[updated in May 2023 to include the Nvidia example and refine the argument overall, updated August 2024 to include an assessment by the FRBNY and the quotation from Sashi Tharoor. Updated 14 Jan 2025 to include the example of RedNote].
 
Summary
When you are in a weak position, all the choices you have are bad ones. Your opponent who dominates you due to more and/or better resources will ultimately prevail. It may take some time for them to do so, but the fact that it will happen is a certainty. 
To take one example, it has historically been easy to 'blame' the Palestinians and other indigenous groups for their loss of territory. Arguments typically run that if the Palestinians had done 'x' instead of 'y' they would now still be in control over larger portions of land than they currently have.
Looking at another case, you really wonder whether there was ever any universe, for example, where the American Indians were not going to be wiped out by far superior numbers and technologies that their adversaries owned.
But we are fortunate enough to live through a period where erstwhile powerful nations (who have been very ready to blame Palestinians and others for their loss) are being made to suffer the same indignities that others have been through, albeit their loss is not in the domain of geographic territory (yet), rather it's technological and commercial leadership.
This experience should teach everyone that losers don't necessarily lose because they are feckless or stupid; rather, the cards may just be stacked against them.
Alternatively, their adversary may just be in a historical sweet spot.
Introduction
I've always thought that since British Mandate the Palestinians have been in a no-win position. This has been due to their lack of military power and economic and political resources. If they accepted the offers the international community and the Israelis gave them, there would have been an incentive for the Israelis to take more land (if the Pals don't mind yielding some land, they might not mind yielding more), and if the Pals had resisted, that would also have given the Israelis a pretext to take more land (for defensive purposes), the latter has proven to be the case.
In short, whatever the Pals decided did not matter; the Israelis' dominant position ensured that they could respond in a manner that was advantageous to them. The same applies to Native American Indians in the 18th and 19th centuries; whether their response to European settlers was to fight or make treaties, the outcome would always be the same, their lands would be taken. In both cases, there was such an asymmetry between the Europeans and indigenous peoples that there was nothing the colonised could do that would change the outcome.
In the examples that follow, I look at some contemporary examples that illustrate a different dynamic. In these instances, non-Western powers have presented the West with situations where regardless of the actions the West takes, the outcome for the West will not be one that it considers satisfactory.
Huawei - China
The following piece in the Financial Times (FT) neatly summarises how I feel about the situation between the U.S. government and Huawei. In the 21st century, it is beginning to look as if the Chinese have the best cards. For example, Huawei makes good and cost-effective telecoms infrastructure.
Western countries may have security concerns, but if they ban Huawei, they could end up with a poorer solution. Other countries that have no such qualms could benefit from the cost advantages that Huawei equipment offers. But if Western countries accept Huawei, they risk entrenching the advantages that the Chinese have, as well as the claimed security risks.
Sanctions have been a preferred Western method of taking action against countries that have fallen out of favour. But this tool only works where you have something the other person wants and can't get anywhere else; when the situation is reversed - you can end up damaging yourself.
https://www.ft.com/content/8fc63610-88fe-11e9-b861-54ee436f9768
 
Nvidia
Jensen Huang of the American chipmaker Nvidia makes a similar claim in May 2023:
https://www.ft.com/content/ffbb39a8-2eb5-4239-a70e-2e73b9d15f3e
 
SWIFT - Russia
This example arose during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022. The West wanted to sanction Russia by imposing economic sanctions, including barring Russian entities from access to Western financial systems. But this was not straightforward:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/24/what-is-swift-international-payments-network-russia-sanction
 
Sic transit gloria mundi (so passes worldly glory)
Some of what we see today has the hallmarks of British attempts to stop Indian technological development by banning the Indians from making their own steam engines, at the start of the 20th century. The British may have delayed Indian development by some decades, but that's all they were able to do. Whether the British took no action to stop Indian technological development or whether they proactively tried to hinder it, ultimately, they would lose. 
Take this from the Indian politician, Shashi Tharoor:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts
 
There are now far too many Indians with increasing levels of capability to stop the juggernaut and Tharoor's article in the Guardian goes on to talk about how Britain in recent years has had to appeal to Indians for railway technology.
 
