6 ms·

China is repressive and has very low standards for human rights. If China becomes more powerful they may decide to conquer the US properly. This may be along

China is repressive and has very low standards for human rights. If China becomes more powerful they may decide to conquer the US properly. This may be along way off but this is the fear that's behind not wanting China to surpass the US economically.

gbog 10y ago
Chinese civilization is different from western civilization, specially in its habit to absorb other culture, instead of conquering them. China had a Mongol dynasty, a Manchu dynasty. But it never rode to the other side of the world to force remote populations to change their religion or political system.
- jombiezebus 10y ago
  Neither had Japan.
- pests 10y ago
  This interests me. Do you know of any good books, articles, or other sources I could learn more about this topic? Specifically your first sentence.
  - cttet 10y ago
    https://archive.org/details/problemofchina00russ https://archive.org/details/problemofchina00russ Not exactly answers the question, but I quite like Russel's view on this.
  - gbog 10y ago
    Any book on the long history of China would do, I'm not sure which one in English should be recommended.
qiqing 10y ago
What do you think of the U.S.'s record for human rights? To be fair, the U.S. has done a much better job of keeping many of those incidents (Gitmo or elsewhere) secret until fairly recently.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  > What do you think of the U.S.'s record for human rights? The U.S. is far from guilt free.
terasoans 10y ago
At the time that the US was developing, it also had extremely low standards for human rights. But as the US prospered, the Civil Rights movement kicked in. So perhaps the same will happen in China.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  That isn't true at all. The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves, but the framework and standards already existed for post civil war and the civil rights movement. As far as human rights go, China is somewhere before the Magna Carta in western civilization.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    >The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves Were slaves not human back then? GP is right: the human rights standard was appalling, and this is before considering the Trail of Tears and other small-pox-related incidents
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      High standard human rights existed in the west, they just weren't equally applied. In China, human rights are equally applied, just at a very low standard. So the west only had to apply what human rights already existed universally to "develop," and there was already moral pressure to do so from unfairness. China already has "fairness", but no where to go after that; there is definitely no moral pressure from within to do better.
      - rictic 10y ago
        I'm not certain that there were (to a modern eye) a high standard of human rights for anyone. Treatment of slaves and the lack of women's rights are well known examples, but there are a large number of historical practices that paint a pretty inhumane society, including punishments (e.g. the stocks), amusements (e.g. gouging aka rough and tumble), and community standards for the treatment of children (`beat the devil out of them` was serious, and not at all metaphorical).
vinceguidry 10y ago
> If China becomes more powerful they may decide to conquer the US properly. That's utterly hilarious. If there's a world in which that's even remotely possible, we'll all be long, long dead by the time it happens.
- MarkMc 10y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure. China's GDP per capita is currently about 14% of the United States [1]. That's roughly the same ratio that Japan faced in 1960, yet within 30 years Japan overtook the US in GDP per capita [2]. My view is that China has a number of economic and demographic disadvantages that mean in 30 years China is 'only' likely to reach 30-50% of US GDP per capita. But with a population projected to be 3 times the US [3], China's overall GDP will be greater than the US. In 30 years. And once that happens, how long will it take for China's military power to exceed the United States? You might be dead, but your grandchildren will certainly see it happen. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no... [2] Based on the Google graph when you search "Japan GDP per capita", etc. [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_gr...
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    First, the post I responded to did not claim that our militaries could reach parity. It claimed that China could conquer the US. That's impossible, preposterous even, and the only thing that could change that is the singularity, and if that happens all bets are off. Second, even reaching parity is an immensely daunting proposition. If China were to start building ships and aircraft, the US would respond in kind. Right now there's a lot of overhead and waste in the procurement process, that waste would disappear if shit suddenly got real. Sure, we 'only' have 20 carrier groups right now, but there's no reason we can't have 40. There's two main force multipliers I see that we have that China will never be able to catch up with us on. First, training and experience. The reason we keep a small military manpower-wise is because every US soldier is extremely well-trained. If China conscripted a percentage of their population, they could instantly have a larger army, but that army would then need to be trained in how to conduct modern warfare. Second, alliances with other countries. The best air-to-air missile right now is the Meteor, it's being developed in Sweden and sold throughout Europe. If China started rising militarily, the US and Europe would immediately start cooperating to counter it by sharing technology. The US has an enormous amount invested in its military dominance, it will not give that up at any cost. China could not reach parity slowly, as it would never catch up, and it can't reach it quickly, because we'd notice and respond appropriately. It would be such a huge drain on their economy that they'd abandon the effort. The Soviets never even came close to parity in conventional force projection. The Chinese wouldn't either in a strategic arms race. Even if they did, they'd still never in a million years be able to conquer the US. As well try to conquer the Sun.
swframe 10y ago
The US has a horrible human rights history. The country started with genocide of native americans. It enslaved and murdered millions of africans. It still has very racist tendencies. It killed several million koreans, vietnamese and cambodians (indirectly). Then there is Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a lot of really horrible things the US did that is on par with the Nazis and the worse we've seen from many other countries. The US is good at hiding or ignoring its atrocities. I don't think China is better or worse. But I don't see why it should be vilified when the US (and many other 1st world countries) have done much worse things to each other and to the 3rd world. In fact, I think all 3rd world countries should grow their internal markets in a similar way until they can become 1st world countries.
conanbatt 10y ago
I have to say this is an insane fear that does not reflect the world as is, or if it where true, it would have terrible implications. First of all, China and the US, besides their rivalry, are huge economic partners: china and the US trade from each other a lot. Either of them going into military conflict with the other would mean massive economic losses. Im not saying it cant happen, but it cannot be the goal to get richer so in the end you can get poorer. Ofc is reasonable to think that being an economic power gives you also political power, and as an American you can perceive that the US benefits from that position today and doesnt want to lose it to China. I would say that first of all, most of U.S. intervention in other countries has cost dearly both for the intervened countries and to the american taxpayer(and sometimes citizen or soldier). China as well as the US are a problem in that regard. Its true that it could have negative consequences, as it does for the US to have that power, but it feels to me secondary to economic power, and more relevant to how international institutions should work. In any case, China doesnt have to surpass the US to do this, as today it already has a lot of questionable policies(like being an ally to north korea, or getting into borderline military conflicts for sea territory).

