I don't know where you're from, AC dude. But not even the press in China claims that the manufacturers didn't know the effects of melamine when added to milk.
In China, the lack of democracy means that you could plan for a distant future, as opposed to how you could get yourself (or your party) elected next term. In the west it's not "profit immediately or forget it" -- but rather "profit immediately, or otherwise the other party will revert it next term". China's current top-down approach in administration means it could move things with a definite purpose, rather than many individual working on their own interests.
But then, short term thinking is a common trait of the human species. On a national scale China is definitely heading in a clear and steady direction, but in smaller things I doubt there's much differences between the Chinese and anything else. For example, The Chinese, despite official prohibition, are really into gambling -- more so than the average westerner. And of course gambling is going to cause you to lose a lot of money in the long run...
The milk crisis in China now is of course another example as pointed out by another poster.
Given that China is emerging as a new player in space technology, the USA is probably watching the event closely. Ask them.
But then, this is exactly the sort of thing that US government lies about;-p (other countries having threatening technology that could be applied for military use)
Seriously, when has China lied about space missions?
Sometimes I start to wonder to myself that the only difference between the USA and China is that over there they know they aren't free while over here we're just duped into thinking that we are until we actually break a law.
As an outsider (non-American) I don't wonder -- I think that;-p
Most people in China know what they're missing out (Chinese don't know about the Tienanmen Square incident? You gotta be kidding. It was widely reported until the day of the crackdown). Most Americans think America is the land of the free. Eh.
Well, except for Tibet. Oh, and Taiwan if China didn't think it would start a world war. Let's not forget the proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. China has tried to maintain the appearance of "sitting behind it's borders" for the last 50 to 75 years (with notable exceptions) basically because it has lacked the technology and industrial infrastructure to compete militarily with the West.
For Tibet: I quote myself: "Sure there will be border or ethnic conflicts but outright invasions would be unlikely" Tibet has been under Chinese influence for centuries. Sure it isn't ruled by the Chinese per se, but it wasn't exactly "sovereign". The conflicts in Tibet seem to be ethnic in nature.
Taiwan: It's a legacy of a civil war, not an invasion of another country. (Well, the Taiwanese natives might have a counterclaim that the KMT "invaded" them to escape the communists... but then Taiwan had been Chinese territory for a while before that)
Korea and Vietnam - who invaded? The western powers that actually came across the globe to prove a point (communism is bad), got dangerously close to the Chinese borders, or the Bad Chinese were forced to take military action because the conflict was so close to home?
China has tried to maintain the appearance of "sitting behind it's borders" for the last 50 to 75 years (with notable exceptions) basically because it has lacked the technology and industrial infrastructure to compete militarily with the West.
Sure, China was weak militarily for the past 2-3 centuries. But China was at a time one of the most advanced countries in the world, particularly when Europe was still in the dark ages. Did it go around conquering people and enslaving them?
However, on those occasions when China has felt confident the West either didn't care enough, or were unable due to other matters/conflicts, to contest it exerting power outside its' borders it hasn't hesitated to do so when it had something to gain.
When? Tibet again? See above.
With China rapidly building up it's industrial and military might, I'm sure China will be playing an increasing role militarily and economically outside it's borders as time goes on, especially as world resources like oil become scarcer while China grows in industrial might, requiring larger and larger amounts of these resources to maintain itself and fuel growth.
Agreed.
Although it's true that many wars were started due to religious reasons, most wars have been about countries pursuing their "interests and power" by invading their neighbors and taking their real estate and resources. Not "*only*", as you state, when countries "pretend" to be "good". You talk of China "spreading its' culture"...how would China accomplish this in countries that didn't want Chinese culture and preferred China leave them alone? The same way China "educated" the students in "proper" Chinese culture at Tiananmen Square?
You're getting it all wrong. If you look at, for example, Korean or Japanese culture, they have a strong Chinese influence. Heck, I can get a (very) rough understanding of some Japanese texts since Japanese uses a number of "Kanji" which are essentially characters imported from Chinese. That's what I mean by spreading of culture. The Chinese had never invaded Japan (IIRC, the only exception was when the Mongols took control of China and then started a compaign to take Japan) but the Japanese willingly sent scholars to China to learn its culture.
The South Asian countries obviously were less willing, and thus you'd wouldn't see that sort of similarities with Chinese culture in, for example, Indonesian culture.
