Slashdot Mirror


China's Arthur C. Clarke

HughPickens.com writes Joshua Rothman has a very interesting article in The New Yorker about Liu Cixin, China's most popular science-fiction writer. The author of thirteen books has retained his day job as a computer engineer with a State-run power plant in a remote part of Shanxi province, because it helps him to stay grounded, enabling him to "gaze at the unblemished sky" as many of his co-workers do. In China, Cixin is about as famous as William Gibson in the United States and Cixin is often compared to Arthur C. Clarke, whom he cites as an influence. Rothman writes that American science fiction draws heavily on American culture, of course—the war for independence, the Wild West, film noir, sixties psychedelia—and so humanity's imagined future often looks a lot like America's past. For an American reader, one of the pleasures of reading Liu is that his stories draw on entirely different resources.

For example, in The Wages of Humanity, visitors from space demand the redistribution of Earth's wealth, and explain that runaway capitalism almost destroyed their civilization. In Taking Care of Gods, the hyper-advanced aliens who, billions of years ago, engineered life on Earth descend from their spaceships; they turn out to be little old men with canes and long, white beards. "We hope that you will feel a sense of filial duty towards your creators and take us in," they say. "I doubt that any Western sci-fi writer has so thoroughly explored the theme of filial piety," writes Rothman. In another story, The Devourer, a character asks, "What is civilization? Civilization is devouring, ceaselessly eating, endlessly expanding." But you can't expand forever; perhaps it would be better, another character suggests, to establish a "self-sufficient, introspective civilization." "At the core of Liu's sensibility," concludes Rothamn, "is a philosophical interest in the problem of limits. How should we react to the inherent limitations of life? Should we push against them or acquiesce?"

187 comments

  1. Maybe, maybe not. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Clarke gave us the three laws.

    Gibson gave us cyberpunk.

    From TFA, it seems that Liu has more of a leaning to the utopian Star Trek. Has he pushed that anywhere new? Or even how humanity will be different in the billion years of his story?

    1. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always thought the 3 laws were Asimov (and Wikipedia agrees)

    2. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by dmbasso · · Score: 0

      Clarke gave us the three laws.

      I prefer Asimov's "2001: A Space Odyssey". Not mentioning Asimov's work on satellites.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    3. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The three laws of robotics come from Asimov. Clarke's three laws are:
      1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
      2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
      3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Any sufficiently advanced set of three laws will be indistinguishable in fame from the Asimov's one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by dmbasso · · Score: 2

      Stupid snarky comment aside, the GP was referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
      I've been reading too many Asimov books lately... :p

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    6. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Clarke gave us the three laws."

      I think the first one is, "any sufficiently clueless Slashdot poster is indistinguishable from a garden slug."

    7. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You think that a minor couple of lines really means that is what he writes?
      I would suggest that you wait until you have read the stories before drawing conclusions.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Xac · · Score: 0

      What nonsense.

    9. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Sometimes i wonder if he confused magic with religion when formulating that last one.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    10. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Or even how humanity will be different in the billion years of his story?"

      Why should humanity be different in the next billion years? And - if he IS different, why should you know or understand that difference?

      I've an idea that humanity will continue to do exactly what humanity has always done. Grow, expand, consume resources, and compete with himself.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I started with this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Excellent story. Somewhat transparent, I had the heroine's circumstances figured out in the second chapter, but still a good story. Good short story, I should say, but worth the buck it cost.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      From TFA, it seems that Liu has more of a leaning to the utopian Star Trek. Has he pushed that anywhere new? Or even how humanity will be different in the billion years of his story?

      Not to mention, the idea that "capitalism" is the bane of humanity is so hilariously false it's difficult to even find words. If it weren't for capitalism intruding into China's once-red-totalitarian-socialist economy, he'd still be digging up beets for a living, not working in a power plant or writing science fiction.

    13. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Sometimes i wonder if he confused magic with religion when formulating that last one.

      Clarke didn't confuse anything: magic and religion are the same thing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From TFA, it seems that Liu has more of a leaning to the utopian Star Trek. Has he pushed that anywhere new? Or even how humanity will be different in the billion years of his story?

      Not to mention, the idea that "capitalism" is the bane of humanity is so hilariously false it's difficult to even find words. If it weren't for capitalism intruding into China's once-red-totalitarian-socialist economy, he'd still be digging up beets for a living, not working in a power plant or writing science fiction.

      Just because capitalism is better than totalitarianism doesn't mean that capitalism is good, and it certainly doesn't mean that capitalism is the high point of human evolution.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Just because capitalism is better than totalitarianism doesn't mean that capitalism is good, and it certainly doesn't mean that capitalism is the high point of human evolution.

      History does tell us it's certainly the best system found so far. Socialism and pretended attempts at Communism certainly didn't work very well. Anywhere.

      Even Sweden is getting tired of its failed experiment with socialism. When they started it, Sweden was one of the few top productive per-capita producing nations in the world. Now, it's... just average.

      China's economy has been doing FAR better since it allowed some capitalism in. The U.S. and Europe, on the other hand, have been doing WORSE economically, the more socialist they have leaned.

    16. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      History doesn't tell us that pure capitalism is the best system found so far.

    17. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      History doesn't tell us that pure capitalism is the best system found so far.

      I don't know what you mean by "pure" capitalism. Anything can be taken to extremes or abused.

      There has never been a "pure" communism or "pure" socialism either.

  2. Okay, you've got my attention. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Clarke comparison certainly grabbed my attention. My next question was "where can I find these works in English?" I see that one of the links above leads to English translations of a couple of stories.

    Thanks for the tip!

    1. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by Mousit · · Score: 4, Informative

      His largest and arguably most popular/well-known (especially outside of China) book series is getting proper English translations and sold in Western markets. You can purchase the first book of the series, _Three Body Problem_, from Amazon right now. Book two is due to be released in July.

      A number of his short stories are also available in Kindle format from Amazon, but do not appear to have physical book translations available.

    2. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Let's hope for decent translations. Bad translations ruined have ruined many a good foreign author for English speakers. A major example: Jules Verne.

    3. Re: Okay, you've got my attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good translations are awesome. Ever read The Cyberiad?

    4. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      From TFA:

      His most popular book, "The Three-Body Problem," has just been translated into English by the American sci-fi writer Ken Liu.

      It turns out Ken Liu (no relation) wrote "Paper Menagerie," the first work of fiction to win all three of SF's major awards (the Hugo, the Nebula and the World Fantasy Award) a few years ago.

      So I expect the translation to be excellent.

    5. Re: Okay, you've got my attention. by pepty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was going to bring up Stanislaw Lem as someone who wrote outside of the American tradition for science fiction. In a lot of ways it's like he is descended more from Voltaire and Swift. And while I have no idea what Lem was like in the original Polish (and German, and French), there was a lot of great wordplay in English courtesy of his translator (Kandel?). Plus his jokes in Latin were funny too.

    6. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Visit Amazon - I just read this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      It appears that all of these stories are translated into English: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb...

      Note that there are two names on each book - Liu's name, the author, and various other names, the translators.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I saw the "Three Body Problem" on the shelves of my local B&N today, while I was browsing.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      His most popular book, "The Three-Body Problem," has just been translated into English by the American sci-fi writer Ken Liu.

      It turns out Ken Liu (no relation) wrote "Paper Menagerie," the first work of fiction to win all three of SF's major awards (the Hugo, the Nebula and the World Fantasy Award) a few years ago.

      So I expect the translation to be excellent.

      There is no necessary correlation between being a great writer and being a great translator. Really good writers tend to colour the works they are translating in their own image too much. For example, Ted Hughes's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses is a great Ted Hughes work, but not a very faithful translation.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hoping he represents the return of science to SF. SF is in a very bad way at the moment.

      I mean, so much of it is drivel. The awards organisation were taken over by the social justice mob and dissenting voices driven out. All hail the new SF: "If you were a dinosaur, my love."

      Please, China, save us from this hideous shite. We need your ideas!

    10. Re:Okay, you've got my attention. by bob_herrick · · Score: 2

      I finished this book a week ago. The translation is excellent in my opinion. Where the cultural gap is too wide for normal translation, footnotes appear that you can ignore if you wish, but I found them helpful.

  3. Yeah uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the same way American writers draw on American history, these Eastern writers still seem to draw on anti-American or anti-capitalist whatever. It's still based on and focused on American history... fucking hell

    1. Re:Yeah uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, us Anonymous Cowards are thick

  4. What a crappy article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Arthur C. Clarke was British, for fuck's sakes.

    1. Re:What a crappy article by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The expression is, "for Fuck's sake."

    2. Re:What a crappy article by anagama · · Score: 1

      You are correct, however, if the GP wants to uses sakes, he could write it "for fucks' sakes".

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:What a crappy article by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      lol, good point. I'll meditate on the use cases.

    4. Re:What a crappy article by shoor · · Score: 1

      Arthur C. Clarke was British

      And no where did I see it said that he wasn't. TFA says Cixin is considered the Chinese Arthur C. Clarke, and then talks about American influence, but that doesn't mean Clarke had to be an American.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    5. Re:What a crappy article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that, my somewhat literate buddy pal, is why the article is crappy.

  5. Not at all surprising by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda. You hear this sort of stuff all the time if you pay any attention to Chinese state media ... planned economies are best, the individual's primary responsibility is to the family unit, Western ideas have failed, and so on. If anything, these books demonstrate the poverty of a literary scene where everybody has to constantly watch what they say.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will probably come across as a kneejerk response

      Yes it does. Maybe this guys stories do reflect his upbringing and indoctrination by Chinese stated media. That is the point. it shows another perspective. It does not mean he is a bad writer, it does not pose any value judgement on that perspective. It is just that, another perspective. If anything, that should be appealing to SciFi lovers.

