal and that there will be an individual encounter with God at the end of this life. The highly personal nature of each individual's walk with God makes me criticise literalist, "one size fits all" Christianity.
There isn't only one argument of why the Cross was necessary. The evangelical position of "the wrath of God being satisfied" dominates conventional thinking. I think of Jesus as the "Great High Priest" - the intermediary between people and God, who prays for us. This is also biblical. Others believe the Crucifixion is a legal dialogue - the need for a price to be paid for sin.
There is a right answer, but we don't know it - we (Christians) can only have faith that Jesus died for a reason, and that because of Him we can be saved.
Incidentally, I haven't heard of Aquinas?-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-24 @ 01:01:50
Its not interesting. Its just wrong lol. I got muddled up between the Romans verses and James. Its been that long Vierra. The James verse is,
show me your faith without deeds, and i'll show you my faith by what I do.
The justification by grace through faith in Christ is what Paul talks about in Romans. And as you say, James and Romans are used by evangelicals and arminians variously who argue over the doctrines of, Justification, and Substitutionary Atonement.
You mention Jesus as High Priest which Hebrews refers to. Looking up jus one of the high/great priest refs, it says,
"Since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place BY the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, HIS BODY, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of FAITH.." Heb 10:19-22a
and also Heb 9:11-14
As you'll know, the later chapters in Hebrews are all about what is materially achieved by faith, in the personal pronoun. And the author goes through the long list of patriarchs and (even) Rahab.
Not to be adversarial Vierra, just as a lay bystander I think what you say is interesting. Still, I dunno if you find anything problematic in the Hebrew verse or not.
You talk of Jesus praying.. I know he did in Gethsemane and on the cross. But I cant recall any post-resurrection refs. Is there something in Revelation? Im asking sincerely, not rhetoricly.
I all but threw the bible in the bin a good few years back.
I saw you posting at Wilberts, I thought maybe you were one of his mates. Which church do you go to, or how would you describe yourself? Yes yes, a Christian. Ok. lol. But for informations sake. I mean your clearly not a Reformed fundy.
Thomas Aquinas - a 12th C Theologian Philosopher. Are you sure you dont know him? Just surprised cos you clearly have a well formed sense of your own Christian belief. Its not for me to say whether you're right or wrong, just interested and asking questions. You can have a sandwich too Vierra. lol. Mr. Vox likes cracker barrel very much. lol
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-28 @ 15:29:47
I don't really find the Hebrews verse problematic. It's just emphatic about how the way to God was opened to us through Christ. Other verses - there's one in Romans, I'm not very good at chapter and verse - speak of people being able to know God without having heard of Jesus, through their reaction to nature. Some people would say this is a contradiction, but to me, you can know of Jesus intellectually without knowing Him personally, or vice versa. For me, it's all about people and their spirituality. Are they genuinely attempting to know God or simply following a doctrine out of worldly motives? Are their motives self serving or do they seek to be the best person they can for others' benefit? I think God values all attempts to seek Him and all who seek will find, as the Gospel says. I just think Christians should be less willing to try to decide who's in and who's out - the Gospel says there will be some surprises.
I've heard of Thomas Aquinas but didn't actually know what he wrote. My Biblical and historical knowledge are quite sketchy.
As a Christian, I'm from an Anglican background and have been encouraged by my father, a minister, to look deeply at the Bible and to use my brain in conjunction with my spirituality, not just to accept every word as fact. I'm currently attending a charismatic evangelical church, and whilst I don't always agree with the preaching, I believe God moves in that church and find great enjoyment and peace in the lively worship and prayer.
About Jesus praying, I'm not sure where the references are... I'm sure there are some because people keep writing hymns about it But I suppose the classic text is "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing" - Jesus pleading for people to God.
A sandwich? Yes, please. Thank you -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-22 @ 05:55:56
What you describe is called Libertarianism.
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-23 @ 17:28:04
Ah, I'd always wondered what that meant
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-24 @ 01:29:08
Liberal democracy is a great thing, so any criticism I make advisedly. But I do believe that in that the future of global market and migration is best served by gradual shift in governance and representation towards libertarian autonomy. Otherwise people like me will be on a collision course with for example political Islam, as we fight things out for the heart of the democratic majority.
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-24 @ 03:03:18
Hey, I visited your blog. I see you're studying comparative politics.. You're too modest. I'm sure you could fire out a dissy on Libertarianism before I could say 1 nil to the Arsenal.
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-28 @ 15:32:00
LOL, I'm at the beginning of my second year, so I'm still learning
I've studied something like libertarianism before, but when I was in sixth form it was called radical liberalism - I think we've inherited some American terminology?
I wonder what the score is now? Livescore is broken and my season ticket is out of action till Jan -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-22 @ 05:48:37
Capitalism be definition, places individualism and material satisfaction (happiness) at its center.
It is the collectivisms like Socialism, Nationalism, Christianity, Islam, which are in opposition to personal autonomy.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-23 @ 00:06:24
Just a bit difference blighty.
Capitalism has flourished on individualism or material satisfaction but it has not so successful in creating conditions conducive for the manifestation of individuality or for the material or spiritual satisfaction of majority people living under it. This makes people to turn to collectivisms and surrender their personal autonomy.-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-23 @ 01:14:20
Yes thats a frequent criticism thats made. I disagree with it totally.
