The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Bifurcation of Global Science Production?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I called the coming bifurcation of the world economy last November. Could this also extend to science?

IEEE, a major science publisher, bans Huawei scientists from reviewing papers:

A major scientific society has banned employees of Huawei, the Chinese communications giant, from reviewing submissions to its journals because of U.S. government sanctions against the company.

The New York City–based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) told editors of its roughly 200 journals yesterday that it feared “severe legal implications” from continuing to use Huawei scientists as reviewers in vetting technical papers. They can continue to serve on IEEE editorial boards, according to the memo, but “cannot handle any papers” until the sanctions are lifted. …

What they can’t do as an employee of a company on the BIS entity list is be given access to the type of technical information that would be part of a research article. Specifically, IEEE says they “cannot receive or access materials submitted by other persons until after IEE has accepted the material for publication.” At that point, Huawei scientists “may act as editor or peer reviewer for that material.”

During the Cold War, there developed essentially two different scientific systems (citations databases, journals, language) in the West (dominated by English by the 1970s) and the socialist bloc (Russian).

Would be interesting to see that repeat for the Blue Empire and the Sinosphere. Which of them would come out on top? Which will be the lingua franca of the scientific community by the 22nd century?

Blue Empire – Currently dominant, benefits from global brain drain; though increasingly hobbled by wokeness, the diversity cult, etc. In the longer-time, dysgenic fertility (immigration doesn’t play such a big role as has no effect on absolute number of smart fractions).

Sinosphere – Many more high-IQ people, less ideological inanity (though who knows with commies long-term). But also has dysgenic fertility. Plus East Asian conformism constrains potential (e.g. 8 million Swiss produce as much elite science as 52 million Koreans).

It will very likely be a disaster for scientific progress at a global level.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: China, Great Bifurcation, Science 
Hide 100 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Soviet “philosophy and social sciences” were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese “philosophy and social sciences”.

    • Replies: @neutral
    The censorship in the USA (and its puppets) is in many ways even worse, and they are not just censoring the social "sciences" even the hard sciences are being increasingly being censored by the extreme left.
    , @James N. Kennett

    Soviet “philosophy and social sciences” were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese “philosophy and social sciences”.
     
    The Soviet Union achieved substantial results in the physical sciences. Western publishers translated several Soviet journals from Russian to English to make the work more accessible to Western scientists.

    Chinese "philosophy and social sciences" will be irrelevant and meaningless - just like our own - but we will not be able to ignore Chinese results in physical science and technology.
    , @RobRich
    Libertarians (Li-bao-tai-ren) have a lock on applied philosophy and social science that actually works and so are extremely influential in China, so good luck with that. Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    When I toured Russia after the fall of the wall scientists cheerfully told me that, like most things coerced socialism produces, the science and PhD theses were 90% garbage. As in tanks that didn't work unless you applied a sledgehammer to the clutch, no interchangeable parts for jet planes (they had to be customized on site), citations to mythic sources, and the typical research paper or PhD thesis being a plagiarized recycling of previous ones which were usually on the order of about the Influence of Marxist dialectics on growing potatoes or the quantum. China doesn't want to end up there. They are justifiably furious about the tariffs. They played ball with the US on freer trade for 2 decades and Trump stabbed them in the back to accomplish --nothing. To be fair, he is popular with the Chinese man-on-the-street who sees Trump as sticking it to the Commie elite and run small business having friends import/export stuff under the radar, so who cares about tariffs?

    China's most intelligent move is to ratify the US Constitution and apply for entry as a compact ally or commonwealth. The US should if smart simply plant troops in Siberia and depopulated West China and annex (total mostly White population: 60MM, local polls show most think that would be great.

    Heck, East China even comes with its own wall.
    , @AnonFromTN
    Soviet philosophy (called Marxist-Leninist, even though it wasn’t quite that) was a form of religion, as meaningless and nonsensical as any other.

    There was a good joke about it.
    - What is philosophy?
    - It’s when you try to catch an absolutely black cat in an absolutely dark room.
    - What is Marxist philosophy?
    - It’s when you try to catch an absolutely black cat in an absolutely dark room, knowing beforehand that it’s not there.
    - What is Marxist-Leninist philosophy?
    - It’s when you try to catch an absolutely black cat in an absolutely dark room, knowing beforehand that it’s not there, and exclaiming from time to time “gotcha!”
  2. Sinosphere – Many more high-IQ people

    How do you figure?

    The Blue Empire contains all of Europe, Latin America, India, Japan, South Korea.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    The Blue Empire contains all of Europe, Latin America, India, Japan, South Korea.
     
    Europe will be bifurcated itself. While Britain, for instance, can be expected to solidly back the US, the weaker economies of Visegrad and the Med, as well as neutrals such as Austria, will not be as enthusiastic. This category may well even include Germany.

    https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-01124-7/public/img/5747565-nature-map-2-small.png

    The individual countries of Latin America will veer from one camp to another.

    India, Japan, and South Korea (and Russia) will likely be their own Powers, balancing to some extent or another between the US and China. Though the former two will be closer to the US, while the latter two will be closer to China.
    , @AnonFromTN
    Sorry to disappoint, but the Empire and its vassals include North America (minus Mexico), much of Europe (minus Russia), Australia (+NZ), and partially Japan, South Korea, and Israel (those three often do not toe the line, even though they usually pretend to do so). Latin America and India are not integral parts of the Imperium.
  3. @sudden death
    Soviet "philosophy and social sciences" were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese "philosophy and social sciences".

    The censorship in the USA (and its puppets) is in many ways even worse, and they are not just censoring the social “sciences” even the hard sciences are being increasingly being censored by the extreme left.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    It would be stupid to deny that such informal censorship in the West exists, but it is also BS to say that it is "even worse" than in USSR or China. At worst you won't make pretty academic carrer if you're doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.
  4. @sudden death
    Soviet "philosophy and social sciences" were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese "philosophy and social sciences".

    Soviet “philosophy and social sciences” were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese “philosophy and social sciences”.

    The Soviet Union achieved substantial results in the physical sciences. Western publishers translated several Soviet journals from Russian to English to make the work more accessible to Western scientists.

    Chinese “philosophy and social sciences” will be irrelevant and meaningless – just like our own – but we will not be able to ignore Chinese results in physical science and technology.

    • Replies: @sudden death
    Regarding physical sciences this is correct, but it is worth noting that Soviets still managed to fuck up whole fields of hard science such as genetics or cybernetics on their home soil because of ideological reasons coupled with peculiarities of dictatorship.
  5. To be honest, in the near future, assuming a strict binary choice, the only states I could see choosing China over access to the rest of the developed world would be weak underdeveloped (and thus rather useless) countries or pariah states that have few choices anyway.

    That doesn’t mean China can’t develop certain fields on its own to a degree, but I don’t see a very large sphere of influence of important countries knowledge-wise clustering around China.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    You are partially right. Nobody will actually cluster around China per se, but a lot of countries would cluster around those who pointedly refuse to toe the Imperial line: China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. As far as popular feelings go, about 7/8th of the world population hates the Empire, about 1% loves it, with the rest being indifferent sheeple of the “golden billion”.
  6. @neutral
    The censorship in the USA (and its puppets) is in many ways even worse, and they are not just censoring the social "sciences" even the hard sciences are being increasingly being censored by the extreme left.

    It would be stupid to deny that such informal censorship in the West exists, but it is also BS to say that it is “even worse” than in USSR or China. At worst you won’t make pretty academic carrer if you’re doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    At worst you won’t make pretty academic carrer if you’re doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.
     
    Well, the political correctness that the CCP usually commands is its line on potential separatist states. I imagine if your study promotes something like Tibet independence, you could be warned or defunded, but the Party really has been going for the light touch as of late.

    A bigger challenge to Chinese science is going to be the frequency of fraud and just general bad behavior - poor communication, overinvolved apparatchik and efforts to throw money to solve problems.

    That said, there's a very strong infrastructure for genetics and biological work in general both on an animal and plant level, so I think we'll be seeing continued advancement down that path. Material science as well, especially if fundamental issues are addressed.
    , @neutral
    Its worse in the post West because everything is being targeted, absolutely everything, nothing can escape the diversity ideology. In China the government is concerned about being overthrown, in the post West the concern is to enforce any ever stricter ideological purity. To have the threat of fanatics destroying (and destroy is the correct word) your life for any violation of everything you do in life is far worse than being thrown in jail because you support Tibet.
    , @notanon

    it is also BS to say that it is “even worse” than in USSR or China
     
    i think you need to extrapolate a bit.

    unless PC is dramatically rolled back it's going to be far worse in the West.
    , @AnonFromTN
    That might have been close to the truth in Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China, but it is untrue in the USSR since 1960s and in China after Deng ascendancy.

    As to the consequences of censorship in the West to an individual, the fates of Manning and Assange, or that of Seth Rich, tell a different story.
  7. @James N. Kennett

    Soviet “philosophy and social sciences” were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese “philosophy and social sciences”.
     
    The Soviet Union achieved substantial results in the physical sciences. Western publishers translated several Soviet journals from Russian to English to make the work more accessible to Western scientists.

    Chinese "philosophy and social sciences" will be irrelevant and meaningless - just like our own - but we will not be able to ignore Chinese results in physical science and technology.

    Regarding physical sciences this is correct, but it is worth noting that Soviets still managed to fuck up whole fields of hard science such as genetics or cybernetics on their home soil because of ideological reasons coupled with peculiarities of dictatorship.

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    The Soviet Union might have screwed up physics altogether as quantum mechanics and relativity were under increasing attack as "antimaterialistic", "bourgeois", "not compatible with the historical determinism of dialectic materialism" but then Stalin heard about Hiroshima. He gave the job to Beria who quickly realized he can either have ideologically correct physics or he can have the bomb and they picked the bomb.

    The atomic bomb gave much of physics a get out of gulag free card but some things were still screwed by ideology, for example Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    , @AnonFromTN
    That was true until Khrushchev was deposed in 1964. After that the Party stopped meddling in real sciences.
  8. @sudden death
    It would be stupid to deny that such informal censorship in the West exists, but it is also BS to say that it is "even worse" than in USSR or China. At worst you won't make pretty academic carrer if you're doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.

    At worst you won’t make pretty academic carrer if you’re doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.

    Well, the political correctness that the CCP usually commands is its line on potential separatist states. I imagine if your study promotes something like Tibet independence, you could be warned or defunded, but the Party really has been going for the light touch as of late.

    A bigger challenge to Chinese science is going to be the frequency of fraud and just general bad behavior – poor communication, overinvolved apparatchik and efforts to throw money to solve problems.

    That said, there’s a very strong infrastructure for genetics and biological work in general both on an animal and plant level, so I think we’ll be seeing continued advancement down that path. Material science as well, especially if fundamental issues are addressed.

    • Replies: @notanon

    A bigger challenge to Chinese science is going to be the frequency of fraud and just general bad behavior
     
    i think the competition is going to be a negative one of "least worst" between that and Western PC insanity.

    whoever wins i think the total amount of good science is going to decline.
  9. The Bifurcation and Dysgenics of 21st century Bioleninism anyone? 🙂

  10. @sudden death
    It would be stupid to deny that such informal censorship in the West exists, but it is also BS to say that it is "even worse" than in USSR or China. At worst you won't make pretty academic carrer if you're doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.

    Its worse in the post West because everything is being targeted, absolutely everything, nothing can escape the diversity ideology. In China the government is concerned about being overthrown, in the post West the concern is to enforce any ever stricter ideological purity. To have the threat of fanatics destroying (and destroy is the correct word) your life for any violation of everything you do in life is far worse than being thrown in jail because you support Tibet.

  11. So much western triumphalism. I think both sides are gona feel the burn. Eventually both will get out of this better off but Asians either first or wont even feel that much pain.

    All comes down to level of decay in society. Living in the west I can’t imagine it being worse than it is here.