      And for what it is worth, planned economies are best. In fact, there are no economies without at least some planning. The question is how much planning is best.
      It is quite clear that pure capitalist systems are 100% sure to fail. Like 100% pure any type of system for that matter... it is just not how people function and therefor the way we run our civilization can also not funtion like that.

    2. Re:Not at all surprising by SeaFox · · Score: 0

      This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.

      I read that bit about the plot for "The Wages of Humanity" and almost laughed out loud. Straight out of Mao's little red pulp mag. What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?

    3. Re:Not at all surprising by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or...if you have talked to any native Chinese in some depth you might realize that a lot of them actually have different values than Westerners about social responsibility and such. Far beyond what we are accustomed to with our emphasis on individuality, etc. Their system of government didn't develop in a vacuum and was certainly informed by their culture. So, I think you're right that your comment is a bit of a kneejerk response that assumes their authoritarian government has a hand in EVERYTHING.

      That said, I would also assume that if his books were promoting pro-capitalist or anti-government ideas they would have been censored immediately, so maybe we're missing all the "Westernized" Chinese sci-fi books because of this...

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    4. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or...if you have talked to any native Chinese in some depth you might realize that a lot of them actually have different values than Westerners about social responsibility and such. Far beyond what we are accustomed to with our emphasis on individuality, etc. Their system of government didn't develop in a vacuum and was certainly informed by their culture.

      Yep, that's what happens to people living with high population density and authoritarian emperors. It's either that or chaos. Eventually it becomes a "virtue".

    5. Re:Not at all surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?

      I've seen humans kill a hen because she was mismanaging the yard. A rooster can meet his doom by giving too many political speeches near the humans, too.

    6. Re:Not at all surprising by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Much of this stuff looks like communist agitprop. Capitalism will destroy civilisation, woo! Except everywhere (regulated) capitalism breaks out, wealth and prosperity follow.

      He reminds me of Machiavelli writing The Prince to flatter Lorenzo de Medici, a proven and trusted means of accumulating wealth but worthy of little respect.

    7. Re:Not at all surprising by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Equally, when you read western literature it is often based on western ideals like the power of capitalism and markets (for better or worse), fear of socialism and communism (how many "evil" extreme socialist aliens have we seen over the years?), even basic assumptions like everyone having access to ray guns because in America today everyone has access to conventional guns.

      When Chinese people express ideals that run along the same lines as the government ones they are brainwashed. When westerners do the same it's because those ideals are the right ones, the best ones that our societies are founded on and which make us what we are.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much social responsability yet something like this happens
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/24/chinas-bystander-problem-another-death-after-crowd-ignores-woman-in-peril/

    9. Re:Not at all surprising by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Really? Because movie franchises like Aliens and Bladerunner, most sci-fi movies that deal with these issues in fact, revolve around a terror of corporate dystopias. I've yet to see the corporate dystopia that comes within a million miles of actual real life marxist government dystopias of the sort which claimed the lives of over 100 million innocents in the 20th century. China, in particular, should be aware of the horrors inflicted by those who dreamed themselves philosopher princes leading the way for the proles to seize power.

      Star Trek is a good example of a favourable view of socialist goverrnments; possibly you meant the Borg when you refer to extreme socialists, which says all it needs to say.

      When Chinese people express ideals that run along the same lines as the government ones they do so because they'll be locked up otherwise.

      Westerners don't do the same, unless I missed the bit where the "west" had a single government. Why yes, you did just make an equivalency between one country and a vast selection of different countries with different values, ideals, languages, laws and cultures.

    10. Re:Not at all surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Chinese have different values, but "Capitalism" might not mean what you think it means. If you read Adam Smith, you might find that Capitalism means the Government regulating business to ensure a level playing field, which causes Capital to rule because all a person needs to start a business and compete is the capital. Without those Government controls, existing business will conspire to keep out or at least disadvantage newcomers, and politics and connections will be required, not just capital. The thing that modern Westerners often push as "Capitalism" is exactly what existed when Adam Smith wrote his book; not the thing actually described.

      Similarly, China doesn't have "Communism," or "Socialism" either. Modern China has Capitalism, along with a single party political system. China doesn't have the sort of central economic control that the Soviet Union had. Instead, the Government controls industry by investing in a large number of the successful businesses. For example, many of the technology fabrication companies are about 25% government owned. So they use Capital and their partial ownership in order to influence business. And if I go to China and meet a farmer with a big idea who wants to start a business, and I invest in it so that he has the capital, he can start that business and compete.

      Capitalism has nothing to do with Democracy. In many ways China is more capitalist than the US. If a Chinese business person goes to a village, buys all the bananas and creates an artificial shortage, and then raises the price 300%, that is punishable by death. Why? Because he's creating an illegal monopoly, and using it to ruin the market. Leveraging existing business to keep everybody else out and maintain a monopoly is the most anti-Capitalist thing you can do. China is one of the few places with clear bans on almost any anti-competitive practice. (Disclaimer: I'm only measuring the Chinese economy internally; foreigners like me don't have the same market access that Chinese people do. Just ask any US car company)

      The words are so misused, they don't usually have much meaning. Chinese people value national unity more than others. Some people just assert that means they're repeating propaganda; but in reality they threw out almost everything Mao taught. They don't have political freedom, but it also isn't what most people want. Chinese people claim to actually want good governance, not western political theory. And the current propaganda seems to mirror the cultural norms. If you use real popular ideas and phrases as your propaganda, it is natural for people then to complain mostly about if you're actually following it. It is a totally different situation than when propaganda is used to try to manipulate views, or frighten enemies. The whole concept that most westerns have of propaganda is absurdist anyway when it is applied outside the context of elections. Their government has no reason to push propaganda that differs from cultural norms; their goal is to maintain the status quo, they're not trying to indoctrinate anybody.

    11. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is what allowed the Chinese economy to recover from it's self imposed 100% planned state economy. And the US economy has always included some state planning aspects. The one thing that capitalism provides that a communist or heavy socialist economic model does not is incentives for individuals. Incentives in the form of acquiring personal wealth for contributions commensurate with the value of the products or services provided by ones work. Communism and heavy handed socialism has always floundered when people start realizing that a brilliant engineer should be compensated more than a janitor for services provided for the all inclusive state. Capitalism has it's own problems when those who have succeeded start gaming the system to stifle competition and impede the ability of those less successful from being able to earn a decent living. But the bottom line is if you just stand around waiting for your government to provide you with a perfect life than you have already guaranteed yourself a less comfortable life. If you are going to spend thousands of dollars on an education you should probably concentrate your efforts to fields of study that are actually relevant in today's economies. If you graduate with an English or Political Science degree don't look for any sympathy when you find out you cannot get a good paying job after graduation.
                 

    12. Re:Not at all surprising by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      In Venezuela, people create markets in commodities like toilet paper, just because they can, creating inflation. They are inserting themselves as middlemen driving up prices. It would be better to have a first-come-first-served policy in cases of shortage, or rationing. Capitalism just creates inflation, and don't forget about slavery.

    13. Re: Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, corporate dystopias prefer to hew a course where they extract value from labor, and they are a lot more subtle in their parasitism.

      Instead of a blazing inferno, they slowly raise things to a boil.

      And it should be noted, they're as vulnerable to demagoguery and propaganda as any other. Well, humanity is the common factor.

    14. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they're not trying to indoctrinate anybody.

      Yeah, however much you think you know about Chinese economics, you know even less about their propaganda machine. You just don't know you're ignorant. Also, western propaganda is far more rampant than you realize, so too is Russian propaganda. If you're raised with cultural norms you didn't invent yourself, you've been indoctrinated. The first step is to stop applying negative connotations to that word, and remove the "crazy" from your assumption of conspiracy.

      You might want to give 4th Generational Warfare a read sometime.

    15. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read Adam Smith, you might find that Capitalism means the Government regulating business to ensure a level playing field, which causes Capital to rule because all a person needs to start a business and compete is the capital.

      That is utter nonsense. Adam Smith goes out of his way to describe how government regulations are abused again and again for what we now call rent seeking. While Adam Smith wasn't categorically opposed to all government functions (he favored publicly financed defense and justice systems), he certainly did not hold the beliefs you attribute to him.

      If a Chinese business person goes to a village, buys all the bananas and creates an artificial shortage, and then raises the price 300%, that is punishable by death. Why? Because he's creating an illegal monopoly, and using it to ruin the market.

      This kind of ludicrous horror story gets invented time and again by opponents of free markets and rent seekers and they make no sense. How is the would-be profiteer actually going to make a business out of that and earn a profit?

      Capitalism has nothing to do with Democracy.

      Captialism is necessary, though not sufficient, for a free society.

    16. Re:Not at all surprising by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes it does. Maybe this guys stories do reflect his upbringing and indoctrination by Chinese stated media. That is the point. it shows another perspective. It does not mean he is a bad writer, it does not pose any value judgement on that perspective. It is just that, another perspective. If anything, that should be appealing to SciFi lovers.

      In other words, he's Arthur C. Clarke, if Clarke were hobbled by a pathological ideology.

      And for what it is worth, planned economies are best. In fact, there are no economies without at least some planning. The question is how much planning is best.

      No, the question is who does the planning. The key problem with planned economies is that the planning is done by people without either the capability or knowledge to do competent panning nor an absence of conflict of interest.

      When one speaks of a planned economy, one doesn't speak of the planning that the various participants in the economy do (which would be how the planning would be distributed in a nearly pure capitalist society), but of centralized authorities.

      It is quite clear that pure capitalist systems are 100% sure to fail. Like 100% pure any type of system for that matter... it is just not how people function and therefor the way we run our civilization can also not funtion like that.

      The difference is that civilizations with a lot of capitalism do better than civilizations with a lot of central planning. For example, all of the supposed problems with a capitalist society, such as greed, externalities, economic crashes and booms, and monopolies/oligopolies, happen with planned economies (the central planning authority in particular is a far more powerful monopoly than anything a pure capitalist society would have, its externalities are far less addressable, its ability to ignore reality, and it would be a lot more capable vehicle of greed).

