While it is certainly right, I also find the take to be a bit fatalistic. Nothing in this world is set in stone and everything can be changed if someone just injects enough energy into doing so.

This usually doesn't happen, as things often aren't as bad as they may seem, because lethargy and inertia are a thing and of course because self-preservation is an instinctual thing in humans. It could though.

As long as the status quo isn't defended by an infinitely scaling robotic enforcement war machine, physical leverage is always available. Just - depending on the scenario - at a steep price, of course.

___

A lot of the bad in the world hinges on effective PR, insisting that the bad is inevitable and resistance is futile. You're supposed to feel this exact despair and choose to do nothing.

Don't support the bad causes by merely replicating it. (Which is not to say that we shouldn't be talking about these real differences you've pointed out, but we should probably do so differently.)

This discussion reminds me of “Only the Paranoid Survive” by Andy Grove (Intel co-founder). In this book, he talks about “a technological inflection point”, which is a time in the life of a business when its fundamental changes.

Intel had one in its early days. In 1980s, HP notified Intel that Japanese memory chips were way more reliable and cheaper than American products. Intel first denied vigorously, but then made a strategic decision to get out of the memory chip business, and enter into the new and unproven microprocessor business. This decision allowed Intel to survive the 80s, while Mostek and others basically disappeared.