8 ms·
The lights wink out in Asia
- posevaulter 4y ago[flagged]
- abtinf 4y agoHello GPT.
- edrxty 4y agoInteresting to see someone actually trying to build up an account with GPT like this. Brings back memories of watching script kiddies running wild in the early 2000s
- bugbuddy 4y agoI missed the action. Could someone tell me what they posted?
- edrxty 4y agoClick your name in the top right corner of the screen and set "Showdead" to yes. It's nothing particularly interesting, just the GPT rambling you're used to seeing that looks especially close to the opening of a 13yo kids term paper.
- paulmd 4y agoIn conclusion, Asia is a land of contrasts.
- andirk 4y agoDo they mention to never get involved in a land war in Asia? Because if I was a 13 year old writing a paper and injecting quotes out of nowhere, or a machine learning spoken language bot, I'd definitely say that first and go from there.
- antonvs 4y ago> This is not a caricature. It may not have been intended as one, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t one.
- edrxty 4y agoActually read the article, not much to see here. Basically just some lofty prose on a Japanese defense strategy document but without much in the way of insight into anything going into the geopolitical situation. Also, the extremely forced looking diagram at the top has literally nothing to do with their thesis other than being low hanging fruit for a counterargument. Edit: I was curious, here's a larger version of the map: https://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/577812/8159481/1282003901463/pnm.jpg https://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/577812/8159481/128200... It makes less sense the longer you look at it...shrug.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoIs Puerto Rico inside the "non-integrating gap"?
- jmnicolas 4y agoI blame people like the author for the coming world war (technically we're already in it but it's not massive yet). They just regurgitate narratives without ever having an original thought and they don't understand they're lead to war step by step. Then, once the war reaches their country they will wonder how all of this could have happened. It seems humans never learn.
- yetihehe 4y agoWhat narrative would prevent this war according to you? (I'm not mocking you, just looking for narratives to spread).
- beebmam 4y agoIt's hard to believe globalization has a positive force on the world when China has become far more authoritarian in the last decade and has used its economic gains to loudly threaten its neighbors like Taiwan with annexation. I'm deeply pessimistic about any good that can come from continued trade with China and the west, as long as the communists wield power there.
- sph 4y ago> I'm deeply pessimistic about any good that can come from continued trade with China and the west, as long as the communists wield power there. As the author says, the good that comes from trading with ideologically different countries is a semblance of peace. It's a weak one, but becoming more self-reliant and less global removes the last reason superpowers have to keep diplomatic and peaceful channels open. I'd rather have US and China begrudgingly trading because they need each other than the opposite.
- TulliusCicero 4y agoWell, that was the idea with Russia too, and it backfired when Putin decided that the West would hesitate to cut off trade just because of invading Ukraine. The dependency works both ways.
- oblio 4y agoTrue, but it's always about the amount of pain you can endure. The West in general can't endure much because it's no longer used to it, <<unless>>, and this is super important, that pain comes from a clear, mortal threat. In which case democracies are at least as resilient, probably more resilient than dictatorships because the decision making is spread around more and more individuals decide it's bad for them if the other side wins[1]. With Russia at least several countries (Eastern and Northern Europe) decided that Russia is a clear, mortal threat and they're lobbying the bigger and less decided actors (US, Western Europe) to hold the line. With China, in case of a conflict, alarm bells would go off around the world, much more than for Russia. The US population is quite apprehensive of the PRC regime, already. In Europe a similar thing is happening. I hope nothing happens, but I think people will be shocked how quickly the hostility ramps up if we get to it, even from people they wouldn't expect. [1] It's basically A) "someone tells you should be afraid of something" versus B) "I've figured out on my own I should be afraid of it". B) is a much stronger and more enduring learning process.
- phkahler 4y ago>> The free, open, and stable international order, which expanded worldwide in the post-Cold War era..... That was all fiction. China has never had free trade. Not to single them out, they're just the most obvious. NAFTA was mighty long document for a "free trade agreement" because it wasn't. The powers are all still trying to maintain power and will continue to do so. It has been interesting to see how intertwined things got under this fiction. Not sure where we go next.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- beebmam 4y agoOne of your premises is that NAFTA isn't a free trade agreement. How do you square that premise with this quote from Wikipedia about NAFTA: "Passage of NAFTA resulted in the elimination or reduction of barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico."? Do you disagree with this quote? And if not, then what is your definition of free trade?
- antihipocrat 4y agoIf the agreement eliminated and reduced some barriers, yet also put in place new barriers, then the quote is still true and the result isn't necessarily free trade (as it is commonly understood).