    17. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used read El Reg, but I got sick of all those 'Dead Steve Jobs' tropes, and reports on the various methods the male of the species managed to get their todgers stuck in household items.

    18. Re:Not at all surprising by vux984 · · Score: 2

      What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?

      For what its worth, a goodly number of Star Trek episodes revolve around what we think of the form of government used by aliens. And in some cases interfering to forcibly alter it.

    19. Re:Not at all surprising by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Feel free to move to North Korea friend, you'll find out about slavery under that marxist regime.

      Communism, we can all lounge around navel gazing our way through coffee table philosophy books as equals. Oh wait, no, someone has to make the coffee table and write the book, and if they don't feel like doing that, hey, looks like power does flow from the barrel of a gun after all.

    20. Re:Not at all surprising by vux984 · · Score: 1

      This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.

      An author's themes probing the questions and answers the culture he was raised in grappled with?

      You hear this sort of stuff all the time if you pay any attention to Chinese state media ... planned economies are best, the individual's primary responsibility is to the family unit, Western ideas have failed, and so on.

      None of those are remotely settled questions; and all of them are frequently explored in SF.

      If anything, these books demonstrate the poverty of a literary scene where everybody has to constantly watch what they say.

      Are you high right now? Or just close minded? Or perhaps both?

    21. Re:Not at all surprising by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Actually Chinese people greatly admire the Western system and know their own ways are crap. Social responsibility? Are you kidding? Whenever people see photos of a Westerner hitting a person with a car and then stopping to render aid, they are always full of admiration. Chinese don't do that crap. The system of government didn't develop in a vacuum, it's a foreign system that has committed terrible crimes to preserve its own power. If there were elections tomorrow, the Communist Party would be reduced to a minor regional player.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    22. Re:Not at all surprising by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Adam Smith wrote that a man had a right to sell his labor. What protected that right during the slavery period, in the US? Capitalism needs something outside of it, because capitalism alone has no morality and perversely incentivizes lying and other sociopathic behavior.

    23. Re:Not at all surprising by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I thought anyone can self-publish on the internet these days? Unless the capitalists trying to kill net neutrality get their way, of course.

    24. Re:Not at all surprising by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Please note that higher prices is NOT the same as inflation.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    25. Re:Not at all surprising by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "... because capitalism alone has no morality and perversely incentivizes lying and other sociopathic behavior." ALL systems provide some form of incentive but only the individual takes the course.

    26. Re:Not at all surprising by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      Capitalism can and should be sandboxed, so its insatiable hunger for liquidity doesn't affect billions when the gambling schemes go wrong, as in the most recent financial crisis. We should create more public money to backstop the living standards of individuals, instead of the bonuses of corporate traders.

    27. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really surprising that all governments try to brainwash there populace with their specific propaganda. Remember better dead than red? Those in power always want to remain in power and will use propaganda to make sure that it is vastly easier for them to accomplish. Propaganda rose out of advertising after all and we know how effective advertising has been over the years.

      Ugg sometimes humanity is quite disgusting.

    28. Re:Not at all surprising by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I wasn't clear, I mean they fundamentally value the society over the individual more than Westerners. What you describe with a car hitting a person and delivering aid is perfectly consistent with that. What degree that is learning or innate is not clear. And I think you are projecting admiration on them because otherwise more people would act in such a way that they so admired (according to you), and then you wouldn't have an example like this to provide.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    29. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed it does.
      Look at the former communist states in Eastern Europe. When the regime began, a lot of artists, painters, writers, sculptors, etc, were told to either create for "the greater good" or stop. Those that didn't got a one way trip to Siberia or worked on "great projects" or simply wasted away in prison.

      Just looking back at those "creations" is interesting. So much crap nobody understood, or liked because it was the safest bet, both creator and viewer.

      I still remember what they were teaching us to draw and write. It's no wonder things change so slow, the indoctrination was so deep.

      Good writers have power and freedom to write about anything they want. To imagine everything they can. In a country where you can only see half the world, then those writers are only at half their potential.
      A pity really.

    30. Re:Not at all surprising by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Feel free to move to North Korea friend,

      Right, because the only possible alternative to capitalism is Maoism.

      Communism, we can all lounge around navel gazing our way through coffee table philosophy books as equals.

      Sure, an economic system based on the value and dignity of labor and the idea that the system should be run by and for workers rather than a state-backed aristocratic capitalist class, leads to lounging around all day navel gazing. Obviously.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    31. Re:Not at all surprising by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Informative

      Marx believed firmly in the labor theory of value, and as such all economic power derived from human labour, not from mechanical power. Communism was about combating the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few people who owned the means of production, at the expense of the masses who provided the labour and hence the real value.

      His view was misguided in many ways, not least in that it almost completely ignores the value of intellectual work; the guy who figures out the right way to apply labour to raw materials is fantastically more effective than the one who does it the wrong way, and in fact this applies at all levels of the chain, up to and including the allocation of capital.

      Marxism and all of its derivations are inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since they lack the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximise what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally, even if said essentials include what we'd call luxuries. Those essentials will become the baseline expectation, much like oxygen, and economic competition will be around something else.

      Marxism which is based upon class divisions, has failed as a predictive model of economic and social revolution. This is demonstrated in pure Marxist terms by the continued existence of bourgeois capitalism. In terms of a scientific method based on Popperian logical positivism, do you think these theories should now be rejected as null hypotheses?

    32. Re:Not at all surprising by swb · · Score: 1

      I don't really think of either the Alen or Bladerunner films as being terribly good examples of corporate dystopia.

      Weyland-Yutani may have done evil, but the society itself didn't seem as if it was entirely run by them economically and politically. They also didn't seem anymore than run of the mill greedy in the same way Kerr-McGee was with Karen Silkwood. The same thing seems even more true of the Tyrell Corporation -- if anything, Tyrell's problem seems largely connected to the somewhat existential moral questions of creating replicants.

      Both of those films seemed to represent the general dystopia of an overcrowded, environmentally challenged present future and not one that represented a particular political agenda of repression by corporate interests.

      One of the few films that seems to truly represent a corporate political dystopia is Rollerball, where the corporation really does run the world. But even then the dystopic element of this is challenged somewhat by John Houseman when he tries to convince James Caan to retire, claiming that it was the *corporations* who rescued the world from war and chaos.

    33. Re:Not at all surprising by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Adam Smith wrote that a man had a right to sell his labor.

      Right.

      What protected that right during the slavery period, in the US?

      Nothing. And in that aspect the US was not practicing the system that Smith was describing.

      Capitalism needs something outside of it, ...

      Almost - Smith presupposed a legal system that (at the very least) attempted to prevent murder, theft and fraud. Capitalism might need something outside of the market, but that's not outside the system.

      ...because capitalism alone has no morality and perversely incentivizes lying and other sociopathic behavior.

      That's true of every economic system - if someone is willing to lie to get money why wouldn't they lie to get a larger ration? The most you can hope to do is reduce the number of rational reasons to cheat, but you can do that without chucking the whole thing out the window (healthcare, social programs, etc) which is how most of the Western world handles it - and fairly successfully, I might add.

    34. Re:Not at all surprising by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That was my point. Everything is framed in western terms. Dystopia is capitalism out of control, utopia is the abandonment of capitalism. There isn't much else.

      Even in Star Trek a socialist utopia is only possible once replication makes everything plentiful. It doesn't seem possible for any other kind of utopian society to exist. Star Fleet is modelled on the US military ranking and naval traditions, not because they are best but because that's what the obvious choice of an American TV show is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...you're both correct in that:

      A: Chinese culture is older and completely different from Western culture on what its social norms and values are (traditionally)

      B: A certain degree of government "oversight" is in EVERYTHING, especially anything mass marketed like books and other literature. Although some of the restrictions of uber-authoritarianism that existed pre-Hong Kong hand back--or even going back to the Nixon era--have eased, there are people like Ai Weiwei and others who are still being repressed for any direct criticisms or calls for governmental reforms.

      Let's just agree that if the themes were not in keeping with cultural and political norms this guy wouldn't be working as a computer engineer at a power plant, he'd be in a jail cell pulling a Solzhenitsyn.

    36. Re:Not at all surprising by ideonexus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neil DeGrasse Tyson likes to remind us that "culture is what you don't notice." You might see PRC Propaganda in this description of Cixin's work, but if you think about what movies like "American Sniper" and "Top Gun" and the Superbowl must look like to non-Americans, then "propaganda" becomes a relative term. I have long been under the impression that Chinese culture is heavily censored and controlled, so I am perpetually amazed at the things I find portrayed in Chinese media, like the reoccurring themes of government corruption and the importance of a strong press.

      I just finished reading The Three Body Problem, and I did not see anything propaganda-like at all in the book. Cixin presents some pretty complex moral issues for the reader to wrestle with and an extremely damning portrayal of the Cultural Revolution as being anti-science, anti-intellectual, and horribly destructive to the environment. The book opens with a physics Professor on trial for the crime of teaching modern physics, which is considered Western propaganda. Later we see the Cultural Revolution slash-and-burning entire forests and turning them into deserts and one of the characters gets hold of and is influenced by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which is banned by the government for pushing capitalist ideology (how ironic from my American perspective). It is only decades later, when China experiences a renaissance of free public education and science that things are portrayed as getting better.

      --------Spoilers--------

      In fact, part of the aliens' plan to keep humanity weak is to undermine science and promote magical thinking in our culture. Despite the seemingly pro-environmentalism message early in the book, the aliens consider using environmentalism to halt our scientific progress. The reader is left to thinking about how we balance scientific progress against extreme environmental crimes like those committed during the Cultural Revolution.

      The bad guys in the book are a cult of of human beings who want an alien race to provide a central totalitarian government to the entire world. That doesn't exactly endorse central planning. The book portrays overt nationalism as detrimental and unsophisticated, as when a proposed nationalistic message to extraterrestrials is scrapped for a universal statement about humanity.

