Slashdot Mirror


China To Connect Its High-Speed Rail To Europe

MikeChino sends in this excerpt from Inhabitat: "China already has the most advanced and extensive high-speed rail lines in the world, and soon that network will be connected all the way to Europe and the UK. With initial negotiations and surveys already complete, China is now making plans to connect its HSR line through 17 other countries in Asia and Eastern Europe in order to connect to the existing infrastructure in the EU. Additional rail lines will also be built into South East Asia as well as Russia, in what will likely become the largest infrastructure project in history." They hope to get it done within 10 years, with China providing the financing in exchange for raw materials, in some cases.

44 of 691 comments (clear)

  1. A high speed railway by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Through some of the most politically unstable regions of the world. What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:A high speed railway by ndogg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace. It's not the lovey-dovey ideal peace, but it's something.

      The only thing we need to worry about in this equation is religious nutbags that won't listen to reason.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    2. Re:A high speed railway by aaron+alderman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Religious nutbags become ineffectual when you introduce prosperity and equality to their followers at the expense of meddling, war and neocolonialism.

    3. Re:A high speed railway by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Funny

      china makes shit

      Hundreds of millions of Wal-Mart shoppers can't be wrong.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:A high speed railway by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 5, Interesting
      sorry, you made a type. You obviously meant to write, "china makes shit that everyone else in the world buys by the ton, likely because the rest of the world is incapable of making the same shit themselves for similar cost, and china would like to see it shipped to end customers faster."

      putting hateful words in the mouths of others is something only an asshole would do.

    5. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which, if you think about it, is the same situation everybody else is in, too. It is the most obvious way in which capitalism, like every other system, has failed us: There's very obviously more to do than we have time for, yet we still have significant unemployment and waste an incredible amount of time on completely banal entertainment. The people who control the resources are so unimaginative that they prefer to waste human productivity instead of working on ways we can move forward as a society. On the other hand, military spending, the global version of throwing in windows to boost the economy, is up. The rich work on getting more power, but they never do anything with that power, except using it to get more.

    6. Re:A high speed railway by telomerewhythere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tell that to texas schoolkids... Oh wait, you can't.

    7. Re:A high speed railway by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      What could possibly go wrong?

      Well, for one thing, I don't see how they're going to connect the Chinese railways with the European ones.

      I heard that the Chinese rails go side-to-side instead of up and down.

      Yep, that's what I heard.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:A high speed railway by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about trade... China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods.

      How is that not trade? Currency is a handy intermediary for trade, but it's not always necessary.

    9. Re:A high speed railway by dakameleon · · Score: 4, Informative

      China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods.

      Uh... where I come from, that is called trade. Trading doesn't only mean exchanging cash - goods for services is a perfectly valid form of trade, and one practised for many years before the advent of exchangeable currency markets.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    10. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he's right. I'm sorry your shitty American textbooks don't express the reality of your situation, but that's no excuse for you to be ignorant of history.

      Before Pearl Harbor, Japan had invaded China, Mongolia and parts of the USSR. Japan, having no natural resources of their own yet requiring them for its military action, needed to acquire them from other nations. The Japanese ended up seizing French Indochina (Vietnam today), causing several major Western nations to freeze Japan's assets, and put an embargo on oil shipments to Japan.

      The Japanese didn't respond well to this, seeing it as basically a declaration of war, and attacked Thailand and other southeast Asian nations, as well as Pearl Harbor. So he's right, the US was attacked because of the stopped providing the Japanese with oil.

    11. Re:A high speed railway by Jenming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      unfortunately the rest of the world is willing to purchase products made with poor environmental, labor and safety levels :/

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    12. Re:A high speed railway by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace.

      I keep seeing this argument, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941? You may have heard of that country's leader. He's invoked here a lot on Slashdot.

      This is just another variant of the "prosperity = peace" argument. While the two often go together, one does not ensure the other. Most of the prosperous nations in the history of man have been so while invading their neighbors, or even across the other side of the world. We had this same prediction 20 years ago... the increased trade with China would make it a free country and bring political liberalism. How'd that work out?

      I'm all for expanded trade and opening more markets. But that just brings wealth, not freedom, and certainly not utopia.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    13. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although, the US came to mind first when I saw "meddling, war and neocolonialism"... Looking just at Latin America for only the last 30 years, you get:

        1980
              U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
              Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
      1981
              The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
      1981
              Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
      1982
              A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
      1983
              Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
      1983
              U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
      1983
              Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
      1984
              CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
      1984
              U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
      1989
              U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
      1996
              The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

    14. Re:A high speed railway by benito27uk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well I suppose technically Germany was France's number one trading partner in 1940, but that was only because Germany occupied much of France at that time. For much of the world the Second World War started in 1939, not 1941.