gbog 10y ago

Chinese civilization is different from western civilization, specially in its habit to absorb other culture, instead of conquering them. China had a Mongol dynasty, a Manchu dynasty. But it never rode to the other side of the world to force remote populations to change their religion or political system.

jombiezebus 10y ago
Neither had Japan.
pests 10y ago
This interests me. Do you know of any good books, articles, or other sources I could learn more about this topic? Specifically your first sentence.
- cttet 10y ago
  https://archive.org/details/problemofchina00russ https://archive.org/details/problemofchina00russ Not exactly answers the question, but I quite like Russel's view on this.
- gbog 10y ago
  Any book on the long history of China would do, I'm not sure which one in English should be recommended.

qiqing 10y ago

What do you think of the U.S.'s record for human rights? To be fair, the U.S. has done a much better job of keeping many of those incidents (Gitmo or elsewhere) secret until fairly recently.

jcoffland 10y ago
> What do you think of the U.S.'s record for human rights? The U.S. is far from guilt free.

terasoans 10y ago

At the time that the US was developing, it also had extremely low standards for human rights. But as the US prospered, the Civil Rights movement kicked in. So perhaps the same will happen in China.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
That isn't true at all. The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves, but the framework and standards already existed for post civil war and the civil rights movement. As far as human rights go, China is somewhere before the Magna Carta in western civilization.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  >The US had extremely high standards for human rights, just much lower standards for slaves Were slaves not human back then? GP is right: the human rights standard was appalling, and this is before considering the Trail of Tears and other small-pox-related incidents
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    High standard human rights existed in the west, they just weren't equally applied. In China, human rights are equally applied, just at a very low standard. So the west only had to apply what human rights already existed universally to "develop," and there was already moral pressure to do so from unfairness. China already has "fairness", but no where to go after that; there is definitely no moral pressure from within to do better.
    - rictic 10y ago
      I'm not certain that there were (to a modern eye) a high standard of human rights for anyone. Treatment of slaves and the lack of women's rights are well known examples, but there are a large number of historical practices that paint a pretty inhumane society, including punishments (e.g. the stocks), amusements (e.g. gouging aka rough and tumble), and community standards for the treatment of children (`beat the devil out of them` was serious, and not at all metaphorical).

vinceguidry 10y ago

> If China becomes more powerful they may decide to conquer the US properly. That's utterly hilarious. If there's a world in which that's even remotely possible, we'll all be long, long dead by the time it happens.

