8 ms·

Two things give me some hope. 1. I don't think totalitarianism lends itself to economic prosperity, long term. Sure, the right authoritarian can move much faste

Two things give me some hope. 1. I don't think totalitarianism lends itself to economic prosperity, long term. Sure, the right authoritarian can move much faster and implement beneficial changes much more quickly than a democratic government can. But that knife cuts both ways. 2. The entire government system in China, and it's culture, heavily values stability and collective unity (hence it's desire to squash and eliminate anything that may lead to extreme reaction or departure from consensus). But this will lead to calcification, or, if the dictator changes too much or is too heavy handed, instability is inevitable, which leads me to think that the dictator will be changed out. Ultimately, I think that the power of any society is in the hands of the citizens, and that Chinese culture is extremely pragmatic. They may be able to be kept peaceful for a bit, but if progress starts stagnating or even reversing, changes will happen.

jyrkesh 9y ago
Naively, and based on historical data, I agree with point #1. What worries me about China is that they've had no problem--politically or technologically--collecting massive data sets on their citizenry via a level of mass surveillance that's never been reached AFAICT. On top of that, they're investing hard in artificial intelligence, and the benefits will ultimately be reaped by whoever's in charge of the datasets (in this case, the government). All of that gives them a lot of levers to control and manipulate their citizenry that has not been available to authoritarian governments yet.
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  I remember reading an intro to Orwell's Animal Farm that discussed Orwell's ability to see the dystopian use of technology, but couldn't see how it could liberate a citizenry from totalitarianism (like the shortwave, for example). I think the same of this high level tech as well. I could be wrong, but I think individuals do desire freedom and agency, and as long as that desire is there in some, it's going to be hard to squash.
  - mercer 9y ago
    I do hope you're right. One of my 'in the realm of possibility' dystopian fears is that a totalitarian regime figures out how to (chemically?) keep their society docile. Ideally the populace would still be creative, to an extent, but that might not even be necessary, or compensated for by stealing innovation from other places. One could argue that this is already sort of happening in many places, without there being a big conspiracy behind it, I guess.
    - natecavanaugh 9y ago
      I do too. Things like CRISPR scare the bejeezus out of me for reasons like you mention. I tend to think that's the killer equation in the US culture, which is incentives that are set up for exposing stuff like this. We don't need our journalists, politicians, scientists or any authority to be looking out for our best interest. As long as there are ways for them to further their own self-interest in ways that go against other authorities, we have some folks watching our backs. But in cases where you fundamentally alter someone's idea of self-interest, you're in a crazy amount of danger. And with the power one can wield, you're in for a lot of unintended consequences. Hopefully Pandora can be restrained just a bit.
      - mercer 9y ago
        See, I'd argue we've already progressed in that direction far more than we realize by reducing so much of our social world to 'transactions'. I grew up in a much more 'traditional' society and the the contrast is quite stark.
        natecavanaugh 9y ago
        Do you mind expanding on the contrast a bit by explaining the more traditional society part? I was born and raised in southern California, and one thing that I can consistently remember since I was a child was just how transactional southern Californians are in their relationships (as well as generally flaky, and relatively superficial; these are all common stereotypes, but in my experience, they contain a certain amount of truth). So I know that this dynamic has not only existed for my lifetime, but also well known enough to be a stereotype, and I'm not sure how much it contributes to the larger dangers we've discussed.
devy 9y ago
This is by far the most insightful and knowledgable viewpoint regarding this news I've seen online. And I am Chinese-American.

jyrkesh 9y ago

Naively, and based on historical data, I agree with point #1. What worries me about China is that they've had no problem--politically or technologically--collecting massive data sets on their citizenry via a level of mass surveillance that's never been reached AFAICT. On top of that, they're investing hard in artificial intelligence, and the benefits will ultimately be reaped by whoever's in charge of the datasets (in this case, the government). All of that gives them a lot of levers to control and manipulate their citizenry that has not been available to authoritarian governments yet.

natecavanaugh 9y ago
I remember reading an intro to Orwell's Animal Farm that discussed Orwell's ability to see the dystopian use of technology, but couldn't see how it could liberate a citizenry from totalitarianism (like the shortwave, for example). I think the same of this high level tech as well. I could be wrong, but I think individuals do desire freedom and agency, and as long as that desire is there in some, it's going to be hard to squash.
- mercer 9y ago
  I do hope you're right. One of my 'in the realm of possibility' dystopian fears is that a totalitarian regime figures out how to (chemically?) keep their society docile. Ideally the populace would still be creative, to an extent, but that might not even be necessary, or compensated for by stealing innovation from other places. One could argue that this is already sort of happening in many places, without there being a big conspiracy behind it, I guess.
  - natecavanaugh 9y ago
    I do too. Things like CRISPR scare the bejeezus out of me for reasons like you mention. I tend to think that's the killer equation in the US culture, which is incentives that are set up for exposing stuff like this. We don't need our journalists, politicians, scientists or any authority to be looking out for our best interest. As long as there are ways for them to further their own self-interest in ways that go against other authorities, we have some folks watching our backs. But in cases where you fundamentally alter someone's idea of self-interest, you're in a crazy amount of danger. And with the power one can wield, you're in for a lot of unintended consequences. Hopefully Pandora can be restrained just a bit.
    - mercer 9y ago
      See, I'd argue we've already progressed in that direction far more than we realize by reducing so much of our social world to 'transactions'. I grew up in a much more 'traditional' society and the the contrast is quite stark.
      - natecavanaugh 9y ago
        Do you mind expanding on the contrast a bit by explaining the more traditional society part? I was born and raised in southern California, and one thing that I can consistently remember since I was a child was just how transactional southern Californians are in their relationships (as well as generally flaky, and relatively superficial; these are all common stereotypes, but in my experience, they contain a certain amount of truth). So I know that this dynamic has not only existed for my lifetime, but also well known enough to be a stereotype, and I'm not sure how much it contributes to the larger dangers we've discussed.

devy 9y ago

This is by far the most insightful and knowledgable viewpoint regarding this news I've seen online. And I am Chinese-American.