And yes, China has historically "left alone" other countries which didn't want to learn its culture. In fact, the attitude is more like "fuck off, we're fine thank you". In the 18th and 19th century the European powers struggled to have China open its trade market, an
Sure. But nobody's forcing the believers not to believe in what they believe.
Christians go around telling people their God exists, and atheists go around saying that no God exists. Fair game.
Laws are meant to restrict people in doing things that harm others, and "psychological harm due to religious differences" isn't really harm... I mean, the "right to religious-high" isn't a God Given Right (pun intended).
You seem to be describing the problem of "democracy" in the Plato sense.
A good solution is going to be hard:(
I mean, when there are bad times people want change. Yet nobody agrees on the direction. Good leaders are all controversial. Good leaders are sometimes even misunderstood, and only when their policies come to fruition they are recognized.
How would the unwashed masses pin for that leader? Instead some random guy who only knows how to sugar coat his words?
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd rather countries simply pursue their own interests and power instead of pretending to be "good guys". Pursuing their interests and power usually means trade and cooperation rather than war. It's *only* when people "pretend to be good" that they can do real harm. Recall the wars in history. How many were *not* carried out in the name of some "good"?
Besides, what has the USA gained from the Iraq war? Billion-dollar deficit? Mocking from other countries for doing something so stupid?
Since I'm Chinese, I can tell you what I *think* would happen if China became the world superpower. It would spread its culture and have its army sit around its borders (as opposed to flying to the other side of the globe to take out some "bad guy"). Sure there will be border or ethnic conflicts but outright invasions would be unlikely. And why do I think that? Because that's essentially what happened for the past 2000 years in China.
Then, look at how many invasions Europe had been doing in the past few centuries and you'd see the contrast.
A light sidenote: Ironic how people from "western" countries who were supposed to be the vanguard of "humanistic" values come out and say "oh, human nature is bad, live with it, it could be worse!", whereas from a (self proclaimed;-p) Chinese perspective is saying "can't you do better than this?" [some of the quotes are not meant literally... labels mislead]
Look dude. The differences in "scale" you mention is probably simply a matter of wealth.
Do you understand the massive depth of corruption that exists throughout their society such that 10,000 children are killed in an earthquake because of shoddy building practices?
Corruption definitely. But then, in country that was basically third world a decade or two ago, you wouldn't expect their buildings to be made with the best materials would you? "Shoddy" practices in a first world country might not cause a building to collapse because the buildings on average are built with better materials, while "shoddy" practices where the standards are already rather minimal would cause things to break.
Anyway the problem with you is that you're getting too emotional on the issue. Look, the world isn't a perfect place, and all we can do is to strive to make it better. Look at China and how it's changed in the past three decades. I mean, your posts all smell of "China is BAD, they are BAD GUYS", but what I see is that China is actually improving -- or do you expect things to change overnight? Sometimes I really don't understand. I mean, China was really basically a shit hole (at times) half a century ago, and now (parts of it) is looking pretty much like a first world country -- and all you could say is that NO WE ARE DEFINITELY BETTER THAN THEM.
Of course we can all debate on how fast things *should* change, and what should change and whatnot, but there's no reason to get personal, right?
Do you think you can actually fake a mission success like that? I mean, they'd really have to be good at this to revive the dead astronauts. And I'm sure nobody would notice a huge object blowing up in mid-space....
Duh. If anybody is going to invading Tibet it won't be the Chinese. They already have an army there. Besides, Tibet having WMD's is actually plausible. Who knows where China is hiding all the nukes...
Talent matters. I've met enough of them to make me believe that there's a huge gap between the gifted and the average -- and no matter how "hard" the average person tries, (s)he simply won't match up to the level of competence of a talented but slack person.
Slashdot Mirror
Troll?
I don't know where you're from, AC dude. But not even the press in China claims that the manufacturers didn't know the effects of melamine when added to milk.
No system is invincible. What matters are the quality of the people.
This sounds like a marvelous business plan. How do I invest?
Yes and no.
In China, the lack of democracy means that you could plan for a distant future, as opposed to how you could get yourself (or your party) elected next term. In the west it's not "profit immediately or forget it" -- but rather "profit immediately, or otherwise the other party will revert it next term". China's current top-down approach in administration means it could move things with a definite purpose, rather than many individual working on their own interests.
But then, short term thinking is a common trait of the human species. On a national scale China is definitely heading in a clear and steady direction, but in smaller things I doubt there's much differences between the Chinese and anything else. For example, The Chinese, despite official prohibition, are really into gambling -- more so than the average westerner. And of course gambling is going to cause you to lose a lot of money in the long run...
