6 ms·

In China now the goal is the make surveillance omnipresent. Already in premier universities, including Peking University, classroom lectures are routinely surve

In China now the goal is the make surveillance omnipresent. Already in premier universities, including Peking University, classroom lectures are routinely surveilled to monitor inappropriate discourse.

SubiculumCode 8y ago
Can China have an innovative science and technology sector under persistent omnipresent surveillance??
- pmarreck 8y ago
  No. But let them figure it out the hard way. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
  - chongli 8y ago
    It's a terrible thing for well over a billion people to have to go through in order for a tiny elite to learn. I can't think of a better solution, though.
    - petre 8y ago
      It was by their own and their ancestor's choice. Taiwan chose differently.
    - pmarreck 8y ago
      > It's a terrible thing for well over a billion people to have to go through in order for a tiny elite to learn And this is why we have democracies. Also, if history is any indication, it won't end well (although East Germany's end was remarkably peaceful).
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Remember what history? Of some older state that didn't have "innovative science and technology" because of surveillance? The only history to remember would be USSRs, and even had quite a good track record in science and engineering (given their meagre resources).
- Hoasi 8y ago
  Yes, as long as the state can accommodate a few exceptions. And yes as long a it is also actively watching competitors.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Yes. Most scientists and engineers are quite conformists anyway. It's social progress that you can't have, not innovative science and technology.
  - jerf 8y ago
    No, eventually you get Lysenkoism, where the authorities start choosing what theories are correct for some reason or other, for reasons that leave them utterly disconnected from truth. But you can start down the road without noticing the problem because the price doesn't come due right away, and if there's an active scientific community somewhere else you can use that for a connection to truth. But eventually, if you turn your back on truth, you will cease getting truth, and you will pay. Fortunately, for, uhh, national security reasons, our own science community is toying pretty strongly with the idea of substituting politics for scientific inquiry in many or most fields as well, which will prevent Chinese science from being able to lean on Western science for that connection to reality. Yay...(?)
    - petre 8y ago
      That's what led to bad design of the Chernobyl RBMK reactors and ultimately the fall of the USSR. Yes, the US also helped them go bankrupt by making them think it has more nukes. When you've got politics in the scientific process, the science becomes politics.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >No, eventually you get Lysenkoism, where the authorities start choosing what theories are correct for some reason or other, for reasons that leave them utterly disconnected from truth. I don't think so. I think that most people take a single historical example (USSR) and at a certain paranoid era and extrapolate it to every kind of totalitarian or vaguely similar society -- as if its some inevitable byproduct. An authoritative society can just as easily be quite hands off with sciences (as long as they don't meddle in politics, e.g. not so with social sciences for example). In fact, post-Mao China has already diverted a lot from USSR (and of course of USSRs under-productivity). They already have pragmatic (if authoritarian) political goals and approaches, and could not care less what Mao said or what the "laws of historical materialism" are, etc -- whereas early communist elites were hang up on such things. One added difference between USSR then and China now (besides the obvious huge change in productivity and wealth) is that Chinese elites also know about Lysenkoism and its results.

SubiculumCode 8y ago

Can China have an innovative science and technology sector under persistent omnipresent surveillance??

pmarreck 8y ago
No. But let them figure it out the hard way. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
- chongli 8y ago
  It's a terrible thing for well over a billion people to have to go through in order for a tiny elite to learn. I can't think of a better solution, though.
  - petre 8y ago
    It was by their own and their ancestor's choice. Taiwan chose differently.
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    > It's a terrible thing for well over a billion people to have to go through in order for a tiny elite to learn And this is why we have democracies. Also, if history is any indication, it won't end well (although East Germany's end was remarkably peaceful).
- coldtea 8y ago
  Remember what history? Of some older state that didn't have "innovative science and technology" because of surveillance? The only history to remember would be USSRs, and even had quite a good track record in science and engineering (given their meagre resources).
Hoasi 8y ago
Yes, as long as the state can accommodate a few exceptions. And yes as long a it is also actively watching competitors.
coldtea 8y ago
Yes. Most scientists and engineers are quite conformists anyway. It's social progress that you can't have, not innovative science and technology.
- jerf 8y ago
  No, eventually you get Lysenkoism, where the authorities start choosing what theories are correct for some reason or other, for reasons that leave them utterly disconnected from truth. But you can start down the road without noticing the problem because the price doesn't come due right away, and if there's an active scientific community somewhere else you can use that for a connection to truth. But eventually, if you turn your back on truth, you will cease getting truth, and you will pay. Fortunately, for, uhh, national security reasons, our own science community is toying pretty strongly with the idea of substituting politics for scientific inquiry in many or most fields as well, which will prevent Chinese science from being able to lean on Western science for that connection to reality. Yay...(?)
  - petre 8y ago
    That's what led to bad design of the Chernobyl RBMK reactors and ultimately the fall of the USSR. Yes, the US also helped them go bankrupt by making them think it has more nukes. When you've got politics in the scientific process, the science becomes politics.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >No, eventually you get Lysenkoism, where the authorities start choosing what theories are correct for some reason or other, for reasons that leave them utterly disconnected from truth. I don't think so. I think that most people take a single historical example (USSR) and at a certain paranoid era and extrapolate it to every kind of totalitarian or vaguely similar society -- as if its some inevitable byproduct. An authoritative society can just as easily be quite hands off with sciences (as long as they don't meddle in politics, e.g. not so with social sciences for example). In fact, post-Mao China has already diverted a lot from USSR (and of course of USSRs under-productivity). They already have pragmatic (if authoritarian) political goals and approaches, and could not care less what Mao said or what the "laws of historical materialism" are, etc -- whereas early communist elites were hang up on such things. One added difference between USSR then and China now (besides the obvious huge change in productivity and wealth) is that Chinese elites also know about Lysenkoism and its results.