      I'm sure there are ways to interpret Cixin's writings as PRC Propaganda, but--like most complex texts--there are ways to support many criticisms of the text, even contradictory hypotheses.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    37. Re:Not at all surprising by CptJeanLuc · · Score: 1

      The thing about sci-fi authors is they can live in the land of ideas and alternative worlds without being constrained by the realities of where we are today. There is plenty other sci-fi covering similar ideas without anyone branding it propaganda.

      It is easy to talk about propaganda elsewhere, but seriously we are a bit brain-washed here in the West as well, thinking that our cold-hearted capitalist system with increasingly dumbed-down media and culture is so much better than everything else in every way possible.

      Ok, I need to stop because I am about to go on a rant and blood pressure is increasing. Just look through a backlog of about a year or so of the Colbert Report, The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, Real Time with Bill Maher, and probably some others I have not been monitoring - and yes these days you actually need to turn to comedy in order to get something which resembles critical investigative journalism and real unpolished news, the world once again needs a court jester. The list of examples of a broken system is quite overwhelming.

      So let's not celebrate our broken system too much, and let's not be too quick about branding alternative ideas as propaganda.

    38. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to move to North Korea friend, you'll find out about slavery under that marxist regime

      North Korea is official a militarist nationalism.

      Doesn't pretend any longer to even know who Marx is.

      Take that as you will, but you might as well move there for the Democracy or the Catholicism.

    39. Re:Not at all surprising by readin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.

      I read that bit about the plot for "The Wages of Humanity" and almost laughed out loud. Straight out of Mao's little red pulp mag. What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?

      Although it doesn't sound that different from some of the line's Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity"

      I guess it's possible, of course you would first have to commit genocide against everyone with normal human instincts. That pretty much sums up communism.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    40. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no, Marx did believe in the value of intellectual labor. Maybe he didn't put enough emphasis on it to satisfy you, or didn't make a distinction between intellectual and physical labor but to say he almost completely ignored it is a bit of hyperbole.

      It was widely recognized in his works.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

    41. Re:Not at all surprising by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Even in Star Trek a socialist utopia is only possible once replication makes everything plentiful.

      You can be forgiven for not watching Enterprise, but they had just recently achieved utopia yet they didn't have replicators yet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Not at all surprising by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Please note that higher prices is NOT the same as inflation.

      Higher prices on necessities drive inflation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Not at all surprising by khallow · · Score: 1

      Capitalism can and should be sandboxed, so its insatiable hunger for liquidity doesn't affect billions when the gambling schemes go wrong, as in the most recent financial crisis.

      The word you are looking for is "profit" or "wealth" not "liquidity" which merely means amount of trading activity from the point of view of buying or selling large quantities of goods, particularly securities.

      We should create more public money to backstop the living standards of individuals, instead of the bonuses of corporate traders.

      Creating money isn't going to make anyone wealthier (or as you put it, "backstop" their "living standards"). Further, why should we do so? It's not that important to backstop living standards especially when it's clear that most people have low standards for standards of living.

    44. Re:Not at all surprising by jwdb · · Score: 1

      ...raised with cultural norms you didn't invent yourself...

      i.e., everyone.

      No one develops cultural norms by themselves. That's why they're called cultural norms.

      In fact, no one develops anything whatsoever in a vacuum.

    45. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is complete nonsense. Smith did not write anything of the sort. Futhermore,

      Also, the banana examples is not punishable by death. China kills people and is a shitty country to live in (for most people; I lived there for a number of years and thought it was fine for my own personal situation) but it doesn't execute people for buying all the bananas. Just the idea is ludicrous. Like, totally out-there bizarre.

      Everything you're saying is completely untrue. Not only are you wrong, you have no idea what you're talk about.

    46. Re:Not at all surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If a Chinese business person goes to a village, buys all the bananas and creates an artificial shortage, and then raises the price 300%, that is punishable by death. Why? Because he's creating an illegal monopoly, and using it to ruin the market.

      This kind of ludicrous horror story gets invented time and again by opponents of free markets and rent seekers and they make no sense. How is the would-be profiteer actually going to make a business out of that and earn a profit?

      I paid an extra $15 to fill my gas tank yesterday compared to last week, every gas station had raised its price by exactly the same amount while the price of the raw product dropped slightly. Seems the oil companies want to continue earning record profits and as they collude and because people such as I need gas to get to work they can raise prices to increase their profit margins with impunity.
      Now if it was really bananas, I could easily switch to apples but when its something you need rather then a luxury...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    47. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only call it PRC propaganda because it's different from the ideals you're familiar with and for some reason think that your ideals are the only valid ones and should somehow apply to everyone. These are actually common ideals in the eastern world and in eastern cultures.

      That uncontrolled Capitalism is seen is at best not optimal and as worst disaster waiting to happen doesn't necessarily mean the planned economy is best, it's not binary like that, hell, not even China has a fully planned economy (socialist market economy, a hybrid system, derived from state capitalism and influence heavily by Lenin's NEP), and it's not like Western countries actually employ full-out capitalism. Think of it though, a system that works on the assumption of perpetual, exponential growth (capitalism) will eventually run out of room for expansion.

      Filial bonds and duty to one's family are again, a general eastern idea that isn't at all unique to the PRC, Collectivism is deeply entrenched in Eastern culture in contrast to Western individualism. And finally, believe it or not, Western ideals don't really work all that well for us (we took notes from Russia's attempt at Western Style neoliberalism in the '90s), and it doesn't look like it works all that well for you guys these days either, but that's just my eastern perspective.

      It's quite sad that you equate "a different culture, with different traditions, expectations, norms and ideals" as "the poverty of a literary scene where everybody has to constantly watch what they say". I'm sure you'd prefer a literary scene were everyone panders to Western sensibilities, but maybe you should consider taking your head out of your ass.

    48. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'll find out about slavery under that marxist regime.

      DPRK isn't Marxist, it employs its own brand of socialism called Juche, whoch has nothing to do with the Russo-German Marxist tradition. Credit where credit due to though in an 8 word senstence, you'd shown that you have no clue about Marxism or DPRK, that, my friend takes talent.

      Communism, we can all lounge around navel gazing our way through coffee table philosophy books as equals

      Not what Communism or Marxism (try not to use the two interchangeably, they're related but not synonymous) is actually about, it's about class struggle, and "equality" (in terms of rights) comes from wresting the means of production out from bourgoisie hands and ultimately eliminating the bourgoisie, all are fundamentally 'equal' in that all are proletariat. The failing is that it tends to replace the class division between proletariat and bourgoisie with a class divide between proletariat and ruling class.

      Oh wait, no, someone has to make the coffee table and write the book

      You've entirely missed the central point, that Marxism is fundamentally a labour movement. There is no shortage of proletariat in a Marxist system. It's the same as capitalism in this regard, if there is no one to write the book or make the coffee table, then there is no book to read and no coffee table to sit at, The state compellence applies largely to matter of and requirements of the state; heavy industry, the defense industry and military. Farmers are already farmers and factory workers already work in factories (only the ownership of the means of production have changed -- the state, rather than the bourgoisie)

      You have a very caricaturized, and franky uneducated conception of the concepts you're talking about. But I guess that's the glory of capitalism, even if you don;t sit at the coffee table or read the book, you still reserve the 'right' to speak 'authoratively' on the subject you know nothing about.

      looks like power does flow from the barrel of a gun after all.

      The quote you butchered is meant in the context of revolution.

    49. Re:Not at all surprising by FrankHS · · Score: 1

      I am amazed by the responses that say in essence: Communism / Socialism sucks. How dare a communist sci fi writer write a sci fi story that involves communism?!

      Relax and take a deep breath. It is only science fiction.

      There have been many Sci Fi stories about how a group of capitalists got together and created a moon landing / interplanetary travel / interstellar travel / colonization. Shall we decry them for the capitalist propaganda?

      In reality the moon landing was created by the government taxing the citizens and using some of that money to create a government program to send men to the moon.

      Science fiction has always had a lot to say about technology, economic systems, governments and societies. I am concerned about the problem of a world where fewer workers (this includes computer nerds) are needed to produce the things society wants because of advances in technology. What happens to this large mass of unemployable workers under unregulated capitalism? This is a perfect theme for a science fiction story. I look forward to reading The wages of humanity.

    50. Re:Not at all surprising by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Captialism is necessary, though not sufficient, for a free society.

      And this is utter nonsense. A free society can coexist just fine with a simple barter system or even when everything belongs to the commons, which was one of the ways the tribal societies worked. Economic systems are completely orthogonal to the societies. It takes a completely brain washed person to insist otherwise.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    51. Re:Not at all surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      the individual's primary responsibility is to the family unit

      Wouldn't communist propaganda be that the individual's primary responsibility is to society as a whole, and that the family unit is simply a bourgeois socio-economic construct?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    52. Re:Not at all surprising by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      also asimov already explored the same themes in his writing.

      including the non-expansive civilization(that banned atomic research through time machines and shit and limited discovery of interstellar travel as a consequence), which was a failure in his grand plot thing.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    53. Re:Not at all surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you graduate with an English or Political Science degree don't look for any sympathy when you find out you cannot get a good paying job after graduation.

      Yes, because in the US and Europe, the only "good paying jobs" are as pure engineers, and people with non-engineering degrees are limited to working in areas like management and finance, which are minimum wage careers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    54. Re:Not at all surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This will probably come across as a kneejerk response, but the submission makes it sound like Liu's themes are almost entirely derived from PRC propaganda.

      I read that bit about the plot for "The Wages of Humanity" and almost laughed out loud. Straight out of Mao's little red pulp mag. What would aliens care about the form of government used on another planet?

      Although it doesn't sound that different from some of the line's Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity" I guess it's possible, of course you would first have to commit genocide against everyone with normal human instincts. That pretty much sums up communism.

