[nostrademons]

Perez's Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital makes the point that when a technological revolution occurs, gains are frequently concentrated in a small number of locales that are the first to adopt the new technology and adapt their local industries to the new structure of the economy. This results in significant economic (short term), military (medium term), and geopolitical (long term) power. The changing power balance usually sparks a war and a realignment of the global order.

In the industrial revolutions of the 19th and early 20th centuries, though, nation states usually adopted the new technologies en masse, with the whole nation sharing in the gains. So you had rising nations like Britain, America, Prussia, and Japan which could challenge declining empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia, China, and the Ottomans.

This technological revolution is different, because you have specific parts of nations that are adapting to the new technologies and thriving, while other parts get left behind and see the power they had wilt away. There's relatively little historical precedent for this; the only ones I can think of might be the decline of the Roman empire (where the Eastern Mediterranean remained up-to-date and civilized, while the Northern European hinterlands disintegrated and broke up) and the American Civil War (where the industrial North conquered the agrarian South). And this pattern isn't just U.S-based: China also has a dramatic disparity in wealth & power between coastal cities and the inland hinterland, as well as one between the high-tech South (centered around Shenzhen and the Pearl River Delta) and more politically powerful North (around Beijing).

I don't know exactly what it means, but I don't think it bodes well for either of the major global superpowers.

[BowBun]

Fundamentally, fragmentation. I think the Civil War is a relevant example, honestly. What happens when the disparity between the Silicon Valley elite and the Iowa cattle farmers becomes too much for one side to bear? What's weird this time is the technocrats are pretty spread out on the coasts, and then you have cities like Denver right in the middle. It will be a bit more nuanced than "North vs. South" next time.

Personally, I'd keep an eye out for easy scapegoats like immigration and other cultural issues to spark conflict. I'd also pay attention to economic churn rather than physical conflict. I have a hard time imagining our apathetic population going to war with each other in our day and age, but I can easily picture technology folks blacklisting 'undesirable' customers and blocking access to services, and rural folks putting obstacles in place for access to natural resources they largely control.

[hash872]

>I have a hard time imagining our apathetic population going to war with each other in our day and age

I don't think our population is that apathetic, and I don't think a return to 60s & 70s levels of political violence is really that farfetched. It's what was normal just one generation ago! Small scale groups could conduct random bombings, lone wolf types can carry out assassinations, etc.- this was my parents' generation in a nutshell.

The US has political radicalism (including but not limited to religious fanatics), a violent population relative to other developed countries, obviously lots of weapons (over 300 million firearms!), a very high level of military training/combat experience/institutional military knowledge from 80+ years of wars, loosely organized 'militia' groups, tons and tons of rural areas to hide in, a sympathetic population in those rural areas, etc. We literally check every single box that countries with insurgencies check. I expect a return to small-scale political violence in my lifetime (with gun control, not immigrants, as the flashpoint). Look at a group like Oath Keepers as a great example of who's potentially the most dangerous.

Honestly, my biggest fear are not insurgents but far right-leaning police & military personnel. That's how countries move from insurgencies into coups

[romski]

You don’t get paid if you don’t sell the “resources you control”, also mega corps own farms, mines etc so this isn’t as relevant.

[oposa]

I have had similar thoughts. There is a lot to say about the information age, but I have mostly changed my perspective. I don't think it is a technological revolution, or more correctly because of the technological revolution, these things are happening. We probably overestimate how fast things change, and overlay what is an economic revolution onto recent technological development.

Shenzhen is sort of a good example since isn't actually that high tech. There is for sure innovation but it is mostly existing, and sometime even old, technology. It is both culturally and matter of fact disconnected from the West. Much more so than other centers in the region. It is economic factors that make manufacturing there possible more so than technological ones. You might even argue that USSR were more cutting edge, but of course US companies manufacturing there would have been mostly unthinkable.

The power outside of centers mostly weren't taken away by technology, but by trade, mergers and mortgages. Of course technology has a role, but I am not so sure much of it couldn't have happened by fax. I really think the movie wallstreet is more of an answer to what is happening than the social network is.