The problem isn't that we find ways to do things without people it's that we're starting to run out of ideas about what people should do instead.
That's the interesting point -- will we ever reach a threshold where we say, "great! another boring job has been replaced! that's one less person that needs to work." Or will that sense never change so long as profit is based off the ownership of the company?
I'm not sure he used the term "outlier" purposefully, but it is telling in our era of data-driven everything. We will always have middle-of-the-curve people if we live only by data-driven metrics. It will allow us to make safe decisions, but it sure seems to be a waste of human resources.
I'll have to look up some of those phrases so that I can see how well they apply. I do try to make as many associations as I can. And I try to imagine how else I might use the information so that I can also think about how it might be referenced. But a lot of my life is working through configurations of associations until one triggers a memory (or I simply conclude that it is the most reasonable conclusion even if it didn't trigger a memory.)
I lost my memory in 2003. I couldn't escape the references to Momento for years. But I had to look up who Christopher Nolan was to confirm my suspicion.:)
I like to follow these types of stories. I lost all of my memory one morning when I was 19. The cause isn't clear. I was in an underdeveloped country at the time, so the medical facilities didn't exist to determine what had happened. (It might have been a delayed effect of a car accident I was in two years earlier.) It's also probably important to note that my ability to form new memories was also severely impeded.
I wonder a little bit about what "moving" a memory means. At least in my amateur study, memories aren't complete entities (like a file, database, etc). They are mixes of memories, the awareness of what has occurred, and associations, our integration of what we already know with what we are remembering. That's part of the reason people can have such differing memories of a shared experience. Some of that is about how memories are retrieved. In my study and experience, they are retrieved by these associations we make. That's why memory tricks involve making varied associations -- to song, to a mental or physical image, etc. For people who haven't learned those tricks, an association can be as simple as "I remember we met in a bar..." then the rest of the picture is pieced together.
I wonder sometimes if my having to learn different ways of "remembering" things will allow me to maintain a higher level of memory functioning into my elder years. I have to be very aware and purposeful about what I remember. I was in college when I lost my memory, so I had to learn very quickly how to perform in school without being able to learn in the conventional sense (I could not remember the beginning of a semester by the time it ended). So I focused much more on the integration of memories into my existing awareness (aka forming associations between new experiences and prior knowledge.) I still have a very poor memory retrieval in the classic sense, but I can still learn lessons well. It has just required a much higher level of sentience with regards to how memories are stored and what I hope to gain from a memory in the long term.
Yes, but in court you have to provide evidence. And you can refute that evidence. So it becomes rational. Groupthink is not rational. And very very dangerous. And you can't remove the 100 people who are outliers (people who would be taken off a jury because they are prejudiced). Those might be the people who use the information to harass someone they don't like.
For instance, what if a group decided to "out" all the gay people in a town? They'd start their investigations and post the names online. That's wrong in and of itself. But an outlier might then decide to use that information for violence.
It isn't about gutting the current economy. It's about providing incentive structures for developing green technology.
Businesses don't develop new methods and technologies unless they have a reason to. Sometimes that reason is that an entrepreneur saw that the future would be different and had a product that would advance us towards that new paradigm.
Sometimes external factors, usually the government, create such incentives. For instance, look how much technology has been developed for military purposes. All of those were provided by the government.
And the government can provide non-war incentives. Like carbon credits. That proposal has been the green-technology version of micro-loans, a private-sector way to assist a public-sector problem. Make it make sense to find ways to lower emission so you can sell your credits to another company and businesses will find ways.
The GP said that China has become a leader in green technology. It has because the government realizes (all too well) that it can't keep down the same path forever. For many, standards of living have increased to the point where the cost of living can no longer be met by low-level factory jobs. Those jobs are moving to Vietnam and elsewhere. So China has focused on higher-level jobs.
In the same way, it's realized that its water pollution and other problems like that can only be ignored so long. That they will slap them in the face (like pollution during the Olympics almost did) if they don't start addressing it. The big question will be, as the GP suggested, whether we (US), or other countries that eventually provide green incentives, will be buying Chinese technology and hiring Chinese contractors to pursue such incentives or if we will be on the cutting edge enough to use our own resources. The longer we wait to "jump on the bandwagon," the more likely that scenario is.
Though the Chinese government has its faults, I don't think your statement, "a nation's Government is the single largest institution that decides its prosperity," disqualifies China from continuing its rise. The government is very aware of what will allow China's continued economics rise. This can be seen with some of the long-term partnerships China has developed with countries around the world. It is slowly learning how to implement a civil society without ensuring its own destruction.
But I disagree with your statement more generally, too. As ElectricTurtle said, East Asia, especially China, was on top of the world for about a millennium. And they didn't do it under a democracy. They did it because China has the world's oldest tradition of a meritocracy. Since Confucius, the way you made it up in the world was through passing an exam. That's why China has been able to rise so quickly -- the people value education, and are willing to sacrifice everything so that their children might have more.
