Sharing Is Caring, but Do We Actually Think So?
The recent narrative in the United States has been to pull inward: from moving semiconductor manufacturing back home to pulling out of treaties, there is an increasing number of national-minded citizens who support such actions. However, this type of thinking is wrong, and it will only serve to harm the United States in the long run. Especially when it comes to technology, some argue that the sharing and export of technology to other nations of the globe under a global mindset erodes the competitive advantage of the US. However, I argue that adopting a global mindset and sharing technology can lead to a net positive economic benefit because collaboration will lead to a greater increase in prosperity for the citizens of collaborating nations.
A common national narrative when it comes to the sharing and export of technology is that we should safely guard and protect American jobs and industries, particularly critical industries. Such critical industries are usually considered ones that are crucial for the operation of important industries or are used in items that are critical for national security.
For example, in America, many of our military technological advancements are not shared with our allies, only the ability for our allies to purchase our military equipment only. Our allies can purchase fighter jets for exorbitant amounts, but have little understanding of what they are truly purchasing. In our current state, it seems to be less about actually protecting and helping our allies, but rather charging fees so our aerospace and defense corporations can continue to enrich themselves.
As a result, the whole development and distribution of military technology is a one-way street. The US gives the buyer the technology, but there’s no room for feedback or improvements. Shouldn’t it be obvious that if you buy a product, you can give feedback to the seller? In the end, nobody benefits. The United States may end up with a worse-off relationship because the buyers of our equipment can’t have productive discussions and collaborate. What ends up happening is an inferior product is made and no one is happy with the situation.
To put it another way, while we guard our military technology and know-how secret, we willingly give our equipment at a massive charge to our allies. However, it is clear that sharing technology can be massively beneficial for our world. While many take GPS for granted, the origins of the system that helps us use our phones to navigate originated with the military. Only when the military technology was shared with the world could not only US citizens, but citizens of the world benefit. Today, GPS has been continually improved by first releasing the technology to the world, and collaborating with other nations such as India and Russia to improve and build off of the original technology.
By contrast, much of our military technology has been still kept secret. Many innovations are likely hidden behind the US’s refusal to work with other nations to improve technology for everyone. However, in our increasingly globalized world, it becomes increasingly harder to ignore the increasing interconnectedness of our world today. Should the United States continue to turn inward, we seek to lose much more if the other nations of the world work together, leaving us in the dust.
Here some may object that such collaboration requires a global mindset from everyone, and in our current state in the world, collaboration with other countries erodes our advantage and could seek to damage the US as a result of adopting a global mindset. If the US opens up to the world, it is logical to assume that if such technology were able to get into the wrong hands, it would be a huge liability to the United States.
Those who object are right — this is a problem. Therefore, we should find a way to collaborate and export our technology to countries we trust at first and safeguard sensitive information to make sure it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. One way to keep our information safe would be to conduct extensive background checks and only collaborate with countries we trust and have a long-standing relationship with first. While taking the first step to share long-held secrets can be daunting and counterproductive, in the long run, such actions will benefit the United States and the world.
As a result of such actions, other countries would reciprocate the sharing of technology, which would benefit all countries involved. As more and more countries share and collaborate with the world, a positive feedback loop begins to emerge. The more countries benefit from the fruits of collaboration, the more those countries would be willing to share and collaborate more. This type of collaboration is crucial for many of the problems that are commonly misattributed as problems that a national mindset can fix.
For example, amid supply chain disruptions during the pandemic, many consumers were unable to find many products that needed semiconductors to function. Common products that were of short supply included graphics cards and computers for employees working from home, and more recently a shortage of cars that consumers wanted due to the economy reopening. It was easy for some groups to place blame on other nations for their inability to supply the necessary semiconductor chips. Another example of shortages caused by supply chain disruption occurred during the start of the pandemic and is increasingly becoming a problem now with the delta variant: masks. Protection from the coronavirus in the form of masks was in short supply, thus prompting the question of how such a nation as powerful as the United States could succumb to a shortage. When it was every nation for itself, the United States struggled to find manufacturing capacity. As a result of such shortages, plans to make masks at home and building a TSMC semiconductor plant in the United States have already been put in place. However, I believe this is the wrong way to look at things.
Nationalists commonly believe that if the United States just had better manufacturing capacity, then it would have had no problems with the shortages in the past year. However, they are ignoring how much of the things we use on a daily basis rely on a global supply chain. For example, the iPhones that many of us have requires Apple to source materials from 43 countries. It is impossible for Apple to offer the same price for the iPhone if it was solely produced in the United States, and some estimate that the cost of an iPhone would reach $2,000. In addition, Apple would be able to produce much fewer iPhones because we are simply not good or efficient at producing iPhones. This is where the global supply chain comes into play. Companies like Apple can delegate certain parts of their iPhone production to countries that do can do the best job and for a cheaper price. The result is a cheaper product that can be produced in higher quantities. The same can be said for masks and semiconductors. Moving production home only harms those who eventually have to spend more for the same product. When it comes to shortages of vital products, we should look outward, and see what we can do to help, instead of looking inward to hoard. While it is honorable that people all over the United States repurposed manufacturing to make masks, much of these problems could have been avoided if we simply delegated and supported the global supply chain.
In conclusion, while it is daunting and counterintuitive to look at the global perspective when issues arise at home, many of our short-term and long-term solutions require collaboration on a global scale. After we take the first step towards being global citizens, we pave the way for a more globalized world where humanity is better off.
