6 ms·

Traveling to major cities in China (and Korea) is like a preview of where the US will be in ~5 years from a technology-society integration perspective. Easy pa

by erdevs 10y ago

Traveling to major cities in China (and Korea) is like a preview of where the US will be in ~5 years from a technology-society integration perspective. Easy payments on your phone, electronic communications for official notices/correspondences, mobile-electronic interactions with government, many/most people playing games and socializing about them, non-personal-car transportation (taxis/didis, buses, bikes), hyper-dense cities as populations urbanize. It makes sense that China (and Korea) have leaped ahead. They have relatively high average IQ populations. They have cultures that celebrate education, intelligence, and hard work (not sports and broism). They have heavy governmental investment in infrastructure (eg internet, cell networks) and they heavily regulate industries so as not to stymie utilities such as the internet. Hopefully the US and Europe can create a cultural shift (particularly the US on this front) and can see more government investment in infrastructure for technology and ease of access. If so, the US/Europe will maintain/grow their competitive edges vs China at least, as they have better property rights, fairer courts, more developed financial markets, more meritocracy of opportunity, etc. Korea has the best of all worlds in many ways, but not a large enough population or enough natural resources to be a contender for one of the top few economic powers in the world.

duaneb 10y ago
I don't follow the link between intelligence and technology. Are you implying smarter people use more?
- geomark 10y ago
  If "using technology" means having a smart phone on which you message, check Facebook, hail a taxi, and play games then I don't think there is any correlation. Or maybe it varies by country. I say that because where I live (Thailand) smart phone penetration is pretty high and rapidly rising, while IQ is pretty low and gradually dropping [1]. [1] http://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailands-public-health-ministry-worries-thai-childrens-iq-dropping.html http://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailands-public-health-minist...
- erdevs 10y ago
  I meant that greater intelligence and drive mean higher likelihood to invent or incorporate technology, higher likelihood to succeed driving its adoption as a business, etc. To try to make this more concrete and tractable. Imagine this oversimplified scenario: Country A's population is 100 people and their "culture" values education, intelligence and hard work. Country A's average IQ is 107 and the two most desired professions in the country are to be an engineer or a businessperson. Country B's population is 100 people and their culture looks down on "nerds" and favors "coolness" and hanging out. Country B's average IQ is 100 and the top desired professions in the country are being a sports star or a rock star. Obviously I'm drawing at extremes here, but you see where I'm going... which country produces more citizens that contribute to technology? Country A is probably gonna produce more cool tech over time than country B, even with equal-sized populations, due to a combination of cultural values / social incentives and population intelligence.
  - gbog 10y ago
    Yes. And same with art. I think western societies really do not have a need for more artists, musicians, djs and so on. We need more engineers, more plumbers, more bike fixers, and more teachers.
  - hx87 10y ago
    IMHO the US has been becoming country A more and more for the past couple of decades, but in the mean time a large of part of the population is stuck in (or clings to) country B, hence the particularly venomous presidential campaign season.
jomamaxx 10y ago
"It makes sense that China (and Korea) have leaped ahead. They have relatively high average IQ populations. They have cultures that celebrate education, intelligence, and hard work (not sports and broism)" How ridiculous and bigoted on every front. China values 'hard work' and 'intelligence'? It would seem you could also say they value oppression, poverty, pollution and copying everything. But that wouldn't be fair. Some places in China have done well in infrastructure, as has most of S Korea, but there are two primary differences: A) China / Korean built up their infrastructure nearly from scratch in the modern era. Totalitarian or near totalitarian governments actually can do well when their are obvious investments to make. B) Their populations are closer. This is a big one for transport, in particular. China is what China is, and I see it being a little bit more than that for 2 more decades, but the only long term difference will come as they bring more people out of poverty = more consumers. By that time, they will have their own demographic problems. I believe that most of the geopolitical shift has already happened. The 'next 50 years' will be driven not by China, so much as 3 billion people in other places, currently living on $2 a day, coming into living on $50 a day. That will be huge, and more spread out. Hopefully, it comes without too much tension. I'll bet in 50 years the 'leaders' in various fields will generally still be the leaders in those fields, for the most part.
- erdevs 10y ago
  You seem to have conveniently removed from the quote you cited the following sentence in the very same paragraph, which says, "They have heavy governmental investment in infrastructure (eg internet, cell networks) and they heavily regulate industries so as not to stymie utilities such as the internet." Doesn't that address the points you made about the benefit of government intervention and infrastructure build up? > B) Their populations are closer. This is a big one for transport, in particular You realize that S.Korea is ~3-4x as dense as China, that China is only about as dense as the UK, and the distance between major cities in China is comparable to distances between major cities in the US, right? I could agree with some of the latter part of your post. Could have done without the glib rudeness at the beginning. I don't mean anything "bigoted" whatsoever and I'm curious what exactly came across that way.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
noobermin 10y ago
I'm not sure about that. Many in the US are not crazy about pop-density. Just look at the push back against the anti-sprawl movement.
- ianai 10y ago
  I get the impression that the US has hit a "max". It could be just me, but we are still on old english measurement system. The latest payment change was chips in credit cards. We have ApplePay, but I don't see many people using it (could just be me). Like you say, people fight back against sprawl and increased density. Everyone wants their house, yard, pool, car, etc. I just saw an article saying something like "we won't make required benchmarks for yearly co2 production because people won't give up their SUVs/trucks". There are serious, societal pressures against 'change', in the general.
pjc50 10y ago
> leaped ahead I think there's a big element of not being handicapped by 'legacy' infrastructure here. The US won't roll out chip+pin because it already has magswipe POS systems in too many places. Whereas places in China which have no existing system can deploy whichever is most convenient to get started with - which sounds like wechat at the moment.
- eddieplan9 10y ago
  This. When the West moved toward a thriving ecosystem of web applications, the web scene in China was a complete mess. Not many people were confident enough to use the Web, let alone trust a random website with their bank account which has no dispute channel. Plus the web is full of malware and scams and almost all PC ran pirated Windows XP with abysmal if any antivirus software. When most people equated internet with the IE icon, people in China did it with the dorminating IM software made by Tencent. The explosion of mobile ecosystem speaks to the lackluster of a thriving web ecosystem and to some degree a clunky financial system and lack of meaningful consumer protection.
- jackcosgrove 10y ago
  People and places constantly leapfrog each other with technology. Japanese and German industry after WWII was superior to American industry because the latter was not destroyed and rebuilt with modern technology. I still think it's best to be the leader, inventing new things rather than improving the legacy systems of your competitor. If only because falling behind and deflating land and labor prices is painful during times of peace and traumatic during times of war.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Chip+pin was rolled out in the UK in a matter of years, and contactless payment is making similar progress at the moment, so I'm not really convinced legacy infrastructure is what's holding the US back.
bnastic 10y ago
Not sure why you put Europe in the same basket. I get all these things in the UK. The rest about "higher IQ people" is utter nonsense.