The status quo
In mid-2022, following a visit to Taiwan by Senator Pelosi, the FT noted this about the Chinese response to the visit:
https://www.ft.com/content/5462a57a-bd13-4313-b26b-9645b48a70ee 
In my opinion, it was Pelosi who altered the status quo; this was the most high-ranking visit in 25 years. Based on the theme of this blog post, given the dominant position of the Chinese, the American position should be to maintain the status quo. As soon as they seek to alter it, the Chinese have an excuse to try and establish a new status quo that is more favourable to them.
 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
This is what they had to say in a report issued in April 2024, whatver the impact on China, the damage to American businesses as a result of export controls has been significant.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr1096
 
RedNote
This European, China-based influencer wrote the following about the rise of RedNote:
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1879027474924990584
He goes on to say that American attempts to reduce Chinese influence by having TikTok either banned or brought under US ownership seems to be backfiring.
 
Conclusion
 
In the context of China, I think the U.S. government feels a threat to its economic/technological dominance. Although this may be dressed up as wanting to preserve fair competition. And U.S. sanctions are its attempt to fight back. But whether the U.S. decides to fight or not, I think in the longer term, that dominance will have to be compromised. Huawei and the Chinese are now too far along the technological path of development, and they are far further ahead than the India of the early 20th century. 
The U.S. is now in a similar technological position versus the Chinese that the Palestinians have been versus the Israelis. In the U.S./China context is issues centre around technology and in the Palestinian/Israeli context it's to do with economics and political power.
Whatever option the US chooses, it will ultimately 'lose'. Loss in this context is not necessarily wholly ceding technological leadership to the Chinese, but it may well involve acknowledging their superiority in certain areas. Other countries like Russia also may be able to work their way around sanctions, for example, so Western attempts to control their behaviour will have limited success.
 
 

Final part of my book, narrated by my dear friend, Mrs. Solmaz Rezayi
Music: Below the Horizon by Guy Sweens
Images created by ai bing image generator

Gains and losses
It's tempting to think of human experiences, in terms of gains or losses, especially those which involve dealing with other people and groups. Some exchanges lend themselves to this calculus e.g. trade or war. However, a focus on the material element of the equation can often ignore the intangible aspects of the encounter or the trade. The latter can often have longer-term and more profound consequences.
For believers faced with what can seem to be a loss in the material world, it's worth reflecting on what has been gained in the spiritual world. At the moment, in the Middle East there is a dynamic movement of politics and people being played out. Certain groups are gaining power, others are losing. Some people are dying and others are killing them. It's easy to construct the balance sheet in terms of human casualties, square kilometres of land and who holds power.
But this ignores the bigger picture.
Spiritual vs. material
What is also happening is the surfacing of opinions, standpoints and, most importantly, behaviours. In a world at equilibrium, peoples' discourse can often hide their true beliefs and they can avoid engaging in behaviours which make explicit where they stand. 
However, standing as we are in a world where there is disequilibrium, where the stakes are high for a reconfiguration of the Middle East as the tectonic plates shift, so people become more willing to disclose who they really are. 
This is a win for the believers. Tempted by the greed for gain, this is where Satan's mask drops, and reality becomes evident. People motivated primarily by gains in this world no longer hide where they really stand - they believe they can achieve far more by grabbing as much as they can possibly have.
The speed with which events take place makes it impossible for aggressors to hide their tracks. More importantly they believe that they no longer need to do so because the victory is so overwhelming that they will never be brought to account.
Understanding reality
Knowing the objective reality of this world can often be quite difficult; it's usually shrouded by our limitations and weaknesses. Often, believers are tempted to ask God for 'signs' to substantiate their belief. We think how easy it must have been for the ancients who lived in a world of miracles to have belief.
But the miracles are all around us.
As Satan's mask drops, we can see the people who would typically protest about human rights as part of their overall 'belief system' but are utterly silent about genocide. We can see that people who were horrified by the death of a single Iranian woman are now completely silent about the deaths of thousands.
And indeed, it's not just silence - there's active subterfuge on their part to protect the aggressor. We see evidence of social media algorithms being changed. We see evidence of the identify of the aggressor being hidden where typically it would not be. Journalists who held themselves to be paragons of integrity have been seen to be weak and supine. Newspapers that used to criticise other countries for censorship have been found to be self-censoring with abandon.
It's now been left to ordinary people often those with no interest in that part of the world taking note of journalists who have been summarily removed simply for asking Israeli representatives the wrong questions. And just as technology has enabled aggressors to have superior weapons so we are able to better measure and compare the published narrative and have no doubt about what is happening.
And that's just the media.
As for political leaders, we can see the people who claim leadership of Muslims but who show none when world events demand it. We can see the leaders who not only fail to protect the oppressed but who take an active part in the oppression. Their followers are left having to make excuses or alternatively make up new ideologies to replace those found to be wanting.
Crumbling in front of us is the whole edifice of human rights, feminism, democracy, freedom of the press, international system of crime and justice and all those other things that have been used to beat up Muslims for decades. Of course, there is nothing wrong with them per se - but it's now obvious that there was never any principle underpinning their use. They were only a weaponised tool whose promoters were kept on a tight leash and allowed to attack some countries while we now see them willingly held back from applying the same rules to others.
Claims of a 'superior civilisation' (whose superiority above Islam we were told we should accept) are now an embarrassment except to those with no reason or shame. Its promoters have traded them for gains in this world and have given up whatever echoes they wished to leave for eternity. And even those gains will prove to be short lived. The moral high ground needs legitimacy which has now disappeared.
Implications for us
It's at times like this that we might be saddened by the loss of people and places. But at the same time, our faith should be reinvigorated by the knowledge that what others believe is false, whose hypocrisy is made manifest and most importantly, whose ethical and moral position is so weak that it requires extreme violence to uphold.
Shias more than anyone know that gains and losses on the battlefield are not the end of the story.

