4 ms·

Whatever you're position happens to be, you can't pretend like we're all in this innovating together for the betterment of humankind. China and the US have very

Whatever you're position happens to be, you can't pretend like we're all in this innovating together for the betterment of humankind. China and the US have very different ideologies and are opposing forces in global geopolitics. There are a lot of people, both inside the US and outside, that would prefer to see the US continue to be the most innovative country, so Schmidt's perspective is relevant and informative, not just cheap nationalism.

crazygringo 6y ago
But what do ideologies/forces have to do with it? The article uses published scientific papers as an example. That's open. That's research results the US is getting for free, from China. Which is awesome! The only way I can interpret your comment as making sense is if we were talking solely about military innovation -- innovation in China's navies, in its air force, in its missiles, or even its ability to hack and disrupt foreign networks. But Schmidt clearly isn't talking about that, he's talking about basic scientific and engineering research. I don't disagree there are people who see it as a competition and want to see the US "win", but that is cheap nationalism to me. Because the fact is, the more research that gets done, the more everybody wins. Even if it's not the intention, why don't you think that research is, indeed, ultimately resulting in the betterment of humankind? Isn't that what progress is? Here's another way to think about it: producing research is like producing anything else, like iPhones. The world is better off because China has the manufacturing capacity to churn out iPhones cheaper and better than anyone else. Which benefits us all. Because it's not a competition -- it's progress.
- tracer4201 6y ago
  At face value, everything you stated makes sense. I’m not an expert in this topic, and so I’ll share my naive view. If we were talking about a Western democracy such as the Germany becoming more competitive with the US in terms of more or valuable research, I’d have no qualms. What concerns me about China catching up with the US is my lack of trust in China - they aren’t a democracy. They control information, and my fear is that my children or children’s children may end up in a world where China has an economic advantage to the extent that it becomes oppressive against Americans. I can already see that China’s growing economic advantage means that American companies operating in China will bend over backwards for the Chinese government or even engage in censorship (in alignment with Chinese law). This concerns me a lot. Globalization already wiped out segments of America’s labor market. A recent book I was reading (Good Econonics for Hard Times) says that those people whose jobs shipped away (primarily China) actually dropped completely out of the labor force. It’s not that most people just retrain or move to a different part of the country. Anyway, I am making a connection here between research and economic growth. I think scientific progress will provide China with a economic benefit. I don’t know what economists have to say about this, and so I could be wrong. Some of the things I’m stating are hypotheticals and you could accuse me of fear mongering. America itself doesn’t have a clean track record (I don’t think many people remember or even knew the destruction we’ve caused in the Middle East since after 9/11).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

crazygringo 6y ago

But what do ideologies/forces have to do with it? The article uses published scientific papers as an example. That's open. That's research results the US is getting for free, from China. Which is awesome! The only way I can interpret your comment as making sense is if we were talking solely about military innovation -- innovation in China's navies, in its air force, in its missiles, or even its ability to hack and disrupt foreign networks. But Schmidt clearly isn't talking about that, he's talking about basic scientific and engineering research. I don't disagree there are people who see it as a competition and want to see the US "win", but that is cheap nationalism to me. Because the fact is, the more research that gets done, the more everybody wins. Even if it's not the intention, why don't you think that research is, indeed, ultimately resulting in the betterment of humankind? Isn't that what progress is? Here's another way to think about it: producing research is like producing anything else, like iPhones. The world is better off because China has the manufacturing capacity to churn out iPhones cheaper and better than anyone else. Which benefits us all. Because it's not a competition -- it's progress.

tracer4201 6y ago
At face value, everything you stated makes sense. I’m not an expert in this topic, and so I’ll share my naive view. If we were talking about a Western democracy such as the Germany becoming more competitive with the US in terms of more or valuable research, I’d have no qualms. What concerns me about China catching up with the US is my lack of trust in China - they aren’t a democracy. They control information, and my fear is that my children or children’s children may end up in a world where China has an economic advantage to the extent that it becomes oppressive against Americans. I can already see that China’s growing economic advantage means that American companies operating in China will bend over backwards for the Chinese government or even engage in censorship (in alignment with Chinese law). This concerns me a lot. Globalization already wiped out segments of America’s labor market. A recent book I was reading (Good Econonics for Hard Times) says that those people whose jobs shipped away (primarily China) actually dropped completely out of the labor force. It’s not that most people just retrain or move to a different part of the country. Anyway, I am making a connection here between research and economic growth. I think scientific progress will provide China with a economic benefit. I don’t know what economists have to say about this, and so I could be wrong. Some of the things I’m stating are hypotheticals and you could accuse me of fear mongering. America itself doesn’t have a clean track record (I don’t think many people remember or even knew the destruction we’ve caused in the Middle East since after 9/11).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]