I wanted to add one more example to ElectricTurtle's list. China had ships that could carry 15x the tonnage as Christopher Columbus' ships almost a century before he "discovered" America. And they were much harder to sink because they had separate compartments around the base of the ship. If one was punctured and flooded, they could keep sailing. Why didn't they become the great explorers then? Two reasons. One, China was the center of the world and so they weren't so interested in exploring. And two, the internal culture just happened to become xenophobic just as Zhenghe's (the admiral of the ships described above) era of exploration was coming to an end. (And, under the next dynasty, run by the Mongols, there was an effort to appease the Chinese by sticking to their traditions. This impeded progress. Sort of like if the U.S. all became Amish.)
To further cast doubt on the manifest destiny that "inevitably" lead to Europe's rise, consider this. The Europeans were brutal to those they colonized. They demanded submission and subservience. During Zhenghe's day, the Chinese didn't. They created trade pacts, but let the people be. So what might have happened if the wheels of development had been a little more favorably aligned for the Chinese (and all other non-Europeans?) What if Zhenghe had been alive at the time of Columbus? Do you think the people of the world would have rather dealt with the European colonizers or partnered with the must more respectful Chinese?
Since reading (and disagreeing with) Walter Issacson's Time magazine article on this topic (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1877191,00.html), I have spent a good amount of time thinking about the topic. I think that a pay-per-read system could work if managed better than I expect it would be. I think it would require an agreement among major content providers to use the same micro-payment system, sort of like OpenID. It would have to have zero monthly/basic payment/deposit. And the rate for articles would have to be flat (and low), like 1-5 cents and article. Finally, I think think they would have to only charge your card after you had accumulated some amount of charges (like $5-$10) so you wouldn't have to have money deposited in the account.
Now, the problems. For one, it's hard to take away what people have been used to. Two, there isn't much of a value for "real" news, so most would probably happily find their "journalism" elsewhere. And three, no major reporting service could opt out (in hopes of getting all the viewers who bail on the newspapers that implement this), which would make orchestrating it especially difficult.
Personally, I think newspapers might have to adopt an endowment method. Or a private/public endowment/fund. There also probably has to be more discussion on what "real" journalists can provide that is unique so they can focus on that and spend less money on the "common" news (like who one the Oscars or following the inauguration. There will be little difference between what AP/ NYT/ WP/ WSJ, etc say about those events.)
Replace memorization with wisdom and intelligence.
Couldn't agree with you more. I lost my memory, and most of my ability to form new memories, when I was 19. (Woke up one morning and couldn't recognize my family. Learned at the end of my first post-amnesia semester that I had no memory of the begging of the semester.)
People wonder how I still managed to graduate with honors and succeed at work. I tell them that I stopped trying to memorize things and instead worked to understand them. As a friend of mine once said, "so I guess you're an interpreter. I'm a compiler."
So be an interpreter. Hone those equations you've (probably) developed subconsciously (and make them conscious.) Take lots of notes. Organize things systematically. (It's fun trying to find things from the past; it's like being a detective all the time.) When dealing with data, get it, process it, take action, and move on. Then you don't have to worry about remembering all of it -- you've gotten everything you need from it. Learn to be a better writer and to communicate ideas. (I've become a much better writer since losing my memory. Everything I write has to be for the third person: myself, when I read it again.) Oh, and on a personal note, take photos. (It's nice to learn over and over that I've been all over the world.)
The trouble with studies like this is that they tell us we can justify our own stupidity. Sure, go ahead, but you'll face the consequences.
I think you raised a very important point here. People seem to be willing to do anything to find an excuse for what they do, even if that means thinking less of themselves and of their ability. "Well, I'm only human!" "That's just how guys are, we like sex." "I know it's stupid, but everybody does it." "It's survival of the fittest, bee-atch!"
The odd thing is that we still (esp. in the US) stick to the "self determined" ideal, even when we seem to ready to use nature/instinct as a reason/excuse.
Good thing he wasn't in California... (Though he might not known of any details before hand.)
I wasn't being clear though. I meant "approve of it" in a broader sense. It isn't illegal for people to approve of segregation or the acts of the KKK. It might be disgusting, but it isn't illegal.
Bin Laden did not come up with the idea of 9/11, mastermind it, organize it, or probably even fund it. He did, apparently, approve of it though beforehand and take credit for it elsewhere afterwards.
Disclaimer: IAAIA (I am an Intelligence Analyst)
The thing is, it's illegal to come up with the idea, mastermind it, organize it, or fund it. It isn't illegal to approve of it or take credit for it.
4. Why are 80 percent of touch screen phones marketed in Asia? Why aren't the touch screens being created for the Asian market showing up here? I find it hard to believe that ease of displaying Asian fonts is the only reason. Is there some lack of American infrastructure? Lack of interest from American consumers?
It isn't the ability to display the "Asian fonts," it's the ability to input Asian characters. That requires a stylus, a sensitive enough screen to capture the strokes of a character, and the software (handwriting recognition) to accurately interpret that input. Polishing that is not rocket science, but it requires focus and attention. And it probably requires a player that isn't set in the "release in america, then elsewhere" model.