In the quiet suburban town of Ashton Vale, a vibrant community of immigrants and indigenous families coexisted, yet often walked parallel paths. Among them was Rajiv, a software engineer from Bangalore, who had relocated with his wife, Priya, and their two children for a coveted job in the local tech hub. Excited by the promise of a better future, Rajiv had imagined Ashton Vale’s schools to be bastions of innovation and rigor. But after six months, his vision was dimming.
His daughter, Anya, a spirited 10-year-old, struggled to find challenge in her schoolwork. Despite being a straight-A student, she often returned home frustrated, complaining of repetitive lessons. The lack of focus on science and mathematics—subjects Rajiv deeply valued—gnawed at him. Rajiv began attending PTA meetings, determined to understand the system better.
At the first meeting, he met Sarah, a lifelong Ashton Vale resident and mother of three. Sarah’s eldest son, Jake, was Anya’s classmate. While Sarah empathized with Rajiv’s concerns, she held a contrasting perspective. “The school focuses on holistic development,” she explained. “Not everything has to be about academics. Kids need time to grow emotionally, too.”
Rajiv listened politely but couldn’t shake the feeling that the school was failing to meet its potential. He proposed additional enrichment classes for math and science, but the suggestion was met with mixed reactions. “We can barely fund extracurriculars as it is,” the principal retorted, his tone more defensive than accommodating.
Meanwhile, Priya struck up a friendship with Maria, a recent immigrant from Colombia, who shared her discontent. Maria’s son, Diego, was a bright student, but like Anya, he seemed to be stagnating. The two mothers decided to take matters into their own hands. They began organizing weekend workshops, teaching advanced concepts in math and physics to a small group of children from immigrant families. Word of their initiative spread quickly, sparking curiosity—and resentment.
At a community town hall, tensions bubbled over. “Why are you segregating your kids?” Sarah asked Priya, her voice laced with frustration. “Aren’t we all in this together?”
Priya hesitated, searching for the right words. “It’s not about separating them,” she said finally. “It’s about giving them opportunities that the school doesn’t provide. We want them to thrive.”
Sarah shook her head. “But what message does that send? That our schools aren’t good enough? That the rest of our kids aren’t worth interacting with?”
Rajiv, who had been silent until now, spoke up. “We’re not trying to undermine the system. But surely you can understand that when you come from a place where education is the only ladder to success, you see things differently.”
Another parent, James, interjected. “Maybe instead of going off and doing your own thing, you should join forces with the PTA to improve what we already have.”
Priya’s face softened. “We’d love to collaborate, but we need to feel like we’re being heard, not dismissed.”
Over the next few months, the workshops became a point of contention in Ashton Vale. Some parents embraced them, seeing them as an opportunity for their children to benefit from a different perspective. Others remained wary, perceiving them as divisive. Slowly, however, a bridge began to form. Rajiv and Priya started inviting teachers to their sessions, fostering dialogue about integrating enrichment into the broader curriculum. Sarah, initially skeptical, joined one workshop and was surprised by the creativity and passion Priya and Maria brought to teaching.
By the end of the school year, the PTA proposed a pilot program for advanced learners, drawing inspiration from the weekend workshops. It was a small step, but one that signaled the community’s willingness to evolve together. For Rajiv, Priya, Sarah, and the rest of Ashton Vale, it was proof that even the most challenging divides could be crossed with empathy, dialogue, and determination.