- beebmam 4y agoWell yes, in theory, but I have not seen that demonstration for NAFTA.
- nhchris 4y agoIn addition to the sibling comment, there's also the question of whether it's only a free trade agreement, or if it also makes other demands. For example, NAFTA allows corporations to sue governments, expanded copyright, cancelled article 27 of the Mexican constitution, which prevented privatization or sale of indigenous communal land, and added "a 10-year data protection period against generic drug production on an expanded list of products that benefits pharmaceutical companies, particularly US makers producers of high-cost biologic drugs", whatever that means. In other words, the GPs comment of "mighty long document" meant that it doesn't take many pages to write "reduce tariffs on the following goods". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre...
- paganel 4y agoIt's simple, Japan can either choose to go with China, the new great power in its region (which would be the most rational and non-violent choice), or it could choose to re-arm at the US's behest and risk direct military confrontation with the same China, which, of course, would be the violent choice (and hence the non-rational one). That's what they get for having lost the last war in which they were involved, i.e. they get to play the music their victor is singing (also see the Plaza Accord).
- Proven 4y ago[dead]
- jalapenos 4y agoAvoiding violence isn't the be all and end all of rationality. It may be that the Japanese see hegemony of the US as a lesser evil than the CCP, and hegemony of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational. I do wonder why there are so many western voices that seem almost giddy about the rise of China as a power. I imagine they don't like the west much. But unless they've also lived in China in recent years, it's just maligning the devil you know.
- paganel 4y ago> of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational. I'm mirroring de Gaulle right now, in saying that the US have been blind-sided by not having had any real war on their homeland for more than a century (he was saying it in 1968), that's why they have all this messianic instincts. No, almost nothing is worth dying for en masse (which what a US vs China war would mean).
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> I’m mirroring de Gaulle Famed critic of cultural and national sovereignty?
- 4y ago
- szundi 4y agoI think globalization works better than how we talk about it these days. China is very cautious just because they know we are interdependent. I think this big buffer of time should be enough to resolve the conflicts with greater chance. Of course human hubris cannot be defeated. Several of these rulers successing each other can ruin everything. Let’s face it, there are people hungry for power who are not prioritizing prosperity, but ... power.
- rhaway84773 4y agoMost people commenting here haven’t lived in a pre-globalized world. The reaction is basically “things are not ideal. Therefore the problem must be globalization. Or late stage capitalism. Or wokeness”. Depending on what they’ve watched on TV or read on their social media of choice. Never mind that they can’t even define what some of those things mean.
- nhchris 4y ago> Most people commenting here haven’t lived in a pre-globalized world. You're probably using "globalization" as "trade, communication, and, to a lesser extent, travel, on a global scale". They're using "globalization" as "the process seeking to erode sovereign countries, national identities, and distinct cultures, until the only remaining force and identity are corporate international conglomerates, free to do as they please since all competing systems of belonging and organization have been eliminated." In their view, globalization is not complete until all "discrimination" by a formerly sovereign nation is made toothless. I put "discrimination" in quotes, because while it probably makes you think of whites-only water fountains, I am referring to things such as Article 27 of Mexico's constitution forbidding the sale or privatization of indigenous land, or Canada's ban on foreign house buyers [1]. I.e. discriminating against non-Canadians, or non-indigenous-Mexicans. Laws that see people as not just "global citizens", but local ones. That NAFTA did in fact involve the cancellation of Article 27 [2], that the 100 orders imposed on Iraq included a prohibition against saving newly designed seeds [3], and that "free trade" agreements in general involve a host of demands that go far beyond lowering tariffs, implies the view of "globalization" as merely trade is incomplete, and that seeing it as a force opposing sovereign nations is more accurate. [1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/who-s-exempt-from-canada-s-foreign-homebuyers-ban-here-s-what-you-need-to-know-1.6214997 https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/who-s-exempt-from-canada-s-f... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Zapatista_Uprising_in_Chiapas,_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Orders - order 81
- throwawaytrafe 4y agoThe west were happy trading with China even though it's threating democracies around the world but its only become an enemy when it challenged them. There you got the Champions of humanity
- etherael 4y agoNews at 8, actors self interested. In other news; water wet.
- rhaway84773 4y agoYeah, amazing how that works. People do things when it’s working well for them. And stop doing things when it’s not.
- prox 4y agoThe thing is many act surprised in the light of it. “I didn’t know.” is kind of a hard sell when you have been ordering with Alibaba for a decade. Greed before morals.
- cat_plus_plus 4y agoEngineers should know centralized systems do not work. There is a place for trade, but absolute reliance on Russian gas or Chinese goods creates a single point of failure. There has to be an option to fall back to local sources of goods quickly, or every country becomes a single point of failure.