Yes, but poly-choice-ural cultures are very susceptible to unhappiness. As the Paradox of Choice illustrates very well, if we have too many choices then we are usually dissatisfied with whichever we settle for. (That is, unless the "best" choice is clear.)
I like your ideal. I just think you need to understand that countries don't magically go into the world of the ideal. I hope that someday China has the conditions you want. I just want to help China actually get there instead of hold radical beliefs that just antagonize the situation.
btw, the analogy in the U.S. is "if so many people agree with restricting drug trade, why do you need those restrictions? can't they all just not engage in the drug trade?"
I will answer your question about who likes china by answering your question about why I attribute the successes of China to its government. One simple example: before the Communist government, the literacy rate in China was about 20%. Today, it is about 90%. Could China be the power it is in so many industries if it had a 20% literacy rate? No. Could a non-CCP government have done the same? Absolutely. Were there any other governments in China willing to do it? No. The Nationalists certainly didn't bother. They were made up by the upper class and only cared about the upper class.
So why do people like China, the government? Because otherwise, China wouldn't be a hell hole. It would be unstable, impossible to develop and invest in, and little more than a burden for the rest of the world.
We seem to agree on the risks of China easing its grip. You see its losing power as a good thing and inevitable. I would rather have the transition happen gracefully so that China can maintain its strength and stability through it. Some former Soviet states made the transition reasonably well. Some didn't. China is trying to learn the lessons of those who did and mimic them.
To touch on your partner comment -- I do think people would rather have China as a partner, even if it isn't going to give you all the documentation you want. For one, that's how countries run. You don't get to read the memos of how one trade department official wants to use the trade relationship that is being discussed. All you can know is what the trade agreement says -- that's true no matter where you are. The difference isn't one of openness, it is one of fairness. China is more willing to make a fair trade. America makes demands that a lot of people see as patronizing. To put the question back to you, would you rather sign an agreement with a partner who demands that you change and first do x, y, and z before they're willing to talk to you, or a partner who is willing to accept you for who you are?
I'm not a victim. But I know that people who don't have security have no freedom. If you don't have parents/friends who can help you if a new career fails, then you don't have the freedom to try a new career. And it isn't about the state handing it to you, it's about circumstances granting it to you. If you don't have a job, you don't have much freedom except to keep looking for a new job. If you're scared to walk down the street because of crime, then you don't have freedom. Name a single country/society where freedom came first. I can't think of one.
I am glad that you think you're so empathetic that you can understand what others would want. That girl could use some rescuing. Just as blacks in America could use it 45 years ago. Or openly muslim people could use it after 2001. Or "excessively" anti-american people could use it today. Could someone in China be shot for what he wrote? Yes. What's the chance of it happening? 1%. People in China don't live in perpetual fear. That's because most people are like the Afghan peasant -- they live hard lives, but nothing they do ruffles any feathers. For the 0.1% that does ruffle fears, they live in unfortunate circumstances. But I'd rather have them live fearfully than have the China that the Guomingdang ran -- one where 80% of the people were illiterate and hundreds of millions of people had no chance for advancement in life. Why? Because that situation isn't going to change. China's situation today will change. It has changed. It is changing. And it will continue to change. It's unfortunate that change takes time, but that's life.
The Chinese people don't feel enslaved. You might think they are. But try to use some of that empathy of yours. I happen to think Americans are enslaved. They're raised to fear strangers, domestically and abroad. They're raised so individualistically that they can't depend on anyone, so they live in economic and emotional fear. America has the world's second highest level of depression. They need to be liberated. But, having now lived here a few years, I understand that you can't change American culture over night. If you really care about those people, you'll find a way to slowly work towards a better life. Otherwise, you'll take them from one less than perfect reality and replace it with one that is even worse.
I don't know where you've lived in the world. I've lived in Guatemala during its conflicts in the 80s, in Taiwan and China for almost a decade in the 90s, in Turkmenistan after that and briefly in Israel and Nigeria. China is the place I'd prefer to live of those places. There is much more discussion and open-mindedness in China about where they are headed than there is in the U.S. or in Israel. Turkmenistan was autocratic, something China is not. Nigeria had such corruption that there were few opportunities for those who weren't in the right circles. And in Guatemala, at least at the time, there was no freedom because you had to fear for your life. Is China a perfect country? no. But Guatemala and Nigeria are both freer, but not countries where I would ever want to live. In Israel, and to the lesser extent in the U.S., the people are much more narrow minded and defensive. So, though they are freer, I'd rather live in China. Turkmenistan had some wonderful people, but no opportunity and a truly dictatorial government. So China isn't perfect, but it's no where near the bottom of the list. And it is nothing like East Germany or the former Soviet States (and is nothing like what it was like during that era.)
The stability of the Chinese government and the stability of the economy, etc for the Chinese people. If you were worried about anarchy, would you rather be free or have a strong government?
As for Tibet -- it doesn't have more friends than China. Most of the world loves China. They have a population that works hard, they aren't demanding, and they've managed development much better than most countries have.