The milk crisis in China now is of course another example as pointed out by another poster.
Given that China is emerging as a new player in space technology, the USA is probably watching the event closely. Ask them.
But then, this is exactly the sort of thing that US government lies about ;-p (other countries having threatening technology that could be applied for military use)
Seriously, when has China lied about space missions?
so unless they plan on being ridiculed by the world later, it would be a very stupid thing to do.
Exactly. I am still amazed by the people here who think the Chinese government could be that stupid on a national scale.
Even the Bush administration isn't that crazy.
Sometimes I start to wonder to myself that the only difference between the USA and China is that over there they know they aren't free while over here we're just duped into thinking that we are until we actually break a law.
As an outsider (non-American) I don't wonder -- I think that ;-p
Most people in China know what they're missing out (Chinese don't know about the Tienanmen Square incident? You gotta be kidding. It was widely reported until the day of the crackdown). Most Americans think America is the land of the free. Eh.
Go on, tell me why I should take all of those as "fact" but evolution is "just a theory". I can't wait.
Because God told me so.
Well, except for Tibet. Oh, and Taiwan if China didn't think it would start a world war. Let's not forget the proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. China has tried to maintain the appearance of "sitting behind it's borders" for the last 50 to 75 years (with notable exceptions) basically because it has lacked the technology and industrial infrastructure to compete militarily with the West.
For Tibet: I quote myself: "Sure there will be border or ethnic conflicts but outright invasions would be unlikely" Tibet has been under Chinese influence for centuries. Sure it isn't ruled by the Chinese per se, but it wasn't exactly "sovereign". The conflicts in Tibet seem to be ethnic in nature.
Taiwan: It's a legacy of a civil war, not an invasion of another country. (Well, the Taiwanese natives might have a counterclaim that the KMT "invaded" them to escape the communists... but then Taiwan had been Chinese territory for a while before that)
Korea and Vietnam - who invaded? The western powers that actually came across the globe to prove a point (communism is bad), got dangerously close to the Chinese borders, or the Bad Chinese were forced to take military action because the conflict was so close to home?
China has tried to maintain the appearance of "sitting behind it's borders" for the last 50 to 75 years (with notable exceptions) basically because it has lacked the technology and industrial infrastructure to compete militarily with the West.
Sure, China was weak militarily for the past 2-3 centuries. But China was at a time one of the most advanced countries in the world, particularly when Europe was still in the dark ages. Did it go around conquering people and enslaving them?
However, on those occasions when China has felt confident the West either didn't care enough, or were unable due to other matters/conflicts, to contest it exerting power outside its' borders it hasn't hesitated to do so when it had something to gain.
When? Tibet again? See above.
With China rapidly building up it's industrial and military might, I'm sure China will be playing an increasing role militarily and economically outside it's borders as time goes on, especially as world resources like oil become scarcer while China grows in industrial might, requiring larger and larger amounts of these resources to maintain itself and fuel growth.
Agreed.
Although it's true that many wars were started due to religious reasons, most wars have been about countries pursuing their "interests and power" by invading their neighbors and taking their real estate and resources. Not "*only*", as you state, when countries "pretend" to be "good". You talk of China "spreading its' culture"...how would China accomplish this in countries that didn't want Chinese culture and preferred China leave them alone? The same way China "educated" the students in "proper" Chinese culture at Tiananmen Square?
You're getting it all wrong. If you look at, for example, Korean or Japanese culture, they have a strong Chinese influence. Heck, I can get a (very) rough understanding of some Japanese texts since Japanese uses a number of "Kanji" which are essentially characters imported from Chinese. That's what I mean by spreading of culture. The Chinese had never invaded Japan (IIRC, the only exception was when the Mongols took control of China and then started a compaign to take Japan) but the Japanese willingly sent scholars to China to learn its culture.
The South Asian countries obviously were less willing, and thus you'd wouldn't see that sort of similarities with Chinese culture in, for example, Indonesian culture.
And yes, China has historically "left alone" other countries which didn't want to learn its culture. In fact, the attitude is more like "fuck off, we're fine thank you". In the 18th and 19th century the European powers struggled to have China open its trade market, an
Just like gravity
Whenever somebody jumps off a building, the devil pushes him to the ground so that he could have another new recruit in hell.
