There are babies, and there is bathwater.
One can have societies without theocracies, yet also without establishing science as an "alternative religion."
One can have the rule of law while retaining the family as the basic social unit.
One can have women in the workplace without ignoring the risks of large numbers of latch-key children.
Flag me when you see a Peters' rewrite that acknowledges the above.
Until then, I'll take his coda as it's written...
The future will never be fully predictable, but globalization means the imposition of uniform rules by the most powerful actors. They are fundamentally economic rules. For the first time, the world is converging toward a homogeneous system, if not toward homogenous benefits from that system. The potential of states is more predictable within known parameters than ever before.
We have seen the future, and it looks like us.
I'm a bit skeptical that Peters has a good handle on what "we" look like, and what aspects of our portrait ought not to be emulated.
Furthermore, globalization fetishists, like Peters here, generally fail to acknowledge that the cultural exchange runs two ways.
Please point out to me anywhere in the article where Peters contradicts any of those points, or even suggests that those possibilites (enthronement of science as religion, other than the family as the basic family unit, or "latch-key" children) are desirable.
You're "reading" stuff that isn't there.
I'm not sure where the author was going with that "science as an 'alternative religion'" idea. I agree that it sounds a little wacky.
"One can have the rule of law while retaining the family as the basic social unit."
The author is simply referring to the problems created when family ties trump law. He is not saying that law & order is mutually exclusive to family unity. That is why he wrote that "family networks... do not build the rule of law, or democracy, or legitimate corporations, or free markets. Where the family or clan prevails [over the rule of law, or democracy, or legitimate corporations, or free markets], you do not hire the best man (to say nothing of the best woman) for the job... You do not vote for the best man... And you do not consider cease-fire deals or shareholder interests to be matters of serious obligation."
"One can have women in the workplace without ignoring the risks of large numbers of latch-key children."
How does this relate to the article?