Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gari_305 OP t1_j4zwau0 wrote

From the Article

>While commercial quantum computers are still some years away, public and private entities around the world are already investing heavily in the race for a quantum advantage. ​​As of January 2021, 17 countries have a national initiative or strategy to support quantum technology research and development; 3 have strategies under development while 12 other countries have significant government-funded or -endorsed initiatives. But more than 150 countries do not yet have a quantum strategy.

Also from the article

>Disparities in access to existing technologies have already created a digital divide: 2.9 billion people are still offline and do not benefit from the digital economy. Unequal access to quantum technology has negative geopolitical implications, putting those countries whose quantum programs are less developed in danger of falling further behind.

31

Aleyla t1_j506790 wrote

Of those 2.9 billion people - how many have ready access to clean water, education, steady supply of food, and housing that isn’t in a war zone? I would posit that these are far more important than being “online”.

We have a decently sized portion of humanity that is stuck in a cycle of violence - with little to no desire to get out of it. Unless they want to break out of the tribal mentality and start working together towards their betterment then the word “quantum” does nothing for them.

16

Eggsaladprincess t1_j51oes0 wrote

>with little to no desire to get out of it. Unless they want to break out of the tribal mentality and start working together towards their betterment

Ah yes. They are there because they want to be. /s

43

hobointhestairwell t1_j52b85e wrote

I had the same thought but I think they might be referring to the endless proxy wars perpetuated by world super powers in the third and developing worlds. It’s not so much the people of these statues by rather the “tribal” entities at the whim of super powers.

Still, a poorly worded summation.

12

freemyslobs1337 t1_j53622r wrote

No. They arent. Africa has serious tribal wars still going on. They are partially related to how they are treated by other countries BUT, they need to resolve these issues themselves. It isnt their fault per-se. Its kind of like a state wanting to secede, but way more problematic. Very different cultures exist in the same nations, and those nations often refuse to give those cultures lee-way, often even preferring genocide. That is a resource issue.

Basically, it is the same us vs them mentality that plagues us in the US, just a lot more extreme. It is individual cultures feeling like they deserve their own rule, and the nations they live in wanting all the resources, so fuck their feelings (instead of just allowing some level of autonomy for those cultures, but united in resources)

5

Prime_Galactic t1_j52jkn2 wrote

Many of the places you're talking about were completely fucked by colonialism. Africa and many third world countries are still having their wealth extracted by nations with more power and influence.

I think that we'd find Americans in the same circumstances as them would likely not act much differently. We have a huge theocratic facist base in the country that could hypothetically do more than an inept storming of the capital. Most Americans just have too much to lose to want to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs.

9

katsumojo t1_j56da5t wrote

The problem with this statement is it places all of the fault on the people stuck in the cycle. Yes, they play a role BUT they are just making the best choices that are in place for them.

Imagine an example where Frank and Lisa are leaders of their respective population groups in the same country. When the war in Ukraine breaks out all grain supply is cut off to their country until a few months later when negotiations finally allow for a modest amount of grain to be exported to their country. It’s not as much as before the war and this instantly puts Frank and Lisa at odd’s. If Frank gets more grain, Lisa might try to negotiate but that would be fruitless because it’s not even enough grain for Frank. Next Lisa might resort to political/economic/social pressure. And if it get serious enough, Lisa’s people will demand war. They’re starving after all.

This is a dumbed down situation but this dynamic occurs in developing countries all over the world as a result of action without forethought by developed countries. Layer decades of this happening again and again and that’s how you end up with regional conflict zones.

1

Aleyla t1_j56htnj wrote

> Yes, they play a role BUT they are just making the best choices that are in place for them.

I think we are going to disagree on this. Often those leaders are making the best choices for them personally, not for the country the are running. Unfortunately this is a big part of human nature so the government that is put in place has to take that into account.

> This is a dumbed down situation but this dynamic occurs in developing countries all over the world as a result of action without forethought by developed countries.

A big part of being a leader is managing risks. Both internal and external. If Lisa and Frank are running a country and they aren’t actively trying to mitigate risks to their basic needs then what are they doing?

0

Cetun t1_j53yi52 wrote

It's hard to imagine that 2.9 billion have no access. In the 2000s Ethiopia had the most robust cellular network in Africa despite having no government. The reason was because of the lack of government banks couldn't really operate, but cellular companies physical infrastructure only really depended on cell towers. Cellular providers could be the middle men in international wire transfers. All you had to do was send a text and your cellular company could effectively become your bank.

In places with the least infrastructure it seemed there was the greatest incentive to provide the latest technology.

3