As for Taiwan -- most do. That's why the Guomingdang is back in power. Chenshuibian was too antagonistic, and the people didn't like that.
The USSR is a good example. How did "we" dismantle it? We waited it out. Eventually, it changed from the inside. Vietnam didn't cause it. Nothing else caused it. You have to let things run their course. China's development is one of those things. (And the USSR has a much less sustainable economic model than China has, so don't hold your breath.)
And I don't understand what you mean by "those who change their roles" will survive and those that don't won't. What countries exemplify that? I'd argue that China, Brazil, Turkey, and India are doing a phenomenal job of changing their roles. They're becoming partners with people in the world. True partners, not patronizing partners as the U.S. usually is. That is what I'd say is ensuring the downfall of American preeminence. But I'd like to hear your "changing roles" theory development more.
And it does matter "in the slightest." Why does it matter? Because China says it matters. They have power, so you have to care about what they think matters. The same way kids have to care what their parents want and employees have to care what their bosses want.
What does "what we carve up" mean? Who is going to do the carving? And why does S Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Tibet deserve any part of China? In life people win and lose. Should the U.S. give back all of its land to the American Indians? When do we say "this is when the period of legitimate states was?" Or is it just about ethnic populations? Should Normandy be its own country? Should China be 56 countries, one for each ethnic group? Should all of Latin America and South America be split into latino and native countries? When do you decide that a claim to an ethnicity is legitimate? Should Black America have a country? Latino-America? Chinese-American? Irish-American? Swedish-American? Different religious denominations? We'd have a world with 1000 countries. Nice plan.
I accidentally closed the tab before I pressed submit. In summary:
China wants to reserve the power to do what it needs to do to maintain stability. It doesn't plan to do anything to Taiwan -- it's reputation matters much more than anything Taiwan would give it. But it doesn't want to look like it's weak on domestic issues, just in case Tibet and Xinjiang took that as a queue. Why does China want Tibet and Xinjiang? Because it maintains their concept of China and because it gives them lots of space between them and any potential enemy to the west.
What will happen in the end? Tibet will be given more autonomy, ala Hong Kong. But that's only after China has brokered some deal with the Dalai Lama and no longer worries about it declaring independence. Once China has no domestic worries, it will stop antagonizing Taiwan.
Why does it censor the internet? So it can control people who might cause instability, just like the U.S. infiltrated civil rights groups and the Black Panthers.
China will lighten up as stability ensues. But it will still require fighting to get power for some of these groups in China. No one gives up power easily... but they especially don't when they're threatened. Look at McCarthy America.
Wow. You have some serious passions. I can't say I agree with many of them. I'm a big fan of stability. For the sake of the people, not the state. The Chinese peoples' lives just keeps getting better and better. A war to "liberate" them would probably mean 100 million dead, maybe more. The Communist government in China has made many mistakes. But I'm very glad China got them and not the Guomingdang. They had no concern for the poor people. Want to talk about illegitimate? Look at how they treated the natives in Taiwan. They were a dictatorship until 1988 and only recently had a non-Guomingdang leader. The Communists brought up literacy, employment, etc. If you think that having a free government is more important to people than being able to read or eat then you're living in a different world than me. Freedom is the final product of social and political maturity, not the first step. That's why American freedoms have continued to be secured. And why it took 200 years in America (before the revolution) to define an American concept of government/liberty/whatever.
Also, I'm a pragmatist. You can have all the wishes in the world, but if you aren't willing to deal with reality to achieve them, then you never will and a lot of people will suffer as you attempt to. China is a political entity. We finally conceded to that in the 70s. You can't delegitimize it. Not matter what you think of it, it still exists.
You talk about Taiwan, that they should be free to be hostile to China. That's another political reality that people just need to accept. It's the same reason people still deal with America after Iraq. No matter how much you dislike it, America is still a super power and you have to find a way to get along. It sucks, but it's a reality. Is there a bar where you should no longer accommodate it? Yes. But I don't think China is anywhere near that. You obviously do.
I'm sorry if you were unable to understand me. I was making it clear that the term "only" was used within a defined scope. I made that clear because you seemed to think the scope was larger than it was. It's like saying, "the apartments are about the same size. The only difference is the layout." Oh, is that the ONLY difference? I'd imagine that they're in different locations, that they have different views, and that they are on different floors." No, of course it isn't the only difference. But since the scope had been limited to floor plans and square footage, it was okay to use the word "only."
And, by the way, my sentence makes sense, even if it isn't the most elegant sentence in the history of writing. The last few words are redundant. "But the distinction I was making was when detailing the difference between ignorant people in China and in the United States" probably would have sufficed. But I wanted to make it clear that the scope was limited to the ignorant people in the two countries.
Now that we've clarified that, would you like to respond to the rest of my post?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. http://247wallst.com/special-r...
States with teachers unions have, on average, better schools. So unions don't seem to be killing schools. So what's wrong with them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The problem isn't that we find ways to do things without people it's that we're starting to run out of ideas about what people should do instead.