Individualism is what you make it.
Capitalism is what you make it.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-23 @ 01:34:14
Yes.
Who is 'you' in this?
who makes it?
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-23 @ 02:17:02
I makes a sandwich. I gives it to you. Be happy! Its Diwali!
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-23 @ 02:35:59
I just wanted to point out that even capitalism is made of collective of individuals.
Ok. Which sandwitches you are making? With cracker barrel cheese I suppose. -
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-23 @ 02:41:14
Blighty have you seen my post \\"Why he said so?"\\ . I am going to post its second part tomorrow.
Just have a guess.-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-24 @ 02:16:19
No. I will take a look.
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-24 @ 02:42:40
I just give you a link here.
"Why
he said so?"-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-24 @ 03:04:19
Another one before that was...
1. Beginning
of journey
and
2. Episode
of 18 years ago -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-23 @ 17:27:01
But can you find me anybody who isn't a millionaire and is materially satisfied by capitalism?
Most people I know, even the upper middle classes, find that once they've bought something, they want something else. My family came into an exquisite set of dining room furniture, with absolutely nothing wrong with it, because some wealthy friends were fed up with it and wanted a new one. They weren't satisfied by something flawless.
I'm currently a student and only work during the holidays. In term time when I don't think much about earning and spending money, I find my individuality and creativity flourish.-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-24 @ 02:08:58
I know, I was a student too in the recent past. I cleaned out offices. I didnt have parents took bankroll me. Yeh its hard. But as I see it, there is no viable alternative too capitalism. Planned economies dont work. Capitalism generates prosperity and progress. Its not perfect, because in capitalism there is no top-down perfection, only bottom-up aspiration. So in that sense, the capitalist reality contradicts monotheist religious worldviews.
-
-
-
-
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 20:02:03
Sorry for the late reply, I got kicked out of the computer lab
You've obviously only encountered one kind of Christianity. The Bible is a big, diverse book, and to begin to get to grips with it you have to be aware of the culture and context it was written in... You certainly can't approach it from the Greek mindset which might be considered linear. As I understand it, only 2 books were written by a Greek!
I disagree with your sports metaphor. There are many areas of diversity and uncertainty in life. We're not all either one thing or another.-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 20:10:09
First I agee with your disagreement over my sports metaphor and especially the reason you ascribed for that. Yes diversity and uncertainty and one thing or another is not right way to look at things.
What other mindset can have non-linear interpretation of Bible? -
-
-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-21 @ 20:25:01
Most of the Bible was written in Hebrew, by Jewish people. In this there is a certain amount of legalism - many books in the Bible read like court cases. There is also a large amount of symbolism. The ancient Jews would explain a mystery by telling a story, and there was no secular work - everything was ascribed to God.
Also, the Bible must be looked at as a whole. Some people take one verse from a particular book and trumpet it as absolute and undeniable truth, even where it doesn't agree with other verses. Sadly, this is sometimes done to further a personal agenda (see Henry VIII arguing Leviticus vs Deutoronomy to justify his forthcoming divorce). The other (more common) reason this happens often is out of fear. People are afraid that if they question the Bible, God will be angry with them, or they will lose their faith. This is sad, because certain books of the Bible (Job, Ecclesiastes) are full of questioning and the Bible says "I have not given you a Spirit of fear".-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-21 @ 20:46:33
But do these different Jewish books take non-linea view of humanity?
Do they have different story than genesis, fall of man to judgement day?-
-
ViEiRA
- 2006-10-23 @ 17:07:14
I think in Judaism the stories were just that-stories which explained the unexplained. When encounters with God are described in these books, they usually refer back to documented history i.e. the life of Abraham or Moses or the exile in Bablyon, rather than the creation narrative etc.
We have the historical books of the Bible because the Babylonians were obsessive historians and required the Jews, along with other nations they conquered, to document their own history.
Sometimes you will find Biblical characters given astonishingly long life expectancies. Some Christians argue that this is literally true and they just lived longer in those days. Others believe the Jews were trying to fill in the gaps between famous figures in their history.
So to answer the question, most books in the Bible were written individually and many contain quite different angles on the same content. (See Kings and Chronicles - they're terminally boring in places, but each contains a different political angle on the same era of history - the pro- and anti- King David lobbies.)-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-23 @ 20:51:58
//"So to answer the question, most books in the Bible were written individually and many contain quite **different angles on the same content** ."//??
I have great respect for Bible and its different versions as they are rich treasure of human history and spiritual, social, political journey.
But...
Do you think there is vast life beyond Biblical books? -
-
-
-
-
-
blighty
- 2006-10-22 @ 06:39:15
But the bible also says "fear the Lord" countless times. Of course 'proof-texts' are bad theology. But that doesnt mean doctrinal agreement and consistency cant be established. Protestants and Catholics may disagree over Salvation, but there isnt a whisker between them on the Trinity.
-
-
voxpopuli
- 2006-10-22 @ 10:19:47
Surely it is very dificult to find real peace of mind through all these countless versions of same core.
-
-
I can't answer that one Vox, I have not heard the theory, or read the book.
I read P.D.James, The children of men. Although fiction, it was quite a good read. I beleive they have now made that into a film. Whether it will be as good as the book, only time will tell.