      Your definition of "normal human instincts" is not the same as mine. I find "the acquisition of wealth" as an end in itself to be of interest only to fairly dull people.

      You must really, really hate Iain M Banks's Culture novels.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    55. Re:Not at all surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What protected that right during the slavery period, in the US?

      Nothing. And in that aspect the US was not practicing the system that Smith was describing.

      Yes, but the point is that pure laissez faire capitalism in itself does not provide the mechanism to prevent this.

      So you have to have government and laws, but then the extreme right wingers complain about paying taxes and not being able to beat their legally purchased slaves.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:Not at all surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Communism, we can all lounge around navel gazing our way through coffee table philosophy books as equals.

      You don't sound sure whether that is a good or bad thing.

      Oh wait, no, someone has to make the coffee table and write the book

      Yes, but not everyone is able to make a coffee table or write a book. Society as a whole needs coffee tables or books.

      and if they don't feel like doing that, hey, looks like power does flow from the barrel of a gun after all.

      Whereas in a purely capitalist society, you would be perfectly free to do nothing and starve.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    57. Re:Not at all surprising by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Marxism and all of its derivations are inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since they lack the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximise what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally, even if said essentials include what we'd call luxuries. Those essentials will become the baseline expectation, much like oxygen, and economic competition will be around something else.

      No, you're wrong, because most people don't really care about economic competition or maximising their goods past a certain level.

      For instance, if I was really desperate for a more expensive car or house than I have now, by your reasoning I would be working at another job in addition to my main one, as I could be buying twice the stuff.

      Whereas, in reality, I would rather spend those eight hours a day enjoying myself by reading a book or having a drink, as my current job provides more than enough to live on. Now, I could decide that I want to drink only vintage wines at GBP 1,000 a bottle, or only read first editions at GBP 10,000. But in reality, I am happy drinking something for a fiver from Lidls and reading a couple of paperbacks or Kindle downloads a week.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    58. Re:Not at all surprising by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      In Venezuela, people create markets in commodities like toilet paper, just because they can, creating inflation. They are inserting themselves as middlemen driving up prices. It would be better to have a first-come-first-served policy in cases of shortage, or rationing. Capitalism just creates inflation, and don't forget about slavery.

      I think you are right, in some niche circumstances, for example where there are shortages of essentials capitalism may not be the answer and rationing would be better. I don't see that altering the fact that for the vast majority of situations it is the best way we know of of matching supply and demand and increasing efficiency.

    59. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further, why should we do so? It's not that important to backstop living standards especially when it's clear that most people have low standards for standards of living.

      That most people have low standards is irrelevant to why you need to backstop a standard of living. It's not about their standards. It's about your civilization's standards. Your civilization's standards shouldn't be represented by the low standard rabble.

      For better or worse, central planning is the better way to establish those standards. To address what you said earlier:

      The difference is that civilizations with a lot of capitalism do better than civilizations with a lot of central planning.

      The word you're looking for is "government". Governments that are more capitalist do better. With civilizations, it's actually the opposite. Civilizations that had strong kings or empires are the ones that lasted, as their central power established standards and created unified identities.

      China, as it relates to the story, had a civilization that lasted thousands of years based on the idea that the well being of the entire nation rests in the central power of the Emperor.

      The Roman Empire set the standards across much of Europe until their fall, which then civilization went all different ways until a bunch of European kings rose to create new civilizations of their own, the more successful ones ended up being the Imperial European powers. America in turn created its own civilization, creating a federal government for itself (this event also shrunk the British civilization... more freedom for one means less civilization for the other). As Americans and Europeans felt more like one "Western" civilization, they created central authority organizations like the EU and UN.

    60. Re:Not at all surprising by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's about your civilization's standards.

      I don't see that viewpoint as having merit. It's an arms race and I'm not interested in my society being able to better squander its resources than the other shiny societies of the world.

      For better or worse, central planning is the better way to establish those standards.

      I pick option 2, "worse".

      The word you're looking for is "government". Governments that are more capitalist do better. With civilizations, it's actually the opposite. Civilizations that had strong kings or empires are the ones that lasted, as their central power established standards and created unified identities.

      The US has been around for 240 years. That's a good run by monarchy and empire standards. Iceland and Switzerland have been around even longer.

      China, as it relates to the story, had a civilization that lasted thousands of years based on the idea that the well being of the entire nation rests in the central power of the Emperor.

      And where is it now? Something better came along.

      The Roman Empire set the standards across much of Europe until their fall, which then civilization went all different ways until a bunch of European kings rose to create new civilizations of their own, the more successful ones ended up being the Imperial European powers. America in turn created its own civilization, creating a federal government for itself (this event also shrunk the British civilization... more freedom for one means less civilization for the other). As Americans and Europeans felt more like one "Western" civilization, they created central authority organizations like the EU and UN.

      Exchanging civilization for freedom was a great trade. Meanwhile the EU (the only actual central authority) are creating a bunch of problems for the rest of us (though mostly for its member countries). I just don't see the point you're trying to make here.

    61. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I paid an extra $15 to fill my gas tank yesterday compared to last week, every gas station had raised its price by exactly the same amount while the price of the raw product dropped slightly.

      That's a pretty big gas tank since even a totally exaggerated 50 cent increase in the price of gas would make that 30 gallons.

    62. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they are pretty lame novels.

    63. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit, use your fucking brain.

    64. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see that viewpoint as having merit.

      The merit is in the results. Civilizations that have and push their standards survive and do better. Civilizations that don't are just waiting to get usurped/taken over/conquered by ones that do.

      It's an arms race and I'm not interested in my society being able to better squander its resources than the other shiny societies of the world.

      And that is your standard that you wish your civilization to represent. Your soapbox here (and if need be, you might use the ballot, jury, or ammo box) is to promote your standards over the other guy's.

      I pick option 2, "worse".

      Worse for individuals, but better for civilizations.

      The US has been around for 240 years. That's a good run by monarchy and empire standards. Iceland and Switzerland have been around even longer.

      You're making my point for me. Central planning in the US has grown over those 240 years, much more than Iceland of Switzerland. It's no coincidence that American civilization is lot more successful than those two places.

      And before you say "but America had less central planning than the Nazis or Commies", that doesn't mean central planning didn't work for America.

      And where is it now? Something better came along.

      Something better at central planning came along. The Chinese Communist Revolution was hardly peaceful. Another part was the rise of Western Imperialist powers, empires that are hardly examples of capitalism and lack of central planning. You're again making my point for me. The thing that ended one civilization with a lot of central planning was another civilization with a lot of central planning, with the response being another attempt at central-planning, Cultural Revolution and all.

      Exchanging civilization for freedom was a great trade.

      Only if freedom was what people were looking for at the time. Soon after, the people who wanted freedom from British civilization wanted their own American civilization. Thus they created the federal government, who had no problem ignoring the freedom of native Indians who got in the way of American civilization. As time went on, people added more things on the list of things that defined "American civilization", and government grew to uphold those values, even if it meant dragging a few (or a lot) of people kicking and screaming. The more civilization you want, the more government you get. That's how got you the US government so big today.

      Meanwhile the EU (the only actual central authority) are creating a bunch of problems for the rest of us (though mostly for its member countries).

      Of course there are problems. There are trade offs to everything. Still, people preferred the problems that came with having civilization than the dealing with the problems of not having civilization.

      I just don't see the point you're trying to make here.

      The point was in plain English. You said "civilizations with a lot of capitalism do better than civilizations with a lot of central planning." I pointed out that it's actually the opposite. The examples of kings and empire support my point, as is the creation of EU and the UN to maintain and expand the influence of "western" civilization, even if it costs a lot of individual freedom. The UN may not have authority in the sense they can tax citizens of individual nations, but the organization does exist to help promote the continuation of existing nation states, which in other words mean continuation of all their governments with all the central planning that goes with having governments.

    65. Re:Not at all surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      My advice is to read his book.

    66. Re:Not at all surprising by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Eloquently stated.

      As for using my brain, I have, and have come to the conclusion that even free will is an illusion, much less the idea of inventing something all by yourself. It's a useful construct that allows your conscious mind to function, but don't bother trying to use it to perform any kind of value judgement.

    67. Re:Not at all surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're here in the US we have a "mixed economy" and there is no general ban on collusion. Price-fixing is only banned in narrow circumstances. There are a wide variety of specific tactics that the oil companies use to push up retail prices. Most of them just push prices up, they don't create monopolies or disadvantage other oil companies. If you were to build a refinery, those tactics wouldn't hurt you, actually you'd share in the benefit. So it isn't the same type of thing at all. I'm not sure that you understood the issues, or even tried. You just thought about your pocket, only, and didn't contribute any idea.

      If it was oil, you could just switch to natural gas, or electric. ;)

      I'm guessing it was some sort of failed humor, since you seem to be claiming bananas are a luxury, and gasoline a necessity. Then again, maybe you're from Jupiter and you'd die without huffing gas.

    68. Re:Not at all surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Where I am it did jump 75 cents in a couple days. If you bought at a cheap station last week and an expensive one this week, there would be over a dollar gap. There is 50 cents of difference in price available within a couple miles.

    69. Re:Not at all surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      For example, take a bunch of die-hard communists, settle them all in the same village, give them local rule, and force them to hold elections every few years.

      They'll be totally free, and have representative government. They might even vote for people who promise to put in strict central economic control, and to protest forced-elections. They might even believe themselves unfree, except they can institute their own rules; they just have to verify every few years that they are indeed the rules they want. So they'll insist the elections make them unfree, but they'll be otherwise totally able to choose their rules.

      Here in the USA, we can't have freedom without a mixed economy, because the people demand a mixed economy. They also demand to call it "Capitalism," and to call our Representative Republic a "Democracy." Although in my State we have local Direct Democracy, and all the important issues are decided directly by vote of the People.

