Part 4 - Pendulum of History - The End of Efficiency

Let's stop a moment the linear discourse and let's skip to this year 2011. Maybe it is not necessary to explain "the end of efficiency"; it could be enough just read international news... Many authorities are trying but, for while, no one get to fix international economy. The last crisis started in 2008 and did not stop. In 2011 there is not a new crisis. There are variations of the same crisis.
In 2008 someone said that it was a new 1929. Many people did not agree, and said that mankind learned with the Wall Street Crack of 1929 and would not repeat the conditions that led to the Great Depression.
Here we can see the pendulum of History coming and going between the two moments. But we must see also that it is not exactly the same thing now, although there are similarities.
The 2008 crises came after a time of "efficiency" , an efficiency as professed by the Postmodern Period that started after Second World War. At the same time that there was the Cold War, the aim of the governments was to surch and show efficiency, without giving importance to the way to achieve the efficiency. Based on the success of technology men thought that with Science and Technology everything could be possible, with no need of things like Philosophy, Humanities, etc, and Ethics could be only a relative colecction of rules that resulted from the evolution of Science and Technology.
At the same time there was a vestige of ideals of modernism and romanticism in the "counter culture movement" that was not well received by "the postmodern".
As stablished by Thomas Kuhn in "The Strucuture of the Scientific Revolutions" the paradigma, the model, only works in the time that it is possible to find answers for all questions and problems in a specific field . When the questions start to not find answers under the paradigm, the necessity of a new paradigm arises. Kuhn stablished it for Science, but it is possible to extend the concept for other fields of knowledge.
The Paradigm of Postmodern Politics had a climax in the 1990 decade with the discourse of Globalization.
But, we can think that the first globalization came with Alexander The Great... In the 1929 crises there were a globalization of the effects and it was also a globalized crisis in a globalized economy.
So, maybe "globalization" in 1990ies was a kind of trade mark, a marketing mark....
Now, day after day, globalization seems to be a kind of epidemy, a contamination, a vicious cycle...
So, now are we modern, postmodern, or what? Are we making a coming back to "modern" pre postmodern?
What is better, modern or postmodern?
The nowadays modern is marked by Science. Is the success of Science enough for humanity to consider "modern" a good thing?
One of the first authors to use the word "modern" at a parallel with the progress of Science was Mary Shelley in 1818 in the book named "Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus".
This is an issue for the next text.