5 ms·

China seems to be the only candidate. But whatever happens it won’t be in the same way as before. As for whether it is better for everyone, that question beca

by bborud 8mo ago

China seems to be the only candidate. But whatever happens it won’t be in the same way as before. As for whether it is better for everyone, that question became a lot harder in just the last year. Who is «everyone»? And what do we mean by «better»? With the US wanting to annex territory from its NATO allies, and engaging in extortionate tariffs, it is harder to argue that the US is good for Europe. Which is why Europe has already started to look eastward. Starting with a comprehensive trade deal with India. What’s happening is good for Russia and China. Not so much for the rest of the world.

michaelsshaw 8mo ago
I disagree that something good for China is necessarily bad for the rest of the world, which you seem to imply here includes only Europe. China alone has a higher population than Europe and the USA combined. I'd say that even if things got worse for Europe, to humanity it still constitutes a net benefit. Lives aren't of less value just because they're in a (gasp) communist country.
- johnnyanmac 8mo ago
  Not necessarily. But China's aggression towards Taiwan and their recent rare earth metals move last year show that China does not have the worlds best interests at heart either. We're picking between two evils and China's evil is more predictable than the US's right now. This goes for Asia in general. Korea, Japan, and China spent centuries fighting and making them the de facto super power makes it easy to resume the Korean war or try to overtake the (military wise) crippled Japan should they be emboldened by the faltering/collapse of NATO.
  - newsclues 8mo ago
    How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from?
    - dh2022 8mo ago
      I have to say that China will probably be a major force in reducing carbon emissions. Yes, China burns a lot of coal; but they also produce and deploy a lot of solar, wind, and soon nuclear energy. Someone else said it better: future will run on China’s batteries.
    - bborud 8mo ago
      They seem to have achieved peak coal and coal use is slowly declining. Its percentage of the energy mix has been declining over the last decade. That’s not great, but it is a positive. And certainly better than we feared a decade ago. The world isn’t static.
    - michaelsshaw 8mo ago
      > How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? As in any developing country, China has relied on cheap fossil fuels for rapid growth. Now, China is a global leader in reducing emissions, essentially blowing every other country out of the water. > Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Is literally anything about the US sustainable? > Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from? You mean the legal drug that is absolutely 100% necessary for use in hospitals? Yeah, don't care. It seems you're supremely focused on "China bad" gotchas as a desperate final gasp because you may be realizing that you don't actually have anything interesting to add to any conversation on any topic. Perhaps think more before opening your mouth.
- lm28469 8mo ago
  > communist country New things need new words to describe them, I know people love to call bad guys "nazis" or "communists" and that everyone seems stuck with 1939 lingo but come one. 1950s china isn't 1980s china which isn't 2026 china, yet they're all ""communists""
  - newsclues 8mo ago
    No words are not required. Authoritarian. Totalitarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism is an OLD term.
    - lm28469 8mo ago
      None of these are "communism"... people who don't know better use it as a "china bad" gotcha because it's about as far as their political education allows them to think but it really is way more complex than that. > Authoritarian. Totalitarian. Yes these apply, but they're not synonyms of communism. The Iranian government is authoritarian, totalitarian and absolutely not communist > Red fascism is an OLD term. But surely you see how dumb this sounds? Fascism is by definition a far right moment, communism is by definition far left moment. By definition fascism is opposed to communism... Of course if we start using literal American propagandists buzzwords ("red fascism") as a basis for modern political discussions we're not going to get anywhere...
      - amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
        I'm not sure left vs right is that useful a distinction. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany called themselves socialist, and both claimed to be doing what was best for their people.
        krapp 8mo ago
        >Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany called themselves socialist, and both claimed to be doing what was best for their people. The Nazis weren't socialist. They appropriated the term as a propaganda tactic, a means of appealing to the masses. North Korea calls itself a democratic republic, but is obviously neither. One can't simply assume political labels to be correct. In terms of their actual policies and beliefs, the Nazis were vehemently anti-socialist. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
- bborud 8mo ago
  I didn’t say or imply that.

by bborud 8mo ago

michaelsshaw 8mo ago

I disagree that something good for China is necessarily bad for the rest of the world, which you seem to imply here includes only Europe. China alone has a higher population than Europe and the USA combined. I'd say that even if things got worse for Europe, to humanity it still constitutes a net benefit. Lives aren't of less value just because they're in a (gasp) communist country.

johnnyanmac 8mo ago
Not necessarily. But China's aggression towards Taiwan and their recent rare earth metals move last year show that China does not have the worlds best interests at heart either. We're picking between two evils and China's evil is more predictable than the US's right now. This goes for Asia in general. Korea, Japan, and China spent centuries fighting and making them the de facto super power makes it easy to resume the Korean war or try to overtake the (military wise) crippled Japan should they be emboldened by the faltering/collapse of NATO.
- newsclues 8mo ago
  How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from?
  - dh2022 8mo ago
    I have to say that China will probably be a major force in reducing carbon emissions. Yes, China burns a lot of coal; but they also produce and deploy a lot of solar, wind, and soon nuclear energy. Someone else said it better: future will run on China’s batteries.
  - bborud 8mo ago
    They seem to have achieved peak coal and coal use is slowly declining. Its percentage of the energy mix has been declining over the last decade. That’s not great, but it is a positive. And certainly better than we feared a decade ago. The world isn’t static.
  - michaelsshaw 8mo ago
    > How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? As in any developing country, China has relied on cheap fossil fuels for rapid growth. Now, China is a global leader in reducing emissions, essentially blowing every other country out of the water. > Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Is literally anything about the US sustainable? > Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from? You mean the legal drug that is absolutely 100% necessary for use in hospitals? Yeah, don't care. It seems you're supremely focused on "China bad" gotchas as a desperate final gasp because you may be realizing that you don't actually have anything interesting to add to any conversation on any topic. Perhaps think more before opening your mouth.
lm28469 8mo ago
> communist country New things need new words to describe them, I know people love to call bad guys "nazis" or "communists" and that everyone seems stuck with 1939 lingo but come one. 1950s china isn't 1980s china which isn't 2026 china, yet they're all ""communists""
- newsclues 8mo ago
  No words are not required. Authoritarian. Totalitarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism is an OLD term.
  - lm28469 8mo ago
    None of these are "communism"... people who don't know better use it as a "china bad" gotcha because it's about as far as their political education allows them to think but it really is way more complex than that. > Authoritarian. Totalitarian. Yes these apply, but they're not synonyms of communism. The Iranian government is authoritarian, totalitarian and absolutely not communist > Red fascism is an OLD term. But surely you see how dumb this sounds? Fascism is by definition a far right moment, communism is by definition far left moment. By definition fascism is opposed to communism... Of course if we start using literal American propagandists buzzwords ("red fascism") as a basis for modern political discussions we're not going to get anywhere...
    - amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
      I'm not sure left vs right is that useful a distinction. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany called themselves socialist, and both claimed to be doing what was best for their people.
      - krapp 8mo ago
        >Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany called themselves socialist, and both claimed to be doing what was best for their people. The Nazis weren't socialist. They appropriated the term as a propaganda tactic, a means of appealing to the masses. North Korea calls itself a democratic republic, but is obviously neither. One can't simply assume political labels to be correct. In terms of their actual policies and beliefs, the Nazis were vehemently anti-socialist. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
bborud 8mo ago
I didn’t say or imply that.