Right. From my experience philosophising over the national characteristics aren't of much help as it changes nothing. Nevertheless, I find it very frustrating whenever the matter comes to the fore during debates over such issues.

It seems to me that to change a nation's character is a long involved process and it usually involves considerable stress on its population such as war, economic depression, etc., and almost no one wants those catastrophes. Moreover, such dramatic influences can take many years to manifest.

(As a point, have you noticed how well many of the nations that lost, say, WWII have done economically thereafter? It's difficult to generalise but there are many instances from history where losers rise victorious from the ashes. It can be argued the Ancient Greeks benefited from Rome's takeover, in more modern times look at Japan's and Germany's prosperity. At war's end who'd have ever thought a German manufacturer would get own a large part of the company that made the amazing British Spitfire or that Germany would become Europe's biggest economy?)

Alternatively, changing the national character of a country can also be achieved by educating its population but that too can take many, many decades—even then, it's often not successful.

For instance, take the current debate in Australia over nuclear power, it has become politically polarised to the extent that protagonists on both sides have upped the ante to a point where logical debate is lost in the noise. Both sides and the Country are losers.

I was once employed in the nuclear industry (on the regulatory side) so I have some understanding of its pros and cons, so I watch from the sidelines with dismay whilst this acrimonious, mostly ill-informed debate continues.

Thus, Australia will only decide conclusively which technology it's going to follow long after the rest of the world has come to a definitive conclusion. Either way, the Country will have left the ball too late to catch, by then it'll be too late to develop sufficiently advanced tech to compete competitively. Australia has a long history in this regard, it seems incapable of overcoming this handicap. (BTW, this has little or nothing to do with the ingenuity or inventiveness of its citizens.)

Many argue that Australia has only a small population thus cannot complete with larger nations. To that I'd argue poppycock—look at Finland with Nokia and the Netherlands with ASML—the most advanced manufacturer of UV lithography in the world.

Both of these counties have smaller populations than Australia, so they demonstrate that not only is it possible for smaller economies to develop high tech industries that can compete on the international stage but also that it's actually doable.

Also, take a look at South Korea with a population of about double that of Oz and its megalith Samsung. Or take a fairer comparison Taiwan with its slightly smaller population, it has the world's most important semiconductor foundry—TSMC. Tech from the Netherlands's ASML is used by TSMC to make the world's most advanced semiconductor chips, those used in high-tech computers, AI and such.

Rousseau in his Social Contract long ago defined what he called the 'national will'. Those countries I've mentioned have had and still have the national will to achieve those things whereas Australia does not.

This is not a political statement but a fact based on observation. Why Australia prefers to dig minerals out of the ground and sell them unprocessed abroad or why it sells gas/LPG internationally thus upping its local consumption price (effectively to above parity) and significantly disadvantaging its own citizens—not to mention making local availability a major problem—is the 64-million dollar question. It's bizarre that the Oz population isn't up in arms screaming.

I have my views but raising them here would only inflame the debate—no matter what I said would anger many.

Powerless, I only watch such debates in utter frustration.