Asimov emphasized the statistical probabilities of large populations. However the appearance of the creative individual called in his book the "Mule" aggravated all of the plans. Other creative individuals were exactly what the plan needed. How are we to deal with a seeming discrepancy? Some creative individuals seem to act predictably while others don't.

The makes the idea of historical prediction unfathomable because there is no way of knowing exactly what will happen when individuals seemingly create history on the fly. It brings up the question of how history can be predicted given an unknowable human element. Does history follow a predictable pattern? Is this some pattern that is reflected from society to society-all human societies follow a pattern? Of course the answer is no. Some societies seem to have no significant change over centuries, while others seem to change from decade to decade. How can we understand this phenomenon?

When the issue of the creative is addessed, a chronological element must be in place. The early social philosophies are more fundamental to the question above than later ones. In Western civilization our Hellenistic roots emphasize a set of philosophies that promote individual leadership. Take a look at the Confucianist roots of Eastern civilization and we see a set of ideas that emphasize a harmonious society that works like a well oiled machine, everyone fits into his or her place. There is a fundamental difference here that goes back twenty-five centuries. Our "Mules" are best found in the past not the future.