4 ms·

China is already very advanced, I’d say that when it comes to reasonably large countries (so ignoring city-states) it is one of the most tech/industrially advan

China is already very advanced, I’d say that when it comes to reasonably large countries (so ignoring city-states) it is one of the most tech/industrially advanced countries out there, if not the most advanced. For example the US might still have some advances in tech but basic stuff like speed/rail systems are just not up to par, while countries like Japan or Germany might still be ahead of China in some specialized industrial stuff but their tech/IT feels like it’s a geological era behind China’s. The next billion people that might get industrialized now live in Africa, but the situation is a little bit more complex there.

DrBazza 3y ago
It's "easy" to go from nothing to 'the latest'. It's not easy to go from 'established' to 'the latest'. Ignoring the way China tramples over its peoples' rights, it was largely agrarian society. It could put factories, train lines, and roads anywhere it wants, build bridges and dams anywhere too. Now? London spent over 40 years planning The Elizabeth Line before the first shovel was put in the ground. HS2 our second true high speed line look 20 years in planning, and they're still squabbling. Upgrading the country from an existing phone network of copper cables around since the 1900s will have taken 30 years to go fully fibre. It might be interesting to imagine if China modernized in the 70s, how it might be now.
- bakuninsbart 3y ago
  There's some truth to this, but in my opinion especially the line about not respecting their citizens rights is a cop out. In China there are plenty of silly situations like building a highway around a house, because the person didn't want to sell. The difference is that they then just build around it, instead of incessantly discussing back and forth for decades on different approaches. Many western countries have in effect neutered their ability to move through a) lack of long-term accountability in public administration and b) a motivated minority having greater influence than the silent majority. For politicians it is usually prudent to just kick controversial stuff down the road a couple of years for the next person to pick up. While something the Elizabeth line is greatly beneficial to London as a whole, it is annoying for neighbors, at least while being built, and for the majority EL isn't a deciding factor for election, for those neighbors it might be.
cyberax 3y ago
Rail systems are not "basic", they are a superfluous technology for the US. There's simply no use-case for them outside of several population clusters. Instead the US has the interstate freeway system that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world in size and capacity.
- phkahler 3y ago
  Rail is important in the US, it's just not for people. The highway system isn't that much better than some other places.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    The US freeway (and highway) system is great because it's consistent across the entire US. I don't know any other comparable road system of that size. E.g. German Autobahns are arguably better than Interstates, but the entire Germany could fit inside Oregon and a bit of Nevada. And nearby Polish roads are nowhere near as nice as Autobahns.
audunw 3y ago
The bit caveat here is that most of the progress has been in a few areas along the coast. A majority of Chinese are still very poor and not really seeing the benefit of this technology. Even the wealthiest provinces of China have lower GDP/capita than countries like Japan and Taiwan. Can you point out anything specific where China is ahead in tech/IT? Are you sure your perspective is up to date? From a European perspective there was a point where I was impressed how China was ahead in mobile payment. And I was impressed by Taiwans NFC payment tags. But today the QR code payment system seems quaint and outdated, and the mobile and NFC payment system we have seem as good if not better.
yorwba 3y ago
There's two kinds of technological progress: in depth and in breadth. A country advances in depth by pouring lots of resources into very expensive facilities the likes of which might only exist a few times on Earth in order to make breakthroughs at the frontier of knowledge. I guess a "chip equipment R&D center" counts in this category. A country advances in breadth by diffusing technology so widely it affects the life of basically everyone. When people talk about "welcoming another billion+ humans into living in an advanced industrial society" I think this is what they're imagining. Advances in depth get easier with a larger population, because it increases the total resources available for megaprojects. Advances in breadth get harder because so many more people need to be covered. I think comparisons that put China technologically ahead of Western industrialized nations are confusing depth for breadth. For example, the International Federation of Robotics has a ranking of countries by ratio of robots to manufacturing workers https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robotics-race-korea-singapore-and-germany-in-the-lead https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robotics-race... where China is in fifth place after Korea, Singapore, Germany and Japan. But then down below, they say that China has "a huge workforce of roughly 38 million people in the manufacturing industry" – in a country of more than a billion people, that number is clearly off by an order of magnitude. I guess they're excluding a lot of low-tech manufacturing that employs the vast majority of workers. So the comparison is only relevant for a small sliver of the population.