  12. @sudden death
    Regarding physical sciences this is correct, but it is worth noting that Soviets still managed to fuck up whole fields of hard science such as genetics or cybernetics on their home soil because of ideological reasons coupled with peculiarities of dictatorship.

    The Soviet Union might have screwed up physics altogether as quantum mechanics and relativity were under increasing attack as “antimaterialistic”, “bourgeois”, “not compatible with the historical determinism of dialectic materialism” but then Stalin heard about Hiroshima. He gave the job to Beria who quickly realized he can either have ideologically correct physics or he can have the bomb and they picked the bomb.

    The atomic bomb gave much of physics a get out of gulag free card but some things were still screwed by ideology, for example Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Ultimately our only guide is what works. Not theory.

    If quantum theory contradicts materialism but works, we adopt it.

    I am certain this is the same mechanism by which we will overcome much of the craziness that afflicts the modern world. Our models are ceasing to work.
    , @Mr. Hack

    Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).
     
    Well, Big Bang cosmology does seem to give the creation story some new sails to help it evolve, modernize?...
    , @anonymous coward
    It's more than that. With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible.

    Darwin himself realized this and presupposed an infinitely large and infinitely old Universe.
    , @The Big Red Scary
    "the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists"

    I'm too young to have encountered that, it seems. Do any particular examples come to mind?
    , @Logan
    I occasionally run across Christian fundies and creationists who for some odd reason think Big Bang Theory is a sub-branch of evolution and is in conflict with the Bible's origin story.

    When in fact, of course, BBT is simply Genesis 1:1 restated.
  13. @Jaakko Raipala
    The Soviet Union might have screwed up physics altogether as quantum mechanics and relativity were under increasing attack as "antimaterialistic", "bourgeois", "not compatible with the historical determinism of dialectic materialism" but then Stalin heard about Hiroshima. He gave the job to Beria who quickly realized he can either have ideologically correct physics or he can have the bomb and they picked the bomb.

    The atomic bomb gave much of physics a get out of gulag free card but some things were still screwed by ideology, for example Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    Ultimately our only guide is what works. Not theory.

    If quantum theory contradicts materialism but works, we adopt it.

    I am certain this is the same mechanism by which we will overcome much of the craziness that afflicts the modern world. Our models are ceasing to work.

  14. @AaronB

    Sinosphere – Many more high-IQ people
     
    How do you figure?

    The Blue Empire contains all of Europe, Latin America, India, Japan, South Korea.

    The Blue Empire contains all of Europe, Latin America, India, Japan, South Korea.

    Europe will be bifurcated itself. While Britain, for instance, can be expected to solidly back the US, the weaker economies of Visegrad and the Med, as well as neutrals such as Austria, will not be as enthusiastic. This category may well even include Germany.

    The individual countries of Latin America will veer from one camp to another.

    India, Japan, and South Korea (and Russia) will likely be their own Powers, balancing to some extent or another between the US and China. Though the former two will be closer to the US, while the latter two will be closer to China.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I agree with this politically, but I am not so sure the science will line up this way.

    The strange greater vitality of Western science, which you note in your post, will exert its own gravitational pull, siphoning away even people fully within the Sinosphere I suspect, and much more so those on the periphery.

    But even this political line up does not clearly leave the Sinosphere with more high IQ people.

    However, its also possible science will follow political alignment.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    This category may well even include Germany.
     
    Why?
  15. @Anatoly Karlin

    The Blue Empire contains all of Europe, Latin America, India, Japan, South Korea.
     
    Europe will be bifurcated itself. While Britain, for instance, can be expected to solidly back the US, the weaker economies of Visegrad and the Med, as well as neutrals such as Austria, will not be as enthusiastic. This category may well even include Germany.

    https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-01124-7/public/img/5747565-nature-map-2-small.png

    The individual countries of Latin America will veer from one camp to another.

    India, Japan, and South Korea (and Russia) will likely be their own Powers, balancing to some extent or another between the US and China. Though the former two will be closer to the US, while the latter two will be closer to China.

    I agree with this politically, but I am not so sure the science will line up this way.

    The strange greater vitality of Western science, which you note in your post, will exert its own gravitational pull, siphoning away even people fully within the Sinosphere I suspect, and much more so those on the periphery.

    But even this political line up does not clearly leave the Sinosphere with more high IQ people.

    However, its also possible science will follow political alignment.

    • Replies: @bob sykes
    About a third of all the graduate students in our STEM programs are Chinese nationals, and there are many Chinese on our STEM faculties. Together, the Chinese MS and PhD candidates and the Chinese faculty produce at least a third of all the science and engineering R&D attributed to the US.

    I might note that Chinese students and faculty are especially common in electrical engineering and computer sciences, which the IEEE represents. The IEEE President is an idiot.

    Further, until a few months ago, China had the two fastest supercomputers in the world, and they were completely Chinese, chips, architecture, software. The Chinese have more supercomputers than does the US. The Chinese company Huawei is the world leader in 5G. Except for some standard, non-proprietary chips, they design and manufacture their own chips and hardware, and they program it. China already has a more dense 5G network with wider coverage than the US. Only Japan exceeds them in installed 5G.
    , @notanon

    The strange greater vitality of Western science...
     
    i think this would be the deciding factor if it that vitality wasn't in the process of being destroyed.
  16. @Jaakko Raipala
    The Soviet Union might have screwed up physics altogether as quantum mechanics and relativity were under increasing attack as "antimaterialistic", "bourgeois", "not compatible with the historical determinism of dialectic materialism" but then Stalin heard about Hiroshima. He gave the job to Beria who quickly realized he can either have ideologically correct physics or he can have the bomb and they picked the bomb.

    The atomic bomb gave much of physics a get out of gulag free card but some things were still screwed by ideology, for example Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    Well, Big Bang cosmology does seem to give the creation story some new sails to help it evolve, modernize?…

  17. @Anatoly Karlin

    The Blue Empire contains all of Europe, Latin America, India, Japan, South Korea.
     
    Europe will be bifurcated itself. While Britain, for instance, can be expected to solidly back the US, the weaker economies of Visegrad and the Med, as well as neutrals such as Austria, will not be as enthusiastic. This category may well even include Germany.

    https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-01124-7/public/img/5747565-nature-map-2-small.png

    The individual countries of Latin America will veer from one camp to another.

    India, Japan, and South Korea (and Russia) will likely be their own Powers, balancing to some extent or another between the US and China. Though the former two will be closer to the US, while the latter two will be closer to China.

    This category may well even include Germany.

    Why?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Germany has threaded a line of on-off cooperation with China pretty consistently over the years. I did a quick google and pulled this up:

    https://hpi.de/en/news/jahrgaenge/2018/german-chinese-cooperation-program-extended-in-beijing.html

    But its been a pretty consistent thing. I've heard of some Western complaints about this, but it hasn't seemed to have changed things much. Of course, Germany recently rejected US demands to isolate Huawei.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/14/huawei-u-s-and-europe-divided-as-germany-formally-rejects-washingtons-demands/#127fcfb43bea
  18. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the West and China will both experience dysgenic fertility (thus causing achievement and innovation there to decline) while Sub-Saharan Africa (The World’s Most Glorious Continent!TM) will experience eugenic fertility as a result of it having a Malthusian catastrophe as a result of its extremely massive population growth–thus eventually causing Sub-Saharan Africa to become the world’s scientific, technological, and innovation hub.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    You joke , but I consider this entirely feasible.

    It's perfectly in line with the trickster nature of history.

    And the collapse of Med civ and the rise of northern Europe is exactly that kind if thing happening
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I, for one, would be pretty entertained.
    , @reiner Tor
    Not impossible; but we’d need to stop dysgenic trends in Africa by cutting off immigration of (relatively) smart Africans.
  19. How does one go from IEEE to Social Sciences?
    The article is referring only to action taken by IEEE.
    The more interesting aspect is that an international scientific body is subject to politics.
    Revealing that scientists are subjects of the rulers and hardly independent of politics in any nation-state.
    AFAIK Social Sciences have not produced any technological breakthroughs, ever.

  20. @Mr. XYZ
    Wouldn't it be interesting if the West and China will both experience dysgenic fertility (thus causing achievement and innovation there to decline) while Sub-Saharan Africa (The World's Most Glorious Continent!TM) will experience eugenic fertility as a result of it having a Malthusian catastrophe as a result of its extremely massive population growth--thus eventually causing Sub-Saharan Africa to become the world's scientific, technological, and innovation hub.

    You joke , but I consider this entirely feasible.

    It’s perfectly in line with the trickster nature of history.

    And the collapse of Med civ and the rise of northern Europe is exactly that kind if thing happening

  21. @Mr. XYZ

    This category may well even include Germany.
     
    Why?

    Germany has threaded a line of on-off cooperation with China pretty consistently over the years. I did a quick google and pulled this up:

    https://hpi.de/en/news/jahrgaenge/2018/german-chinese-cooperation-program-extended-in-beijing.html

    But its been a pretty consistent thing. I’ve heard of some Western complaints about this, but it hasn’t seemed to have changed things much. Of course, Germany recently rejected US demands to isolate Huawei.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/14/huawei-u-s-and-europe-divided-as-germany-formally-rejects-washingtons-demands/#127fcfb43bea

  22. @Mr. XYZ
    Wouldn't it be interesting if the West and China will both experience dysgenic fertility (thus causing achievement and innovation there to decline) while Sub-Saharan Africa (The World's Most Glorious Continent!TM) will experience eugenic fertility as a result of it having a Malthusian catastrophe as a result of its extremely massive population growth--thus eventually causing Sub-Saharan Africa to become the world's scientific, technological, and innovation hub.

    I, for one, would be pretty entertained.

  23. @Mr. XYZ
    Wouldn't it be interesting if the West and China will both experience dysgenic fertility (thus causing achievement and innovation there to decline) while Sub-Saharan Africa (The World's Most Glorious Continent!TM) will experience eugenic fertility as a result of it having a Malthusian catastrophe as a result of its extremely massive population growth--thus eventually causing Sub-Saharan Africa to become the world's scientific, technological, and innovation hub.

    Not impossible; but we’d need to stop dysgenic trends in Africa by cutting off immigration of (relatively) smart Africans.

  24. @AaronB
    I agree with this politically, but I am not so sure the science will line up this way.

    The strange greater vitality of Western science, which you note in your post, will exert its own gravitational pull, siphoning away even people fully within the Sinosphere I suspect, and much more so those on the periphery.

    But even this political line up does not clearly leave the Sinosphere with more high IQ people.

    However, its also possible science will follow political alignment.

    About a third of all the graduate students in our STEM programs are Chinese nationals, and there are many Chinese on our STEM faculties. Together, the Chinese MS and PhD candidates and the Chinese faculty produce at least a third of all the science and engineering R&D attributed to the US.

    I might note that Chinese students and faculty are especially common in electrical engineering and computer sciences, which the IEEE represents. The IEEE President is an idiot.

    Further, until a few months ago, China had the two fastest supercomputers in the world, and they were completely Chinese, chips, architecture, software. The Chinese have more supercomputers than does the US. The Chinese company Huawei is the world leader in 5G. Except for some standard, non-proprietary chips, they design and manufacture their own chips and hardware, and they program it. China already has a more dense 5G network with wider coverage than the US. Only Japan exceeds them in installed 5G.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Doesn't that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    These scientists can be working in China, but choose to work here. I am not aware of too many American or European scientists who have the opportunity to work in Western institutions choosing to work in China.

    Apparently the greater value and productivity of science in the West, created and sustained by Western scientists, observed by Karlin, exerts a gravitational pull even on Chinese scientists.

    Furthermore, the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear - they don't seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America. They appear to form battalions of yoeman laborers in the fields of science - tilling the fields under the direction of the native aristocracy.

    Useful, yes, and apparently they are excited enough to work in the West and grateful for the opportunity.