by erdevs 10y ago

duaneb 10y ago

I don't follow the link between intelligence and technology. Are you implying smarter people use more?

geomark 10y ago
If "using technology" means having a smart phone on which you message, check Facebook, hail a taxi, and play games then I don't think there is any correlation. Or maybe it varies by country. I say that because where I live (Thailand) smart phone penetration is pretty high and rapidly rising, while IQ is pretty low and gradually dropping [1]. [1] http://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailands-public-health-ministry-worries-thai-childrens-iq-dropping.html http://www.chiangraitimes.com/thailands-public-health-minist...
erdevs 10y ago
I meant that greater intelligence and drive mean higher likelihood to invent or incorporate technology, higher likelihood to succeed driving its adoption as a business, etc. To try to make this more concrete and tractable. Imagine this oversimplified scenario: Country A's population is 100 people and their "culture" values education, intelligence and hard work. Country A's average IQ is 107 and the two most desired professions in the country are to be an engineer or a businessperson. Country B's population is 100 people and their culture looks down on "nerds" and favors "coolness" and hanging out. Country B's average IQ is 100 and the top desired professions in the country are being a sports star or a rock star. Obviously I'm drawing at extremes here, but you see where I'm going... which country produces more citizens that contribute to technology? Country A is probably gonna produce more cool tech over time than country B, even with equal-sized populations, due to a combination of cultural values / social incentives and population intelligence.
- gbog 10y ago
  Yes. And same with art. I think western societies really do not have a need for more artists, musicians, djs and so on. We need more engineers, more plumbers, more bike fixers, and more teachers.
- hx87 10y ago
  IMHO the US has been becoming country A more and more for the past couple of decades, but in the mean time a large of part of the population is stuck in (or clings to) country B, hence the particularly venomous presidential campaign season.

