Below I will build upon some early observations (and indeed, some truisms) from a previous blog post
Previously, I discussed the observation that "Geographically smaller but nevertheless highly interconnected, transparent, well-educated, and technified communities are the future"
Here, I'd like to elaborate upon that claim
I'd like to caution that the previous claim should not be understand as a thesis that devolving, decentralizing, or otherwise dismantling social or civic institutions is a desirable posture for the future but only that, in general, smaller organizations with highly educated or skilled-people are more manageable and prone to success (though individual circumstances and factors like luck or unforeseen and uncontrollable external factors may play more than a significant role in future success)
Arguably, a large organization with highly educated and skilled-people would be more successful, though the task of maintaining, improving, and adapting that organization would be exponentially greater in terms of time, money, and other resources
There has been some discussion that smaller organizations (including military forces) are inherently disposed to innovation over larger ones. The above observation reinforces that finding and explains, for example, why innovation is rife within the startup space
Smaller need not be understand as a term denoting some population size nor even geographic expanse (though I believe geographic expanse is less relevant now already and will increasingly be so) - smaller can also just be understood as a thesis pertaining to less overhead, greater frictionlessness (in terms of movement, financial transactions, etc.)
It may be tempting to try to copy what has worked in other countries (and indeed, the most successful countries according to most highly-regarded or desirable metrics appear to be smaller in population and higher in education investment and enculturation: Sweden (and Scandinavian countries in general), Luxembourg, Switzerland, Dubai, South Korea, Singapore, etc.) but, obviously, what has worked elsewhere may not work so well where it's being implemented
Why? For starters, I've talked a bit about culture which includes both a lingering historical tradition (often unique to different societies) as well as a present set of norms and customs already accepted by a society. I'm a firm believer that most things (OK, everything) at some point could, in principle, be measured or made a part of quantifiable analysis. However, many of these less tangible concepts are difficult to pin down (namely, I believe, due to a lack of appropriate analytical tools or even an attempt to consider them at all).
For example, the intensely academic culture of South Korea wouldn't be easy to copy and paste into the United States. That's not to say that something unique to America exhibiting that kind of intense focus on technical academic work is impossible (indeed, it's not only possible but quite plausible) but that the specific details of implementation are going to necessitate being sensitive and careful with respect to the uniquely American institutions canvassing education here
We should absolutely look to so-called role-model countries as inspiration for our innovation. In doing so, however, we must be sensitive and careful to understand the unique differences that require differences in implementation
We should be aware that while smaller and better educated will be better, there are different ways to achieve smaller - reducing friction through better use of open-source tools, eliminating barriers to market entry, enhancing truly meaningful and effective communication, etc. are all examples of this. More compact, more accurate, more precise, more reliable, better, smaller