The surveillance of chats and the prohibition of encryption in many Western countries must have a purpose. It mostly makes sense if democracy is dismantled.
Since the West doesn’t show signs of sharing resources voluntarily, my prediction is that the West is willing to fight a nuclear war to preserve its lead which cannot happen in a democracy.
Without that war, Asia will take over as the center of commerce and innovation. The brightest will move there, which means that the remaining people in the West have to be innovative without the main ingredience for innovation.
I’ll go with Hanlon’s razor there. The cops and politicians don’t really understand the magic boxes, let alone the game theory of adversarial uses layered on top of them. People use the boxes for bad things, they say just add a way to stop them, EZ. (Of course, we can’t and it’s not)
Since the West doesn’t show signs of sharing resources voluntarily
Which resources? The “only” tangible advantage the West actually has is strong institutions, and to a much lesser degree momentum. The science behind the technology is free for anyone to learn - even in excruciating detail if you go looking - and natural resources are actually less depleted in poor countries at this point.
That advantage could have been given up and shared.
Strong institutions cannot be put in a crate and shipped overseas, no.
Countries like Japan, Singapore and South Korea slowly built their own, and are also developed now. Most poor countries just haven’t managed it yet for one reason or another.
If China escalates to cause war in Asia when other countries are sufficiently pissed off by them trying to steal territory and harass others non-stop, then that plus a potential Chinese real estate market collapse could cause pretty serious problems in the region.
The surveillance of chats and the prohibition of encryption in many Western countries must have a purpose. It mostly makes sense if democracy is dismantled.
Since the West doesn’t show signs of sharing resources voluntarily, my prediction is that the West is willing to fight a nuclear war to preserve its lead which cannot happen in a democracy.
Without that war, Asia will take over as the center of commerce and innovation. The brightest will move there, which means that the remaining people in the West have to be innovative without the main ingredience for innovation.
I’ll go with Hanlon’s razor there. The cops and politicians don’t really understand the magic boxes, let alone the game theory of adversarial uses layered on top of them. People use the boxes for bad things, they say just add a way to stop them, EZ. (Of course, we can’t and it’s not)
Which resources? The “only” tangible advantage the West actually has is strong institutions, and to a much lesser degree momentum. The science behind the technology is free for anyone to learn - even in excruciating detail if you go looking - and natural resources are actually less depleted in poor countries at this point.
That advantage could have been given up and shared. Instead it is defended, even with military power. Why fight those wars now and make enemies?
Strong institutions cannot be put in a crate and shipped overseas, no.
Countries like Japan, Singapore and South Korea slowly built their own, and are also developed now. Most poor countries just haven’t managed it yet for one reason or another.
If China escalates to cause war in Asia when other countries are sufficiently pissed off by them trying to steal territory and harass others non-stop, then that plus a potential Chinese real estate market collapse could cause pretty serious problems in the region.