    Supercomputers and 5g are "additive" technologies - in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger. It is trivial to build stronger supercomputers. Transformative technologies are a different matter, and require a higher level of intellectual power.
  25. The predominant view among Flynn Effect experts is that IQ will drop in the US and Europe and will increase in the rest of the world, including in China.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/14/a-reversal-of-the-flynn-effect/

  26. @bob sykes
    About a third of all the graduate students in our STEM programs are Chinese nationals, and there are many Chinese on our STEM faculties. Together, the Chinese MS and PhD candidates and the Chinese faculty produce at least a third of all the science and engineering R&D attributed to the US.

    I might note that Chinese students and faculty are especially common in electrical engineering and computer sciences, which the IEEE represents. The IEEE President is an idiot.

    Further, until a few months ago, China had the two fastest supercomputers in the world, and they were completely Chinese, chips, architecture, software. The Chinese have more supercomputers than does the US. The Chinese company Huawei is the world leader in 5G. Except for some standard, non-proprietary chips, they design and manufacture their own chips and hardware, and they program it. China already has a more dense 5G network with wider coverage than the US. Only Japan exceeds them in installed 5G.

    Doesn’t that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    These scientists can be working in China, but choose to work here. I am not aware of too many American or European scientists who have the opportunity to work in Western institutions choosing to work in China.

    Apparently the greater value and productivity of science in the West, created and sustained by Western scientists, observed by Karlin, exerts a gravitational pull even on Chinese scientists.

    Furthermore, the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear – they don’t seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America. They appear to form battalions of yoeman laborers in the fields of science – tilling the fields under the direction of the native aristocracy.

    Useful, yes, and apparently they are excited enough to work in the West and grateful for the opportunity.

    Supercomputers and 5g are “additive” technologies – in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger. It is trivial to build stronger supercomputers. Transformative technologies are a different matter, and require a higher level of intellectual power.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear – they don’t seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America
     
    I quickly consulted the Internet.

    There were six Chinese-American Physics Nobel laureates. Two of them shared, that makes it five. The other four shared with American-Americans, which makes it a little under three. Out of well over fifty physics Nobel laureates. This is not bad relative to their share of the population, but not Jew-tier yet. Though I suspect there were significantly more Jews than Chinese in the US over most of the time since the Nobel Prize came into being.

    The numbers should increase, since Nobels are usually awarded for work done decades earlier. We’ll see.

    , @Daniel Chieh


    Supercomputers and 5g are “additive” technologies – in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger
     
    One could argue that Rome invented no transformative technologies. It lasted a thousand years.

    At any rate, China is pretty "transformative" in quite a few fields, including aspects that I'm not too fond of, such as big data for surveillance and population control which has become exported both as a concept and sometimes as practice elsewhere. Most of the genomic work is pretty much being led by the Chinese as well who have substantially stronger infrastructure in that area at this point.
    , @kelvin273
    > Doesn’t that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    More American hubris. In a country with command economy, permissions are needed even to relocate to another village or town, you think that people with high scientific potential will be allowed to exit the country?? Those that leave are most probably second rate students that do not have the intelligence to enter the local universities and and have to pay hefty university fees overseas. Sure there could be some late developers who blossom later.

    How many mouths can a Nobel prize feed? In the national priority of China Physics ranks number 7, two level below Ecology. Top priorities are Engineering, Material Science and Applied Chemistry (power chemistry for battery and electric car). In command economy the elite students are geared towards those priorities since high schools, their own interests are immaterial.

    The NatureIndex does not include engineering, but the performance of China, Russia and India are all lop-sided on Chemistry, only the spin off from Applied Chemistry. And the Physics that count are all unpublishable top secrets. Biology only received large funding since last year and they are able to clone primate through somatic cell nuclear transfer (e.g. ability to clone from just skin cells) even when US was first able to clone primate using the simpler and limited potential embryo splitting (only from fertilized eggs) but then development stalled not because of ethical reasons.
  27. Which of them would come out on top?

    The Africans who are still having kids.

    – Yours truly, Cap.

  28. @AaronB
    Doesn't that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    These scientists can be working in China, but choose to work here. I am not aware of too many American or European scientists who have the opportunity to work in Western institutions choosing to work in China.

    Apparently the greater value and productivity of science in the West, created and sustained by Western scientists, observed by Karlin, exerts a gravitational pull even on Chinese scientists.

    Furthermore, the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear - they don't seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America. They appear to form battalions of yoeman laborers in the fields of science - tilling the fields under the direction of the native aristocracy.

    Useful, yes, and apparently they are excited enough to work in the West and grateful for the opportunity.

    Supercomputers and 5g are "additive" technologies - in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger. It is trivial to build stronger supercomputers. Transformative technologies are a different matter, and require a higher level of intellectual power.

    the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear – they don’t seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America

    I quickly consulted the Internet.

    There were six Chinese-American Physics Nobel laureates. Two of them shared, that makes it five. The other four shared with American-Americans, which makes it a little under three. Out of well over fifty physics Nobel laureates. This is not bad relative to their share of the population, but not Jew-tier yet. Though I suspect there were significantly more Jews than Chinese in the US over most of the time since the Nobel Prize came into being.

    The numbers should increase, since Nobels are usually awarded for work done decades earlier. We’ll see.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Actually, I crunched the numbers once - Asian-American Nobels perfectly match their level of the population (5% in both cases), which is pretty impressive, because Asians in Asia obviously underperform.

    However, Asian Americans are something like 20% of elite schools, so their presence there in such large numbers doesn't seem justified by later life performance.

    But still, either the environment in America elevates Asian performance, or we are getting the best minds, or at least the most innovative ones - I suspect a bit of both.

    But the Chinese scientists who are not Americans, seem to converge more towards Asian norms, and the Asian group as a whole in the US seem to mostly fill the middle ranks of science. Solid, important, respectable, but nothing thrilling.
    , @Dmitry
    Who are the 6 Chinese American Nobel prize winners for Physics?

    I thought only 8 people of Chinese ethnicity have won a Nobel Prize in any field of science.

    So 8 Chinese ethnicity people have won 7 Nobel prizes in any field of science (and some of these shared).

    18,5% of the world population (Chinese ethnic people) have won 7 Nobel prizes in science. Chinese are slightly less successful than Pakistanis, in this metric.

    And Chinese ethnic people have been awarded 0 Field Medals, 0 Abel Prize, 1 Turing Award, etc.

  29. @Jaakko Raipala
    The Soviet Union might have screwed up physics altogether as quantum mechanics and relativity were under increasing attack as "antimaterialistic", "bourgeois", "not compatible with the historical determinism of dialectic materialism" but then Stalin heard about Hiroshima. He gave the job to Beria who quickly realized he can either have ideologically correct physics or he can have the bomb and they picked the bomb.

    The atomic bomb gave much of physics a get out of gulag free card but some things were still screwed by ideology, for example Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    It’s more than that. With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible.

    Darwin himself realized this and presupposed an infinitely large and infinitely old Universe.

    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    "With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible."

    Finite numbers can get pretty damned big, you know.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Darwin himself struggled with many aspects of evolution, but it has to be understood that he was missing a lot of pieces. He did not understand, for example, how variation could exist or persist through generations.

    It has often been loosely said that all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species; but by crossing we can only get forms in some degree intermediate between their parents - Origin of Species, 6th edition

    IIRC he was not aware of Mendelian genetics and therefore was trying to work out how to avoid having any variation "blended" away by intermediate generations.
    , @lauris71

    With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible
     
    I think it simply has probability 0 - but this is totally different thing from impossibility.
    Getting any real value randomly from continuous distribution has probability 0. But objects still have locations, speeds etc (ignoring certain QM aspects).
    But event probability 0 is questionable. Starting at least from Prigogine we know that local enthropy minimization is a thing and evolution extends naturally from that.
  30. @anonymous coward
    It's more than that. With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible.

    Darwin himself realized this and presupposed an infinitely large and infinitely old Universe.

    “With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible.”

    Finite numbers can get pretty damned big, you know.

  31. @reiner Tor

    the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear – they don’t seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America
     
    I quickly consulted the Internet.

    There were six Chinese-American Physics Nobel laureates. Two of them shared, that makes it five. The other four shared with American-Americans, which makes it a little under three. Out of well over fifty physics Nobel laureates. This is not bad relative to their share of the population, but not Jew-tier yet. Though I suspect there were significantly more Jews than Chinese in the US over most of the time since the Nobel Prize came into being.

    The numbers should increase, since Nobels are usually awarded for work done decades earlier. We’ll see.

    Actually, I crunched the numbers once – Asian-American Nobels perfectly match their level of the population (5% in both cases), which is pretty impressive, because Asians in Asia obviously underperform.

    However, Asian Americans are something like 20% of elite schools, so their presence there in such large numbers doesn’t seem justified by later life performance.

    But still, either the environment in America elevates Asian performance, or we are getting the best minds, or at least the most innovative ones – I suspect a bit of both.

    But the Chinese scientists who are not Americans, seem to converge more towards Asian norms, and the Asian group as a whole in the US seem to mostly fill the middle ranks of science. Solid, important, respectable, but nothing thrilling.

    • Replies: @EastKekistani
    You forgot the presence of a large group of SEAs especially Filipinos and Vietnamese in America. This completely screws up any stats related to "Asians". Yes, that includes Anatoly's work on "Asians" in LessWrong and other communities.

    I do realize that most NE Asian advances in STEM aren't thrilling. In the worst case, that is, this is fucking genetic, this is something to be fixed by CRISPR. :-) Otherwise it needs to be fixed by promoting all forms of anti-conformism in NE Asia. It may lead to more crime as a side effect but it is worth it.

    , @reiner Tor
    My statistics were distorted. Apparently some of these Nobel laureates were born in China, and only moved to the US later in life (while China was poor). It's also unclear if the number of US physics Nobel laureates includes such people or not. However, Chinese Americans are nowhere near 5% of the population. As late as 2000 they were still below 1%, while Asian Americans contain groups as diverse (in both meanings of the word) as Bangladeshi Americans and the Hmong.

    Anyway, regardless of Nobel laureates, it's pretty likely that East Asians are somewhat deficient in the nonconformism department, and so while they're likely to excel (and overtake whites) in the "add together existing technologies and make them stronger" type of activities, not that many truly original inventions are likely to come from them.

    However, I would argue that currently this is less of a disadvantage than would have been 100 or 50 years ago. There currently seem to be very few true original scientific or technological breakthroughs, and what there are, are relatively easy to copy, as long as the original content is merely an idea. For example smartphones, or even nuclear bombs: once you know it's possible, and have an idea how to start, East Asians will get there and perfect it beyond what most Europeans (except perhaps the Swiss and Germans and a few other similar) are capable of. So, Japanese cars will always be more reliable than American cars, but they won't invent the automobile. This is a big advantage for whites while things like the automobile are constantly being invented. It's an advantage for East Asians after technological progress slows down and merely consists of perfecting existing inventions.

    Also, achievement is usually 1% idea, 99% implementation. So being better at implementation ("add together existing technologies and make them stronger" is something like that) is actually not very bad. Anyway, whites are also very good at implementation, the East Asian advantage is not that big.

    The big issue is the insanity of the Globohomo Empire, which is actively working on destroying whites anywhere. I wouldn't bet on an empire intent on destroying its own core population. Immigration means lower fertility for whites, interbreeding with Chinese and upper caste Indian etc. immigrants (I've seen upper class whites with half-black children, though it's not very widespread), so the white advantage might get lost even in terms of creativity.

    Tl;dr

    I'd bet on whites if it was a whites against Chinese struggle. As it is, I think the Chinese have a very good chance to at least become a peer of the Globohomo Empire, and longer term even defeat it.

  32. @AaronB
    Doesn't that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    These scientists can be working in China, but choose to work here. I am not aware of too many American or European scientists who have the opportunity to work in Western institutions choosing to work in China.

    Apparently the greater value and productivity of science in the West, created and sustained by Western scientists, observed by Karlin, exerts a gravitational pull even on Chinese scientists.