My prompt: Could it be proposed that for a theist an alien encounter can't possibly lead to a wipeout of the human race (unless the aliens themselves were theists). Whereas for an atheist this is a possibility?

 
GPT Answer: This proposition could be framed as a hypothesis grounded in the fundamental differences between theistic and atheistic worldviews. Let's unpack this:
 
---
 
 Theistic Perspective:
1. Belief in Divine Providence:
   - For many theists, the idea of humanity being wiped out by an alien encounter conflicts with their belief in divine oversight or purpose. In monotheistic traditions, God is often seen as a protector of humanity or as having a plan for human existence. For example:
     - In Christianity, the notion of humanity as the "crown of creation" implies that humans hold a special place in the universe.
     - In Islam, humans are referred to as khalifa (stewards) of the Earth, suggesting divine purpose and responsibility.
 
2. Aliens as Part of Creation:
   - A theist might argue that if aliens exist, they are part of God's creation and, thus, subject to the same divine laws and moral framework. If the aliens are intelligent, theists might believe they are bound by a moral order that prohibits the unjust destruction of humanity.
 
3. Theistic Alien Possibility:
   - If the aliens themselves are theists or operate within a framework of moral understanding (e.g., recognizing a creator or higher order), this might align with the theist's worldview. In this scenario, the likelihood of the aliens obliterating humanity diminishes, as such action might conflict with divine principles of justice or mercy.
 
4. Eschatology and Divine Endings:
   - In many theistic traditions, the end of humanity is often seen as part of a divine eschatological plan (e.g., the Apocalypse in Christianity, the Day of Judgment in Islam). Therefore, the idea of humanity being wiped out arbitrarily by aliens would contradict the divine script, unless it aligns with God's will.
 
---
 
 Atheistic Perspective:
1. Absence of Divine Oversight:
   - Without belief in divine intervention or purpose, atheists are more likely to accept the possibility of humanity's extinction as a random or natural event. This could include scenarios such as:
     - An alien civilization vastly superior in technology choosing to eradicate humanity for resources, territorial expansion, or indifference to human existence.
     - Humanity's inherent vulnerability in a universe without a guiding or protective force.
 
2. Naturalistic Assumptions:
   - Atheists tend to approach existence from a naturalistic or evolutionary perspective, where survival depends on human ingenuity, adaptability, and luck rather than divine protection. In this framework, the arrival of a technologically advanced alien race could pose an existential threat, akin to how colonial encounters on Earth have led to the decimation of less technologically advanced societies.
 
3. Moral Relativity:
   - Unlike theists, who might assume a universal moral order governing alien behavior, atheists may see morality as a construct unique to human societies. This opens the possibility that aliens might not share human ethical frameworks, making the potential for destructive encounters more plausible.
 
---
 
 Key Implications:
1. Worldview-Driven Responses:
   - A theist might view an alien encounter as part of God's plan, possibly even a test of faith, and would be more inclined to seek meaning or morality in the aliens' actions. 
   - An atheist, by contrast, might approach the encounter pragmatically, preparing for the possibility that the aliens have no moral obligation to humanity.
 
