3 ms·

> […] because the Chinese government has started massively distorting the economy in favor of automation projects. It's widely known that one of the hardest par

> […] because the Chinese government has started massively distorting the economy in favor of automation projects. It's widely known that one of the hardest parts of planning a factory is figuring out what to automate and what to use human labour for. … or it is an early manoeuvre – a pre-emptive measure – to address the looming burden of an ageing population and a dearth of young labour that – according to several demographic models – China will confront by roughly 2050 and thereafter[0]. The problem is compounded by the enforced One-Child Policy in the past, the ascendance of a mainland middle class, and the escalating costs of child-rearing; whilst, culturally and historically, sons are favoured amongst the populace, producing a gender imbalance skewed towards males – many of whom will, in consequence, be unable to marry or to propagate their line. According to the United Nations’ baseline projection – as cited in the AMRO report[1] – China’s population in 2050 is forecast at approximately 1.26 billion, with about 30 per cent aged 65 and over, whilst roughly 40 per cent will be aged 60 and over. This constitutes the more optimistic projection. The Lancet scenario[2] is more gloomy and projects a 1 billion population by 2050, with 3 out of 10 being of the age of 65+. It is entirely plausible that the Chinese government is distorting the economy; alternatively, it is attempting to mitigate – or to avert – an impending crisis by way of automation and robotics. The reality may well lie somewhere between these positions. [0] https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2050/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2050/ [1] https://amro-asia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/AN_Chinas-Long-term-Growth-Prospect-2023-12-14_amended.pdf https://amro-asia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/AN_Chinas-L... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736%2820%2930677-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736%2820%2930677-2/...

mike_hearn 1y ago
Robots installed now will be obsolete and broken by 2050. Demographic change is the sort of thing where market mechanisms work fine. You don't build out assets like those ahead of demand, you wait until you need them at which point you get the latest tech with economies of scale as demand ramps up everywhere. The most optimistic reading of this move is that it's just more of the same old communism: robotic factories seem cool to the planners because they're big, visible and high-tech assets that are easily visitable on state trips. So they overinvest for the same reason they once overinvested in steel production. The actually most gloomy prognosis is that they're trying to free up labour to enter the army.
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  Serious question, why load up the army with people? Drones and autonomous weapons are 100% here now. We don't need a mass of general infantry, the new pattern is spec-ops spotting and targeting for autonomous kinetic munitions. Think ghosts in starcraft.
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    The only way to genuinely control captured territory on the ground is with infantry, and it'll remain that way for a while yet. America demonstrated the limits of what you can do with Predator drones in Afghanistan; the tech worked great and posed a huge threat but the Taliban was never truly defeated and continued training and recruiting at scale. For something like an invasion of Taiwan or (gulp) other territories beyond that, the only way to completely subdue the captured population is with lots of soldiers.
    - CuriouslyC 1y ago
      That was true 10-20 years ago, but in a world with "terminators" I don't think it's true anymore. Regarding effective conquest, we can look at the historical lesson of Rome. Conquest is effective when you can co-opt local leaders and cultures to cause them to identify with the conquering culture. Conquest that doesn't cause integration is historically unstable.
- inkyoto 1y ago
  At no juncture did I suggest that the machines presently entering commission in the year 2025 would remain unaltered in perpetuity. Technological progress proceeds with unrelenting velocity — it is both natural and inevitable that subsequent refinements and augmentations will be introduced. The systems deployed today, in all likelihood, represent but preliminary trials and iterations — a proving ground — for capabilities yet to be fully revealed. China, indeed, possesses a longstanding tradition of curating information to satisfy the sensibilities of its ruling class — a practice traceable to the dynastic courts of antiquity. Yet, to dismiss a potential adversary solely upon the architecture of its political order is — at best — ill-advised, and at worst, a grave miscalculation. The probability of threat must be judged on capacity, not narrative. Whether such an adversary proves formidable or farcical is immaterial at present — the truth will emerge within the span of a decade or so.

mike_hearn 1y ago

Robots installed now will be obsolete and broken by 2050. Demographic change is the sort of thing where market mechanisms work fine. You don't build out assets like those ahead of demand, you wait until you need them at which point you get the latest tech with economies of scale as demand ramps up everywhere. The most optimistic reading of this move is that it's just more of the same old communism: robotic factories seem cool to the planners because they're big, visible and high-tech assets that are easily visitable on state trips. So they overinvest for the same reason they once overinvested in steel production. The actually most gloomy prognosis is that they're trying to free up labour to enter the army.

CuriouslyC 1y ago
Serious question, why load up the army with people? Drones and autonomous weapons are 100% here now. We don't need a mass of general infantry, the new pattern is spec-ops spotting and targeting for autonomous kinetic munitions. Think ghosts in starcraft.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  The only way to genuinely control captured territory on the ground is with infantry, and it'll remain that way for a while yet. America demonstrated the limits of what you can do with Predator drones in Afghanistan; the tech worked great and posed a huge threat but the Taliban was never truly defeated and continued training and recruiting at scale. For something like an invasion of Taiwan or (gulp) other territories beyond that, the only way to completely subdue the captured population is with lots of soldiers.
  - CuriouslyC 1y ago
    That was true 10-20 years ago, but in a world with "terminators" I don't think it's true anymore. Regarding effective conquest, we can look at the historical lesson of Rome. Conquest is effective when you can co-opt local leaders and cultures to cause them to identify with the conquering culture. Conquest that doesn't cause integration is historically unstable.
inkyoto 1y ago
At no juncture did I suggest that the machines presently entering commission in the year 2025 would remain unaltered in perpetuity. Technological progress proceeds with unrelenting velocity — it is both natural and inevitable that subsequent refinements and augmentations will be introduced. The systems deployed today, in all likelihood, represent but preliminary trials and iterations — a proving ground — for capabilities yet to be fully revealed. China, indeed, possesses a longstanding tradition of curating information to satisfy the sensibilities of its ruling class — a practice traceable to the dynastic courts of antiquity. Yet, to dismiss a potential adversary solely upon the architecture of its political order is — at best — ill-advised, and at worst, a grave miscalculation. The probability of threat must be judged on capacity, not narrative. Whether such an adversary proves formidable or farcical is immaterial at present — the truth will emerge within the span of a decade or so.