That's the interesting point -- will we ever reach a threshold where we say, "great! another boring job has been replaced! that's one less person that needs to work." Or will that sense never change so long as profit is based off the ownership of the company?
I'm not sure he used the term "outlier" purposefully, but it is telling in our era of data-driven everything. We will always have middle-of-the-curve people if we live only by data-driven metrics. It will allow us to make safe decisions, but it sure seems to be a waste of human resources.
I'll have to look up some of those phrases so that I can see how well they apply. I do try to make as many associations as I can. And I try to imagine how else I might use the information so that I can also think about how it might be referenced. But a lot of my life is working through configurations of associations until one triggers a memory (or I simply conclude that it is the most reasonable conclusion even if it didn't trigger a memory.)
I lost my memory in 2003. I couldn't escape the references to Momento for years. But I had to look up who Christopher Nolan was to confirm my suspicion. :)
I like to follow these types of stories. I lost all of my memory one morning when I was 19. The cause isn't clear. I was in an underdeveloped country at the time, so the medical facilities didn't exist to determine what had happened. (It might have been a delayed effect of a car accident I was in two years earlier.) It's also probably important to note that my ability to form new memories was also severely impeded.
I wonder a little bit about what "moving" a memory means. At least in my amateur study, memories aren't complete entities (like a file, database, etc). They are mixes of memories, the awareness of what has occurred, and associations, our integration of what we already know with what we are remembering. That's part of the reason people can have such differing memories of a shared experience. Some of that is about how memories are retrieved. In my study and experience, they are retrieved by these associations we make. That's why memory tricks involve making varied associations -- to song, to a mental or physical image, etc. For people who haven't learned those tricks, an association can be as simple as "I remember we met in a bar..." then the rest of the picture is pieced together.
I wonder sometimes if my having to learn different ways of "remembering" things will allow me to maintain a higher level of memory functioning into my elder years. I have to be very aware and purposeful about what I remember. I was in college when I lost my memory, so I had to learn very quickly how to perform in school without being able to learn in the conventional sense (I could not remember the beginning of a semester by the time it ended). So I focused much more on the integration of memories into my existing awareness (aka forming associations between new experiences and prior knowledge.) I still have a very poor memory retrieval in the classic sense, but I can still learn lessons well. It has just required a much higher level of sentience with regards to how memories are stored and what I hope to gain from a memory in the long term.
Yes, but in court you have to provide evidence. And you can refute that evidence. So it becomes rational. Groupthink is not rational. And very very dangerous. And you can't remove the 100 people who are outliers (people who would be taken off a jury because they are prejudiced). Those might be the people who use the information to harass someone they don't like.
For instance, what if a group decided to "out" all the gay people in a town? They'd start their investigations and post the names online. That's wrong in and of itself. But an outlier might then decide to use that information for violence.
And that's why we have a judicial system.
It isn't about gutting the current economy. It's about providing incentive structures for developing green technology.
Businesses don't develop new methods and technologies unless they have a reason to. Sometimes that reason is that an entrepreneur saw that the future would be different and had a product that would advance us towards that new paradigm.
Sometimes external factors, usually the government, create such incentives. For instance, look how much technology has been developed for military purposes. All of those were provided by the government.
And the government can provide non-war incentives. Like carbon credits. That proposal has been the green-technology version of micro-loans, a private-sector way to assist a public-sector problem. Make it make sense to find ways to lower emission so you can sell your credits to another company and businesses will find ways.
The GP said that China has become a leader in green technology. It has because the government realizes (all too well) that it can't keep down the same path forever. For many, standards of living have increased to the point where the cost of living can no longer be met by low-level factory jobs. Those jobs are moving to Vietnam and elsewhere. So China has focused on higher-level jobs.
In the same way, it's realized that its water pollution and other problems like that can only be ignored so long. That they will slap them in the face (like pollution during the Olympics almost did) if they don't start addressing it. The big question will be, as the GP suggested, whether we (US), or other countries that eventually provide green incentives, will be buying Chinese technology and hiring Chinese contractors to pursue such incentives or if we will be on the cutting edge enough to use our own resources. The longer we wait to "jump on the bandwagon," the more likely that scenario is.
Though the Chinese government has its faults, I don't think your statement, "a nation's Government is the single largest institution that decides its prosperity," disqualifies China from continuing its rise. The government is very aware of what will allow China's continued economics rise. This can be seen with some of the long-term partnerships China has developed with countries around the world. It is slowly learning how to implement a civil society without ensuring its own destruction.
But I disagree with your statement more generally, too. As ElectricTurtle said, East Asia, especially China, was on top of the world for about a millennium. And they didn't do it under a democracy. They did it because China has the world's oldest tradition of a meritocracy. Since Confucius, the way you made it up in the world was through passing an exam. That's why China has been able to rise so quickly -- the people value education, and are willing to sacrifice everything so that their children might have more.