DrBazza 3y ago

It's "easy" to go from nothing to 'the latest'. It's not easy to go from 'established' to 'the latest'. Ignoring the way China tramples over its peoples' rights, it was largely agrarian society. It could put factories, train lines, and roads anywhere it wants, build bridges and dams anywhere too. Now? London spent over 40 years planning The Elizabeth Line before the first shovel was put in the ground. HS2 our second true high speed line look 20 years in planning, and they're still squabbling. Upgrading the country from an existing phone network of copper cables around since the 1900s will have taken 30 years to go fully fibre. It might be interesting to imagine if China modernized in the 70s, how it might be now.

bakuninsbart 3y ago
There's some truth to this, but in my opinion especially the line about not respecting their citizens rights is a cop out. In China there are plenty of silly situations like building a highway around a house, because the person didn't want to sell. The difference is that they then just build around it, instead of incessantly discussing back and forth for decades on different approaches. Many western countries have in effect neutered their ability to move through a) lack of long-term accountability in public administration and b) a motivated minority having greater influence than the silent majority. For politicians it is usually prudent to just kick controversial stuff down the road a couple of years for the next person to pick up. While something the Elizabeth line is greatly beneficial to London as a whole, it is annoying for neighbors, at least while being built, and for the majority EL isn't a deciding factor for election, for those neighbors it might be.

cyberax 3y ago

Rail systems are not "basic", they are a superfluous technology for the US. There's simply no use-case for them outside of several population clusters. Instead the US has the interstate freeway system that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world in size and capacity.

phkahler 3y ago
Rail is important in the US, it's just not for people. The highway system isn't that much better than some other places.
- cyberax 3y ago
  The US freeway (and highway) system is great because it's consistent across the entire US. I don't know any other comparable road system of that size. E.g. German Autobahns are arguably better than Interstates, but the entire Germany could fit inside Oregon and a bit of Nevada. And nearby Polish roads are nowhere near as nice as Autobahns.

audunw 3y ago

The bit caveat here is that most of the progress has been in a few areas along the coast. A majority of Chinese are still very poor and not really seeing the benefit of this technology. Even the wealthiest provinces of China have lower GDP/capita than countries like Japan and Taiwan. Can you point out anything specific where China is ahead in tech/IT? Are you sure your perspective is up to date? From a European perspective there was a point where I was impressed how China was ahead in mobile payment. And I was impressed by Taiwans NFC payment tags. But today the QR code payment system seems quaint and outdated, and the mobile and NFC payment system we have seem as good if not better.

yorwba 3y ago

There's two kinds of technological progress: in depth and in breadth. A country advances in depth by pouring lots of resources into very expensive facilities the likes of which might only exist a few times on Earth in order to make breakthroughs at the frontier of knowledge. I guess a "chip equipment R&D center" counts in this category. A country advances in breadth by diffusing technology so widely it affects the life of basically everyone. When people talk about "welcoming another billion+ humans into living in an advanced industrial society" I think this is what they're imagining. Advances in depth get easier with a larger population, because it increases the total resources available for megaprojects. Advances in breadth get harder because so many more people need to be covered. I think comparisons that put China technologically ahead of Western industrialized nations are confusing depth for breadth. For example, the International Federation of Robotics has a ranking of countries by ratio of robots to manufacturing workers https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robotics-race-korea-singapore-and-germany-in-the-lead https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robotics-race... where China is in fifth place after Korea, Singapore, Germany and Japan. But then down below, they say that China has "a huge workforce of roughly 38 million people in the manufacturing industry" – in a country of more than a billion people, that number is clearly off by an order of magnitude. I guess they're excluding a lot of low-tech manufacturing that employs the vast majority of workers. So the comparison is only relevant for a small sliver of the population.