      All it takes to have free people without Capitalism, is to find people that want something other than Capitalism, and free them! Or find people who are already free, like Americans, and who wanted something other than Capitalism. Like... Americans!

      What I want to know, which country do "these people" think is Capitalist? Every rich country I've ever heard of lets the existing rich people and successful companies maintain an unlevel playing field, and Capital alone is rarely enough to compete. It is certainly better than Adam Smith's day. Consider his example of a opening a quarry and having your competitors ambush the deliveries and dump the stone into the river. That was a normal, expected thing if you tried to get into a new industry back then. It took not only the capital, but also body guards, and those guards had to be of the right social standing to defend you from the specific people hired by the established quarries. It is very similar to modern American industries where participation is guaranteed to generate patent lawsuits, even where no legit new invention is involved. We have legal process that, given enough capital, may or may not protect you. But even when Justice prevails, the wheels turn too slowly to save Capitalism for the affected business. Even if somehow you got all the money back you lost in the suit, which "can't" happen in our system, the playing field you'd be on would remain unlevel and any Capital coming in should be advised of the continued risk of crippling lawsuit.

      And other industries, Capitalism reigns. I can, for example, open a restaurant or convenience store based entirely on capital considerations.

      I would also say that all the rich countries I know of have elements of Capitalism, and that is true regardless of what type of government they have.

    70. Re:Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would have thought someone would make a judgemental post on the Internet despite not having read any of the material?!

      I'm towards the end of The Three-Body Problem at the moment which is a good read. I'm suprised at how disdainfully it treats the Cultural Revolution. Either China isn't as censored as I was lead to believe or the current regime also views the Cultural Revolution negatively. The book itself doesn't take a position on Western vs Eastern values. The motivations of some of the characters & movements within really are a reacting to human nature universally more than anything East vs West.

      Here's a thought for those who think that any Chinese person is just a mindless puppet of some regime you don't like: Perhaps they have thoughts of their own and enjoy a good sci-fi story, and that's what you're getting when you pick up his book.

    71. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      My advice is to read his book

      Take your own advice. If you read his book, you'll actually see that your full of it.

    72. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      I paid an extra $15 to fill my gas tank yesterday compared to last week, every gas station had raised its price by exactly the same amount while the price of the raw product dropped slightly.

      I'm not sure I get your point. Why would the price of the raw product directly relate to the price at the pump?

      A second problem with that reasoning is that the market in oil and gas simply isn't a free market, it is highly controlled by governments from beginning to end.

      Seems the oil companies want to continue earning record profits

      Oil companies have nice profit margins (around 16% industry average), but they also face high risks. That's similar to dentists, physicians, and tax preparers. It's far below Apple. And if you want your share in that profit margin, just invest in them; they are mostly publicly traded.

    73. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Adam Smith wrote that a man had a right to sell his labor. What protected that right during the slavery period, in the US? Capitalism needs something outside of it,

      Actually, Adam Smith also argued that slavery wasn't just a moral evil, but that it was also economically irrational. And history has proven him right: in most places in the world, forced labor ended not because societies became more enlightened, but because it simply wasn't economically rational.

      because capitalism alone has no morality and perversely incentivizes lying and other sociopathic behavior

      Quite the opposite: Smith's main point is that free markets punish lying and sociopathic behavior, because people don't voluntarily choose to do transactions with people who engage in such behavior.

    74. Re:Not at all surprising by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Although it doesn't sound that different from some of the line's Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity" I guess it's possible, of course you would first have to commit genocide against everyone with normal human instincts. That pretty much sums up communism.

      I think you have Star Trek and Roddenberry wrong. It always acknowledged human instincts, but argued the humanity could learn to overcome them, not that they could get rid of them.

    75. Re:Not at all surprising by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Free will is an illusion and it isn't even in the Bible despite what most modern American Christians will tell you.

    76. Re:Not at all surprising by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      what is the difference between more rational and more enlightened?

    77. Re:Not at all surprising by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I forgot the technical term for it, but I thought he was saying that bananas have a lot of goods that can be used almost interchangably with them without a high cost to switch while gasoline does not. You have to buy a different car to use electricity or diesel, for example.

    78. Re:Not at all surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Canada (outside Vancouver) actually, and I can't afford to buy a different vehicle or move to where there is transit so my income depends on gasoline whereas I can swap bananas for other fruit easily.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    79. Re:Not at all surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Every time the price of the raw product goes up, it goes up at the pump with the oil companies claiming that the price is dependent on the price of the raw product.
      Here in Canada its the government that is highly controlled by the oil companies, at least with the current government.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    80. Re:Not at all surprising by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the point is that pure laissez faire capitalism in itself does not provide the mechanism to prevent this.

      And democracy doesn't provide a magic mechanism to prevent Puerto Ricans from being denied the right to vote. If the only bad thing you can say about a system is that people are capable of following it imperfectly then you really don't have an argument.

      So you have to have government and laws, but then the extreme right wingers complain about paying taxes and not being able to beat their legally purchased slaves.

      And we've now left the realm of academic discourse in favor of an unhinged political screed...

    81. Re:Not at all surprising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If the market was full of other fruit, they wouldn't have thought it profitable to buy all the bananas. The whole premise is a standard device in economics, used to represent manipulation of necessities. So if you assume there is other fruit, you'd assume it was also bought up. The reality is that the stores only order what they expect to sell, and that if you buy all the bananas, the price of apples will also go up and workers might be priced out of both.

      It is generally considered much more likely that a person can walk, bicycle, or take the bus to work than that they can just eat rocks, or eat currency.

    82. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Geez, do you really need the context spelled out even more clearly? The distinction I was drawing was between economically more rational and morally more enlightened. That is, many societies and producers abandoned forced labor for economic reasons, not for moral or political reasons. Conversely, slavery is a results of political oppression, not of free markets.

    83. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Every time the price of the raw product goes up, it goes up at the pump with the oil companies claiming that the price is dependent on the price of the raw product.

      It is dependent on the price of the raw product, but over time. Producers take into account reserves, current, and future availability and prices.

      The suggestion that gas prices are the result of collusion and oligopolies has been disproven time and again. E.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Here in Canada its the government that is highly controlled by the oil companies, at least with the current government.

      The government is "controlled" by every special interest with deep pockets and a big lobby. The solution to that is more free market capitalism and less government power.

    84. Re:Not at all surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is what our government claims to be about, less government (oversight) and more free market capitalism, they're the Conservatives. They've been reducing the size of government so fast that we have no idea what they're doing, eg today a report on how the military police handled the suicide of a service man came out, very damning. Solution from the small government people, no more public investigations.
      They want to run more oil tankers through the Port of Vancouver so they closed the oil spill response office and the coast guard (coast guard only was called out about 300 hundred times a year).
      Of course they're enlarging spying on the people, introducing legislation to preemptively lock up potential terrorists and so on.
      The idea of small government is good but when the parts that serve the people are done away with in favour making everything a secret and giving certain businesses all the government help that is possible as well as declaring anyone against those businesses a terrorist who should be unconstitutionally locked up...
      As for collusion, I'm sure it is just coincidence that every gas station raises and lowers their prices in lockstep and within minutes of each other and investigating for collusion goes against the small government mantra, same with keeping records about the lobbyists.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    85. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is what our government claims to be about, less government (oversight) and more free market capitalism, they're the Conservatives.

      As you may notice, politicians who claim to support free market capitalism and small government usually don't. Welcome to the real world.

      As for collusion, I'm sure it is just coincidence that every gas station raises and lowers their prices in lockstep and within minutes of each other

      It's not a coincidence at all, it's competition in a free market the way it should be: they look at each other's prices and maintain consistent price differentials based on location and other features. I mean, how would it work otherwise in a free market?

    86. Re:Not at all surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is what our government claims to be about, less government (oversight) and more free market capitalism, they're the Conservatives.

      As you may notice, politicians who claim to support free market capitalism and small government usually don't. Welcome to the real world.

      The problem is in the details. They do believe in small government and "free" market capitalism.

      As for collusion, I'm sure it is just coincidence that every gas station raises and lowers their prices in lockstep and within minutes of each other

      It's not a coincidence at all, it's competition in a free market the way it should be: they look at each other's prices and maintain consistent price differentials based on location and other features. I mean, how would it work otherwise in a free market?

      I'd expect the competition to drive down prices to the point where there is enough profit to keep operating and no more. This works in things like grocery stores where there is a competitive market but when all the gas stations are priced 2 cents a litre lower then the next town over and the next town over has 15 cents a litre more taxes (transit) to deal with the implication is that they are making an extra 13 cents a litre profit (actually more as the cost of rent here is less and they're closer to the source) then the next town (actually quite a few towns and cities) over.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    87. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      The problem is in the details. They do believe in small government and "free" market capitalism.

      Conservatives? No, they don't. Sorry. No more than liberals are anti-big business or pro consumer. Both conservatives and liberals are in the pockets of big industry lobbies, just different ones.

      I'd expect the competition to drive down prices to the point where there is enough profit to keep operating and no more.

      And it does: gas stations are pretty much the least profitable of all retail businesses. That's why they are so quick to adjust all their prices in lockstep.

      This works in things like grocery stores where there is a competitive market but when all the gas stations are priced 2 cents a litre lower then the next town over and the next town over has 15 cents a litre more taxes (transit) to deal with the implication is that they are making an extra 13 cents a litre profit (actually more as the cost of rent here is less and they're closer to the source) then the next town (actually quite a few towns and cities) over.

      You have no idea what their cost structure is, so you are simply fabricating these numbers out of thin air.