I wanted to add one more example to ElectricTurtle's list. China had ships that could carry 15x the tonnage as Christopher Columbus' ships almost a century before he "discovered" America. And they were much harder to sink because they had separate compartments around the base of the ship. If one was punctured and flooded, they could keep sailing. Why didn't they become the great explorers then? Two reasons. One, China was the center of the world and so they weren't so interested in exploring. And two, the internal culture just happened to become xenophobic just as Zhenghe's (the admiral of the ships described above) era of exploration was coming to an end. (And, under the next dynasty, run by the Mongols, there was an effort to appease the Chinese by sticking to their traditions. This impeded progress. Sort of like if the U.S. all became Amish.)
To further cast doubt on the manifest destiny that "inevitably" lead to Europe's rise, consider this. The Europeans were brutal to those they colonized. They demanded submission and subservience. During Zhenghe's day, the Chinese didn't. They created trade pacts, but let the people be. So what might have happened if the wheels of development had been a little more favorably aligned for the Chinese (and all other non-Europeans?) What if Zhenghe had been alive at the time of Columbus? Do you think the people of the world would have rather dealt with the European colonizers or partnered with the must more respectful Chinese?
Note: a fun model comparing Zhenghe's treasure ships to Columbus'. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Zheng_He's_ship_compared_to_Columbus's.JPG.jpg/800px-Zheng_He's_ship_compared_to_Columbus's.JPG.jpg
Since reading (and disagreeing with) Walter Issacson's Time magazine article on this topic (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1877191,00.html), I have spent a good amount of time thinking about the topic. I think that a pay-per-read system could work if managed better than I expect it would be. I think it would require an agreement among major content providers to use the same micro-payment system, sort of like OpenID. It would have to have zero monthly/basic payment/deposit. And the rate for articles would have to be flat (and low), like 1-5 cents and article. Finally, I think think they would have to only charge your card after you had accumulated some amount of charges (like $5-$10) so you wouldn't have to have money deposited in the account.
Now, the problems. For one, it's hard to take away what people have been used to. Two, there isn't much of a value for "real" news, so most would probably happily find their "journalism" elsewhere. And three, no major reporting service could opt out (in hopes of getting all the viewers who bail on the newspapers that implement this), which would make orchestrating it especially difficult.
Personally, I think newspapers might have to adopt an endowment method. Or a private/public endowment/fund. There also probably has to be more discussion on what "real" journalists can provide that is unique so they can focus on that and spend less money on the "common" news (like who one the Oscars or following the inauguration. There will be little difference between what AP/ NYT/ WP/ WSJ, etc say about those events.)
We should start a amnesiac's club. I'm looking at taskfreak now. Glad it's GTD-based.
Replace memorization with wisdom and intelligence.
Couldn't agree with you more. I lost my memory, and most of my ability to form new memories, when I was 19. (Woke up one morning and couldn't recognize my family. Learned at the end of my first post-amnesia semester that I had no memory of the begging of the semester.)
People wonder how I still managed to graduate with honors and succeed at work. I tell them that I stopped trying to memorize things and instead worked to understand them. As a friend of mine once said, "so I guess you're an interpreter. I'm a compiler."
So be an interpreter. Hone those equations you've (probably) developed subconsciously (and make them conscious.) Take lots of notes. Organize things systematically. (It's fun trying to find things from the past; it's like being a detective all the time.) When dealing with data, get it, process it, take action, and move on. Then you don't have to worry about remembering all of it -- you've gotten everything you need from it. Learn to be a better writer and to communicate ideas. (I've become a much better writer since losing my memory. Everything I write has to be for the third person: myself, when I read it again.) Oh, and on a personal note, take photos. (It's nice to learn over and over that I've been all over the world.)
The trouble with studies like this is that they tell us we can justify our own stupidity. Sure, go ahead, but you'll face the consequences.
I think you raised a very important point here. People seem to be willing to do anything to find an excuse for what they do, even if that means thinking less of themselves and of their ability. "Well, I'm only human!" "That's just how guys are, we like sex." "I know it's stupid, but everybody does it." "It's survival of the fittest, bee-atch!"
The odd thing is that we still (esp. in the US) stick to the "self determined" ideal, even when we seem to ready to use nature/instinct as a reason/excuse.
Good thing he wasn't in California... (Though he might not known of any details before hand.)
I wasn't being clear though. I meant "approve of it" in a broader sense. It isn't illegal for people to approve of segregation or the acts of the KKK. It might be disgusting, but it isn't illegal.
Bin Laden did not come up with the idea of 9/11, mastermind it, organize it, or probably even fund it. He did, apparently, approve of it though beforehand and take credit for it elsewhere afterwards.
Disclaimer: IAAIA (I am an Intelligence Analyst)
The thing is, it's illegal to come up with the idea, mastermind it, organize it, or fund it. It isn't illegal to approve of it or take credit for it.
4. Why are 80 percent of touch screen phones marketed in Asia? Why aren't the touch screens being created for the Asian market showing up here? I find it hard to believe that ease of displaying Asian fonts is the only reason. Is there some lack of American infrastructure? Lack of interest from American consumers?
