5 ms·

"Without a determined political action, within few decades China will be the leading global economic and political power. EU/US and others must join muscles to

by grecy 8y ago

"Without a determined political action, within few decades China will be the leading global economic and political power. EU/US and others must join muscles to stop the economic domination of China by econ-political means, before it's too late". Whenever I read statements like that, it's as if somehow the EU/US think they have a right to be the dominant global economic and political power, and somehow it's their moral right to stop anyone else from ascending to that position. China has over a billion people. So does India, so does the continent of Africa. They are all developing much, much faster than the vast majority of people realize [1] Anyone who thinks the EU/US will remain the dominant global economic and political power in the next decades is severely deluded. [1] Checkout the fantastic "Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think " by the master Hans Rosling, where he clearly demonstrates using irrefutable stats that the poorest countries in the world today are developing faster than for example Sweden ever did, at any point in history. https://amzn.to/2CXPdCu https://amzn.to/2CXPdCu

amreact 8y ago
The EU/US should try to retain their power because to do so is rational. Do you think that is immoral? If so, why?
badrabbit 8y ago
I get what you're saying,I would even say that China is acheiving this without wars, unlike the west. But, they are not very good to their own people and they are extremely distrustful of foreigners. Not just westerners but even in africa they've been caught acting with malicious intentions(the last example I read was how they backdoored the African Union's IT systems). Very hard to trust someone who trusts no one. The primary fear should be wars and global instability instead of who gets to wear the #1 badge. It has not even been a century since WW2,the current chinese regime is operating as a response to WW2 and "running a marathon,not a sprint" to beat the west and russia. China dominating the west would usher in Cold War 2.0(or has it already,pentagon papers and all) except with higher stakes,in the end military dominance matters as much as economic.
- simonh 8y ago
  > I would even say that China is acheiving this without wars Without wars, but with mass internment camps https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-45474279 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-45474279
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    USA has "camps" where they perform legal slave labor too, with more people. USA is unproportionally targeting one race/ethnicity as well. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/pie2018.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/pie2018.html
    - kiba 8y ago
      Does it matter? At least here we don't sweep it under a rug even if reforms are hard to do.
      - guelo 8y ago
        A lot of online attacks on America use our freedoms against us, our free press, our freedom to protest and cause political divisions. Maybe the Chinese are right that "harmony" will make them stronger than our freedoms, but I sure hope not.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      What fraction of convicted people do you think are innocent in the US? Although US prisons are not ethnically balanced, neither is the crime rate for various reasons including poverty. The subtext of the Chinese camp thing is that we don't think those people deserve to be there. If they were all serial killers then we'd be saying, "let China decide how to punish their own criminals," but from the start we don't agree with what gets you put in a camp in China.
      - AlexandrB 8y ago
        > Although US prisons are not ethnically balanced, neither is the crime rate for various reasons including poverty. About 1/4 of prisoners are there because of drugs[1]. Because of the US's punitive drug laws many of these are not dealers but users. In addition, African Americans are much more likely to get "stop and frisked" and get caught with drugs even where whites possess drugs more often[2]. They're also more likely to be arrested for drug offences[2]: > 16% of those who sold drugs were black, but 49% of those arrested for doing so were black The disparity in prison population cannot be explained away by crime rate or poverty demographics. It's the result of selective enforcement and preferential treatment for one group over another. [1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_War_on_Drugs#Stops_and_searches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_War_on_Drugs#Stop...
ForHackernews 8y ago
India, for all its issues, is a multiparty democracy that holds regular free and fair elections. Most Westerners have no problem with the idea of India as a global leader. It's disingenuous to equate concerns over malign Chinese influence with some kind of neocolonial fear of the Global South.
- majia 8y ago
  > Most Westerners have no problem with the idea of India as a global leader. It's because India is still too far behind. When one day India is about to be the next global leader, westerners will start to think otherwise. It's always possible to make a fuss about something. India's counterfeit drug, caste system, dispute with Pakistan and interference in Nepal are all going to be great concerns, just like how people are concerned about Chinese Belt & Road, IP theft and South China sea. It happened to Japan, is happening to China, and will happen to India or any other challenger.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    By the time this will materialize (if ever, meaning what would have to happen to its neighbor China to have India THE superpower), class system as we know will be gone. It's on the way our already, as western culture and views on equality penetrate indian subcontinent. Dispute with Pakistan - all the info I ever read (and it has been quite a bit since I visited those places), Pakistan was always the aggressor, India was defending itself against invasion on its own land. Pakistan loves to challenge Kashmir since it is predominantly muslim territory, but if we respect all treaties signed since India's independence, its simply part of India. The only reason there are issues is because Pakistan fuels the push for independence which wouldn't be there without this. People in the region would be actually worse off if they would be part of Pakistan. In this specific topic, I have 0 sympathy with Pakistan who is known to support terrorist cells in its neighbors via its secret service, and not event trying to hide it too much. India has something like 150 millions of muslims, overall less conflicts with them then ie in Europe so its not about hindus hating muslims. Also Rajastan territory has tons of muslims and no big issues there (who would fight for a desert). Its a shame that US supported muslim dictatorship instead of multicultural democracy defending itself in this conflict. In the same vein China simply took some Indian territory in 60s by military, there wasn't a regular war since it was very mountainous region with little other value back then. These days they act like nothing happened. But this shows their general mentality - peaceful and avoiding conflicts. US would rather create WW III then give up an inch of its own land. The rest of the points you mention are more controversial, but still, considering what a behemoth the country is, they are surprisingly peaceful.
hazz99 8y ago
> it's as if somehow the EU/US think they have a right to be the dominant global economic and political power, and somehow it's their moral right to stop anyone else from ascending to that position. If you perceive the actions and policy of another nation to be very immoral, is it not a moral obligation to try and spread your own version of morality? Of course, all morality is relative, and so I'm not arguing about whether Western vs. Eastern morality is "better" or "worse". I do think mass internment camps, social points, and mass surveillance are horribly immoral - but that isn't "Eastern" morality, just the actions of the Chinese govt.
- rubatuga 8y ago
  All morality is relative? Not exactly, in fact I'm sure there is a lowest common denominator of morality 99.99% of humans on this earth agree on. I agree with what you say in the beginning, that people have a moral duty to spread their own version of morality.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    Is killing innocent people "relative" morality?
  - hazz99 8y ago
    > All morality is relative? Not exactly, in fact I'm sure there is a lowest common denominator of morality 99.99% of humans on this earth agree on. I'd strongly disagree! Maybe there is consensus within western nations, or nations with a high average living standard, but even those vary greatly. Things like marriage equality are extremely recent, but so is the universal right to vote. There are nations who still practice child marriage, for example.
empath75 8y ago
Yeah I don’t really get the antipathy towards China. As far as global powers go they’ve been far more responsible in terms of foreign policy than either Russia or the us.
mc32 8y ago
The main difference which influences how things get done and what is acceptable to China vs the West is ideologicsl philosophy. We differ quite a lot. People gloss over this, but it’s important. Chinese have no anchoring in Greek philosophy. The west doesn’t care much to understand Confucian derived philosophies. They lead to different kinds of calculus. In the end, in hand to hand combat in the trenches, Confucianism will win. It’s practical, it doesn’t care about “the Other”.
golergka 8y ago
It's very simple ethical logic: it's my right to compete with others for resources, and my obligation to myself and people who depend on me to do so. Not because I'm more deserving, or better in some way, but just because I am me, and I like me (and those aforementioned people) more than I like others.