    Furthermore, the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear - they don't seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America. They appear to form battalions of yoeman laborers in the fields of science - tilling the fields under the direction of the native aristocracy.

    Useful, yes, and apparently they are excited enough to work in the West and grateful for the opportunity.

    Supercomputers and 5g are "additive" technologies - in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger. It is trivial to build stronger supercomputers. Transformative technologies are a different matter, and require a higher level of intellectual power.

    Supercomputers and 5g are “additive” technologies – in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger

    One could argue that Rome invented no transformative technologies. It lasted a thousand years.

    At any rate, China is pretty “transformative” in quite a few fields, including aspects that I’m not too fond of, such as big data for surveillance and population control which has become exported both as a concept and sometimes as practice elsewhere. Most of the genomic work is pretty much being led by the Chinese as well who have substantially stronger infrastructure in that area at this point.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, that is how Rome is described in intellectual histories, as unoriginal but stable. And I find it interesting that many modern Chinese are fascinated by Ronan history - it's not just you. They obviously feel a kinship, and seek lessons.

    Stability and durability seem to be purchased at the price of a certain dullnes, and genius burns bright but fast. That seems to be the rule. Take your pick.

    I am by no means certain I prefer the instability of genius - I don't care too much about physical progress, and the price seems way too high.

    I am just classifying here and pointing out facts.
  33. @anonymous coward
    It's more than that. With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible.

    Darwin himself realized this and presupposed an infinitely large and infinitely old Universe.

    Darwin himself struggled with many aspects of evolution, but it has to be understood that he was missing a lot of pieces. He did not understand, for example, how variation could exist or persist through generations.

    It has often been loosely said that all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal species; but by crossing we can only get forms in some degree intermediate between their parents – Origin of Species, 6th edition

    IIRC he was not aware of Mendelian genetics and therefore was trying to work out how to avoid having any variation “blended” away by intermediate generations.

  34. @Jaakko Raipala
    The Soviet Union might have screwed up physics altogether as quantum mechanics and relativity were under increasing attack as "antimaterialistic", "bourgeois", "not compatible with the historical determinism of dialectic materialism" but then Stalin heard about Hiroshima. He gave the job to Beria who quickly realized he can either have ideologically correct physics or he can have the bomb and they picked the bomb.

    The atomic bomb gave much of physics a get out of gulag free card but some things were still screwed by ideology, for example Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    “the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists”

    I’m too young to have encountered that, it seems. Do any particular examples come to mind?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As a teenager I read a couple books called something like "History of Philosophy" and "The Basics of Marxist Philosophy," both several hundred pages long tomes written in the 1960s by some professor(s) of philosophy and Marxism-Leninism in Hungary. One of them (I can't remember which) mentioned the Big Bang as an example of how "idealism" (a cuss word for Marxist-Leninist philosophers) has crept into science, a sign of the degeneration of Western science in the last stages of the rotting capitalism and imperialism. I think it even went as far as criticizing quantum theory as such, which is pretty interesting in light of the fact that it was taught by the physics faculty of the same universities the authors of these esteemed philosophy textbooks did their - no doubt highly valuable - research and teaching.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    (late reply, I was traveling)

    The most notorious of anti-Big-Bang atheists was Hoyle who flat out declared that the duty of science is to prove that there is no creator and that's why the infinitely old universe has to be favored. The phrase "Big Bang" is actually his so it's a mockery invented by the biggest enemy of the theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

    He was the last notorious resistance. There much more earlier as the general philosophical assumption of 19th century - early 20th century physicists had been that the universe is infinite and infinitely old because in Newtonian mechanics an infinite universe can be stable - if it's filled with matter to all directions the gravitational pull to each direction cancels each other.

    One of the first things that Albert Einstein noticed about his new equations of gravity was that you can't have a stable infinite universe as the equation is no longer just a matter of adding up linear influences and gravity "piles on itself" so that any such universe collapses in a finite time. The way to avoid a collapsing universe is to have an expanding universe that for some reason has enough "momentum" to avoid folding under its own gravity - but that means the universe must have a beginning some finite time ago.

    So Einstein found the Big Bang but he thought that the impossibility of a stable infinite universe was a flaw in his theory and he started trying to change his theory rather than declare a new discovery - he later called this the greatest blunder of his career. So the Big Bang generally gets credited to this guy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    He was a Catholic priest, a Jesuit, who had to personally talk the Pope out of declaring the Big Bang a validation of the Catholic faith. In the early 20th century culture war the expanding universe had the "stigma" of coming from a religious Catholic and having been endorsed by the Pope when most scientists are atheists.
  35. @Daniel Chieh


    Supercomputers and 5g are “additive” technologies – in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger
     
    One could argue that Rome invented no transformative technologies. It lasted a thousand years.

    At any rate, China is pretty "transformative" in quite a few fields, including aspects that I'm not too fond of, such as big data for surveillance and population control which has become exported both as a concept and sometimes as practice elsewhere. Most of the genomic work is pretty much being led by the Chinese as well who have substantially stronger infrastructure in that area at this point.

    Well, that is how Rome is described in intellectual histories, as unoriginal but stable. And I find it interesting that many modern Chinese are fascinated by Ronan history – it’s not just you. They obviously feel a kinship, and seek lessons.

    Stability and durability seem to be purchased at the price of a certain dullnes, and genius burns bright but fast. That seems to be the rule. Take your pick.

    I am by no means certain I prefer the instability of genius – I don’t care too much about physical progress, and the price seems way too high.

    I am just classifying here and pointing out facts.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    IRome, in Western histories, is generally viewed with a certain amount of contempt compared to ancient Greece, and Greece was always the role model and inspiration for the West.

    Germany especially seized on Greece as its main source of inspiration in the 18th century.

    Modern Chinese seem to prefer Rome.

    But all cultures that are inspired by Greece seem to share the fate of ancient Greece - let this be a warning.

  36. @AaronB
    Well, that is how Rome is described in intellectual histories, as unoriginal but stable. And I find it interesting that many modern Chinese are fascinated by Ronan history - it's not just you. They obviously feel a kinship, and seek lessons.

    Stability and durability seem to be purchased at the price of a certain dullnes, and genius burns bright but fast. That seems to be the rule. Take your pick.

    I am by no means certain I prefer the instability of genius - I don't care too much about physical progress, and the price seems way too high.

    I am just classifying here and pointing out facts.

    IRome, in Western histories, is generally viewed with a certain amount of contempt compared to ancient Greece, and Greece was always the role model and inspiration for the West.

    Germany especially seized on Greece as its main source of inspiration in the 18th century.

    Modern Chinese seem to prefer Rome.

    But all cultures that are inspired by Greece seem to share the fate of ancient Greece – let this be a warning.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    and Greece was always the role model and inspiration for the West.
     
    The German king from the 11th century onwards was called rex Romanorum, king of the Romans, and the entire concept of universal empire right down to Napoleon was inspired by Rome.
    There's of course a long tradition in Italy of positive identification with ancient Rome, already manifest in the Middle Ages (e.g. the communal movement in Rome in the 1140s tried recreating the senate, and there were similar episodes later on like Cola di Rienzo). Machiavelli wrote an entire book about the first decade of Livy, in which he extolled the ancient Roman republic as a model for his own times. The fascists worshipped the Roman empire and wanted to reestablish it.
    French revolutionaries admired the Gracchi and adopted the Phrygian cap as a symbol.
    One could add a lot more, without even scratching the surface or dealing in-depth with issues like the legacy of Roman law.
    Once again you are quite simply writing nonsense.
  37. @AaronB
    IRome, in Western histories, is generally viewed with a certain amount of contempt compared to ancient Greece, and Greece was always the role model and inspiration for the West.

    Germany especially seized on Greece as its main source of inspiration in the 18th century.

    Modern Chinese seem to prefer Rome.

    But all cultures that are inspired by Greece seem to share the fate of ancient Greece - let this be a warning.

    and Greece was always the role model and inspiration for the West.

    The German king from the 11th century onwards was called rex Romanorum, king of the Romans, and the entire concept of universal empire right down to Napoleon was inspired by Rome.
    There’s of course a long tradition in Italy of positive identification with ancient Rome, already manifest in the Middle Ages (e.g. the communal movement in Rome in the 1140s tried recreating the senate, and there were similar episodes later on like Cola di Rienzo). Machiavelli wrote an entire book about the first decade of Livy, in which he extolled the ancient Roman republic as a model for his own times. The fascists worshipped the Roman empire and wanted to reestablish it.
    French revolutionaries admired the Gracchi and adopted the Phrygian cap as a symbol.
    One could add a lot more, without even scratching the surface or dealing in-depth with issues like the legacy of Roman law.
    Once again you are quite simply writing nonsense.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh, DreadIlk
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I suspect his overwhelming knowledge of the ancient societies comes from the esteemed fora of Unz.
    , @AaronB
    I meant post Middle Ages.

    Yes, Rome was the primary inspiration for legal and to some extent political affairs - i.e practical and administrative areas. Although in politics Greece too was studied.

    But Greece was the primary inspiration for culture - art, philosophy, poetry, and science.

    I should have made that distinction clear, I suppose, considering the limitations of my audience.

    Now please don't tell me that since Horace and Virgil were also admired, Rome was the primary inspiration for Europe in culture.
  38. @German_reader

    and Greece was always the role model and inspiration for the West.
     
    The German king from the 11th century onwards was called rex Romanorum, king of the Romans, and the entire concept of universal empire right down to Napoleon was inspired by Rome.
    There's of course a long tradition in Italy of positive identification with ancient Rome, already manifest in the Middle Ages (e.g. the communal movement in Rome in the 1140s tried recreating the senate, and there were similar episodes later on like Cola di Rienzo). Machiavelli wrote an entire book about the first decade of Livy, in which he extolled the ancient Roman republic as a model for his own times. The fascists worshipped the Roman empire and wanted to reestablish it.
    French revolutionaries admired the Gracchi and adopted the Phrygian cap as a symbol.
    One could add a lot more, without even scratching the surface or dealing in-depth with issues like the legacy of Roman law.
    Once again you are quite simply writing nonsense.

    I suspect his overwhelming knowledge of the ancient societies comes from the esteemed fora of Unz.

    • LOL: AaronB
  39. @German_reader

    and Greece was always the role model and inspiration for the West.
     
    The German king from the 11th century onwards was called rex Romanorum, king of the Romans, and the entire concept of universal empire right down to Napoleon was inspired by Rome.
    There's of course a long tradition in Italy of positive identification with ancient Rome, already manifest in the Middle Ages (e.g. the communal movement in Rome in the 1140s tried recreating the senate, and there were similar episodes later on like Cola di Rienzo). Machiavelli wrote an entire book about the first decade of Livy, in which he extolled the ancient Roman republic as a model for his own times. The fascists worshipped the Roman empire and wanted to reestablish it.
    French revolutionaries admired the Gracchi and adopted the Phrygian cap as a symbol.
    One could add a lot more, without even scratching the surface or dealing in-depth with issues like the legacy of Roman law.
    Once again you are quite simply writing nonsense.

    I meant post Middle Ages.

    Yes, Rome was the primary inspiration for legal and to some extent political affairs – i.e practical and administrative areas. Although in politics Greece too was studied.

    But Greece was the primary inspiration for culture – art, philosophy, poetry, and science.

    I should have made that distinction clear, I suppose, considering the limitations of my audience.

    Now please don’t tell me that since Horace and Virgil were also admired, Rome was the primary inspiration for Europe in culture.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    I meant post Middle Ages.
     
    I already gave you several post-middle ages examples. I could have added your American founding fathers and US republican culture in general...where do you think Cincinnati got its name from?
    Or look at something like this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington
    There's also the issue that traditionally views of Athenian democracy with its demagogues were quite negative.

    But Greece was the primary inspiration for culture – art, philosophy, poetry, and science.
     