It isn't the ability to display the "Asian fonts," it's the ability to input Asian characters. That requires a stylus, a sensitive enough screen to capture the strokes of a character, and the software (handwriting recognition) to accurately interpret that input. Polishing that is not rocket science, but it requires focus and attention. And it probably requires a player that isn't set in the "release in america, then elsewhere" model.
Yes, but poly-choice-ural cultures are very susceptible to unhappiness. As the Paradox of Choice illustrates very well, if we have too many choices then we are usually dissatisfied with whichever we settle for. (That is, unless the "best" choice is clear.)
I like your ideal. I just think you need to understand that countries don't magically go into the world of the ideal. I hope that someday China has the conditions you want. I just want to help China actually get there instead of hold radical beliefs that just antagonize the situation.
btw, the analogy in the U.S. is "if so many people agree with restricting drug trade, why do you need those restrictions? can't they all just not engage in the drug trade?"
I will answer your question about who likes china by answering your question about why I attribute the successes of China to its government. One simple example: before the Communist government, the literacy rate in China was about 20%. Today, it is about 90%. Could China be the power it is in so many industries if it had a 20% literacy rate? No. Could a non-CCP government have done the same? Absolutely. Were there any other governments in China willing to do it? No. The Nationalists certainly didn't bother. They were made up by the upper class and only cared about the upper class.
So why do people like China, the government? Because otherwise, China wouldn't be a hell hole. It would be unstable, impossible to develop and invest in, and little more than a burden for the rest of the world.
We seem to agree on the risks of China easing its grip. You see its losing power as a good thing and inevitable. I would rather have the transition happen gracefully so that China can maintain its strength and stability through it. Some former Soviet states made the transition reasonably well. Some didn't. China is trying to learn the lessons of those who did and mimic them.
To touch on your partner comment -- I do think people would rather have China as a partner, even if it isn't going to give you all the documentation you want. For one, that's how countries run. You don't get to read the memos of how one trade department official wants to use the trade relationship that is being discussed. All you can know is what the trade agreement says -- that's true no matter where you are. The difference isn't one of openness, it is one of fairness. China is more willing to make a fair trade. America makes demands that a lot of people see as patronizing. To put the question back to you, would you rather sign an agreement with a partner who demands that you change and first do x, y, and z before they're willing to talk to you, or a partner who is willing to accept you for who you are?
I'm not a victim. But I know that people who don't have security have no freedom. If you don't have parents/friends who can help you if a new career fails, then you don't have the freedom to try a new career. And it isn't about the state handing it to you, it's about circumstances granting it to you. If you don't have a job, you don't have much freedom except to keep looking for a new job. If you're scared to walk down the street because of crime, then you don't have freedom. Name a single country/society where freedom came first. I can't think of one.
I am glad that you think you're so empathetic that you can understand what others would want. That girl could use some rescuing. Just as blacks in America could use it 45 years ago. Or openly muslim people could use it after 2001. Or "excessively" anti-american people could use it today. Could someone in China be shot for what he wrote? Yes. What's the chance of it happening? 1%. People in China don't live in perpetual fear. That's because most people are like the Afghan peasant -- they live hard lives, but nothing they do ruffles any feathers. For the 0.1% that does ruffle fears, they live in unfortunate circumstances. But I'd rather have them live fearfully than have the China that the Guomingdang ran -- one where 80% of the people were illiterate and hundreds of millions of people had no chance for advancement in life. Why? Because that situation isn't going to change. China's situation today will change. It has changed. It is changing. And it will continue to change. It's unfortunate that change takes time, but that's life.
The Chinese people don't feel enslaved. You might think they are. But try to use some of that empathy of yours. I happen to think Americans are enslaved. They're raised to fear strangers, domestically and abroad. They're raised so individualistically that they can't depend on anyone, so they live in economic and emotional fear. America has the world's second highest level of depression. They need to be liberated. But, having now lived here a few years, I understand that you can't change American culture over night. If you really care about those people, you'll find a way to slowly work towards a better life. Otherwise, you'll take them from one less than perfect reality and replace it with one that is even worse.
I don't know where you've lived in the world. I've lived in Guatemala during its conflicts in the 80s, in Taiwan and China for almost a decade in the 90s, in Turkmenistan after that and briefly in Israel and Nigeria. China is the place I'd prefer to live of those places. There is much more discussion and open-mindedness in China about where they are headed than there is in the U.S. or in Israel. Turkmenistan was autocratic, something China is not. Nigeria had such corruption that there were few opportunities for those who weren't in the right circles. And in Guatemala, at least at the time, there was no freedom because you had to fear for your life. Is China a perfect country? no. But Guatemala and Nigeria are both freer, but not countries where I would ever want to live. In Israel, and to the lesser extent in the U.S., the people are much more narrow minded and defensive. So, though they are freer, I'd rather live in China. Turkmenistan had some wonderful people, but no opportunity and a truly dictatorial government. So China isn't perfect, but it's no where near the bottom of the list. And it is nothing like East Germany or the former Soviet States (and is nothing like what it was like during that era.)