by grecy 8y ago

amreact 8y ago

The EU/US should try to retain their power because to do so is rational. Do you think that is immoral? If so, why?

badrabbit 8y ago

I get what you're saying,I would even say that China is acheiving this without wars, unlike the west. But, they are not very good to their own people and they are extremely distrustful of foreigners. Not just westerners but even in africa they've been caught acting with malicious intentions(the last example I read was how they backdoored the African Union's IT systems). Very hard to trust someone who trusts no one. The primary fear should be wars and global instability instead of who gets to wear the #1 badge. It has not even been a century since WW2,the current chinese regime is operating as a response to WW2 and "running a marathon,not a sprint" to beat the west and russia. China dominating the west would usher in Cold War 2.0(or has it already,pentagon papers and all) except with higher stakes,in the end military dominance matters as much as economic.

simonh 8y ago
> I would even say that China is acheiving this without wars Without wars, but with mass internment camps https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-45474279 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-45474279
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  USA has "camps" where they perform legal slave labor too, with more people. USA is unproportionally targeting one race/ethnicity as well. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/pie2018.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/pie2018.html
  - kiba 8y ago
    Does it matter? At least here we don't sweep it under a rug even if reforms are hard to do.
    - guelo 8y ago
      A lot of online attacks on America use our freedoms against us, our free press, our freedom to protest and cause political divisions. Maybe the Chinese are right that "harmony" will make them stronger than our freedoms, but I sure hope not.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    What fraction of convicted people do you think are innocent in the US? Although US prisons are not ethnically balanced, neither is the crime rate for various reasons including poverty. The subtext of the Chinese camp thing is that we don't think those people deserve to be there. If they were all serial killers then we'd be saying, "let China decide how to punish their own criminals," but from the start we don't agree with what gets you put in a camp in China.
    - AlexandrB 8y ago
      > Although US prisons are not ethnically balanced, neither is the crime rate for various reasons including poverty. About 1/4 of prisoners are there because of drugs[1]. Because of the US's punitive drug laws many of these are not dealers but users. In addition, African Americans are much more likely to get "stop and frisked" and get caught with drugs even where whites possess drugs more often[2]. They're also more likely to be arrested for drug offences[2]: > 16% of those who sold drugs were black, but 49% of those arrested for doing so were black The disparity in prison population cannot be explained away by crime rate or poverty demographics. It's the result of selective enforcement and preferential treatment for one group over another. [1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_War_on_Drugs#Stops_and_searches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_the_War_on_Drugs#Stop...

