Opinions aphi 22,1999 ^
'The end of the world as we know it?' I don't think so
According to some students
of esoteric lore, the next month or
so is when Nostradamus prophesied
the end of civilization would occur,
with a great cataclysm.
Nilus, a fourth century Chris
tian, foretold of the coming of the
Antichrist before the end of 1999,
after describing in detail such things
of this century as telephones, air
craft and world war.
All over the world people
have become so terrified of the
“Y2K bug” that some are digging
bunkers and stocking up on food
and ammo, hoping to “ride out”
what they believe will be a global
catastrophe.
One of the hottest sells in
bookstores lately has bQcnApollyon,
the latest of the “Left Behind” se
ries set in a post-Rapture world
(think of Book of Revelation meets
Tom Clancy, meets The Winds of
War). Meanwhile, Christians ev
erywhere have begun interpreting
the times to mean that the Second
Coming of Christ must soon come
to pass. Some say that Kosovo will
erupt into World War III.
How appropriate that in the
midst of “millennial madness,”
Stephen Jay Gould spoke here a
few weeks ago about the times we
live in. Especially of late, Gould
has been critical of the idea that we
can know the future. According to
Gould, the obsession that some
people are having about the “end of
the world” is so much foolishness,
particularly religiously-inspired
eschatology.
I am a Christian. Meaning
that I have accepted Christ as my
personal savior, and I believe that a
relationship with Him is the only
way that a person can enter into the
presence of God. I came into that
relationship after a life of experi
ences, especially the experiences
I’ve had at Elon College. So too, as
part of my faith, do I believe that
Christ will return someday. As a
Christian, that much of the future is
already established.
That doesn’ t mean I’m gonna
join in the frenzy, though. As Jesus
Himself said, “NO MAN knows the
hour...” Whether it happens in the
next several months, or even in my
lifetime at all, that’s not something
to be worried about. Shoot, I got
more stuff out the wazoo to take
care of than I know what to do with:
post-graduation plans, gearing up
to see Star Wars Episode I: The
Phantom Menace, wanting to travel
and see more of the world, get mar
ried someday... TONS of stuff. The
stuff that life is made of, y’know? I
mean, remember Bobby Fischer?
He was the world’s greatest chess
player back in the Seventies. The
guy had everything, then he dropped
out of sight and started living in
cheap motels and getting boozed
up, because he was waiting for the
Second Coming. That ain’t LIFE,
man! And that ain’t what God wants
you to do with it, either: He wants
you to be living for Him, but still be
grabbing life by the horns and not
letting go!
Still, regardless of all the end-
time scenarios that are getting
chucked around lately, I do wonder
if humanity has reached a summit...
or perhaps a plateau is a better term.
Professor Gould may
have been partly cor
rect that we can not pre
dict the future with any
reliability. But perhaps,
Chris Knight
The Pendulum
knigr5cO@elon.edu
it is that we no longer
have any reason to pre
dict the future. If we
are not at the end of the
world, we could be at
an end of history.
Note that I say “an end,” not
“the end.” By “an end of history,”
I am not speaking of the apocalyptic
or supernatural at all. It is some
thing that man has brought upon
himself, whether by grandiose
dreams and designs spread out over
millennia or the simple cravings of
the human nature that have steadily
brought manking to this point. It is
the course of history, culminating
in a long-sought “equilibrium” on a
global scale.
Throughout recorded time,
history has been divided into ep
ochs of “empire:” the Babylonian,
the Greek, the Roman... onward until
the English and finally, the Ameri
can empire. The “empire” is the
binding force of human civiliza
tion: for good or ill, “empire” deter
mines the value of currency, estab
lishes the frontiers, and interprets
and enforces the law. “Empire,”
whatever its name, is what man
looks to as the identity of whatever
time it is he lives in.
“The empire” has remained
the same; only its seat has changed.
The influence exerted by our lead
ers in Washington D.C., though in a
radically different form, is essen
tially the same as that of, say, Xerxes
of the Persians, two and a half thou
sand years ago. And the same of
Hadrian, and the khans of Mongolia.
And up until about the middle
of this century, “empire” has taken
the course it had been on for the past
six thousand years. And then some
thing became apparent: that the
growth of empire had increased the
effect that regionalism was having
worldwide.
