But you hit on a very interesting point, but don't follow it through to conclusion:
> What the West was able to do is exploit that technology to create a new economic system, ...
> Furthermore it's an assumption to think that conflict creation is inherent in human beings, because it's really not, and there are many instances of various government being satisfied in their own domains. China, and India being an example where incredible wealth meant a stable state, ...
A stable economy is not a Nash equilibrium, and therefore unsustainable (not necessarily, but ...). Those nations were defeated, because they settled in a non-Nash-equilibrium and they were destroyed because of that. The west created a new equilibrium and it absorbed the world.
This is not the fault of the west, or of anyone at all, any more than my wet coat is the fault of the rain. If you live in a non-Nash-equilibrium state you are one change of tactics by one of your friends or enemies (or pets, really) removed from extinction (or at least massive change).
These states would have been defeated and replaced sooner or later regardless of whether any individual player felt the need to do so. It was easy to do, just requiring the first domino to get pushed over. The west was there at the right time with a better system, no more, no less. And most of the destroying would have been done, not by western soldiers, but by people in those old systems who very likely enormously benefited from introducing the new system.
Of course, and so the same will happen today. Nothing has changed. There are no winners, or losers, just the eternal game.
I'm not saying these people were "better", or "worse" these were people, and so the coming chaos will reflect their humanity. The West shouldn't be afraid.
> What the West was able to do is exploit that technology to create a new economic system, ...
> Furthermore it's an assumption to think that conflict creation is inherent in human beings, because it's really not, and there are many instances of various government being satisfied in their own domains. China, and India being an example where incredible wealth meant a stable state, ...
A stable economy is not a Nash equilibrium, and therefore unsustainable (not necessarily, but ...). Those nations were defeated, because they settled in a non-Nash-equilibrium and they were destroyed because of that. The west created a new equilibrium and it absorbed the world.
This is not the fault of the west, or of anyone at all, any more than my wet coat is the fault of the rain. If you live in a non-Nash-equilibrium state you are one change of tactics by one of your friends or enemies (or pets, really) removed from extinction (or at least massive change).
These states would have been defeated and replaced sooner or later regardless of whether any individual player felt the need to do so. It was easy to do, just requiring the first domino to get pushed over. The west was there at the right time with a better system, no more, no less. And most of the destroying would have been done, not by western soldiers, but by people in those old systems who very likely enormously benefited from introducing the new system.