    Nope, for the simple reason that Greek was always less well-known than Latin in Western countries.

    considering the limitations of my audience.
     
    I see you're back to your usual troll act which has gotten rather boring by now. Pity, at least the "hardline Zionist who's dreaming of territorial annexations" persona you let shine through in the other thread was somewhat more interesting.
    , @reiner Tor

    I should have made that distinction clear, I suppose, considering the limitations of my audience.
     
    It's interesting that whenever you make a simplified statement (simplified because you had already clarified your nuanced position hundreds of times before, and you don't want to write novels for each comment, so you naively think one simplified sentence would be enough), AaronB will immediately attack you for not being "nuanced" enough. His debating style actually often consists of waiting for these moments.
  40. @AaronB
    I meant post Middle Ages.

    Yes, Rome was the primary inspiration for legal and to some extent political affairs - i.e practical and administrative areas. Although in politics Greece too was studied.

    But Greece was the primary inspiration for culture - art, philosophy, poetry, and science.

    I should have made that distinction clear, I suppose, considering the limitations of my audience.

    Now please don't tell me that since Horace and Virgil were also admired, Rome was the primary inspiration for Europe in culture.

    I meant post Middle Ages.

    I already gave you several post-middle ages examples. I could have added your American founding fathers and US republican culture in general…where do you think Cincinnati got its name from?
    Or look at something like this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington
    There’s also the issue that traditionally views of Athenian democracy with its demagogues were quite negative.

    But Greece was the primary inspiration for culture – art, philosophy, poetry, and science.

    Nope, for the simple reason that Greek was always less well-known than Latin in Western countries.

    considering the limitations of my audience.

    I see you’re back to your usual troll act which has gotten rather boring by now. Pity, at least the “hardline Zionist who’s dreaming of territorial annexations” persona you let shine through in the other thread was somewhat more interesting.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Don't worry, I'm still the hardline Zionist :)
  41. @German_reader

    I meant post Middle Ages.
     
    I already gave you several post-middle ages examples. I could have added your American founding fathers and US republican culture in general...where do you think Cincinnati got its name from?
    Or look at something like this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington
    There's also the issue that traditionally views of Athenian democracy with its demagogues were quite negative.

    But Greece was the primary inspiration for culture – art, philosophy, poetry, and science.
     
    Nope, for the simple reason that Greek was always less well-known than Latin in Western countries.

    considering the limitations of my audience.
     
    I see you're back to your usual troll act which has gotten rather boring by now. Pity, at least the "hardline Zionist who's dreaming of territorial annexations" persona you let shine through in the other thread was somewhat more interesting.

    Don’t worry, I’m still the hardline Zionist 🙂

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    So now that German_reader has finally unmasked the real you, tell me, who's the real German_reader? BTW, what 'territorial annexations' are you dreaming of? Has Thorfinnsson enticed you yet with his 'Canschlus' scenario? :-)
  42. @AaronB
    Don't worry, I'm still the hardline Zionist :)

    So now that German_reader has finally unmasked the real you, tell me, who’s the real German_reader? BTW, what ‘territorial annexations’ are you dreaming of? Has Thorfinnsson enticed you yet with his ‘Canschlus’ scenario? 🙂

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, since German Reader likes and sympathizes with my Zionist expansion dreams, the "real" German Reader is obviously either a pro-Zionist American evangelical, or someone who privately nurtures similar dreams for his own group.

    You can witness the "unmasking" of my glorious inner core on the last open thread.

    Thorfinsson clearly has the right idea about Canada.
  43. @Mr. Hack
    So now that German_reader has finally unmasked the real you, tell me, who's the real German_reader? BTW, what 'territorial annexations' are you dreaming of? Has Thorfinnsson enticed you yet with his 'Canschlus' scenario? :-)

    Well, since German Reader likes and sympathizes with my Zionist expansion dreams, the “real” German Reader is obviously either a pro-Zionist American evangelical, or someone who privately nurtures similar dreams for his own group.

    You can witness the “unmasking” of my glorious inner core on the last open thread.

    Thorfinsson clearly has the right idea about Canada.

  44. which one would become predominant.

    in theory it would be like one of those game theory simulations where the ethnocentric actors compete with the humanitarian actors.

    group A would create x science and keep it for themselves.

    group B would create y science and share it.

    so group A ends up with both x+y and wins.

    in theory.

  45. @sudden death
    It would be stupid to deny that such informal censorship in the West exists, but it is also BS to say that it is "even worse" than in USSR or China. At worst you won't make pretty academic carrer if you're doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.

    it is also BS to say that it is “even worse” than in USSR or China

    i think you need to extrapolate a bit.

    unless PC is dramatically rolled back it’s going to be far worse in the West.

  46. “immigration doesn’t play such a big role as has no effect on absolute number of smart fractions”

    not sure why you keep saying this when it’s so obviously not true.

    1) greatly increasing the number of people in your country make everything more expensive and crowded, making it so that the natives can afford to have less children, making it so that you get less smart natives. the obvious, long standing, accurate talking point of unz, steve, vdare, and amren in general

    2) bringing in 50 million chinese and and indian people to flood you with visas, take away your tech jobs, convert all your universities into beijing national U, has a big negative effect on the basic research output of your country. science, engineering, and medical research will all decline, not stay the same or increase. universities will become just like china and india. second rate at science. US universities actually know this and limit the amount of chinese people there, lest they become much less relevant and prestigious chinese diploma mills.

    and obviously, taking away science and engineering as career options for the natives, since they aren’t going to be willing to work 50 hours a week for 40 grand after getting an expensive degree, greatly damages your economy long term. corporations collect the wage arbitrage while the national human capital capability steadily declines, and the smart guys who got STEM degrees…have less kids.

    3) eventually, once there’s enough third worlders in the US that the republicans can no longer win any elections, you get vibrant political capture of smart fraction output.

    then it won’t matter how many smart chinese guys you bring in, president nut job, governor martinez and mayor lashonda will direct them to solve the problems of making it so that 500 million vibrant people can live in first world conditions, taxing the chinese workers appropriately, and diverting their high intelligence to vibrant needs.

    eventually by 2060, 2070 you end up with a giant shit sandwich that produces garbage. what exactly will an afro/mestizo/sino nation produce? china barely produces anything and it’s 95% chinese. india even worse.

    • Agree: Tusk
  47. @Daniel Chieh

    At worst you won’t make pretty academic carrer if you’re doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.
     
    Well, the political correctness that the CCP usually commands is its line on potential separatist states. I imagine if your study promotes something like Tibet independence, you could be warned or defunded, but the Party really has been going for the light touch as of late.

    A bigger challenge to Chinese science is going to be the frequency of fraud and just general bad behavior - poor communication, overinvolved apparatchik and efforts to throw money to solve problems.

    That said, there's a very strong infrastructure for genetics and biological work in general both on an animal and plant level, so I think we'll be seeing continued advancement down that path. Material science as well, especially if fundamental issues are addressed.

    A bigger challenge to Chinese science is going to be the frequency of fraud and just general bad behavior

    i think the competition is going to be a negative one of “least worst” between that and Western PC insanity.

    whoever wins i think the total amount of good science is going to decline.

  48. @AaronB
    I agree with this politically, but I am not so sure the science will line up this way.

    The strange greater vitality of Western science, which you note in your post, will exert its own gravitational pull, siphoning away even people fully within the Sinosphere I suspect, and much more so those on the periphery.

    But even this political line up does not clearly leave the Sinosphere with more high IQ people.

    However, its also possible science will follow political alignment.

    The strange greater vitality of Western science…

    i think this would be the deciding factor if it that vitality wasn’t in the process of being destroyed.

  49. @reiner Tor

    the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear – they don’t seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America
     
    I quickly consulted the Internet.

    There were six Chinese-American Physics Nobel laureates. Two of them shared, that makes it five. The other four shared with American-Americans, which makes it a little under three. Out of well over fifty physics Nobel laureates. This is not bad relative to their share of the population, but not Jew-tier yet. Though I suspect there were significantly more Jews than Chinese in the US over most of the time since the Nobel Prize came into being.

    The numbers should increase, since Nobels are usually awarded for work done decades earlier. We’ll see.

    Who are the 6 Chinese American Nobel prize winners for Physics?

    I thought only 8 people of Chinese ethnicity have won a Nobel Prize in any field of science.

    So 8 Chinese ethnicity people have won 7 Nobel prizes in any field of science (and some of these shared).

    18,5% of the world population (Chinese ethnic people) have won 7 Nobel prizes in science. Chinese are slightly less successful than Pakistanis, in this metric.

    And Chinese ethnic people have been awarded 0 Field Medals, 0 Abel Prize, 1 Turing Award, etc.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    And Chinese ethnic people have been awarded 0 Field Medals, 0 Abel Prize, 1 Turing Award, etc.

     

    Oops - 2 Fields Medal. (So 3% of Fields Medals).
  50. @Dmitry
    Who are the 6 Chinese American Nobel prize winners for Physics?

    I thought only 8 people of Chinese ethnicity have won a Nobel Prize in any field of science.

    So 8 Chinese ethnicity people have won 7 Nobel prizes in any field of science (and some of these shared).

    18,5% of the world population (Chinese ethnic people) have won 7 Nobel prizes in science. Chinese are slightly less successful than Pakistanis, in this metric.

    And Chinese ethnic people have been awarded 0 Field Medals, 0 Abel Prize, 1 Turing Award, etc.

    And Chinese ethnic people have been awarded 0 Field Medals, 0 Abel Prize, 1 Turing Award, etc.

    Oops – 2 Fields Medal. (So 3% of Fields Medals).

  51. @AaronB
    Actually, I crunched the numbers once - Asian-American Nobels perfectly match their level of the population (5% in both cases), which is pretty impressive, because Asians in Asia obviously underperform.

    However, Asian Americans are something like 20% of elite schools, so their presence there in such large numbers doesn't seem justified by later life performance.

    But still, either the environment in America elevates Asian performance, or we are getting the best minds, or at least the most innovative ones - I suspect a bit of both.

    But the Chinese scientists who are not Americans, seem to converge more towards Asian norms, and the Asian group as a whole in the US seem to mostly fill the middle ranks of science. Solid, important, respectable, but nothing thrilling.

    You forgot the presence of a large group of SEAs especially Filipinos and Vietnamese in America. This completely screws up any stats related to “Asians”. Yes, that includes Anatoly’s work on “Asians” in LessWrong and other communities.

    I do realize that most NE Asian advances in STEM aren’t thrilling. In the worst case, that is, this is fucking genetic, this is something to be fixed by CRISPR. 🙂 Otherwise it needs to be fixed by promoting all forms of anti-conformism in NE Asia. It may lead to more crime as a side effect but it is worth it.

  52. @AaronB
    Doesn't that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    These scientists can be working in China, but choose to work here. I am not aware of too many American or European scientists who have the opportunity to work in Western institutions choosing to work in China.

    Apparently the greater value and productivity of science in the West, created and sustained by Western scientists, observed by Karlin, exerts a gravitational pull even on Chinese scientists.

    Furthermore, the quality of Chinese work in America is unclear - they don't seem to feature in Nobel prizes emerging out of America. They appear to form battalions of yoeman laborers in the fields of science - tilling the fields under the direction of the native aristocracy.

    Useful, yes, and apparently they are excited enough to work in the West and grateful for the opportunity.

    Supercomputers and 5g are "additive" technologies - in other words, they merely add together existing technologies and make them stronger. It is trivial to build stronger supercomputers. Transformative technologies are a different matter, and require a higher level of intellectual power.

    > Doesn’t that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    More American hubris. In a country with command economy, permissions are needed even to relocate to another village or town, you think that people with high scientific potential will be allowed to exit the country?? Those that leave are most probably second rate students that do not have the intelligence to enter the local universities and and have to pay hefty university fees overseas. Sure there could be some late developers who blossom later.

