5 ms·

"Supreme excellence consists on breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." - Sun Tzu

adventured 9y ago
What enemy? The world benefits immensely from China no longer being hyper impoverished and no longer being a big negative drain on world aid. Now that China can fully support itself - which is something that is actually relatively recent, only occurring in the last 20 years - more global aid is available to help the remaining very poor nations, and China can contribute to that, accelerating the climb of the global median standard of living. 500 million of the world's poorest people still live in China. While they have a long ways to go yet, every bit of progress helps the rest of the world tremendously.
- abraae 9y ago
  Thanks somewhat to US domestic politics, China seems to be gradually edging from global enemy towards saviour status. With regard to climate change, they are now more progressive than the US. Perhaps the chinese emphasis on long term thinking and the importance of future generations is counteracting the negative effects of their ruthless and undemocratic regime.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    China starts from a huge deficit in environmental protection that can't really be compared to the USA. They are being aggressive today because 500+ 2.5pm is unlivable.
    - averagewall 9y ago
      Climate change is nothing to do with PM2.5. That's a very short term (falls out of the air in days) local issue. They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US.
      - jack9 9y ago
        > They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US The most disingenuous statement in this thread? In other news... High School coach points out his QB completes more passes per game than NFL team QB. Demands equivalent compensation for better performance. Total physical amount of pollution is a quantitative problem. Trying to cut it up per capita by a population grouping is not constructive. Hand waving with this kind of reductionist calculation is political spin. It's "unfair" to discount this measure, but thats because physical/practical problems lie outside political interests.
        abraae 9y ago
        Are you saying a country with 4M people that emits the same as a country with 100M people is doing OK? Per capita is a useful measurement (but not the only one).
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Depends on density if we are talking about local livability, Mongolia would have a lesser problem if everyone didn't live in its capital. CO2, on the other hand, is a global problem, so per capita is more relevant, but has all sorts of tragedy of the commons and prisoner dilemma implications.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        The solutions are exactly the same. The Chinese people aren't more fired up about solving climate change, but they have a huge immediate pollution problem that needs to be solved yesterday. But coincidentally, getting rid of coal plants helps with climate change, and they don't have the natural gas infrastructure to go with it much anyways. The USA on the other hand, doesn't have that same problem, at least nowhere near on the same scale. Natural gas has worked really well as a more economic substitute to coal even if its CO2 reduction isn't as great. The problem of climate change is less immediate and less local than direct toxic air pollution, making it much more difficult to get people fired up about.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  I know you mean well, but China is a relatively rich country, it doesn't have 500 million of the world's poorest people, those distinctions go to India (poorer than china at 1 billion) and Africa (most of which is poorer than India). China has been the richest country in the world at many points in world history, heck, even at its worse, it has always been self sufficient. They never got global aid like say Ethiopia did. At best, they had some Russian technical help before the sino soviet split.
- partycoder 9y ago
  The quote said "enemy" so I kept that word. But in the context of trade, I would rather interpret that as "adversary" or "rival". Now, it is important to understand that the Chinese communist party and the US are ideological opposites. And this is reflected in policies such as censorship and redaction of Internet content. Market dominance comes with political influence. These infrastructure projects not only have trade implications but influence implications as well.

What enemy? The world benefits immensely from China no longer being hyper impoverished and no longer being a big negative drain on world aid. Now that China can fully support itself - which is something that is actually relatively recent, only occurring in the last 20 years - more global aid is available to help the remaining very poor nations, and China can contribute to that, accelerating the climb of the global median standard of living. 500 million of the world's poorest people still live in China. While they have a long ways to go yet, every bit of progress helps the rest of the world tremendously.

abraae 9y ago
Thanks somewhat to US domestic politics, China seems to be gradually edging from global enemy towards saviour status. With regard to climate change, they are now more progressive than the US. Perhaps the chinese emphasis on long term thinking and the importance of future generations is counteracting the negative effects of their ruthless and undemocratic regime.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  China starts from a huge deficit in environmental protection that can't really be compared to the USA. They are being aggressive today because 500+ 2.5pm is unlivable.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    Climate change is nothing to do with PM2.5. That's a very short term (falls out of the air in days) local issue. They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US.
    - jack9 9y ago
      > They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US The most disingenuous statement in this thread? In other news... High School coach points out his QB completes more passes per game than NFL team QB. Demands equivalent compensation for better performance. Total physical amount of pollution is a quantitative problem. Trying to cut it up per capita by a population grouping is not constructive. Hand waving with this kind of reductionist calculation is political spin. It's "unfair" to discount this measure, but thats because physical/practical problems lie outside political interests.
      - abraae 9y ago
        Are you saying a country with 4M people that emits the same as a country with 100M people is doing OK? Per capita is a useful measurement (but not the only one).
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Depends on density if we are talking about local livability, Mongolia would have a lesser problem if everyone didn't live in its capital. CO2, on the other hand, is a global problem, so per capita is more relevant, but has all sorts of tragedy of the commons and prisoner dilemma implications.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      The solutions are exactly the same. The Chinese people aren't more fired up about solving climate change, but they have a huge immediate pollution problem that needs to be solved yesterday. But coincidentally, getting rid of coal plants helps with climate change, and they don't have the natural gas infrastructure to go with it much anyways. The USA on the other hand, doesn't have that same problem, at least nowhere near on the same scale. Natural gas has worked really well as a more economic substitute to coal even if its CO2 reduction isn't as great. The problem of climate change is less immediate and less local than direct toxic air pollution, making it much more difficult to get people fired up about.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I know you mean well, but China is a relatively rich country, it doesn't have 500 million of the world's poorest people, those distinctions go to India (poorer than china at 1 billion) and Africa (most of which is poorer than India). China has been the richest country in the world at many points in world history, heck, even at its worse, it has always been self sufficient. They never got global aid like say Ethiopia did. At best, they had some Russian technical help before the sino soviet split.
partycoder 9y ago
The quote said "enemy" so I kept that word. But in the context of trade, I would rather interpret that as "adversary" or "rival". Now, it is important to understand that the Chinese communist party and the US are ideological opposites. And this is reflected in policies such as censorship and redaction of Internet content. Market dominance comes with political influence. These infrastructure projects not only have trade implications but influence implications as well.