The West is rapidly fading even as the East is rapidly rising. The scale of change is large. As a result, there is significant angst in the West. For instance:
A few months ago, the New York Times published a column by two distinguished commentators, Ian Bremmer and David Gordon, with the eye-catching title “Rise of the Different.” Bremmer and Gordon argue that it is important to distinguish between the “rise of the rest” from 1945 to 1990 and the recent “rise of the different.” The countries denoted as the “rest” emerged under the tutelage of the United States and to a great extent, modeled themselves after the United States economically and politically.
Bremmer and Gordon argue that the “different” states—including China, India, and Russia—are in another category. Relatively poor, more politically varied and unstable, they refuse to accept the legitimacy of the U.S.-led international system. They also have less experience in leadership within that system. For all of these reasons, Bremmer and Gordon predict that the “rise of the different” will “shake the global system in unpredictable, uncontrollable, and quite possibly detrimental ways.” [Source: Lan Xue: “The Shifting Global Order: A Dangerous Transition or an Era of Opportunity?”, Governance, Volume 25, Issue 4, pages 535–538, October 2012[
So much for "Western" paternalistic fools who would much rather the East remained poor for another 100 years. Little do they know that Asia was always more than half the world's economy – till the last couple of hundred years. Things are just reverting to NORMAL. In this normal, the only "detriment" will be for those who act in racist, supercilious, or otherwise antsy ways.
Get used to it. The entire axis of global geopolitics, prosperity, and innovation is shifting BACK to where it belonged: the East.
Unfortunately, racist discourse is common even now. I quote McCloskey who cites Gregory Clark's racist language as recently as in 2007!
Gregory Clark asserts … a theory of sociobiological inheritance in his Farewell to Alms (2007). Rich people proliferated in England, Clark argues, and by a social Darwinian struggle the poor and incompetent died out, leaving a master race of Englishmen with the bourgeois values to conquer the world. Clark will have no truck with ideas as causes, adopting a materialist (and, as he believes is implied by materialism, a quantitative) theory of truth. His method, that is, follows Marx in historical materialism, as many scholars did 1890 to 1980. But he does not carry out his promise to show his argument quantitatively.
The argument fails, on many grounds. For one thing, non-English people succeeded, as for instance the Chinese now are succeeding. And such people have always done fine in a bourgeois country.