    How many mouths can a Nobel prize feed? In the national priority of China Physics ranks number 7, two level below Ecology. Top priorities are Engineering, Material Science and Applied Chemistry (power chemistry for battery and electric car). In command economy the elite students are geared towards those priorities since high schools, their own interests are immaterial.

    The NatureIndex does not include engineering, but the performance of China, Russia and India are all lop-sided on Chemistry, only the spin off from Applied Chemistry. And the Physics that count are all unpublishable top secrets. Biology only received large funding since last year and they are able to clone primate through somatic cell nuclear transfer (e.g. ability to clone from just skin cells) even when US was first able to clone primate using the simpler and limited potential embryo splitting (only from fertilized eggs) but then development stalled not because of ethical reasons.

    • Replies: @kelvin273
    The Chinese research priorities are reflected by the number of university courses with their so called "Double First Majors" which receive special fundings from the state. Material Sci and Material Eng alone has 30, beside all the other engineering and technology. Physics? Only 7. Even Ecology has 11. Math has 14. Physics is mostly vanity science.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKoRhPOWsAAD0UY.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKoRhPhWkAAykAY.jpg
  53. @AaronB
    Actually, I crunched the numbers once - Asian-American Nobels perfectly match their level of the population (5% in both cases), which is pretty impressive, because Asians in Asia obviously underperform.

    However, Asian Americans are something like 20% of elite schools, so their presence there in such large numbers doesn't seem justified by later life performance.

    But still, either the environment in America elevates Asian performance, or we are getting the best minds, or at least the most innovative ones - I suspect a bit of both.

    But the Chinese scientists who are not Americans, seem to converge more towards Asian norms, and the Asian group as a whole in the US seem to mostly fill the middle ranks of science. Solid, important, respectable, but nothing thrilling.

    My statistics were distorted. Apparently some of these Nobel laureates were born in China, and only moved to the US later in life (while China was poor). It’s also unclear if the number of US physics Nobel laureates includes such people or not. However, Chinese Americans are nowhere near 5% of the population. As late as 2000 they were still below 1%, while Asian Americans contain groups as diverse (in both meanings of the word) as Bangladeshi Americans and the Hmong.

    Anyway, regardless of Nobel laureates, it’s pretty likely that East Asians are somewhat deficient in the nonconformism department, and so while they’re likely to excel (and overtake whites) in the “add together existing technologies and make them stronger” type of activities, not that many truly original inventions are likely to come from them.

    However, I would argue that currently this is less of a disadvantage than would have been 100 or 50 years ago. There currently seem to be very few true original scientific or technological breakthroughs, and what there are, are relatively easy to copy, as long as the original content is merely an idea. For example smartphones, or even nuclear bombs: once you know it’s possible, and have an idea how to start, East Asians will get there and perfect it beyond what most Europeans (except perhaps the Swiss and Germans and a few other similar) are capable of. So, Japanese cars will always be more reliable than American cars, but they won’t invent the automobile. This is a big advantage for whites while things like the automobile are constantly being invented. It’s an advantage for East Asians after technological progress slows down and merely consists of perfecting existing inventions.

    Also, achievement is usually 1% idea, 99% implementation. So being better at implementation (“add together existing technologies and make them stronger” is something like that) is actually not very bad. Anyway, whites are also very good at implementation, the East Asian advantage is not that big.

    The big issue is the insanity of the Globohomo Empire, which is actively working on destroying whites anywhere. I wouldn’t bet on an empire intent on destroying its own core population. Immigration means lower fertility for whites, interbreeding with Chinese and upper caste Indian etc. immigrants (I’ve seen upper class whites with half-black children, though it’s not very widespread), so the white advantage might get lost even in terms of creativity.

    Tl;dr

    I’d bet on whites if it was a whites against Chinese struggle. As it is, I think the Chinese have a very good chance to at least become a peer of the Globohomo Empire, and longer term even defeat it.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    I would like to add another facet to your observation. I am only taking into account industrialized races i.e White Europeans and East Asians.

    Most engineering is some combination of science and art.

    Fields which have a significant 'art' component like aerospace,high end textile fabric production are dominated by whites and a few national prestige projects aside no evidence of dramatic catch up by E Asians while others that are almost all science like semiconductor,Telecom equipment or automotive are susceptible to rapid catch up and eventual market dominance via incremental improvement and quality control by S Koreans,Japanese and increasingly Chinese as well..
  54. @The Big Red Scary
    "the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists"

    I'm too young to have encountered that, it seems. Do any particular examples come to mind?

    As a teenager I read a couple books called something like “History of Philosophy” and “The Basics of Marxist Philosophy,” both several hundred pages long tomes written in the 1960s by some professor(s) of philosophy and Marxism-Leninism in Hungary. One of them (I can’t remember which) mentioned the Big Bang as an example of how “idealism” (a cuss word for Marxist-Leninist philosophers) has crept into science, a sign of the degeneration of Western science in the last stages of the rotting capitalism and imperialism. I think it even went as far as criticizing quantum theory as such, which is pretty interesting in light of the fact that it was taught by the physics faculty of the same universities the authors of these esteemed philosophy textbooks did their – no doubt highly valuable – research and teaching.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist

    One of them (I can’t remember which) mentioned the Big Bang as an example of how “idealism” (a cuss word for Marxist-Leninist philosophers) has crept into science, a sign of the degeneration of Western science in the last stages of the rotting capitalism and imperialism.
     
    Unironically 100% redpilled
  55. @reiner Tor
    As a teenager I read a couple books called something like "History of Philosophy" and "The Basics of Marxist Philosophy," both several hundred pages long tomes written in the 1960s by some professor(s) of philosophy and Marxism-Leninism in Hungary. One of them (I can't remember which) mentioned the Big Bang as an example of how "idealism" (a cuss word for Marxist-Leninist philosophers) has crept into science, a sign of the degeneration of Western science in the last stages of the rotting capitalism and imperialism. I think it even went as far as criticizing quantum theory as such, which is pretty interesting in light of the fact that it was taught by the physics faculty of the same universities the authors of these esteemed philosophy textbooks did their - no doubt highly valuable - research and teaching.

    One of them (I can’t remember which) mentioned the Big Bang as an example of how “idealism” (a cuss word for Marxist-Leninist philosophers) has crept into science, a sign of the degeneration of Western science in the last stages of the rotting capitalism and imperialism.

    Unironically 100% redpilled

  56. @anonymous coward
    It's more than that. With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible.

    Darwin himself realized this and presupposed an infinitely large and infinitely old Universe.

    With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible

    I think it simply has probability 0 – but this is totally different thing from impossibility.
    Getting any real value randomly from continuous distribution has probability 0. But objects still have locations, speeds etc (ignoring certain QM aspects).
    But event probability 0 is questionable. Starting at least from Prigogine we know that local enthropy minimization is a thing and evolution extends naturally from that.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    I like ignorant people treating evolution mathematically. That makes as much sense as treating particle physics biologically.

    Evolution of proteins does not happen mathematically, as random permutations of every amino acid or a base in the DNA/RNA. All proteins consist of relatively small blocks (motifs or domains), and all proteins are combinations of those domains and motifs, like beads on a string. Evolution went by mixing and matching these elements, not by creating each protein from scratch. Domains and motifs are much smaller, and they took about a couple of billion years to evolve, whereupon a profusion of their combinations (existing proteins) evolved much faster. Anyone who ever did mutagenesis and looked at real protein coding sequences witnessed clear signs of evolution: amino acid changes are usually produced by minimal changes in codons (the code is degenerate – 61 codons encode 20 amino acids; the remaining three are stop codons; so very often you only need to change one letter in a three-letter code to change amino acid).

    But for a person totally ignorant in physics a TV set is a miracle, clearly created by some kind of god. BTW, the best theological argument I’ve ever heard is this: “if there is no God, who is pulling the next Kleenex?”

  57. @AaronB
    I meant post Middle Ages.

    Yes, Rome was the primary inspiration for legal and to some extent political affairs - i.e practical and administrative areas. Although in politics Greece too was studied.

    But Greece was the primary inspiration for culture - art, philosophy, poetry, and science.

    I should have made that distinction clear, I suppose, considering the limitations of my audience.

    Now please don't tell me that since Horace and Virgil were also admired, Rome was the primary inspiration for Europe in culture.

    I should have made that distinction clear, I suppose, considering the limitations of my audience.

    It’s interesting that whenever you make a simplified statement (simplified because you had already clarified your nuanced position hundreds of times before, and you don’t want to write novels for each comment, so you naively think one simplified sentence would be enough), AaronB will immediately attack you for not being “nuanced” enough. His debating style actually often consists of waiting for these moments.

    • Replies: @EastKekistani
    AaronB is an obscurantist just like Jordan Peterson, Franklin Schmidt, Zhongjing Liu and other NRx "religious" people. That is, they are very interested in getting their readers to believe in some religion for social reasons while being atheists themselves. The most likely motivation for such behaviors is of course tricking others to become incapable of anti-sociality while not having this incapability themselves.

    How to spot these individuals? Ask them what's their opinions on ritual aspects of religion that have almost no social impact such as when Sabbaths should end in Judaism and whether non-Trinitarian forms of strict Christianity such as Arianism is actually legitimate Christianity. Pseudo-religious people don't give a shit about them while the actual devoted really care.

  58. @reiner Tor
    My statistics were distorted. Apparently some of these Nobel laureates were born in China, and only moved to the US later in life (while China was poor). It's also unclear if the number of US physics Nobel laureates includes such people or not. However, Chinese Americans are nowhere near 5% of the population. As late as 2000 they were still below 1%, while Asian Americans contain groups as diverse (in both meanings of the word) as Bangladeshi Americans and the Hmong.

    Anyway, regardless of Nobel laureates, it's pretty likely that East Asians are somewhat deficient in the nonconformism department, and so while they're likely to excel (and overtake whites) in the "add together existing technologies and make them stronger" type of activities, not that many truly original inventions are likely to come from them.

    However, I would argue that currently this is less of a disadvantage than would have been 100 or 50 years ago. There currently seem to be very few true original scientific or technological breakthroughs, and what there are, are relatively easy to copy, as long as the original content is merely an idea. For example smartphones, or even nuclear bombs: once you know it's possible, and have an idea how to start, East Asians will get there and perfect it beyond what most Europeans (except perhaps the Swiss and Germans and a few other similar) are capable of. So, Japanese cars will always be more reliable than American cars, but they won't invent the automobile. This is a big advantage for whites while things like the automobile are constantly being invented. It's an advantage for East Asians after technological progress slows down and merely consists of perfecting existing inventions.

    Also, achievement is usually 1% idea, 99% implementation. So being better at implementation ("add together existing technologies and make them stronger" is something like that) is actually not very bad. Anyway, whites are also very good at implementation, the East Asian advantage is not that big.

    The big issue is the insanity of the Globohomo Empire, which is actively working on destroying whites anywhere. I wouldn't bet on an empire intent on destroying its own core population. Immigration means lower fertility for whites, interbreeding with Chinese and upper caste Indian etc. immigrants (I've seen upper class whites with half-black children, though it's not very widespread), so the white advantage might get lost even in terms of creativity.

    Tl;dr

    I'd bet on whites if it was a whites against Chinese struggle. As it is, I think the Chinese have a very good chance to at least become a peer of the Globohomo Empire, and longer term even defeat it.

    I would like to add another facet to your observation. I am only taking into account industrialized races i.e White Europeans and East Asians.

    Most engineering is some combination of science and art.

    Fields which have a significant ‘art’ component like aerospace,high end textile fabric production are dominated by whites and a few national prestige projects aside no evidence of dramatic catch up by E Asians while others that are almost all science like semiconductor,Telecom equipment or automotive are susceptible to rapid catch up and eventual market dominance via incremental improvement and quality control by S Koreans,Japanese and increasingly Chinese as well..

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes, that's possible. Though recently Chinese problems with airplanes are mostly with jet engines, so maybe the difference is not so great.
  59. @sudden death
    Soviet "philosophy and social sciences" were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese "philosophy and social sciences".