    15. Re:A high speed railway by PHPfanboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it's such a good idea, you go first. No, actually, if culling is so humane, I'd like to see you do it with your bare hands.

      I'm sorry to inform you that you appear to be an extremist lunatic. It's OK, I once had some similar opinions about population control, and about "engineering-style" solutions to geopolitical problems.

      When I realised that I wouldn't be able to bring myself to actually implement those ideas myself, but rather prefer to stand at the side cheering "Way to go, guys!" I realised I was an opinionated coward.

      So, before you go publicly recommending death, starvation and natural disasters on hundreds of thousands of people, you may want to go stand in front of a mirror and repeat "Who the fuck do I think I am?". Don't take this personally, I am frightened of the short step between "this would be a great solution" and "Yes, Sir, we'll get right on it".

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    16. Re:A high speed railway by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of all the countries suited for High Speed rail, the USA should be one of them. You guys have the land and capabilities. You guys should be showing us (europeans) how to do it, not the other way round. And no, it doesnt have to be all 200mph trains to make a huge difference.

      Lets take my country, poor old battered UK, with aging victorian infrastructure that is heavily critisised, in my opinion, rather unfairly.

      We have "local" lines running at 50/70mph. Sub-Main lines running at 100mph, Main lines running at 125mph, and now the High Speed 1 line running at 183mph.

      Even with this motley selection of lines, we find Train can often be faster than car. Remember our highest speed roads (the motoways) are max 70mph, and suffer from traffic jams. Even the 100mph lines are faster, and even when you take into account stations, they can still be faster than a motoway at 70mph especially during heavy traffic when at times the average speed can drop to less than 30mph.

      Last year, me and my wife when to Brighton from London, on the Brighton express it took just 45 mins to get there on a 100mph line with 2 intermeadiate stops, a journey that would easily take about 1 hour 30 mins by car. the cost was £4.50 each one way, total £18, MUCH cheaper than car (fuel/parking costs, etc). And we were toally relaxed and enjoyed the trip, enjoying alcohol/etc.

      The best part is when we travel parrallel to a motoway, and we roll past all the drivers in their jams. Even when there is light traffic, the 100mph trains easily roll past cars going at 70mph (30mph relative speed)

      Its even more pronouced going on the Eurostar to paris at 180mph, its crazy when the train runs parrallel to a motoway. The cars, going at 70mph look like they are at a standstill (the train is travelling 110mph faster than the car, over twice the speed).

      Dont get me wrong, I do own a car, a BMW, which is nice to drive, etc. But sometimes you just cannot beat the train for sheer comfort.

      The USA could be BETTER than us for railways, as you guys have land, etc.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    17. Re:A high speed railway by greulich · · Score: 5, Informative

      The sad part is that very few cities in this country have any infrastructure to support you once you arrive via train. Everything around here is built with the car in mind. Add in a sad mentality that public transport is for 'poor people' and there is little chance of any options being successful financially.

    18. Re:A high speed railway by xelah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not everyone in China is subject to the one-child policy. It's a little over a third, IIRC. It depends where you live, for example.

      It's also important to remember that international trade is about exchange - you can't just compare prices. When you say 'cheap' what you mean is 'The Chinese economy will give us lots of their stuff in exchange for relatively little of our stuff'. Then you need to add 'The Chinese economy is also giving us lots of their stuff in exchange for a promise of some of our stuff in the future, a promise which the Chinese have so far been refusing to call in'. ie, they are lending to us.

      If you want to think in terms of pricing you have to consider exchange rates too. There's no need for general deflation in the US for 'lots of stuff in exchange for a little stuff' to become 'quite a bit of stuff in exchange for less stuff', all that must happen is for the (real) exchange rate to change. Most especially, they need to stop lending so much and we need to stop borrowing so much.

      Remember: long term, we can't import stuff from China if we don't export stuff in return. No-one can borrow (or sell assets) for ever (and it'd be immoral to live off the unrewarded labour of a relatively poor country anyway). There will be no means to pay for the imports if we don't export. The more we import, the more must be exported. The presence of trade like that can devastate particular industries in the relatively disadvantaged country, but in the end all that demand sooner or later has to pop up as demand for your country's exports. China must stop manipulating its exchange rate and let that happen.

