| This analysis seems superficial and xenophobic. I doubt it'll get many down votes on HN because pro Nordic and European statements rarely get much criticism, neither do infantalizing statements about people who practice a religion, but it's none the less fairly exemplary of an increasingly common western attitude that simultaneously promotes a shallow understanding of other cultures while simultaneously pretending to be enlightened because it's arguing in favor of 'the people'. ≥At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government. Conflicts with... ≥At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. These are both examples of government ownership of the resources. Humanitarian differences don't magically make one government owned and not the other. ≥The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith. >So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. This is theological bigotry plain and simple yet I never see it called out in tech forums when politics comes up. The idea that people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle East, are simply too blinded by their traditions to ascend towards a way of life resembling what we westerners have is outright ignorant and devalues the very real social movements that happen in these regions. And even if you do believe that the theocratic leanings of the region's social movements and policy makers are detrimental with regard to distributing economic gains back to the people, so what? These broad generalizations about faith add nothing useful to the dialogue as far as coming up with solutions. It might shock some people to realize that it's possible to tackle economic development and social wellbeing without demonizing cultural keystones. I'd even go so far as to argue that this sort of theological shaming is actually toxic towards generating solutions because it promotes a narrative that there won't be progress until they give up on their misguided ways. ≥It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up. Again, this sort of description only promotes a narrative where these people are misguided infants, prisoners shackled in allegorical caves by their leaders, who can't see the raw deal they've been dealt. These people aren't stupid, they are aware that their governments are often self serving in the same way that Chinese and Russian people know their governments aren't as perfect as they pretend to be. But again, so what? People have to play the hands they're dealt and some even take pride in certain aspects of that hand. These surface level criticisms only sound compelling to western audiences because most of us have no real awareness of the street level politics in these regions and therefore no idea what social action or change even looks like. >So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future. This is a valid economic criticism for which belittling these people's faith served no point. Sure, cultural factors can accelerate innovation and financial growth. That doesn't immediately indicate that the problem is theocratic. Industry isn't a culture, it's a combination of skill sets and infrastructure. China is the world's second largest economy and has become one of the few nations considered able to pose a growing risk to America's military hegemony, Europe can't even make that claim despite having vastly more in common with the US culturally. The penultimate point being, it's shallow and easy to make hand gesture arguments when the only people in the conversation are equally distant from the realities being discussed. That doesn't mean we have no responsibility to at least try not to be intolerant, if anything it's when our audience largely agrees with us that we have a greater responsibility to be interpretive and self critical. |
It's interesting to see those two statements adjacent to each other. China is a tremendous world power, but if I understand the history correctly, it arrived at this point after a series of (sometimes extreme) cultural and economic upheavals that prioritized modernization over traditional culture.