4 ms·
Not sure why you were downvoted. I think that's a terrifying statement but I don't see any strong evidence that you're wrong.
by fallingfrog 9y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted. I think that's a terrifying statement but I don't see any strong evidence that you're wrong.
- adventured 9y agoI'm being downvoted because it's simultaneously terrifying to most people and an unpopular opinion. It's pretty blatant that's what is going on however. China for one is leaps and bounds ahead of the US in progressing down that path (they hardly ever deviated from the extreme nationalism path, for a mere decade roughly). Xi will push it a lot further now. I don't see a good argument that globalism (as we knew it) was going to continue perpetually, that there would be no inflection occurance. It makes perfect sense that a trend like that would have an inflection and go the other direction eventually.
- madez 9y agoThere are chances that after the next substantially increased military conflict, you and I are dead. And so is practically everybody else. I fail to see the "stunning technologies" we could get from that.
- adventured 9y agoI disagree. The major nuclear powers won't instigate nuclear war of that sort unless their territorial integrity is threatened. That will remain the pull-back point no matter the conflict. The technological leap that I'd expect, will begin to accelerate as the tension between large nations builds over the next decade. It's clear there will be a big competition between the powers in the form of an AI race for example (already underway), and it won't stop there. There's a very large gap between Cold War style conflicts coming back into commonality, or even moving a bit beyond that, and everybody deciding to commit nuclear suicide and kill each other.