      China's economy won't be able to produce as much output per person as western economies for as long as, for example, there is state control over banking. Want to start a business? Joining the party and knowing the right people is as important as having a sane business idea. China will still reduce western living standards, though. They won't do it by undercutting labour and throwing western workers our of work. They'll do it by being able to compete with us on international raw materials markets. Suddenly, the west are not the only people able to hand cars, electronics, or whatever to oil or mineral producing countries....we'll have to start handing over more of our stuff in exchange for the same oil or minerals, and more of those materials will go to China for their own consumption. The most important thing for the west (and the whole world) to do is to use those resources more efficiently, and to search for alternative energy sources.

  2. That is just really cool. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe. Maybe it's a bit of a vanity project. But you have to admit, it's pretty damn cool. I think it would make more sense if the rail connection were not high speed, since most of what's transported will be freight, and moving freight at 350k/h is a big waste of energy. But whatever, it's freaking cool!

    1. Re:That is just really cool. by Meshach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.

      From my read of the article this rail will be primarily used for manufacturing materials. The main goal is to make it easier for import/export to/from China not to make traveling easier.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:That is just really cool. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe

      Maybe not today, but in 30 or 40 years when dwindling oil makes the cost of air travel unsustainable? Absolutely people will be willing to take a fast train. Wouldn't surprise me if, in 100 years, there's a train over the Bering Straight linking Asia with North America. These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.

    3. Re:That is just really cool. by zondag · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.

      You already can, though not high-speed. At the moment people take that train for the sake of the journey, not just to get from A to B.

  3. US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So China is building infrastructure that will let them transport goods throughout Asia and Europe very quickly and cheaply. Meanwhile, here in the US, people are fighting against the idea of building highspeed rail even between a handful of cities that are right next to each other.

    If we don't turn it around, our economy is going down the tubes.

    1. Re:US is in trouble by TikiTDO · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary. You have a sizable population against bank reform, even more against providing basic health care, insane unemployment, an entity composed of a slew of political parties too busy trying to resolve internal conflicts to notice the huge problems, and another political party so spoiled by a decade of near absolute power and focused on the short term that they do not see the huge wall as the nation hurls towards it like... Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.

      So no, the US is not in trouble. Unless something major changes pretty soon, the US is totally and completely screwed

    2. Re:US is in trouble by mcfedr · · Score: 5, Informative

      the rest of the world already see you like that

    3. Re:US is in trouble by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      the rest of the world already see you like that

      Really? The rest of the world sees the USA as

      an incompetent, backward, authoritarian Third World oligarchy.

      I somehow find that hard to believe.

    4. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't transport goods on high speed rail.

      Maybe *you* don't transport goods on high speed rail, but I'd bet good money that China will.

      Even as it is the only Amtrak lines in the US that are profitable are a couple short connections on the east coast.

      Well first, part of my point is that people are rallying against high speed rail even in the northeast corridor of the US, which is heavily congested already. There's a mentality in the US that the government can do *nothing* right, which has lead to heavy neglect of all forms of infrastructure. Our train system is outdated, our bridges are falling apart, and our communications infrastructure stinks. Even in heavily populated areas, where investment makes a lot of sense, there are people saying, "let the free market sort it out!" Generally speaking, you can't really have free-market infrastructure.

      Now as far as Amtrak being generally unprofitable, there's a very good reason for that: we've built our country around cars. We continue to pour tons and tons of money into cars and highways, and we continue to build our cities so that you have to have a car to live. We've developed our cities and towns so you can't walk anywhere and it's too dangerous to ride your bike. We've built huge housing developments where the nearest store is a 10-15 minute drive. We've done everything with the expectation that every man, woman, and teenager would have their own car, and once everyone has their own car, it makes more sense to just drive that car places rather than buying a ticket on a train.

      What's more, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem with Amtrak. People don't take Amtrak trains because the trains stink. They're slow and dirty and they don't stick to the schedule. Amtrak trains are slow and dirty and poorly run because the whole business is unprofitable. The whole business is unprofitable because no one takes the train anywhere. No one takes the train anywhere because they're slow and dirty and they don't stick to the schedule. It's a self-reinforcing loop.

    5. Re:US is in trouble by netsharc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      an incompetent, backward, authoritarian Third World oligarchy.

      I somehow find that hard to believe.

      Got healthcare yet? Harboring any war criminals with impunity there? (Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Yoo, heck the entire Bush admin). What do most Americans think of climate change? Or the theory of evolution?