    Libertarians (Li-bao-tai-ren) have a lock on applied philosophy and social science that actually works and so are extremely influential in China, so good luck with that. Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    When I toured Russia after the fall of the wall scientists cheerfully told me that, like most things coerced socialism produces, the science and PhD theses were 90% garbage. As in tanks that didn’t work unless you applied a sledgehammer to the clutch, no interchangeable parts for jet planes (they had to be customized on site), citations to mythic sources, and the typical research paper or PhD thesis being a plagiarized recycling of previous ones which were usually on the order of about the Influence of Marxist dialectics on growing potatoes or the quantum. China doesn’t want to end up there. They are justifiably furious about the tariffs. They played ball with the US on freer trade for 2 decades and Trump stabbed them in the back to accomplish –nothing. To be fair, he is popular with the Chinese man-on-the-street who sees Trump as sticking it to the Commie elite and run small business having friends import/export stuff under the radar, so who cares about tariffs?

    China’s most intelligent move is to ratify the US Constitution and apply for entry as a compact ally or commonwealth. The US should if smart simply plant troops in Siberia and depopulated West China and annex (total mostly White population: 60MM, local polls show most think that would be great.

    Heck, East China even comes with its own wall.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Well, if nothing else can be said, Unz forum contributors and commenters are certainly not boring.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Galaxy brain
    , @Logan
    Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    Who are one person in 11,000. Or 30,000 people in US. That's not much of a bloc.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    It's the Current Year and somehow libertarians still exist.

    GFY

  60. @RobRich
    Libertarians (Li-bao-tai-ren) have a lock on applied philosophy and social science that actually works and so are extremely influential in China, so good luck with that. Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    When I toured Russia after the fall of the wall scientists cheerfully told me that, like most things coerced socialism produces, the science and PhD theses were 90% garbage. As in tanks that didn't work unless you applied a sledgehammer to the clutch, no interchangeable parts for jet planes (they had to be customized on site), citations to mythic sources, and the typical research paper or PhD thesis being a plagiarized recycling of previous ones which were usually on the order of about the Influence of Marxist dialectics on growing potatoes or the quantum. China doesn't want to end up there. They are justifiably furious about the tariffs. They played ball with the US on freer trade for 2 decades and Trump stabbed them in the back to accomplish --nothing. To be fair, he is popular with the Chinese man-on-the-street who sees Trump as sticking it to the Commie elite and run small business having friends import/export stuff under the radar, so who cares about tariffs?

    China's most intelligent move is to ratify the US Constitution and apply for entry as a compact ally or commonwealth. The US should if smart simply plant troops in Siberia and depopulated West China and annex (total mostly White population: 60MM, local polls show most think that would be great.

    Heck, East China even comes with its own wall.

    Well, if nothing else can be said, Unz forum contributors and commenters are certainly not boring.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  61. @RobRich
    Libertarians (Li-bao-tai-ren) have a lock on applied philosophy and social science that actually works and so are extremely influential in China, so good luck with that. Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    When I toured Russia after the fall of the wall scientists cheerfully told me that, like most things coerced socialism produces, the science and PhD theses were 90% garbage. As in tanks that didn't work unless you applied a sledgehammer to the clutch, no interchangeable parts for jet planes (they had to be customized on site), citations to mythic sources, and the typical research paper or PhD thesis being a plagiarized recycling of previous ones which were usually on the order of about the Influence of Marxist dialectics on growing potatoes or the quantum. China doesn't want to end up there. They are justifiably furious about the tariffs. They played ball with the US on freer trade for 2 decades and Trump stabbed them in the back to accomplish --nothing. To be fair, he is popular with the Chinese man-on-the-street who sees Trump as sticking it to the Commie elite and run small business having friends import/export stuff under the radar, so who cares about tariffs?

    China's most intelligent move is to ratify the US Constitution and apply for entry as a compact ally or commonwealth. The US should if smart simply plant troops in Siberia and depopulated West China and annex (total mostly White population: 60MM, local polls show most think that would be great.

    Heck, East China even comes with its own wall.

    Galaxy brain

  62. @Jaakko Raipala
    The Soviet Union might have screwed up physics altogether as quantum mechanics and relativity were under increasing attack as "antimaterialistic", "bourgeois", "not compatible with the historical determinism of dialectic materialism" but then Stalin heard about Hiroshima. He gave the job to Beria who quickly realized he can either have ideologically correct physics or he can have the bomb and they picked the bomb.

    The atomic bomb gave much of physics a get out of gulag free card but some things were still screwed by ideology, for example Big Bang cosmology was in conflict with state atheism. This is strangely forgotten now but the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists because they thought it was an attempt to revive a creation story (when science was suppose to prove that the universe is infinite and therefore has no creator).

    I occasionally run across Christian fundies and creationists who for some odd reason think Big Bang Theory is a sub-branch of evolution and is in conflict with the Bible’s origin story.

    When in fact, of course, BBT is simply Genesis 1:1 restated.

  63. @RobRich
    Libertarians (Li-bao-tai-ren) have a lock on applied philosophy and social science that actually works and so are extremely influential in China, so good luck with that. Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    When I toured Russia after the fall of the wall scientists cheerfully told me that, like most things coerced socialism produces, the science and PhD theses were 90% garbage. As in tanks that didn't work unless you applied a sledgehammer to the clutch, no interchangeable parts for jet planes (they had to be customized on site), citations to mythic sources, and the typical research paper or PhD thesis being a plagiarized recycling of previous ones which were usually on the order of about the Influence of Marxist dialectics on growing potatoes or the quantum. China doesn't want to end up there. They are justifiably furious about the tariffs. They played ball with the US on freer trade for 2 decades and Trump stabbed them in the back to accomplish --nothing. To be fair, he is popular with the Chinese man-on-the-street who sees Trump as sticking it to the Commie elite and run small business having friends import/export stuff under the radar, so who cares about tariffs?

    China's most intelligent move is to ratify the US Constitution and apply for entry as a compact ally or commonwealth. The US should if smart simply plant troops in Siberia and depopulated West China and annex (total mostly White population: 60MM, local polls show most think that would be great.

    Heck, East China even comes with its own wall.

    Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    Who are one person in 11,000. Or 30,000 people in US. That’s not much of a bloc.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    First they need to do something about the fact that it isn't possible to own land in China. Its mostly technical rather than practical - the 70 year land leases are usually renewed and all, but it still has significant metaphorical significance.
  64. @Logan
    Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    Who are one person in 11,000. Or 30,000 people in US. That's not much of a bloc.

    First they need to do something about the fact that it isn’t possible to own land in China. Its mostly technical rather than practical – the 70 year land leases are usually renewed and all, but it still has significant metaphorical significance.

  65. @Vishnugupta
    I would like to add another facet to your observation. I am only taking into account industrialized races i.e White Europeans and East Asians.

    Most engineering is some combination of science and art.

    Fields which have a significant 'art' component like aerospace,high end textile fabric production are dominated by whites and a few national prestige projects aside no evidence of dramatic catch up by E Asians while others that are almost all science like semiconductor,Telecom equipment or automotive are susceptible to rapid catch up and eventual market dominance via incremental improvement and quality control by S Koreans,Japanese and increasingly Chinese as well..

    Yes, that’s possible. Though recently Chinese problems with airplanes are mostly with jet engines, so maybe the difference is not so great.

    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    Jet engines is just the most publicly known.

    Arj 21 regional jet a flop.

    Comac c919 aerodynamically inferior to A320 neo let alone mc 21 or the clean sheet replacements of 737 and A320 likely due next decade etc...

    Forget China why hasn't Japan a fully developed country with a special relationship with the US been able to develop a regional jet to challenge Embraer (Mitsubishi mrj is still a work in progress and delayed and over budget Kawasaki ypx quietly cancelled)or a fighter plane in the same class as Rafale/Eurofighter. Their F2 is based on the F 16 costs twice as much and has problems of wings cracking etc despite hand holding by Lockheed Martin their F3 program has been shelved...

    By contrast East Asian tanks Japan type 10 and South Korean K2 are world class arguably better than m1 Abram and leopard 2..
  66. @reiner Tor
    Yes, that's possible. Though recently Chinese problems with airplanes are mostly with jet engines, so maybe the difference is not so great.

    Jet engines is just the most publicly known.

    Arj 21 regional jet a flop.

    Comac c919 aerodynamically inferior to A320 neo let alone mc 21 or the clean sheet replacements of 737 and A320 likely due next decade etc…

    Forget China why hasn’t Japan a fully developed country with a special relationship with the US been able to develop a regional jet to challenge Embraer (Mitsubishi mrj is still a work in progress and delayed and over budget Kawasaki ypx quietly cancelled)or a fighter plane in the same class as Rafale/Eurofighter. Their F2 is based on the F 16 costs twice as much and has problems of wings cracking etc despite hand holding by Lockheed Martin their F3 program has been shelved…

    By contrast East Asian tanks Japan type 10 and South Korean K2 are world class arguably better than m1 Abram and leopard 2..

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The MRJ program is a mess, but the Japanese aerospace industry makes the wings, wing box, and several fuselage subassemblies of the Boeing 787. It's as much a Japanese aircraft as it is an American one.

    The Mitsubishi F2 is the result of successful American political pressure on Japan not to develop their own indigenous fighter. It was hugely contentious at the time. Shintaro Ishihara argued forcefully for the indigenous program and suggested Japan should dissolve the bilateral treaty and acquire the necessary jet engine technology from France or even the Soviet Union. Lockheed had nothing to do with the composites involved in the F2 at all. Those are first generation aerospace composites (hence the problems) which were developed in Japan, and per the development agreement this technology was transferred from Japan to America.

    The higher unit costs compared to the F-16 are obviously the result of the small production run, larger fuselage size, advanced materials, and advanced avionics (e.g. the first airborne AESA radar).

    Type 10 and K2 are both considerably newer than the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.
    , @AquariusAnon
    China Eastern Airlines has stated it will create a separate brand that will exclusively fly the Comac C919s which they were forced to buy. The mainline China Eastern Airlines will remain 100% Airbus and Boeing (majority Airbus).

    This tells me that the Comac C919 won't be a very promising airliner either. Hopefully better than the joke that was the ARJ though.

  67. @reiner Tor

    I should have made that distinction clear, I suppose, considering the limitations of my audience.
     
    It's interesting that whenever you make a simplified statement (simplified because you had already clarified your nuanced position hundreds of times before, and you don't want to write novels for each comment, so you naively think one simplified sentence would be enough), AaronB will immediately attack you for not being "nuanced" enough. His debating style actually often consists of waiting for these moments.

    AaronB is an obscurantist just like Jordan Peterson, Franklin Schmidt, Zhongjing Liu and other NRx “religious” people. That is, they are very interested in getting their readers to believe in some religion for social reasons while being atheists themselves. The most likely motivation for such behaviors is of course tricking others to become incapable of anti-sociality while not having this incapability themselves.

    How to spot these individuals? Ask them what’s their opinions on ritual aspects of religion that have almost no social impact such as when Sabbaths should end in Judaism and whether non-Trinitarian forms of strict Christianity such as Arianism is actually legitimate Christianity. Pseudo-religious people don’t give a shit about them while the actual devoted really care.

  68. @RobRich
    Libertarians (Li-bao-tai-ren) have a lock on applied philosophy and social science that actually works and so are extremely influential in China, so good luck with that. Libertarians also have a growing lock on the 160+ IQ.

    When I toured Russia after the fall of the wall scientists cheerfully told me that, like most things coerced socialism produces, the science and PhD theses were 90% garbage. As in tanks that didn't work unless you applied a sledgehammer to the clutch, no interchangeable parts for jet planes (they had to be customized on site), citations to mythic sources, and the typical research paper or PhD thesis being a plagiarized recycling of previous ones which were usually on the order of about the Influence of Marxist dialectics on growing potatoes or the quantum. China doesn't want to end up there. They are justifiably furious about the tariffs. They played ball with the US on freer trade for 2 decades and Trump stabbed them in the back to accomplish --nothing. To be fair, he is popular with the Chinese man-on-the-street who sees Trump as sticking it to the Commie elite and run small business having friends import/export stuff under the radar, so who cares about tariffs?