2. Survival Scenarios:
   - For a theist, humanity’s destruction by aliens is only conceivable if it aligns with divine will. Otherwise, divine protection would prevail. The existence of the aliens themselves might even be interpreted as a sign of God’s creativity or the vastness of divine creation.
   - For an atheist, the survival of humanity would depend entirely on human effort, strategy, and the contingencies of the encounter.
 
---
 
 Counterarguments and Nuances:
1. Theistic Flexibility:
   - Some theists might argue that even if humanity were wiped out, it wouldn't contradict their beliefs because God's plans are ultimately unknowable or transcend human understanding.
   - Similarly, not all atheists would assume aliens would necessarily be hostile, depending on assumptions about the aliens' evolutionary and cultural development.
 
2. Common Ground:
   - Both worldviews might agree that the outcome of an alien encounter would largely depend on the nature of the aliens themselves—their level of aggression, resource needs, or capacity for empathy.
 
---
 
 Conclusion:
The proposition holds as a conceptual framework: theists may find it difficult to reconcile the extinction of humanity by aliens with their theological beliefs unless the aliens themselves act within a divine framework. For atheists, the lack of divine oversight allows for a broader range of possibilities, including humanity’s potential destruction by aliens. This distinction highlights the contrasting existential assumptions underlying theistic and atheistic perspectives.

I came across the following about the British poet Basil Bunting:
 
https://academic.oup.com/res/article/74/315/389/7103434?login=false
 
I pasted that into Chatgpt and asked, "Are there other people who simultaneously interacted with middle eastern culture while at the same time aiding Britain's colonial enterprise?"
 
It came back with the following:

Yes, several notable individuals interacted with Middle Eastern cultures while contributing to Britain's colonial enterprise. These figures often straddled roles as diplomats, intelligence officers, and scholars, blending cultural engagement with imperial objectives. Here are some key examples:
 
 1. T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia")
   - Role: British archaeologist, army officer, diplomat, and writer.
   - Activities: Lawrence became famous for his role in the Arab Revolt (1916–1918) during World War I, where he supported Arab nationalist aspirations against Ottoman rule while advancing British strategic interests.
   - Cultural Interaction: He immersed himself in Arab culture, spoke Arabic fluently, and documented his experiences in Seven Pillars of Wisdom. However, his activities also reflected Britain's geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East.
 
 2. Gertrude Bell
   - Role: British writer, archaeologist, and political officer.
   - Activities: Bell played a critical role in the establishment of modern Iraq, advising British colonial authorities and helping to draw its borders after World War I.
   - Cultural Interaction: She was deeply involved in Arab culture, learned Arabic and Persian, and became an expert on Middle Eastern history and politics. Despite her cultural respect, her work was integral to British colonial administration.
 
 3. Harry St. John Philby
   - Role: British intelligence officer, Arabist, and explorer.
   - Activities: Philby worked in British intelligence and later became a political advisor to Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia. He was instrumental in British relations with the Arabian Peninsula.
   - Cultural Interaction: Philby converted to Islam and adopted many aspects of Arab culture. However, his role also involved facilitating British interests in the region, particularly concerning oil.
 
 4. Charles Montagu Doughty
   - Role: British explorer and writer.
   - Activities: Although not an intelligence officer, Doughty traveled extensively in Arabia and wrote Travels in Arabia Deserta, a detailed ethnographic account that informed British perspectives on the region.
   - Cultural Interaction: He engaged deeply with Arab culture but his works also contributed to the British understanding and strategic engagement with the region.
 
 5. Wilfred Thesiger
   - Role: British explorer, writer, and military officer.
   - Activities: Thesiger served in the Sudan Political Service and during World War II in the Middle East. He later traveled extensively through the Arabian Peninsula.
   - Cultural Interaction: He celebrated Bedouin culture in his writings, notably Arabian Sands, but his presence often aligned with British imperial objectives.
 
 Analysis of Dual Roles
These figures often operated in liminal spaces where cultural appreciation coexisted with imperial agendas. They frequently acted as intermediaries, using their cultural knowledge to advance Britain's geopolitical strategies while documenting and sometimes romanticizing the cultures they encountered.
 
Would you like further detail on any of these individuals or their contributions to Britain's colonial enterprise?
 

