History is the story of civilizational evolution. Technology is what forces history to unfold itself, and the story won’t end until technological progress ends. At a minimum, new tech intensifies existing patterns of civilization. The most impactful technologies carve new patterns altogether. When new tech stops emerging, civilization might stop evolving.

W. Brian Arthur makes a strong case that technologies have two characteristics:

1. Technologies are combinations of other technologies, and

2. All technologies “harness and exploit some effect or phenomenon, usually several”.

The extremely difficult and loaded question:

Are we at the end of history?

Can be reduced to two simpler questions:

Are there any remaining technological combinations?

Are there any remaining exploitable effects and phenomena?

At first glance, the answer is yes. Solar energy, bioreactors, electric vehicles, and carbon capture all fit into the first category. Quantum physics, nuclear fusion, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence all fit into the second. A techno-optimist could stop now and rest assured that no, we are not at the end of history.

What about a techno-pessimist? What if none of these technologies function?

If technological progress froze at today’s level, the best-case scenario: the entire globe would rise to the same level of development. This seems unlikely – the stability of our economy seems dependent on continued growth. The worst-case scenario: a rather brutal societal collapse. But, even in that scenario, it's likely the survivors would rebuild completely. Following the scientific method is hard but tractable. It's just rocket science.

But let’s assume that none of these technologies pan out. In this situation, it’s possible for history to end. But there is another dynamic that will continue to affect humankind’s social trajectory: ethics. Some philosophers, like Noam Chomsky, believe in the existence of an “expanding moral sphere”. Over time, the set of things that we care about will continue to grow in scope and scale.

It’s possible that civilization could change along these lines as well, even if tech stagnates. Especially if the whole world rises to the highest standard of living that existing tech can enable. When you don’t have to worry about where to get your lunch, you’ll tend to worry about other things – and continue to expand the moral sphere. So, even if tech itself stagnates, the world could change for a while longer.

Other thinkers, like John Gray, believe that our moral sphere shrinks and expands arbitrarily, without any direction. In that case, history will also continue to unfold – but without a good plot. Like a novel about cyborg monkeys with bipolar tendencies. Exciting at first, but after a while it would get repetitive.

Personally, I find it impossible to tell if we are near a technological dead-end or moral gridlock. These are questions that only have answers in retrospect, but they’re interesting questions. If anyone says they know what’s coming next, they’re probably selling something.