3 ms·

It's interesting that all of this is only a problem if China is indeed an/the enemy. In fact mutual dependence is one of the key elements of Europe's narrative

It's interesting that all of this is only a problem if China is indeed an/the enemy. In fact mutual dependence is one of the key elements of Europe's narrative since WW2 - "if we all exchange and trade we will not make war against each other." On the one hand not surprising that a War/Defense-Ministry funded documentary has this underlying premise of 'China is the enemy'. On the other hand we should really wonder: where the hell are we headed and how can we change this trajectory?

jeswin 7y ago
What happens if Taiwan is invaded? Would the US stay neutral, or at that point would China become an enemy? If the US stays neutral, then who is a friend? You can only be truly friends with people who share your principles and values. Not all of them, but most or many of them.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  If China childishly invades Taiwan then the US would have to childishly declare war. Isn't the whole point of the united states to be inclusive of all principles and values. I think the whole rivalry from both sides is more because China is projected to surpass the US economically. The US wants to keep its dominance out of pride and China wants to dethrone it, also out of pride. It's more of childish pride thing but at the same time both countries can potentially burn everything down if they act on the urge.
  - killjoywashere 7y ago
    You should read "The Dictator's Handbook". Dictators may be driven to externally irrational behavior by what appear internally to be an entirely rational chain of decisions. And I mean rational in the Homo economus sense of the word. https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      Thanks I'll check it out. Sounds similar to the tragedy of the commons where the opposite phenomenon is in affect. Rational decisions made by individual actors when measured in aggregate become irrational. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243
      - jamesbritt 7y ago
        More about Hardin's essay: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... > The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong
        crimsonalucard 7y ago
        Hardin's thesis has nothing to do with his character. Please comment on the thesis and try to seperate facts away from the personality of the person saying it. As vile as this sounds, a person being racist does not automatically make all his observations false, it does not mean anything. Either way, his essay is largely cited in academia from political science to anthropology. A blog post illustrating some factual anomalies (which in turn can also be debatable) does not render the heart of his essay wrong. It's good to know the background of the author of an essay, but it is bad form and borderline propaganda to use that to discount an insightful observation about the world as we know it.
        jamesbritt 7y ago
        People reference the essay, and in so doing they are referencing the whole essay, including the nasty parts. People doing this need to be aware of that; I suspect many are not. Being cited doesn't make anything true, so I'm not sure what that has to do with it being correct or not. There does exist scholarly work disputing Hardin's conjecture. For example, the work of Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University. "Ostrom received the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her groundbreaking research demonstrating that ordinary people are capable of creating rules and institutions that allow for the sustainable and equitable management of shared resources. She shared the prize with Oliver Williamson, a University of California economist." http://elinorostrom.indiana.edu/ http://elinorostrom.indiana.edu/
bordercases 7y ago
Economic integration disincentivizes catastrophic conflicts and total war, but it does not throw away war completely. What it does do is shift conflict to the market which confuses and conflates domestic and foreign theatres. So now instead of fighting soldiers we're fighting lawyers and bank accounts and NGOs, which is arguably more insidious and messy. One of China's key assets is having one of the largest consumer markets in the world which means a lot of companies are willing to play ball and pander to their demands or beliefs because they otherwise believe they will be missing out on revenue, a race to the bottom. Furthermore most Chinese industry is nationalized by proxy which makes much of the manufacturing and R&D practices suspect particularly when we're integrating with them. This is how we get tech-transfer problems, selective search engine censorship by American companies, and the Huawei controversy. And neither is physical conflict gone entirely: we still play deterrence games and spy games and quick hyper-lethal games with other nations since the root causes of conflict don't really disappear.
asdfase22 7y ago
If you want to know if China is an enemy look at what they do to their own people. That's their own people. What do you think they have in mind for everyone else? Is this a regime that cares about human rights or the rights of the individual? They're like the Kings of every Kingdom before the 18th century, i.e. I rule for the Greater Good, which I define in my terms.

jeswin 7y ago

What happens if Taiwan is invaded? Would the US stay neutral, or at that point would China become an enemy? If the US stays neutral, then who is a friend? You can only be truly friends with people who share your principles and values. Not all of them, but most or many of them.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
If China childishly invades Taiwan then the US would have to childishly declare war. Isn't the whole point of the united states to be inclusive of all principles and values. I think the whole rivalry from both sides is more because China is projected to surpass the US economically. The US wants to keep its dominance out of pride and China wants to dethrone it, also out of pride. It's more of childish pride thing but at the same time both countries can potentially burn everything down if they act on the urge.
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  You should read "The Dictator's Handbook". Dictators may be driven to externally irrational behavior by what appear internally to be an entirely rational chain of decisions. And I mean rational in the Homo economus sense of the word. https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845 https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    Thanks I'll check it out. Sounds similar to the tragedy of the commons where the opposite phenomenon is in affect. Rational decisions made by individual actors when measured in aggregate become irrational. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243
    - jamesbritt 7y ago
      More about Hardin's essay: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... > The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons The man who wrote one of environmentalism’s most-cited essays was a racist, eugenicist, nativist and Islamaphobe—plus his argument was wrong
      - crimsonalucard 7y ago
        Hardin's thesis has nothing to do with his character. Please comment on the thesis and try to seperate facts away from the personality of the person saying it. As vile as this sounds, a person being racist does not automatically make all his observations false, it does not mean anything. Either way, his essay is largely cited in academia from political science to anthropology. A blog post illustrating some factual anomalies (which in turn can also be debatable) does not render the heart of his essay wrong. It's good to know the background of the author of an essay, but it is bad form and borderline propaganda to use that to discount an insightful observation about the world as we know it.
        jamesbritt 7y ago
        People reference the essay, and in so doing they are referencing the whole essay, including the nasty parts. People doing this need to be aware of that; I suspect many are not. Being cited doesn't make anything true, so I'm not sure what that has to do with it being correct or not. There does exist scholarly work disputing Hardin's conjecture. For example, the work of Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University. "Ostrom received the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her groundbreaking research demonstrating that ordinary people are capable of creating rules and institutions that allow for the sustainable and equitable management of shared resources. She shared the prize with Oliver Williamson, a University of California economist." http://elinorostrom.indiana.edu/ http://elinorostrom.indiana.edu/

bordercases 7y ago

Economic integration disincentivizes catastrophic conflicts and total war, but it does not throw away war completely. What it does do is shift conflict to the market which confuses and conflates domestic and foreign theatres. So now instead of fighting soldiers we're fighting lawyers and bank accounts and NGOs, which is arguably more insidious and messy. One of China's key assets is having one of the largest consumer markets in the world which means a lot of companies are willing to play ball and pander to their demands or beliefs because they otherwise believe they will be missing out on revenue, a race to the bottom. Furthermore most Chinese industry is nationalized by proxy which makes much of the manufacturing and R&D practices suspect particularly when we're integrating with them. This is how we get tech-transfer problems, selective search engine censorship by American companies, and the Huawei controversy. And neither is physical conflict gone entirely: we still play deterrence games and spy games and quick hyper-lethal games with other nations since the root causes of conflict don't really disappear.

asdfase22 7y ago

If you want to know if China is an enemy look at what they do to their own people. That's their own people. What do you think they have in mind for everyone else? Is this a regime that cares about human rights or the rights of the individual? They're like the Kings of every Kingdom before the 18th century, i.e. I rule for the Greater Good, which I define in my terms.