4 ms·

For a country that has the industry to make such a pivot what heavily investing in renewables would result in is not simply prestige but a source of national

For a country that has the industry to make such a pivot what heavily investing in renewables would result in is not simply prestige but a source of national pride. The way the USSR approached this is vastly different from how technological progress was perceived in the US. In the Soviet union domestic industrial capacity was something highly regarded by the people in general even if we know on many levels theft and organizational inefficiency didn't make it an actual shining example. Technological innovation was a national goal in the USSR. It is what won legitimacy as a world power. A country like China is similarly poised to make such a goal their focus. It can be spun positively in so many ways. Off the cuff: "Saveguarding our ancestor's land by building renewables" "Using the intellectual might of our nation's engineers and scientists to stand above other nations" etc For all its baggage let patriotism be used to help the Earth which knows not of nations' borders.

nickff 5y ago
I think you're putting too much stock in Soviet propaganda. Science and technology were not very high priorities in the Soviet Union, compared with military spending and domestic control. >"Since the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union devoted between 15 and 17 percent of its annual gross national product to military spending, according to United States government sources." https://nuke.fas.org/guide/russia/agency/mo-budget.htm https://nuke.fas.org/guide/russia/agency/mo-budget.htm US defense spending was <6% of GDP throughout the 1980s. The Soviets also spent massive amounts of money on maintaining control (KGB & domestic police) and protecting their borders (maintaining satellite states & controlling Afghanistan). They also defunded their space program when it became decoupled from their military rocket program.
- datameta 5y ago
  I am relaying my direct experiences with the Soviet system for whose propaganda I have a near-lethal dose of skepticism. The mid-80s military spending figures represent a state that knows it is in a struggle and may soon start to destabilize. The US never had to use military presence to keep the states together - the USSR did do so for its constituent republics. I am referring to the mid-50s to late 70s. Certainly where a technology had a military application it received greater funding, the technological milestones were not made in personal home creature comforts. But Soviet mathematical and scientific prowess was world-renown. The educational system greatly succeeded in that regard, as I can attest. A few examples are having achieved the only unmanned landing of Venus, and the only unmanned traversal of the Lunar surface whose distance record still stands. These engineering breakthroughs were done in the name of science, yes, but they were milked for all their propaganda value. I am proposing that such a directive with something like renewables should be tantalizing to a country like China.
  - nickff 5y ago
    Well, Venera 4 was the first successful landing on Venus, but not the only one, being followed by NASA's Pioneer Venus 2. Leaving that aside, The Soviets failed in their main objective of landing on the moon, at least partially due to resource constraints, which forced them to use unconventional approaches in their development program. In addition to that, their Mars program was a total failure. Regardless of those details, Soviet state funding of science and technology failed to give them a technological edge in the cold war, or greater scientific prestige than the USA. Both the USA and USSR spent a lot of money on satellite states and allies, but the Soviets put a larger proportion of their money into these sorts of power plays than the Americans did, largely because the US government does not command as large a share of the economy.
    - datameta 5y ago
      Granted, I was incorrect about Venus. I'm not sure you're fully seeing what I'm trying to get across, because the discussion turned into a compare and contrast against the US. All of the USSR's failings notwithstanding, I am using them as an example of effectively garnering national pride in technological progress. I propose that China values that outcome greatly, and perhaps to increase adoption of renewables is one way of achieving it.

nickff 5y ago

I think you're putting too much stock in Soviet propaganda. Science and technology were not very high priorities in the Soviet Union, compared with military spending and domestic control. >"Since the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union devoted between 15 and 17 percent of its annual gross national product to military spending, according to United States government sources." https://nuke.fas.org/guide/russia/agency/mo-budget.htm https://nuke.fas.org/guide/russia/agency/mo-budget.htm US defense spending was <6% of GDP throughout the 1980s. The Soviets also spent massive amounts of money on maintaining control (KGB & domestic police) and protecting their borders (maintaining satellite states & controlling Afghanistan). They also defunded their space program when it became decoupled from their military rocket program.

datameta 5y ago
I am relaying my direct experiences with the Soviet system for whose propaganda I have a near-lethal dose of skepticism. The mid-80s military spending figures represent a state that knows it is in a struggle and may soon start to destabilize. The US never had to use military presence to keep the states together - the USSR did do so for its constituent republics. I am referring to the mid-50s to late 70s. Certainly where a technology had a military application it received greater funding, the technological milestones were not made in personal home creature comforts. But Soviet mathematical and scientific prowess was world-renown. The educational system greatly succeeded in that regard, as I can attest. A few examples are having achieved the only unmanned landing of Venus, and the only unmanned traversal of the Lunar surface whose distance record still stands. These engineering breakthroughs were done in the name of science, yes, but they were milked for all their propaganda value. I am proposing that such a directive with something like renewables should be tantalizing to a country like China.
- nickff 5y ago
  Well, Venera 4 was the first successful landing on Venus, but not the only one, being followed by NASA's Pioneer Venus 2. Leaving that aside, The Soviets failed in their main objective of landing on the moon, at least partially due to resource constraints, which forced them to use unconventional approaches in their development program. In addition to that, their Mars program was a total failure. Regardless of those details, Soviet state funding of science and technology failed to give them a technological edge in the cold war, or greater scientific prestige than the USA. Both the USA and USSR spent a lot of money on satellite states and allies, but the Soviets put a larger proportion of their money into these sorts of power plays than the Americans did, largely because the US government does not command as large a share of the economy.
  - datameta 5y ago
    Granted, I was incorrect about Venus. I'm not sure you're fully seeing what I'm trying to get across, because the discussion turned into a compare and contrast against the US. All of the USSR's failings notwithstanding, I am using them as an example of effectively garnering national pride in technological progress. I propose that China values that outcome greatly, and perhaps to increase adoption of renewables is one way of achieving it.