Consider the two World
Wars: they were not true “world
wars” at ail, in that they were con
fined to two separate theaters in
Europe and the Pacific Rim. But
economies and whole nations world
wide were affected all the same.
And after the conflicts, there was
one undeniable seat of empire: the
United States.
There has
been one great
characteristic that
all forms of “the
empire” have
shared through
out time: growing
centralization.
It’s an aspect of
the increase in
power that comes
with grasping the
economic and
military reins.
And with
this centralizing of military, infra
structure, and economies, there is
almost always a breakdown of em
pire. Consider the Roman Empire,
which became so ingrown and heavy
upon itself that it collapsed, unable
to bear its own burden which had
been added to by internal corrup
tion. The Roman Empire fell, only
to have “empire” further built up
upon its ruins, expanding further.
Now consider that for all in
tents and purposes, America has
become the new Roman Empire,
only ours has a truly global influ
ence and a far greater disadvantage.
Without any further frontiers
to push into (unless you want to
consider colonizing Antarctica), and
with the rest of the world either
province or periphery, WHERE is
it left for “the empire” to expand, to
add unto itself? There is nowhere...
and no other left to take up the
burden of “empire.”
There becomes a lack of vi
tality, and subsequently a waning
drive for civilization to improve
upon itself. Advances in sciences
and the arts steadily dwindle. Ulti
mately, all that is left is for the seat
of empire to try to hold itself to
gether. That has become America’s
motivation on the world stage in
this decade (and I think that trying
— and failing — to maintain the
situation in the Balkans is part of
that effect).
Here’s where I’m getting at
with all this: as this world becomes
more “globalized,” we are looking
at a breakdown of everything we
have come to cherish of human civi
lization. It’s losing its vibrancy,
everything is becoming lackluster.
There’s an “equilibrium of medioc
rity” we are approaching.
Consider that the American
of 1800 had far, FAR more rights
than you or I enjoy in 1999, with far
less to pay for them but his or her
own drive and initiative. Growing
centralization on a global scale has
hit you and me in ways both appar
ent and subtle... all in the name of a
global “community” but more ac
curately, a global “empire.”
This is why I said we are at
“an end of history,” because in such
a time as we are entering into, what
is left for history books to be written
about? Human progress is slowing
down under its own weight for the
sake of empire. It needs to break
free, with as few limits as possible.
I have some ideas for that.
First, we cannot change the world
overnight: we need to start “locally.”
America should consider taking a
“protectionist” or perhaps even a
bit “isolationist” stance, at least for
a decade or two. We need time to
examine ourselves internally, and
try to determine who we are again,
and where we are going. -
Second, we should take steps
to end centralizing everything here
into what is becoming one giant
bureaucracy. Localized govern
ments are far more efficient than
our federal one. This may sound
extreme, but a HUGE step would be
to eliminate the Department of Edu
cation and let communities run their
own schools. Putting all the schools
in this country into one basket just
opens itself up to incredible abuse
and corruption, at the cost of the
best education we can give this
country’s children.
Third, we should really con
sider getting out of the United Na
tions. The UN began with the no
blest intentions, but time has proven
it to have been a grand failure so far
as creating and “maintaining” peace
goes. It was doomed from the start,
because it took the best elements of
“empire” and magnified its vulner
abilities to human nature.
I’ve already argued in past
columns, human n^iture is, on its
own and without God, inherently
corrupt. If we get out of the UN,
now, we will be setting an example
to all nations of the world: that they
have to start looking to God and
their own experiences, and not the
illusion of combined human “wis
dom,” to guide them.
For the young people of our
generation, this world still holds
great promise. I believe that each of
us has God-given potential to make
something better of this world than
how we first found it.
But we need to take a good,
hard look at what this world is be
coming now, if we want to someday
leave our children and theirs with
the same opportunities that we have
been blessed with.
It sounds like an impossible
task to cut off “an end to history,” to
break apart an “empire,” but it can
be done. It might be hard, but it will
be fun. And if we need any more
enticement, think of it this way...
It will be revolutionary, in
every sense of the word.
Mad About
Something?
Write a Letter
to the Editor
Mail all letters to 7012 Campus Box or i
drop them off at The Pendulum office ■
(Room 233, Moseley Center) by noon ,
Monday. You must include your name '
and phone number. •