      This 1/6.5 billionth of the rest of the world thinks the USA, on average, is pretty backwards.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    6. Re:US is in trouble by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah indeed. An interesting comparison to make too is the 25 years estimated to build the measly 800-mile high-speed train project in California (est. completion by 2035), whereas China is planning what appears to be a roughly 10000-mile project to be completed in 10 years...

    7. Re:US is in trouble by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary.

      I wish I disagreed with that.

      You have a sizable population against bank reform,

      That's not quite correct. I think most Americans agree that our banking system is totally screwed up. You might get the opposite impression by watching the news, where the Tea Party idiots dominate. But they're not a majority, they're a noisy minority. Consider that the person most of them would like to see in the White House is a lady widely regarded as the least competent politician in America.

      The problem is that banking reform has to get approved by legislators who have to spend a lot of money to keep their jobs. And that gives the banking interests way too much clout, regardless of what the public at large believes. Note that the main proponent of banking reform is the President, and I think his views on the subject are closer to representing the popular will than anybody.

      even more against providing basic health care,

      We do provide basic health care. We just don't provide it very efficiently (our per-capita costs are three times anyone else, and still growing), and provide a criminally low level of care to maybe 1/3 of the population. Again, the main opposition is a minority and some well-financed interests. Here the majority has a vague notion that something's wrong, and that same President keeps trying to rally them for reform. I think the big problem here is that most people experience a health care system that's flawed but servicible, if you ignore its high cost — and the way we structure things, that's easy to do.

      And in the general economic context, this is indeed a Very Bad Thing. High health care costs aren't the only reason U.S. manufacturing isn't competitive, but it's a big one.

      Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.

      I don't see a huge resistance to high-speed rail as such. The main problem is cost and NIMBYism.

      The cost comes from the fact that we've had an anti-rail bias in our transportation planning for about a century. Highways are more popular with with voters (you get a lot more freedom of movement with a personal vehicle) and various property interests (a gigantic amount of money has been made by developing land that wouldn't have any value if housing were concentrated around rail corridors, as it is in Europe). So now that people are beginning to realize that tearing up all those urban rail lines was a mistake, it's way too expensive to buy up the right of way to build them back.

      (Incidentally, France faced the same cost issue some decades back, when they realized they didn't have nearly enough passenger rail capacity. Building more rail lines was not affordable. But, unlike the U.S., they did have established straight rail corridors that could be upgraded without buying more land. So they made the trains faster, increasing their carrying capacity. Being able to travel from the English channel to the Med in less than 8 hours is just gravy.)

      The NIMBYism is simply because of the huge impact of high-speed rail on the local urban environment. Take the LA-SF project. Funding for that was approved by a popular vote, but now that it's moving forward, communities around the route are not happy about the impact. Of course the impact wouldn't be nearly as bad as that of existing freeways — but we've already accommodated ourselves to that. But the cities on the San Francisco peninsula have suddenly realized that this new system would have to go through their downtowns, and aren't happy about it.

      So anyway, you're right, we're totally and completely screwed. But don't blame it entirely on current stupidity. That's a factor, but there's also an excess of self-interest by everybody and the sheer mind-boggling cost of fixing past mistake.

    8. Re:US is in trouble by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your point about the "presenile dementia" of Europe is exactly right. But even the Europeans know it, and they're planning for it now while there is time. They stabilized their population. Now if they can start producing all their own energy (hopefully on the model of France) and food, they'll have the basic insurance that no matter how stupid things get in the rest of the world, they will at least have enough to live on sustainably and indefinitely. Europe is retooling and re-imagining its infrastructure to prepare for this "blissful isolationist" future.

      But the USA is also facing the same presenile dementia, and we are absolutely ill-prepared for it. Our people use immense amounts of energy, twice as much per capita as Germans, who still have a higher standard of living. Most of that is based on the "we live in suburbs" infrastructure. The suburbs will die when energy gets really expensive, but if re-housing the suburban emigres will be even more expensive, then they will move to slums and shanty towns, or maybe out into the farmlands where they will grow their own food. Europe always had a head start on the US when it comes to preparedness for expensive energy, and we're only falling further behind. Instead of fixing our own country, we keep trying to "fix" the rest of the world (sometimes with bombs), thinking that if we succeed, we won't have to change anything about ourselves. That's what Americans want to believe, but it's shockingly naive.

