Reply #34: To which I responded [View All]

[kristopher]

You miss the point.

The description I gave you is a fundamental description of how any cultural system operates. It is independent of the nature of the change and the specific players.

You are reading it in too narrow of a sense, and are forming the concept around too narrow a set of actors. It doesn't predict a specific mechanism (eg whether it is 100% publicly funded endeavor or a 100% privately funded endeavor); only that the movement for change is going to inevitably successful because the surplus wealth generated by the emerging technologies exceeds the surplus wealth generated by the declining technologies.

This fact of greater yields of wealth, when applied across the global scale, will inevitably create more winners for the emerging technologies than for the technologies that offer declining yields.

This energy wealth translates into power within all cultures.

So if we are successful at stopping before 2C, that will be evidence that the shift in the balance of power has occurred - again, no matter the particular economic path that leads to change.




But that wasn't good enough for your psychotic little self, you have to start your pathetic, hysterical ranting.