1. obviously
2 & 3. these are the same question, and this is clearly presumptuous logic. technological progress is inherently unpredictable. the steam engine arguably had a roughly equal impact on society as the microchip. one happened during an era of slavery (i.e. every period in written history until the last few hundred years), one didn't. slavery in the west (or, at least, the US in particular) was about capitalism and maximizing returns. capitalism has figured a way to manage post-slavery and continues to dominate other types of societies.
population size has very little to do with it as the populations of countries where most innovation comes from has stayed relatively stable compared to third world which has ballooned in population with the aid of the first world. unless you are going to be one of the full retard deniers of the overwhelming contributions to science and philosophy and math from europeans. and deny that, not only in the absence of white man slavery but in the benefit of white man aid, there is still a massive population that can't manage to compete.
capitalism is STILL effectively enslaving people around the world. but it only works because those people would otherwise be less useful than they are, in the cold economic sense. the way to combat that is to become useful, to innovate, to be enlightened and create a better society that isn't so easily manipulated. you don't need to be stronger to succeed in the modern world you need to be smarter.
.gif "Hmm :Hmm:")