The stability of the Chinese government and the stability of the economy, etc for the Chinese people. If you were worried about anarchy, would you rather be free or have a strong government?
As for Tibet -- it doesn't have more friends than China. Most of the world loves China. They have a population that works hard, they aren't demanding, and they've managed development much better than most countries have.
As for Taiwan -- most do. That's why the Guomingdang is back in power. Chenshuibian was too antagonistic, and the people didn't like that.
The USSR is a good example. How did "we" dismantle it? We waited it out. Eventually, it changed from the inside. Vietnam didn't cause it. Nothing else caused it. You have to let things run their course. China's development is one of those things. (And the USSR has a much less sustainable economic model than China has, so don't hold your breath.)
And I don't understand what you mean by "those who change their roles" will survive and those that don't won't. What countries exemplify that? I'd argue that China, Brazil, Turkey, and India are doing a phenomenal job of changing their roles. They're becoming partners with people in the world. True partners, not patronizing partners as the U.S. usually is. That is what I'd say is ensuring the downfall of American preeminence. But I'd like to hear your "changing roles" theory development more.
And it does matter "in the slightest." Why does it matter? Because China says it matters. They have power, so you have to care about what they think matters. The same way kids have to care what their parents want and employees have to care what their bosses want.
What does "what we carve up" mean? Who is going to do the carving? And why does S Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, or Tibet deserve any part of China? In life people win and lose. Should the U.S. give back all of its land to the American Indians? When do we say "this is when the period of legitimate states was?" Or is it just about ethnic populations? Should Normandy be its own country? Should China be 56 countries, one for each ethnic group? Should all of Latin America and South America be split into latino and native countries? When do you decide that a claim to an ethnicity is legitimate? Should Black America have a country? Latino-America? Chinese-American? Irish-American? Swedish-American? Different religious denominations? We'd have a world with 1000 countries. Nice plan.
I accidentally closed the tab before I pressed submit. In summary:
China wants to reserve the power to do what it needs to do to maintain stability. It doesn't plan to do anything to Taiwan -- it's reputation matters much more than anything Taiwan would give it. But it doesn't want to look like it's weak on domestic issues, just in case Tibet and Xinjiang took that as a queue. Why does China want Tibet and Xinjiang? Because it maintains their concept of China and because it gives them lots of space between them and any potential enemy to the west.
What will happen in the end? Tibet will be given more autonomy, ala Hong Kong. But that's only after China has brokered some deal with the Dalai Lama and no longer worries about it declaring independence. Once China has no domestic worries, it will stop antagonizing Taiwan.
Why does it censor the internet? So it can control people who might cause instability, just like the U.S. infiltrated civil rights groups and the Black Panthers.
China will lighten up as stability ensues. But it will still require fighting to get power for some of these groups in China. No one gives up power easily... but they especially don't when they're threatened. Look at McCarthy America.
Wow. You have some serious passions. I can't say I agree with many of them. I'm a big fan of stability. For the sake of the people, not the state. The Chinese peoples' lives just keeps getting better and better. A war to "liberate" them would probably mean 100 million dead, maybe more. The Communist government in China has made many mistakes. But I'm very glad China got them and not the Guomingdang. They had no concern for the poor people. Want to talk about illegitimate? Look at how they treated the natives in Taiwan. They were a dictatorship until 1988 and only recently had a non-Guomingdang leader. The Communists brought up literacy, employment, etc. If you think that having a free government is more important to people than being able to read or eat then you're living in a different world than me. Freedom is the final product of social and political maturity, not the first step. That's why American freedoms have continued to be secured. And why it took 200 years in America (before the revolution) to define an American concept of government/liberty/whatever.
Also, I'm a pragmatist. You can have all the wishes in the world, but if you aren't willing to deal with reality to achieve them, then you never will and a lot of people will suffer as you attempt to. China is a political entity. We finally conceded to that in the 70s. You can't delegitimize it. Not matter what you think of it, it still exists.
You talk about Taiwan, that they should be free to be hostile to China. That's another political reality that people just need to accept. It's the same reason people still deal with America after Iraq. No matter how much you dislike it, America is still a super power and you have to find a way to get along. It sucks, but it's a reality. Is there a bar where you should no longer accommodate it? Yes. But I don't think China is anywhere near that. You obviously do.
I'm sorry if you were unable to understand me. I was making it clear that the term "only" was used within a defined scope. I made that clear because you seemed to think the scope was larger than it was. It's like saying, "the apartments are about the same size. The only difference is the layout." Oh, is that the ONLY difference? I'd imagine that they're in different locations, that they have different views, and that they are on different floors." No, of course it isn't the only difference. But since the scope had been limited to floor plans and square footage, it was okay to use the word "only."
And, by the way, my sentence makes sense, even if it isn't the most elegant sentence in the history of writing. The last few words are redundant. "But the distinction I was making was when detailing the difference between ignorant people in China and in the United States" probably would have sufficed. But I wanted to make it clear that the scope was limited to the ignorant people in the two countries.
Now that we've clarified that, would you like to respond to the rest of my post?