>>12621217It's easy to show that low technological development must be associated with a low level of centralization/concentration of power. If you imagine a vast land area where millions of people live at a stone age level it's impossible to have a lot of power over the population. They speak hundreds or thousands of different languages. They might not even have a written language. In order to communicate with them you have to live with them and learn the language, unless it's something basic which can be expressed with body language or similar. There are hardly any roads at all. There are no airplanes, no helicopters, no cars, no TV, no newspapers, no radio, no books. You have to travel on foot or paddling a canoe up rivers. Now imagine the same land area with the same number of people. But it has roads, airplanes, helicopters, cars, TV, newspapers, radio, books. People might all speak one language instead of hundreds or thousands, and they have a written language. Now it's possible to have power over people. We can see that those who have knowledge of how the technology works must have power over those who don't. You know how to operate a gun, you're going to have power over someone who doesn't. You know how to operate computers you have power over those who don't. If the government knows how to see what you do online and the criminal doesn't know how to hide from it, then the government has the upper hand. The more advanced a technology is the more intelligent you have to be to understand it. Presuming the average IQ remains the same in the population, you'll have a smaller and smaller group which understands the most advanced technology as technology gets more advanced.
