Progress requires sociopolitical integration and a willingness to live in a complex world.
It is simple to manage a world in which rock and fire are cutting-edge technologies. Such a world requires little outside input, division of labor is minimal, and your circle of trust is small. You know where everyone is and what they are doing. Life is simple, even if it is difficult.
As technology advances and as the division of labor becomes more specialized, that circle necessarily expands. You are forced to rely on people outside your tribe, because your tribe alone cannot contain all the knowledge, labor, and expertise required to build, maintain, and improve a modern smartphone – let alone a high-yield agricultural system, a global logistics network, an electrical grid, or the medical infrastructure that keeps so many of us alive.
But reliance on others does not always require deep trust. Often, it only requires mutual interest in continued cooperation. Trade replaces suspicion with reciprocity. Interdependence, while daunting at first, becomes a stabilizing force.
This interconnectedness is the death knell of both protectionism and mercantilism. These outdated economic doctrines view international trade as zero-sum: Every gain for one nation is necessarily a loss for another. But in a highly interdependent world, that view is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
Protectionism assumes that a nation can cut itself off, preserve jobs, dominate specific industries indefinitely, and somehow make itself stronger by limiting exchange. Mercantilism assumes that hoarding trade surpluses and controlling markets make a nation strong. In truth, both approaches impede progress by prioritizing control over efficiency and by stoking unnecessary economic rivalry.
A crucial and often overlooked truth is that even unilateral free trade benefits the country that embraces it. While reciprocal trade agreements can amplify mutual gains, a country that opens its markets – regardless of whether others do the same – still gains access to cheaper inputs, greater consumer choice, and competitive pressure that drives innovation. It makes no sense to deny oneself better goods at lower prices simply because others have not yet followed suit. The benefits of trade are not favors granted by other nations; they are the result of efficiencies unlocked by specialization and competition.
Technological progress ultimately requires broad participation. You can still attempt isolation, but every retreat from trade is a brake on the engine of progress. It slows innovation, reduces access to resources, and often leads to higher costs and lower productivity. Worse, it reintroduces suspicion and rivalry, making conflict more likely. Protectionist policies may temporarily insulate certain industries, but they also shelter inefficiency and disincentivize adaptation. They feed nostalgia rather than prosperity.
That does not mean every supply chain should be blindly outsourced, or that strategic vulnerability is imaginary. Resilience matters. Redundancy matters. National security matters. But there is a difference between prudent resilience and protectionist nostalgia. One prepares a society for disruption; the other tries to retreat from the very complexity that makes modern prosperity possible.
To move forward, we must accept that not every nation will maintain dominance in every industry. Efficiency – not nationalism – should generally guide where things are made and how labor is divided. Yes, this creates vulnerabilities. Yes, supply chains can become complicated and fragile. But it also generates wealth, increases living standards, reduces prices, expands innovation, and aligns the interests of nations that might otherwise regard one another only as rivals.
History supports this vision. We live in the most peaceful and prosperous epoch of human existence. As Steven Pinker notes in Better Angels of Our Nature, the long-term decline in violence is closely tied to the rise in cross-border trade and the interlocking of national interests. The more we trade, the more costly war becomes – economically, politically, and socially.
A world this complex can be overwhelming. But complexity is a feature, not a flaw. It is the price of the comforts we enjoy. The alternative may be simpler – but it is also poorer, more violent, and much harder.