  4. Re:Track width by thue · · Score: 4, Informative

    An image illustrating the track widths across the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rail_gauge_world.png

    I assume that the whole planned track will be standard gauge, if they plan trains from London to Beijing? But the article doesn't say.

  5. Re:Ominous by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sir (or Madam ?), it is virtually impossible to invade another country by train, a train being one of the most easily stoppable vehicles in the world. Captain J.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  6. Re:WTF ?? by oatworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't forget that most of the countries they have to go through are a bit more lax with environmental regulations and building codes than Western Europe (or the US, for that matter). I'm not saying this to suggest that China's going to go cheap on this; it's far too strategically important for them to cut corners. However, when you're not having to spend a decade on environmental impact studies and archaeological surveys before you lay a single track-equivalent, you can get quite a bit done rather quickly.

    It's the same reason FDR could use the WPA to build bridges immediately, while Obama can't.

  7. FSVO "Feasible" by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tunneling under the Bering Straight is technically feasible, just look at the Chunnel and other such projects.

    Ignoring for the moment the differences in depth and geological stability between the Channel and the Straights.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  8. Never leaves manhattan... by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and will move more people than many continent spanning lines do. Sometimes it's not the size but what you do with it that counts!

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  9. Ah, that old chestnut again by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.

    Rubbish. China is one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and yet it's just now climbing out of a third world status that it's been in for centuries. They're human, fallible as anyone else. They have no more wisdom, insight, or patience than any of their competitors. Looking at their industrial pollution situation, and the race to catch up to the West, they may well have less. They slaughtered and starved hundreds of thousands of their own people... perhaps millions, considering their great famines... in their "Great Leap Forward". The Chinese are not any more wise or farsighted than anyone else. What they are, right now, is driven.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  10. ...not a fair analogy because... by Psyqlone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, because Saudi Arabia is an Oasis of secular humanism now. The very model of a modern enlightenment.

    Saudi Arabia has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Saudis are actually wealthy.

    So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.

  11. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    politician is a politician, doesn't matter where, when, or under what circumstances, they all act the same.

    How is it then, that Asia and Europe have high-speed rail all over the place, France has the best health care in the world, and my city (Vancouver) is very liveable? Some politicians seem able to "get things done," others bicker over Janet Jackson's nipple...

  12. Re:Hmm by jamesswift · · Score: 4, Funny

    M: I came here for a good argument.
    A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
    M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
    A: It can be.
    M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    A: No it isn't.
    M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
    A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
    M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
    A: Yes it is!
    M: No it isn't!

    --
    i wish i could stop
  13. PS it does by jamesswift · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_by_country

    Country Total network length (km) and Average speed of fastest scheduled train

    China 6552 km and 313 km/h
    Japan 2459 km and 256 km/h ;)

    --
    i wish i could stop
  14. supply and demand by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    capitalism requires that there be supply and demand. The value of sometthing is related to both. If the supply exceeds the demand, the price falls to zero. This means that for capitalism to function, the demand *must* exceed the supply.

    This means you must never build enough houses. You must never grow enough food. You must never make enough clothes, cars, whatever(wealth). This also means there *must* always be poor there *must* always be starving *must* always be unemployment to ensure demand.

    We have just seen an example of the supply exceeding demand. It is called a crash. The supply of houses exceeded the demand for them and now, they're literally knocking them down in order to reduce the supply and increase the value of the ones remaining. It's an insane situation.

    This is something Silvio Gesell pointed out around 100 years ago. In order to change this, the nature of money itself must be changed.

    --
    Deleted
  15. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by hanabal · · Score: 4, Informative

    wait wait wait. lets analyse your facts here. while it can be said that china as a unified society might not be as old as some people think, we can look back at recorded history to see what we know.

    Modern Chinese society is based on the Qin culture which dates back to at least 9th century BC. While this is not terribly old, the unification under the Qin emperor in 221BC wiped out all of the other cultures of the Chinese people which dated far further back. Unfortunately we can't know exactly how far back as the emperor destroyed all recorded knowledge from the other cultures.

    As far as the language goes, there is a story that suggests written Chinese dates back as far as ~2500BC but we have no evidence of this. What we do have is actual written characters dating back to ~1200BC. The earliest Greek texts that we have date back to ~1400BC. So based on this evidence you could say Greek was earlier, but not by nearly as far as you suggest. You were correct in suggesting that other cultures developed writing around 2000 years earlier. The fact that current Chinese is not as old is a result of the cultural purge mentioned above.

    As far as contemporary cultures are concerned, there are very few that can date back as far as 200BC.