    88. Re: Not at all surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the culture novels mainly center around beings outside of the culture, that is, among the people with normal human instincts

    89. Re:Not at all surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The fact that the Greater Vancouver area (GVRD) has a 15 cent per litre extra tax is public knowledge. Other costs are going to the same or higher as you get closer to Vancouver where you're really lucky to find a house for less then a million dollars

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    90. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      So? You gave gas as an example of free market failure and accused gas stations of profiteering. Your claims are bullshit, both because gasoline is a highly regulated market, and because gas station profit margins are razor thin. In different words, all you have shown is that your dislike of free markets is based on ignorance.

    91. Re:Not at all surprising by dryeo · · Score: 1

      By highly regulated, I guess you mean that once in a while the bureau of weights and measures checks the accuracy of the pumps (they used to also check for gas leakage from the tanks but no more) and I guess you really believe that Esso, Chevron, Petrol Canada, Husky Oil and Shell make razor thin profits? Every gas station is owned by on of those 6 oil companies here so when they can as a unit raise prices, it increases profits.
      It's much like the ISP business rather then a free market. Free markets need multiple players playing on a level playground including not using the government to subsidize your business.
      Now I understand in other parts of the world there is still such a thing as independent gas stations who compete but not here.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    92. Re:Not at all surprising by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Every gas station is owned by on of those 6 oil companies here so when they can as a unit raise prices, it increases profits.

      That is highly unlikely. Oil companies own only a few percent of all retail gas stations. You're confusing branding with ownership. A "Chevron" gas station is usually not owned by Chevron, for example.

      Free markets need multiple players playing on a level playground

      You mean like six oil companies and a few tens of thousands of independent retailers?

  6. Bradbury maybe, but Liu Cixin is no Clarke by charlieo88 · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but no. Until there is a Liu Cixin version of the Clarke Orbit, you need to pick another scifi writer as a comparision.

  7. Not so strange by meerling · · Score: 1

    I read some ancient American sci-fi from the 30s and 40s, and you'd be amazed at what ideas they cover.
    I apologize for not being able to remember the names of any of them right now, but one story springs to mind rather easily.
    A guy ends up going to the future (don't worry about how) from the when the author wrote the story. It's about the characters experiences in the imagined future.
    In it, everyone was rather well off as your income was essentially a production dividend from the government. As one character put it, the populace is so productive the government is always looking for new and expensive projects to spend money on, they have too much and have to use it.

    I know some people will freak out over that for various reason, but the idea is sound, even if it would never work with humans the way they are, just like any utopian ideal. However, one of the points on it is based on economics. Saving or hoarding money, especially by the government, just locks up potential resources for no good reason. If it is spent, it is in circulation and helps the entire economy. Anyone who has taken sufficient economics knows that the value of stashed cash is virtually zero to an economy, and can easily become a negative, while money in circulation is powerful.

    Honestly, other than Liu Cixin being heavily influenced by his countrys political propaganda (all countries have that to varying degrees) I don't really seen any new ideas in his works, just variations. Still, I wish him success in his writing career.

    If you want to read some other stuff that is eerily similar to his on occasion, hit up some of the old Soviet sci-fi.

    1. Re:Not so strange by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2
      It sounds like you're referring to "Looking Backward" by Francis Bellamy (the guy who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance) from the 1880s.

      And "saving or hoarding money" in the modern world doesn't "lock up potential resources" - it isn't backed by anything, so taking money out of circulation just raises the value of the remaining currency.

    2. Re:Not so strange by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And "saving or hoarding money" in the modern world doesn't "lock up potential resources" - it isn't backed by anything,

      Depends on the form. If you put it in a bank, then the bank will loan it out to people and commerce will happen, so that's OK. At least in theory... the bank could always just squander it and then ask for a bailout, and then you could pay them twice

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. What A. C. Clarke is, to many of us... by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He is one of the best hard sci-fi writers of all times. Sadly, the genre of hard sci-fi is the tiny minority of all sci-fi works produced nowadays, so the few authors who did work in it, stand out for the fans.

    "The Three Body Problem" is a truly HARD sci-fi work by Liu Cixin, and if I'm to judge by this book only, then yes, this man indeed is China's A. C. Clarke.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:What A. C. Clarke is, to many of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Off topic, but go have a look at Hannu Rajaniemi. His Quantum Thief trilogy is hard sci-fi as well, although it is set so much into the future that the limit between soft/hard gets rather blurry.

  9. The Pagan Bible by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    From the description of "The Devourer," it sounds like Cixin could relate to "The Pagan Bible" by Melvin Gorham and "The Social Conquest of Earth" by E. O. Wilson.

    Both describe civilization as a eusocial superorganism -- with Gorham being more pessimistic than Wilson as to the potential for containing its ecological conquest of sexual species.

  10. OK thanks by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    Never heard of him, but the BAnQ in Montreal is ordering Carbide Tipped Pens, and I reserved it! Heheh, I'm #1 on the list.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  11. Actually, ALL American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Rothman writes that American science fiction draws heavily on American culture, of course—the war for independence, the Wild West, film noir, sixties psychedelia—and so humanity's imagined future often looks a lot like America's past.... ...writing and TV draws strongly on America's past. The problem is, we don't really have one. Pretty much all we have is the 'Opening of the West' (code for genocidal land grab) which happened between about 1780 - 1860. Only 80 years, yet everyone on the Earth gets 'Cowboys and Indians' drummed into them.

    I heard once that there were more cowboys portrayed on the Silver Screen than ever existed in history...

    1. Re:Actually, ALL American... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      The Westeren frontier was a much more complex place than you realize. The early settlers, who themselves represented a variety of recent immigrant cultures new to the US, encountered tribes with many different cultures of their own, including those with opposing values in conflict with each other. The first local settlers walked into a war between the invading Navajo and the agrarian Hopi, a conflict which moved through centuries of war into the American court system, and continues in muted form to this day.

    2. Re:Actually, ALL American... by lippydude · · Score: 1

      @ Applehu Akbar: "The first local settlers walked into a war between the invading Navajo and the agrarian Hopi, a conflict which moved through centuries of war into the American court system, and continues in muted form to this day."

      Massive Population Drop Found for Native Americans, DNA Shows

      "The number of Native Americans quickly shrank by roughly half following European contact about 500 years ago, according to a new genetic study.

      The finding supports historical accounts that Europeans triggered a wave of disease, warfare, and enslavement in the New World that had devastating effects for indigenous populations across the Americas
      ."

    3. Re:Actually, ALL American... by Smauler · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, far more Europeans have died because of disease (syphilis) due to contact with the Native Americans than the other way around.

  12. Re:Very insightful by blue+trane · · Score: 1

    China's present looks like America's past.

  13. Re:Very insightful by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are you saying that space somehow becomes less nutty if we envision a Chinese future in it? Since China has now become the world's great builder at the same time as US/Europe retreat from science, this scenario might well come to pass. Now we're talking about space nutters with budgets in the trillions, a government studded with engineers, not lawyers, and no anti-sciecnce hippies hobbling every project. You're going to want to negotiate a new long-term contract with your local bridge authority.

  14. China's Kolgore Trout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Wages of Humanity" and "taking care of gods" sound more like something Kilgore Trout would come up with.

  15. Re:Very insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would have to be. Your nation hasn't got a sustainable long term future . It is an an empire locked into self destruction.

  16. we got that here too by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    For example, in "The Wages of Humanity," visitors from space demand the redistribution of Earth's wealth, and explain that runaway capitalism almost destroyed their civilization. ... We hope that you will feel a sense of filial duty towards your creators and take us in

    We have plenty of writers, including scifi writers, that think that way too. Fortunately, it doesn't dominate our culture like it has dominated Chinese culture; misguided views like these are responsible for the long periods of stagnation and weakness that China has experienced.

    1. Re:we got that here too by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      So China stagnated because it redistributed knowledge about the compass and gunpowder?

    2. Re:we got that here too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, in "The Wages of Humanity," visitors from space demand the redistribution of Earth's wealth, and explain that runaway capitalism almost destroyed their civilization. ... We hope that you will feel a sense of filial duty towards your creators and take us in

      We have plenty of writers, including scifi writers, that think that way too. Fortunately, it doesn't dominate our culture like it has dominated Chinese culture; misguided views like these are responsible for the long periods of stagnation and weakness that China has experienced.

      I hope you mistakenly used the word "misguided" when describing another culture. If not, you sound like you're trying to claim moral or some other superiority over another culture, and that is truly misguided. China's "stagnation" was due to isolationist policies from having been invaded by countless others (Mongols, Japanese, Koreans, Huns, etc., etc., etc.) over thousands of years of their existence. Add to that a monarchial-fuedal system of government (oligarchy rife with corruption and internal power struggles)--that wasn't toppled until Mao and replace with an ideological dictatorship--and anyone with half a brain can see why they were held back from a Western developmental viewpoint. Just because a culture takes longer to meet your expectations doesn't mean it's stagnated or weak. Everyone has the right to progress at their pace and it's none of our business how they get to where they want to be. You and your society are NOT the arbiters of what is right and wrong in the world when it comes to cultural and economic development, and your arrogance will only come to bite you in the ass in the future; just ask the Romans!

    3. Re:we got that here too by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Basically, yes: China stagnated because it didn't take advantage of its knowledge and skills. And it didn't take advantage of it because there was little incentive to doing so for individuals: mandarins aren't rewarded for risk taking and innovation, they are rewarded for obedience.

  17. Re:Very insightful by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget state money creation on an unprecedented scale, and a high tolerance for non-performing loans.

  18. Cause of long periods of stagnation in China? by lippydude · · Score: 1

    @NostalgiaForInfinity: "misguided views like these are responsible for the long periods of stagnation and weakness that China has experienced."

    The Economic Importance of Indian Opium and Trade with China on Britain's Economy

    The First Opium War

    Sugar, opium and cotton

    1. Re:Cause of long periods of stagnation in China? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      I don't get your point. By the time Britain appeared as a world power, China had already missed its opportunities by many centuries.