- sho 4y agoYes, every time I fill the kettle from my centralized water authority then flip it on from my centralized electricity provider, then pick up my centralized newspaper to read about the performance of my investment portfolio on its centralized stock exchange, that's exactly what I think. Centralized systems simply don't work.
- cat_plus_plus 4y agoI guess you are not in Michigan or California since you are bragging about utilities. Actually sounds like you are in a totalitarian country since you have one centralized newspaper and one stock exchange. All right, enjoy your cool aid...
- justinclift 4y agoCentralised systems seem to work pretty well, when they're resourced ok, run by competent people, and share the same (or similar) values to you. When any of those are badly off track, then alternatives/fallbacks start looking good. ;)
- pantulis 4y ago"We are sliding into a darker world order. " This is the TLDR; I guess Japan will not be the only country taking similar steps. With a looming energy crisis (it's not clear how more sustainable energy sources will support the same historic growth) and an automation crisis (technology will make irrelevant many jobs before there is demand fornew ones) the social orders will be disrupted.
- xg15 4y agoGuys, could we be sensible enough not to slide into another world war this time because of trade agreements and political rivalry?
- hackeraccount 4y agoIs that why we went into the last war?
- xg15 4y agoNot WW2, but political rivalries and fight for geopolitical power were big factors for WW1, from what I've read. (Not sure about trade agreements though, admitted)
- hackeraccount 4y agoHave you read The Sleepwalkers? I found it so depressing that despite really liking it I couldn't finish it. It made me pine for the Austro-Hungarian empire. Which I freely admit is totally idiotic. In any case it painted a picture (to me; I have no idea if this was the authors intent or view) of WWI starting because all of the parties were convinced that they were at a point of maximum relative strength. Germany wanted war in 1914 because they believed Russia would soon be an unstoppable colossus, France wanted war in 1914 because they thought an alliance with Russia and the U.K. in it was untenable and would soon split apart. Maybe it's a convincing argument, maybe not but it appeals to me because it's not so much apportioning blame as it is describing motivations. WWII on the other hand. Blame is easy to hand out. The motivations I can ascribe to Germany/Japan/USSR start out vaguely plausible in a geopolitical sense but the more you look at them the more it seems just madness in a way that none of the parties in WWI seem.
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y agoFrom my non-US perspective, this kind of views that China has somehow done something to disrupt world order look like obvious delusions, and I don't understand why they seem to be believed in America. Sure, China is authoritarian. But it has always been. And it has never promised otherwise. Maybe some naive neoliberals expected it to become democratic due to some magical thinking that trade brings democracy, but as far as I know this is just Western imagination at work, not anything that China ever vowed to do, so why is China acting coherently with its decades-long policy is suddenly seen in America as some sort of treason? And then, there is the military aspect... and sure, China is warlike, threatens Taiwan, etc., but is anyone going to seriously defend that the US is less warlike than China? Come on. The only real explanation seems to be that China has lately been successful in becoming more powerful (the goal of any country) and the US isn't taking that well at all, the rest looks like blatant propaganda.
- prox 4y agoI agree with some of your comments, but the problem we are facing is that without democracy, we don’t know what the people of China or say Russia (or take your pick) really want. The power is concentrated at the top of pyramid and so this immediately makes it a precarious situation where a few determine for the many. In the 00’s there were some hopes and signals and work done to see more democracy in those spheres, but it never materialized. So while you are right in the sense of China doing China things as it has, or Russia Russian things, the fact that one guy could wake up in a grumpy mood and start a war is what makes things a lot more fragile than they ought to be. Democracy is a bulwark against this type of fragile type of government.
- ekianjo 4y ago> but is anyone going to seriously defend that the US is less warlike than China? Come on. Nobody wants to live in a world where China defines the world order. They don't care about their own citizens and will care even less about the other countries they plan to control in one way or another. Also, the US is war-like but it's still a functioning democracy despite all its flaws and the power can change every x years. With China you end up with a dictator-for-life and good luck with that.
- deleted 4y ago
- onetokeoverthe 4y ago[dead]
- aaron695 4y ago[dead]
- andrewstuart 4y agoGlobalization was meant to make us all happy friends but that wasn’t enough for some countries who feel that they should rule the world.
- lazylizard 4y agoi mean. china hasn't finished its paused independence war yet... china is still butthurt over the burning/looting of its buckingham/versailles/whitehouse... maybe it just took a pause from the tang/song/ming dynastys? and does think the 9-line is its pond... it might be like...what would congo do to belgium if it could?