ForHackernews 8y ago

India, for all its issues, is a multiparty democracy that holds regular free and fair elections. Most Westerners have no problem with the idea of India as a global leader. It's disingenuous to equate concerns over malign Chinese influence with some kind of neocolonial fear of the Global South.

majia 8y ago
> Most Westerners have no problem with the idea of India as a global leader. It's because India is still too far behind. When one day India is about to be the next global leader, westerners will start to think otherwise. It's always possible to make a fuss about something. India's counterfeit drug, caste system, dispute with Pakistan and interference in Nepal are all going to be great concerns, just like how people are concerned about Chinese Belt & Road, IP theft and South China sea. It happened to Japan, is happening to China, and will happen to India or any other challenger.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  By the time this will materialize (if ever, meaning what would have to happen to its neighbor China to have India THE superpower), class system as we know will be gone. It's on the way our already, as western culture and views on equality penetrate indian subcontinent. Dispute with Pakistan - all the info I ever read (and it has been quite a bit since I visited those places), Pakistan was always the aggressor, India was defending itself against invasion on its own land. Pakistan loves to challenge Kashmir since it is predominantly muslim territory, but if we respect all treaties signed since India's independence, its simply part of India. The only reason there are issues is because Pakistan fuels the push for independence which wouldn't be there without this. People in the region would be actually worse off if they would be part of Pakistan. In this specific topic, I have 0 sympathy with Pakistan who is known to support terrorist cells in its neighbors via its secret service, and not event trying to hide it too much. India has something like 150 millions of muslims, overall less conflicts with them then ie in Europe so its not about hindus hating muslims. Also Rajastan territory has tons of muslims and no big issues there (who would fight for a desert). Its a shame that US supported muslim dictatorship instead of multicultural democracy defending itself in this conflict. In the same vein China simply took some Indian territory in 60s by military, there wasn't a regular war since it was very mountainous region with little other value back then. These days they act like nothing happened. But this shows their general mentality - peaceful and avoiding conflicts. US would rather create WW III then give up an inch of its own land. The rest of the points you mention are more controversial, but still, considering what a behemoth the country is, they are surprisingly peaceful.

hazz99 8y ago

> it's as if somehow the EU/US think they have a right to be the dominant global economic and political power, and somehow it's their moral right to stop anyone else from ascending to that position. If you perceive the actions and policy of another nation to be very immoral, is it not a moral obligation to try and spread your own version of morality? Of course, all morality is relative, and so I'm not arguing about whether Western vs. Eastern morality is "better" or "worse". I do think mass internment camps, social points, and mass surveillance are horribly immoral - but that isn't "Eastern" morality, just the actions of the Chinese govt.

rubatuga 8y ago
All morality is relative? Not exactly, in fact I'm sure there is a lowest common denominator of morality 99.99% of humans on this earth agree on. I agree with what you say in the beginning, that people have a moral duty to spread their own version of morality.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  Is killing innocent people "relative" morality?
- hazz99 8y ago
  > All morality is relative? Not exactly, in fact I'm sure there is a lowest common denominator of morality 99.99% of humans on this earth agree on. I'd strongly disagree! Maybe there is consensus within western nations, or nations with a high average living standard, but even those vary greatly. Things like marriage equality are extremely recent, but so is the universal right to vote. There are nations who still practice child marriage, for example.

empath75 8y ago

Yeah I don’t really get the antipathy towards China. As far as global powers go they’ve been far more responsible in terms of foreign policy than either Russia or the us.

mc32 8y ago

The main difference which influences how things get done and what is acceptable to China vs the West is ideologicsl philosophy. We differ quite a lot. People gloss over this, but it’s important. Chinese have no anchoring in Greek philosophy. The west doesn’t care much to understand Confucian derived philosophies. They lead to different kinds of calculus. In the end, in hand to hand combat in the trenches, Confucianism will win. It’s practical, it doesn’t care about “the Other”.

golergka 8y ago

It's very simple ethical logic: it's my right to compete with others for resources, and my obligation to myself and people who depend on me to do so. Not because I'm more deserving, or better in some way, but just because I am me, and I like me (and those aforementioned people) more than I like others.