3 ms·
> But what we should really care about is making the flow of talent so voluminous and indispensable to both nations that relations cannot deteriorate to that po
by jimmywanger 10y ago
> But what we should really care about is making the flow of talent so voluminous and indispensable to both nations that relations cannot deteriorate to that point.
That has not happened in the history of mankind. Talent moving around is rather high on Maslov's hierarchy of needs. If your country is out of arable farmland, clean water, or minerals, you will start looking around for places to get those materials.
If they will not trade for them, generally you invade.
- 794CD01 10y agoI would say that is because, in the past, "work remotely" wasn't a viable option. Today, that sounds like a much better option than a war of conquest. To me, at least.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> in the past, "work remotely" wasn't a viable option. What does this have to do with anything? We're talking about resource wars. You can kidnap talent. Look at the origin of the term "shanghaied" and the British impressing American seamen. > Today, that sounds like a much better option than a war of conquest. You're not getting the point. Most nations can do without talent. Talent is willing to cross borders, depending on who's winning. What nations cannot do without is food, minerals and water. Those are definitely zero sum games. Unless you're able to defend your goods with force or there is an abundance of them, they will be taken away from you.