The Geopolitical Implications of Technological Change
Hi Plebs,
With recent geopolitical events in mind, it makes sense to talk about how Bitcoin might influence future proxy wars.
Bitcoin's rise over the past fifteen years has shaken up traditional views on wealth, property, and state power. War is often compared to a game of chess by many strategists. Bitcoin entering the scene is like adding a new player to the board, making policymakers rethink how they assess the costs of war.
At first look, Bitcoin seems like it could help lessen the causes of violent conflicts among nations. It caps at 21 million, and no amount of political lobbying is going to change that. This could make a war effort expensive.
’Why?’
The state can not make policy that allows them to create more money out of thin air. Any significant proposal to change the rules must pass through the voting process embedded in the Bitcoin software. It is important to remember that bitcoin is not a democracy, it is a protocol. It is co-ordinated by a set of rules.
Before the era of fiat currency, waging war was costly. Without the support of gold reserves, governments couldn't easily afford military action. Instead, they often had to rely on diplomatic solutions or persuade their citizens that going to war was necessary. In a fiat economy, an autocratic vote is placed forward and money is printed to enable wars.
Thank you for reading Bitesize Bitcoin. This post is public so feel free to share it.
Yet, a closer look shows a more detailed and intricate situation. Although bitcoin may limit some types of big-scale, traditional warfare, they probably won't erase the root causes of human conflict entirely. Violence and coercion among nations vary widely, from subtle influence and psychological tactics to outright military force.
A crucial factor is the continuous, rapid advancement in military technology, fuelled by the same deflationary forces that have allowed bitcoin to thrive. Progress in fields like autonomous systems, cyberwarfare, and new energy sources is making violence more accessible, putting potent capabilities within reach of various state and non-state groups. This might result in more asymmetric, deniable conflicts that target weaknesses in crucial digital systems.
Moreover, the strategic significance of safeguarding local production and validation processes for bitcoin could create a fresh field of interstate rivalry and sabotage. As these operations become more interconnected with national energy networks and other vital systems, the motivation for states to conduct complex spying and disruptive assaults against competing operations will increase.
Crucially, the fundamental principle of nuclear deterrence is unlikely to change much with the rise of bitcoin. The serious consequences of nuclear weapons will still loom large over the world stage, meaning states will need to keep their command and control systems highly dependable and secure, regardless of other technological or economic changes.
On a deeper level, conflicts often arise from more than just the urge to grab wealth. Limited natural resources, ethnic and religious tensions, nationalist ambitions, and humanity's innate capacity for violence all play roles in fuelling war and state-sponsored oppression. While bitcoin might ease some causes of conflict, they probably won't erase the deep-rooted sources of violence that have troubled human societies for ages.
It's still uncertain how bitcoin will affect the geopolitical balance. But it's evident that these new technologies won't solve all the old problems of nations competing and using force. Policymakers and strategists need to understand the many ways technology interacts with the underlying causes of conflict. Only then can we navigate the complexities ahead and aim for a more stable and peaceful world.
Cheers, and onwards with Bitcoin