Background
In the following blog post, I argued that minorities can economically outperform majorities in a society and that this may require actions to protect the interests of the majority. Overall this discussion picks up issues around Islamic regulations around the rights and obligations of minority communities in an Islamic society, where minorities are referred to as 'dhimmis'.
In contemporary Western society where there is an overarching interest in 'equality' these regulations may be perceived as discriminatory and wrong. What I did in the post below was to argue that they help protect the interests of the majority which may otherwise be compromised and ultimately lead to conflict.
 
 
In this post what I want to do is look at the same issues from another perspective. I wanted to see whether an AI LLM when given specific starting economic and social conditions within a society would come to the same endpoint as I had done in my post above.
I gave gpt4 the following prompt:
Imagine you are a social network theory expert. Assume that there is a society composed of individuals with a range of different types of ties. All individuals in that society are equal in terms of economic welfare. Within that society there is a cluster of people with a shared culture who have denser ties with each other than with others in the society. Please map out over time what the implications of those social network characteristics will be in terms of e.g. economic welfare.
The instruction should be readily understandable to the layperson, except for one term, gpt4 gives the following explanation of social network density:
In the context of this conversation, when we refer to a cluster of people with denser ties, we mean that within this group, a larger proportion of all possible connections between individuals actually exist. This implies that individuals in this cluster are more interconnected and have more relationships with each other than with people outside the cluster.
Having explained that term we can move onto what GPT4 sees as the trajectory for that society. Note that for my part the effort has been to give GPT4 a prompt that was as neutral as possible to avoid it coming up with a scenario that arose because of a bias in the prompt.
GPT4's longitudinal analysis - the following text is from GPT4
In the context of social network theory, the structure and nature of social ties can significantly impact various outcomes, including economic welfare. Here are some potential implications over time:
Information and Knowledge Dissemination: In a closely-knit cluster where social ties are denser, information and knowledge are likely to disseminate faster among members. This can lead to quicker adoption of beneficial practices, faster problem-solving, and greater innovation. Over time, this may result in economic advantages for the cluster. Resource Mobilization: Dense social networks can facilitate more effective resource mobilization. This could take the form of group savings, joint investments, and collective bargaining power in the marketplace. Over time, this could enhance the economic welfare of the group. Social Capital: The dense ties within the cluster can form a significant amount of social capital, which can be leveraged for economic gain. For example, trust and reciprocity within the group can reduce transaction costs and facilitate economic activities that might be more difficult or costly in a less cohesive network. Inequality: While these dense ties can lead to economic advantages for the cluster, they may also exacerbate inequality between the cluster and the rest of society. The benefits from information dissemination, resource mobilization, and social capital may not flow as easily to individuals outside the cluster. Over time, this could lead to growing economic disparities within the society, even if all individuals started at the same level of economic welfare. Fragmentation and Polarization: Over time, the strong in-group ties and weak out-group ties might lead to fragmentation and polarization within the society. This could result in a society where the closely-knit cluster becomes economically dominant, while the rest of the society is left behind. This could lead to social tensions and conflict. Resilience and Vulnerability: While the dense network within the cluster might provide resilience in the face of external shocks (due to the ability to mobilize resources and support each other), it might also lead to increased vulnerability. If the cluster is hit by a negative event (such as a financial crisis or a disease outbreak), the dense ties could facilitate the rapid spread of the negative effects. It's important to note that these are potential implications and the actual outcomes can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the nature of the ties (whether they are positive or negative, strong or weak), the specific cultural characteristics of the cluster, the wider socio-economic and political context, and the ways in which individuals within the network and the society as a whole adapt and respond to changes over time.
Conclusion
I think this elaborates and to a large extent validates the points I was making in the earlier blog post.
To reiterate the overall issue. When we discuss majorities and minorities in the context of particular groups of people in specific societies the underlying social, anthropological and economic arguments are subsumed within accusations of being prejudiced against one group or another. So my initial post does not mention any groups, countries or societies, we are simply discussing the relationships between various social variables and how they evolve over time.
Based on the above thought experiment with gpt4, I am still inclined to think that Islam is 'onto something' when it addresses the dhimmi issue.