  19. Re:Very insightful by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Why? China is becoming more and more like the USA every day. Remember "Animal Farm"? That's the endgame

  20. American Science Fiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clarke was a British Subject. He was not an American Science Fiction author anymore than the Beatles were an American band.

    Mebbe the author is confusing Dr. Clarke with Mr Heinlein or Dr. Asimov?

  21. Re:Very insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really? They invaded a continent and started killing the natives?

  22. Re:Very insightful by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Where do you see 'fear' or 'scaremongering' in my post? We're looking at a country that is about to do far more in space than "what we're doing with it now."

  23. Narratives Change by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or...if you have talked to any native Chinese in some depth you might realize that a lot of them actually have different values than Westerners about social responsibility and such. Far beyond what we are accustomed to with our emphasis on individuality, etc. Their system of government didn't develop in a vacuum and was certainly informed by their culture. So, I think you're right that your comment is a bit of a kneejerk response that assumes their authoritarian government has a hand in EVERYTHING.

    That said, I would also assume that if his books were promoting pro-capitalist or anti-government ideas they would have been censored immediately, so maybe we're missing all the "Westernized" Chinese sci-fi books because of this...

    This--very much this. Values, and as crucially *narratives*, are very much formed by the culture in which you grew up. If you've ever had a serious discussion with an intelligent politician, you'll learn that they understand the narratives they need to draw on to sell policy positions. Lawyers do a microcosm of that in jury arguments, where they try to put together a story that fits a comfortable narrative that the jury will believe, based on who the jury is and what they've experienced.

    The great thing about science fiction using another culture's narratives is that it does what science fiction does best--explores the human condition in a new way.

    Like reading Childhood's End after the Asimov robot novels (which are mostly more hopeful), seeing science fiction explored from a different cultural context can give us profoundly different insights.

    1. Re:Narratives Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've ever had a serious discussion with an intelligent politician,

      Now that would be great fiction!

  24. Re:Very insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We're looking at a country that is about to do far more in space than "what we're doing with it now."" ...with the Space Nutter subtext that "the species must get off this rock". Tell me, what is this "far more" you think the Chinese will magically achieve?

    We don't even have the Concorde anymore, but the Chinese have been hiding warp drives and transporters from us?

  25. arthur Cixin clarke by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    ok. i made that up. fiction.

  26. Re:Very insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's fine, history shows that many empires have come and gone, what made you think "this time it's forever"? Because we have computers?

    LOL you techno-nerds are soooo short-sighted and easily impressed!

  27. No Red Chinese "ideas" wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offensive to write about emulating or learning from Red Chinese communism. If you like it so much them make like Edward Snowdon and just defect.

  28. Time to modernize their power equipment by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    retained his day job as a computer engineer with a State-run power plant in a remote part of Shanxi province, because it helps him to stay grounded,...

    Ouch!

  29. Re:Very insightful by readin · · Score: 0

    Ok, so China's past looks like America's past.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  30. Re:Very insightful by readin · · Score: 1

    Your other narrative of fear and scare-mongering of the great Chinese space migration is as nutty as the fear of Japan taking over the world was in the 1980s.

    Sadly it is an open question whether China's present will become seen to more closely resembles Japan of the 1980s or Japan/Germany of the 1930s. Even if China does manage to maintain a somewhat peaceful course (which will be surprising given how they're threatening to annex territory from nearly all their neighbors and even threatening to completely annex Taiwan), a China that achieves the same level of prosperity as Japan won't be as weak as Japan. Japan peaked with a per capita GDP slightly larger than America's giving it an economy about half the size of America's (because Japan has roughly half as many people). China on the other hand has 4 times as many people as America. If China reaches per capita GDP parity, it will have an economy 4 times as large as America's, and larger than America Europe and Japan combined. They'll get their way. While America too often live up to its ideals, China doesn't even have similar ideals.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  31. Re:Very insightful by readin · · Score: 2

    Under our current leadership America is becoming more and more like China everyday.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  32. Groan by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    At least western sci-fi writers make a little effort to conceal their socialistic beliefs.

  33. Re:Very insightful by DrJimbo · · Score: 2

    The distance to Mars is the same in English or Mandarin.

    Sure. Tell that to the people who caused the Mars Climate Orbiter to disintegrate in the Martian atmosphere. They are now painfully aware of the fact that the distance to Mars depends on the locale being used.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  34. Please read the book before commenting by renzhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's unfortunate that a good sci-fi book and a good hard sci-fi writer appears on Slashdot, and the discussion turns around PRC propaganda, anti-Chinese sentiment, bad communism, eviltotalitarian government, etc, etc, just because the author is from China? You might want to read the book first before commenting, you might be surprised. It might even open your eyes to a whole new world from your stereotypical veil.

    A couple of people here had already read the book, and given a pretty insightful comment, kudo to them. I read the whole series, in Chinese, last year, in one week, and I couldn't give a better comment.

    The Three Body Problem is a serie of 3 books, involving science, philosophy, religion, world conflict, environment, culture, love, etc. If you like the Clarke's Space Odessey and the Rama series, and the Asimov's Foundation series, and the Herbert's Dune series, you would like these books as well. The books leave you with a lot of issues to ponder upon, from a humanity, as a whole, perspective. Theses issues are not specific to one people or one culture.

    Please put down your stereotypical glasses and forget for a moment that the author is Chinese, and read the book just like you would do any other book. You might enjoy it a lot more.

    1. Re:Please read the book before commenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the summary. It immediately decided to talk about "For example, in The Wages of Humanity, visitors from space demand the redistribution of Earth's wealth, and explain that runaway capitalism almost destroyed their civilization." From that example, it sounds pretty typical of American fiction as well. It could have opened with "filial piety" instead.

      One of the things that I *like* about written science fiction is that many of the leading lights weren't economic liberals like so many visual productions. David Weber writes about a society where a constitutional prohibition against income taxes is actually, you know, followed. Heinlein tends to libertarian anarchy. H. Beam Piper was a Texan individualist. John Ringo's a Reagan Republican.

      Compare that with visual science fiction. Star Trek is a socialist utopia. The typical movie talks about humanity being self-destructive. In the new Man Who Fell to Earth, aliens are going to take our planet because we aren't taking proper care of it.

    2. Re:Please read the book before commenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, this is Slashdot 'News for racists. Stuff that is fodder for racist rants.'

    3. Re:Please read the book before commenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > It's unfortunate that a good sci-fi book and a good hard sci-fi writer appears on Slashdot, and the discussion turns around PRC propaganda,

      I think you can blame that on the summary, written by Hugh Pickens. He really emphasized the stereotypes, much more so than TFA itself. Almost like he was deliberately trying to make the books seem unappealing to a western audience. Pretty odd.

  35. Re:Very insightful by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Chinese have been hiding warp drives and transporters from us?

    That's easy fro them to do with their cloaking device

  36. Language by PPalmgren · · Score: 2

    One concern, do you think the significant differences in the language will cause the translation to miss the mark? I see other people enjoyed it, but I think you're in the perfect position to evaluate how the translation effects the book's delivery, given you initially read it in Chinese. Of course, this would require you to read it in English, so no worries if you don't have an English copy available.

  37. Re:Very insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No , I quite understand nothing lasts forever but here the difference is you are driving the bus over the the edge knowing you are going to crash but unwilling to lift your foot off the gas.

  38. Re:Very insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America didn't invade the continents, Britain, Spain, Portugal, and France already did that. America just finished the genocide.

  39. runaway by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    "runaway capitalism almost destroyed civilization" So, not much different from the Keanu Reeves remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still?

  40. Re:Very insightful by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    "Are you saying that space somehow becomes less nutty if we envision a Chinese future in it? "

    Yup

    Take a good hard look at Heinlein's science fiction since the 1960s. The USA is a minor entity in most of the books because he could see the way the country was heading. He's not the only author who noticed that western powers were generally more interested in their own navels than what was going on elsewhere.

    The next human voice on the moon is highly likely to be chinese.

    The ones after that may well be indian, although the latter's current focus for their space program is firmly looking "down", diversions to luna and mars notwithstanding.

  41. Re:Very insightful by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    Actually no. The chinese leadership care far more about the people than "companies" and "money".

    Even though their version of "following the will of the people and the good of the country" isn't close to what anyone would term "democracy", it's clear that many US politicians don't care about what's good for either as long as they line their own pockets along with those of their cronies.

  42. Do we gotta learn chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or is there a tlansration available?

  43. ignroing upperBound()... Re:Not at all surprising by Fubari · · Score: 1
    Your "for instance" skips the upper bound each "theory" places on an individual's ability to earn.
    It is possible the following equation is true:
    Marxism.upperBound() <= tehcyder.desireToEarn() < Capitalism.upperBound()

    Or maybe this equation is true if one is super-minimalist and has no material desires beyond air, food & water...

    tehcyder.desireToEarn() <= Marxism.upperBound() < Capitalism.upperBound()

    In other words, under Marxism no matter how much you might want to work to get a "better something", it doesn't matter because you can't earn beyond the Marxist upper bound of 'everybody is equal' or however resources are doled out.

    Identifying other limits on an individual's "ability to earn" are left as an exercise to the reader.
    Just as an aside, it isn't clear to me if there is a lower bound for desireToEarn() in Marxism.
    (p.s Intrepid Imaginaut, well phrased!)

    Marxism and all of its derivations are inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources....

    No, you're wrong, because most people don't really care about economic competition or maximising their goods past a certain level.

    For instance, if I was really desperate for a more expensive car or house than I have now, by your reasoning I would be working at another job in addition to my main one, as I could be buying twice the stuff.

    Whereas, in reality, I would rather spend those eight hours a day enjoying myself by reading a book or having a drink, as my current job provides more than enough to live on. Now, I could decide that I want to drink only vintage wines at GBP 1,000 a bottle, or only read first editions at GBP 10,000. But in reality, I am happy drinking something for a fiver from Lidls and reading a couple of paperbacks or Kindle downloads a week.