MarkMc 10y ago
I wouldn't be so sure. China's GDP per capita is currently about 14% of the United States [1]. That's roughly the same ratio that Japan faced in 1960, yet within 30 years Japan overtook the US in GDP per capita [2]. My view is that China has a number of economic and demographic disadvantages that mean in 30 years China is 'only' likely to reach 30-50% of US GDP per capita. But with a population projected to be 3 times the US [3], China's overall GDP will be greater than the US. In 30 years. And once that happens, how long will it take for China's military power to exceed the United States? You might be dead, but your grandchildren will certainly see it happen. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no... [2] Based on the Google graph when you search "Japan GDP per capita", etc. [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_gr...
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  First, the post I responded to did not claim that our militaries could reach parity. It claimed that China could conquer the US. That's impossible, preposterous even, and the only thing that could change that is the singularity, and if that happens all bets are off. Second, even reaching parity is an immensely daunting proposition. If China were to start building ships and aircraft, the US would respond in kind. Right now there's a lot of overhead and waste in the procurement process, that waste would disappear if shit suddenly got real. Sure, we 'only' have 20 carrier groups right now, but there's no reason we can't have 40. There's two main force multipliers I see that we have that China will never be able to catch up with us on. First, training and experience. The reason we keep a small military manpower-wise is because every US soldier is extremely well-trained. If China conscripted a percentage of their population, they could instantly have a larger army, but that army would then need to be trained in how to conduct modern warfare. Second, alliances with other countries. The best air-to-air missile right now is the Meteor, it's being developed in Sweden and sold throughout Europe. If China started rising militarily, the US and Europe would immediately start cooperating to counter it by sharing technology. The US has an enormous amount invested in its military dominance, it will not give that up at any cost. China could not reach parity slowly, as it would never catch up, and it can't reach it quickly, because we'd notice and respond appropriately. It would be such a huge drain on their economy that they'd abandon the effort. The Soviets never even came close to parity in conventional force projection. The Chinese wouldn't either in a strategic arms race. Even if they did, they'd still never in a million years be able to conquer the US. As well try to conquer the Sun.

swframe 10y ago

The US has a horrible human rights history. The country started with genocide of native americans. It enslaved and murdered millions of africans. It still has very racist tendencies. It killed several million koreans, vietnamese and cambodians (indirectly). Then there is Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a lot of really horrible things the US did that is on par with the Nazis and the worse we've seen from many other countries. The US is good at hiding or ignoring its atrocities. I don't think China is better or worse. But I don't see why it should be vilified when the US (and many other 1st world countries) have done much worse things to each other and to the 3rd world. In fact, I think all 3rd world countries should grow their internal markets in a similar way until they can become 1st world countries.

conanbatt 10y ago

I have to say this is an insane fear that does not reflect the world as is, or if it where true, it would have terrible implications. First of all, China and the US, besides their rivalry, are huge economic partners: china and the US trade from each other a lot. Either of them going into military conflict with the other would mean massive economic losses. Im not saying it cant happen, but it cannot be the goal to get richer so in the end you can get poorer. Ofc is reasonable to think that being an economic power gives you also political power, and as an American you can perceive that the US benefits from that position today and doesnt want to lose it to China. I would say that first of all, most of U.S. intervention in other countries has cost dearly both for the intervened countries and to the american taxpayer(and sometimes citizen or soldier). China as well as the US are a problem in that regard. Its true that it could have negative consequences, as it does for the US to have that power, but it feels to me secondary to economic power, and more relevant to how international institutions should work. In any case, China doesnt have to surpass the US to do this, as today it already has a lot of questionable policies(like being an ally to north korea, or getting into borderline military conflicts for sea territory).