The rapid advancement of AI and robotics, coupled with the unsettling rise of global violence, is forcing us to re-evaluate our place in history and how we see ourselves.
Talk of Western decline is premature.
China's impressive scientific progress is a welcome development. While culture is often credited with inventions like paper and gunpowder, the reality is more nuanced. The free flow of information is likely blurring cultural lines derived from financial markets. Economic success is often tied to geography and natural resources. Regions that support population growth tend to drive innovation, thanks to a larger workforce dedicated to research and sharing knowledge.
The shrinking populations in many Western nations aren't necessarily a sign of cultural decay. It's more likely an adaptation to technological shifts. Simpler technologies of the past were easily adopted by large populations, creating a demand for labor. Today's advanced technologies and the goods they produce require energy and resources that can only sustain a smaller workforce. Inequality fuels psychological and social tensions, which may contribute to population decline. Ironically, some proposed solutions of less rather than more, particularly those championed by green parties, may inadvertently exacerbate these trends.
The West's inherent openness has always allowed it to embrace new technologies and find solutions to the social challenges they create. Philosophers anticipated liberties in a time when trade-driven abundance from the New World would lower prices, making inequality unnecessary.
The openness of Western civilization always allowed it to find the latest technologies early and also to find the solutions to the frictions it creates in society. French philosophers prepared for the time when abundance due to trade with the New World lowered prices making inequality unnecessary.
We realized that we are inherently the same species and arbitrary rules made on differences of look, language, race, or sports performance are mere temporary side effects of evolution. Society and the rules evolved. The first revolutions made individual liberties and lifestyle the topic. The New World made the community of people, who define the state. Some added pension and healthcare as state services. Influence from around the world made the British model one of the most liberal, and accepting of all. Communist revolutions of 1917 detached money and wealth from the model. The civil rights movement eliminated the nuances of legal differences and established universal suffrage. The eventual peaceful transitions of many countries in 1989 detached violence from building a democracy at scale. Eventually the wise model of the founders of the European Union negotiated a sustainable way for almost a billion people to live in peace and prosperity.
The common thread in all these advancements is the expansion of voting rights. Universal suffrage has a stabilizing effect. A government cannot harm its voters, as they would lose their voice. In fact, a government must prioritize healthcare and the well-being of its citizens to ensure their continued participation. This implies labor laws that promote longevity. Voters define the state and the power of elected officials, which encourages population growth.
Seemingly minor issues can have significant consequences. Governments must be mindful of the rights of visa holders, as they are potential future voters. Immigration can strengthen a nation's electorate. Conscription, on the other hand, reduces the voting population, either directly or through the potential loss of future voters.
While some argue that money is the primary driver, governments control the money supply through central bank policies. This is because the buying power of taxes and budgets empower elected officials. Limiting the money supply encourages collaboration, leading to a budget controlled by voters and their representatives to intervene in favor of voters.
Ethnic and religious conflicts, as well as policies that prioritize group interests over individual rights, undermine the power of the vote. Democracy's spread has been hampered by leaders who prioritize group goals over individual voting rights, leading to diminished well-being. Taking away voting rights in times of war inevitably raises questions of justice. Justice demands that voters have a say upfront. Leaders often justify interventions in the name of human rights, but those who ultimately suffer the consequences would likely vote against such actions if they knew their eventual cost in advance.
The same holds true for conscription. With every inch of the Earth mapped and advanced data analysis available, leaders can assess the potential survival rates of soldiers. Soldiers can assess their own chances with the available data. Just withholding the data is suspicious. The decision is straightforward: the votes of potential casualties, including their own and the potential of retaliation, are overwhelmingly against it at least in the local counties affected. You do not vote in advance on conscription.
Ultimately, voting empowers citizens to choose between fiscal and monetary policies. Monetary easing typically benefits the new economy and younger workers, while tightening favors asset holders and retirement funds. Voting provides a mechanism for change when current policies become unsustainable.
In conclusion, the expansion of voting rights is the key to navigating the complexities of our era. It ensures that governments are accountable to the people, promoting peace, prosperity, and a future where individual voices matter. Voting rights can be explained easier to everyone. All other rights can be derived from it.