Yeah but that's ridiculous. You're obviously lying.
Sure. But nobody's forcing the believers not to believe in what they believe.
Christians go around telling people their God exists, and atheists go around saying that no God exists. Fair game.
Laws are meant to restrict people in doing things that harm others, and "psychological harm due to religious differences" isn't really harm... I mean, the "right to religious-high" isn't a God Given Right (pun intended).
You seem to be describing the problem of "democracy" in the Plato sense.
A good solution is going to be hard :(
I mean, when there are bad times people want change. Yet nobody agrees on the direction. Good leaders are all controversial. Good leaders are sometimes even misunderstood, and only when their policies come to fruition they are recognized.
How would the unwashed masses pin for that leader? Instead some random guy who only knows how to sugar coat his words?
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd rather countries simply pursue their own interests and power instead of pretending to be "good guys". Pursuing their interests and power usually means trade and cooperation rather than war. It's *only* when people "pretend to be good" that they can do real harm. Recall the wars in history. How many were *not* carried out in the name of some "good"?
Besides, what has the USA gained from the Iraq war? Billion-dollar deficit? Mocking from other countries for doing something so stupid?
Since I'm Chinese, I can tell you what I *think* would happen if China became the world superpower. It would spread its culture and have its army sit around its borders (as opposed to flying to the other side of the globe to take out some "bad guy"). Sure there will be border or ethnic conflicts but outright invasions would be unlikely. And why do I think that? Because that's essentially what happened for the past 2000 years in China.
Then, look at how many invasions Europe had been doing in the past few centuries and you'd see the contrast.
A light sidenote: Ironic how people from "western" countries who were supposed to be the vanguard of "humanistic" values come out and say "oh, human nature is bad, live with it, it could be worse!", whereas from a (self proclaimed ;-p) Chinese perspective is saying "can't you do better than this?" [some of the quotes are not meant literally... labels mislead]
Well, how about the voters?
Congress?
Who modded this funny? As an outsider (non-American) I find this rather insightful (as in literally, not for the sarcasm).
With Gore he might not have been as successful in finding a scapegoat for 911.
4. The Holocaust. ...etc.
Democracy isn't a silver bullet, but the mistakes we make do not compare to the above.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hitler (or his party) actually elected through democratic processes?
Look dude. The differences in "scale" you mention is probably simply a matter of wealth.
Do you understand the massive depth of corruption that exists throughout their society such that 10,000 children are killed in an earthquake because of shoddy building practices?
Corruption definitely. But then, in country that was basically third world a decade or two ago, you wouldn't expect their buildings to be made with the best materials would you? "Shoddy" practices in a first world country might not cause a building to collapse because the buildings on average are built with better materials, while "shoddy" practices where the standards are already rather minimal would cause things to break.
Anyway the problem with you is that you're getting too emotional on the issue. Look, the world isn't a perfect place, and all we can do is to strive to make it better. Look at China and how it's changed in the past three decades. I mean, your posts all smell of "China is BAD, they are BAD GUYS", but what I see is that China is actually improving -- or do you expect things to change overnight? Sometimes I really don't understand. I mean, China was really basically a shit hole (at times) half a century ago, and now (parts of it) is looking pretty much like a first world country -- and all you could say is that NO WE ARE DEFINITELY BETTER THAN THEM.
Of course we can all debate on how fast things *should* change, and what should change and whatnot, but there's no reason to get personal, right?
I'd take your bet.
Do you think you can actually fake a mission success like that? I mean, they'd really have to be good at this to revive the dead astronauts. And I'm sure nobody would notice a huge object blowing up in mid-space....
I don't know what to say. Why do you hate the Chinese? For lack of a real target to vent all your frustration?
Duh. If anybody is going to invading Tibet it won't be the Chinese. They already have an army there. Besides, Tibet having WMD's is actually plausible. Who knows where China is hiding all the nukes...
Do you mean that democratic nations don't make mistakes that are as bad as authoritarian states?
*That* borders on the delusional. Man, Democracy isn't a silver bullet.
Talent matters. I've met enough of them to make me believe that there's a huge gap between the gifted and the average -- and no matter how "hard" the average person tries, (s)he simply won't match up to the level of competence of a talented but slack person.
Every competent law student would know where to look for his publications, not to mention academics.
The thing is, those who don't know how to look them up probably wouldn't be interested in reading them either.
Besides, the CIA is definitely not known to often intrude into other countries' businesses....