I fully agree that politics, not technology, will determine how things evolve. The issue I see: the technology we have is global. Our supply chains are global. Company structures are global. All not equally distributed globally, but with global-ish reach. So, what needs to be managed is global.
In politics, US and China have global-ish reach. Nobody else has. German politics, Brazilian politics, South Korean politics: No way they can manage global-ish things. But local is still the level on which most of politics is made, and to some extent needs to be: We still have many and strong language and cultural barriers, and these determine many limits in politics, while companies, technology, and supply chains have overcome them.
So what happens if local-ish politics tries to rein in global-ish trends? Not much. And I do not see politics becoming more global. Looks like the opposite to me.
I therefore find it rather likely that those with global-ish reach (two governements, a number of companies, maybe some individuals) will determine the outcomes - to their benefit, obviously. I would be very happy to be shown believable pathways to more balanced influences and outcomes. Any takers?
I fully agree that politics, not technology, will determine how things evolve. The issue I see: the technology we have is global. Our supply chains are global. Company structures are global. All not equally distributed globally, but with global-ish reach. So, what needs to be managed is global.
In politics, US and China have global-ish reach. Nobody else has. German politics, Brazilian politics, South Korean politics: No way they can manage global-ish things. But local is still the level on which most of politics is made, and to some extent needs to be: We still have many and strong language and cultural barriers, and these determine many limits in politics, while companies, technology, and supply chains have overcome them.
So what happens if local-ish politics tries to rein in global-ish trends? Not much. And I do not see politics becoming more global. Looks like the opposite to me.
I therefore find it rather likely that those with global-ish reach (two governements, a number of companies, maybe some individuals) will determine the outcomes - to their benefit, obviously. I would be very happy to be shown believable pathways to more balanced influences and outcomes. Any takers?