jomamaxx 10y ago

"It makes sense that China (and Korea) have leaped ahead. They have relatively high average IQ populations. They have cultures that celebrate education, intelligence, and hard work (not sports and broism)" How ridiculous and bigoted on every front. China values 'hard work' and 'intelligence'? It would seem you could also say they value oppression, poverty, pollution and copying everything. But that wouldn't be fair. Some places in China have done well in infrastructure, as has most of S Korea, but there are two primary differences: A) China / Korean built up their infrastructure nearly from scratch in the modern era. Totalitarian or near totalitarian governments actually can do well when their are obvious investments to make. B) Their populations are closer. This is a big one for transport, in particular. China is what China is, and I see it being a little bit more than that for 2 more decades, but the only long term difference will come as they bring more people out of poverty = more consumers. By that time, they will have their own demographic problems. I believe that most of the geopolitical shift has already happened. The 'next 50 years' will be driven not by China, so much as 3 billion people in other places, currently living on $2 a day, coming into living on $50 a day. That will be huge, and more spread out. Hopefully, it comes without too much tension. I'll bet in 50 years the 'leaders' in various fields will generally still be the leaders in those fields, for the most part.

erdevs 10y ago
You seem to have conveniently removed from the quote you cited the following sentence in the very same paragraph, which says, "They have heavy governmental investment in infrastructure (eg internet, cell networks) and they heavily regulate industries so as not to stymie utilities such as the internet." Doesn't that address the points you made about the benefit of government intervention and infrastructure build up? > B) Their populations are closer. This is a big one for transport, in particular You realize that S.Korea is ~3-4x as dense as China, that China is only about as dense as the UK, and the distance between major cities in China is comparable to distances between major cities in the US, right? I could agree with some of the latter part of your post. Could have done without the glib rudeness at the beginning. I don't mean anything "bigoted" whatsoever and I'm curious what exactly came across that way.
saiya-jin 10y ago

noobermin 10y ago

I'm not sure about that. Many in the US are not crazy about pop-density. Just look at the push back against the anti-sprawl movement.

ianai 10y ago
I get the impression that the US has hit a "max". It could be just me, but we are still on old english measurement system. The latest payment change was chips in credit cards. We have ApplePay, but I don't see many people using it (could just be me). Like you say, people fight back against sprawl and increased density. Everyone wants their house, yard, pool, car, etc. I just saw an article saying something like "we won't make required benchmarks for yearly co2 production because people won't give up their SUVs/trucks". There are serious, societal pressures against 'change', in the general.

pjc50 10y ago

> leaped ahead I think there's a big element of not being handicapped by 'legacy' infrastructure here. The US won't roll out chip+pin because it already has magswipe POS systems in too many places. Whereas places in China which have no existing system can deploy whichever is most convenient to get started with - which sounds like wechat at the moment.

eddieplan9 10y ago
This. When the West moved toward a thriving ecosystem of web applications, the web scene in China was a complete mess. Not many people were confident enough to use the Web, let alone trust a random website with their bank account which has no dispute channel. Plus the web is full of malware and scams and almost all PC ran pirated Windows XP with abysmal if any antivirus software. When most people equated internet with the IE icon, people in China did it with the dorminating IM software made by Tencent. The explosion of mobile ecosystem speaks to the lackluster of a thriving web ecosystem and to some degree a clunky financial system and lack of meaningful consumer protection.
jackcosgrove 10y ago
People and places constantly leapfrog each other with technology. Japanese and German industry after WWII was superior to American industry because the latter was not destroyed and rebuilt with modern technology. I still think it's best to be the leader, inventing new things rather than improving the legacy systems of your competitor. If only because falling behind and deflating land and labor prices is painful during times of peace and traumatic during times of war.
aninhumer 10y ago
Chip+pin was rolled out in the UK in a matter of years, and contactless payment is making similar progress at the moment, so I'm not really convinced legacy infrastructure is what's holding the US back.

bnastic 10y ago

Not sure why you put Europe in the same basket. I get all these things in the UK. The rest about "higher IQ people" is utter nonsense.