    China's most intelligent move is to ratify the US Constitution and apply for entry as a compact ally or commonwealth. The US should if smart simply plant troops in Siberia and depopulated West China and annex (total mostly White population: 60MM, local polls show most think that would be great.

    Heck, East China even comes with its own wall.

    It’s the Current Year and somehow libertarians still exist.

    GFY

  69. @Vishnugupta
    Jet engines is just the most publicly known.

    Arj 21 regional jet a flop.

    Comac c919 aerodynamically inferior to A320 neo let alone mc 21 or the clean sheet replacements of 737 and A320 likely due next decade etc...

    Forget China why hasn't Japan a fully developed country with a special relationship with the US been able to develop a regional jet to challenge Embraer (Mitsubishi mrj is still a work in progress and delayed and over budget Kawasaki ypx quietly cancelled)or a fighter plane in the same class as Rafale/Eurofighter. Their F2 is based on the F 16 costs twice as much and has problems of wings cracking etc despite hand holding by Lockheed Martin their F3 program has been shelved...

    By contrast East Asian tanks Japan type 10 and South Korean K2 are world class arguably better than m1 Abram and leopard 2..

    The MRJ program is a mess, but the Japanese aerospace industry makes the wings, wing box, and several fuselage subassemblies of the Boeing 787. It’s as much a Japanese aircraft as it is an American one.

    The Mitsubishi F2 is the result of successful American political pressure on Japan not to develop their own indigenous fighter. It was hugely contentious at the time. Shintaro Ishihara argued forcefully for the indigenous program and suggested Japan should dissolve the bilateral treaty and acquire the necessary jet engine technology from France or even the Soviet Union. Lockheed had nothing to do with the composites involved in the F2 at all. Those are first generation aerospace composites (hence the problems) which were developed in Japan, and per the development agreement this technology was transferred from Japan to America.

    The higher unit costs compared to the F-16 are obviously the result of the small production run, larger fuselage size, advanced materials, and advanced avionics (e.g. the first airborne AESA radar).

    Type 10 and K2 are both considerably newer than the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.

    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    I believe Japanese workshare in the 787 and other Boeing program has more to do with the Japanese government subsidies and the de facto monopoly granted to Boeing in the Japanese civil aviation market not because Japanese make superb aerospace sub assemblies.

    Yes I know the Reagan administration arm twisted Japan into shelving it's indigenous fourth generation fighter program but Japanese fighters of third generation like the F1 were decidedly middling and there is no evidence that they were about to produce something whiz bang before US pressure shut down the program like in the case of say West Germany with its MBB Lampardyie stealth fighter project.
  70. @Vishnugupta
    Jet engines is just the most publicly known.

    Arj 21 regional jet a flop.

    Comac c919 aerodynamically inferior to A320 neo let alone mc 21 or the clean sheet replacements of 737 and A320 likely due next decade etc...

    Forget China why hasn't Japan a fully developed country with a special relationship with the US been able to develop a regional jet to challenge Embraer (Mitsubishi mrj is still a work in progress and delayed and over budget Kawasaki ypx quietly cancelled)or a fighter plane in the same class as Rafale/Eurofighter. Their F2 is based on the F 16 costs twice as much and has problems of wings cracking etc despite hand holding by Lockheed Martin their F3 program has been shelved...

    By contrast East Asian tanks Japan type 10 and South Korean K2 are world class arguably better than m1 Abram and leopard 2..

    China Eastern Airlines has stated it will create a separate brand that will exclusively fly the Comac C919s which they were forced to buy. The mainline China Eastern Airlines will remain 100% Airbus and Boeing (majority Airbus).

    This tells me that the Comac C919 won’t be a very promising airliner either. Hopefully better than the joke that was the ARJ though.

  71. Yee says:

    Vishnugupta,

    “Fields which have a significant ‘art’ component like aerospace,high end textile fabric production are dominated by whites and a few national prestige projects aside no evidence of dramatic catch up by E Asians while others that are almost all science like semiconductor,Telecom equipment or automotive are susceptible to rapid catch up….”

    This has nothing to do with “art”. It’s just that old technology like planes and cars are more difficult to catch up than new ones like semiconductor etc., and latest will be the easiest. Because “old” technology has more time to accumulate techniques than new ones. Practice makes perfect.

    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    Aerospace engineering is more art than automotive engineering.

    Su 27 post redesign surprised both it's chief designer Mikhail Simonov as well as the Soviet Air Force vis a vis how manouvarable it turned out.

    Conversely the JSF has surprised as the how poor it's manouvarability is.LM knew it would be sub optimal due to the area ruling compromises due to the marine variant's requirement of putting a giant lift fan in the middle of the fuselage but was unprepared for just how much the performance shortfall occurred.

    Neither Sukhoi nor Lockheed Martin were new to designing aircraft.

    This sort of development of an experienced manufacturer getting completely unexpected/unpredictable performance from the end product almost never happens in the automobile industry.

    Japanese have comprehensively outclassed white Europeans in normal cars and are not technically lacking in luxury cars either.Lexus etc.

    S Korea seems to be following in their footsteps and perhaps China will too in a decade.

    This performance is incomparably better than their showing in the Aerospace sector
  72. @Yee
    Vishnugupta,

    "Fields which have a significant ‘art’ component like aerospace,high end textile fabric production are dominated by whites and a few national prestige projects aside no evidence of dramatic catch up by E Asians while others that are almost all science like semiconductor,Telecom equipment or automotive are susceptible to rapid catch up...."

    This has nothing to do with "art". It's just that old technology like planes and cars are more difficult to catch up than new ones like semiconductor etc., and latest will be the easiest. Because "old" technology has more time to accumulate techniques than new ones. Practice makes perfect.

    Aerospace engineering is more art than automotive engineering.

    Su 27 post redesign surprised both it’s chief designer Mikhail Simonov as well as the Soviet Air Force vis a vis how manouvarable it turned out.

    Conversely the JSF has surprised as the how poor it’s manouvarability is.LM knew it would be sub optimal due to the area ruling compromises due to the marine variant’s requirement of putting a giant lift fan in the middle of the fuselage but was unprepared for just how much the performance shortfall occurred.

    Neither Sukhoi nor Lockheed Martin were new to designing aircraft.

    This sort of development of an experienced manufacturer getting completely unexpected/unpredictable performance from the end product almost never happens in the automobile industry.

    Japanese have comprehensively outclassed white Europeans in normal cars and are not technically lacking in luxury cars either.Lexus etc.

    S Korea seems to be following in their footsteps and perhaps China will too in a decade.

    This performance is incomparably better than their showing in the Aerospace sector

  73. @Thorfinnsson
    The MRJ program is a mess, but the Japanese aerospace industry makes the wings, wing box, and several fuselage subassemblies of the Boeing 787. It's as much a Japanese aircraft as it is an American one.

    The Mitsubishi F2 is the result of successful American political pressure on Japan not to develop their own indigenous fighter. It was hugely contentious at the time. Shintaro Ishihara argued forcefully for the indigenous program and suggested Japan should dissolve the bilateral treaty and acquire the necessary jet engine technology from France or even the Soviet Union. Lockheed had nothing to do with the composites involved in the F2 at all. Those are first generation aerospace composites (hence the problems) which were developed in Japan, and per the development agreement this technology was transferred from Japan to America.

    The higher unit costs compared to the F-16 are obviously the result of the small production run, larger fuselage size, advanced materials, and advanced avionics (e.g. the first airborne AESA radar).

    Type 10 and K2 are both considerably newer than the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.

    I believe Japanese workshare in the 787 and other Boeing program has more to do with the Japanese government subsidies and the de facto monopoly granted to Boeing in the Japanese civil aviation market not because Japanese make superb aerospace sub assemblies.

    Yes I know the Reagan administration arm twisted Japan into shelving it’s indigenous fourth generation fighter program but Japanese fighters of third generation like the F1 were decidedly middling and there is no evidence that they were about to produce something whiz bang before US pressure shut down the program like in the case of say West Germany with its MBB Lampardyie stealth fighter project.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Japanese industrial policy is no doubt the major reason for the large Japanese workshare in the 787, but no one seriously doubts the competence of the Japanese producers involved. Toray Industries is the world's largest producer of carbon fiber after all.

    I've never been able to find much information on the indigenous FSX program. In The Japan That Can Say No it's described as being more maneuverable than any existing fighter, but that could well be nonsense.

    I don't see why Japan would be unable to produce top tier aircraft if it made a commitment to do so. It produced some very good types in WW2 when it was still a poor and primitive country after all.

    The Mitsubishi F1 was a derivative of a supersonic trainer and thus would not be expected to be impressive.

  74. My two cents (applies to biology and medicine, possibly to other sciences).

    General considerations. The science in the US is declining, as the resources are increasingly shifted from anything useful to the insatiable maw of the MIC. “Defense” budgets (Pentagon + DOE that keeps and develops nukes + the profusion of “intelligence” agencies (when the country has more than 2-3, you know it’s sick, when the country has seventeen, like the US, you know the disease is terminal) + hidden expenses and extra allocations for wars) exceed one trillion per year, more than the rest of the world put together, as if the US is defending itself against the whole Galaxy. Considering the political system in the US and who owns every branch of our government, this won’t stop until the death of the US state institutions.

    Immediate consequences. Look at PubMed: the proportion of publications from the US keeps declining in the last 10 years or more. However, the language of practically every publication worth reading is English. So, my prediction is that the US output would drop to 15-20% of the total (from 80-85% in the 1990s). China will grow from virtually nothing in the 1990s to 30-50% (hard to be precise, too many variables). But the lingua franca of science would remain English. There are many reasons for this. One is that alphabetical writing is so much easier than hieroglyphic. In fact, hieroglyphic writing is incompatible with constant word creation, which is necessary in scientific development. I saw a biochemistry paper in Chinese once, and it went like this: squiggle-squiggle-squiggle-“electrophoresis”-squiggle-squiggle-squiggle-“gel”… Second, English (especially its American variety) has as little grammar as possible, in contrast to other European languages, so it’s perfect for non-native speakers. Third, practically all educated people in the world speak pigeon-English, but not pigeon-Chinese, pigeon-German, or pigeon-Russian.

    The science won’t really divide: what’s published is accessible to everyone. The decision of IEEE is totally nonsensical, as things are published after they are patented, not before. It is just a sign of its subservience to the masters of the Empire, who in the downward spiral of imperial power are more and more behaving very stupidly, at the level of kindergarten bullies. So, IEEE decision is the sign of its stupid impotence matching the impotence of the Empire, not a step to dividing the world science.

    • Agree: utu
  75. Vishnugupta,

    Well, the new technology in “plane and car” is drone and electric car, let’s see whether “art” or “new” be the decisive factor in catching up… I think the answer will be out in a decade.

  76. @lauris71

    With a finite Universe Darwinian evolution becomes mathematically impossible
     
    I think it simply has probability 0 - but this is totally different thing from impossibility.
    Getting any real value randomly from continuous distribution has probability 0. But objects still have locations, speeds etc (ignoring certain QM aspects).
    But event probability 0 is questionable. Starting at least from Prigogine we know that local enthropy minimization is a thing and evolution extends naturally from that.

    I like ignorant people treating evolution mathematically. That makes as much sense as treating particle physics biologically.

    Evolution of proteins does not happen mathematically, as random permutations of every amino acid or a base in the DNA/RNA. All proteins consist of relatively small blocks (motifs or domains), and all proteins are combinations of those domains and motifs, like beads on a string. Evolution went by mixing and matching these elements, not by creating each protein from scratch. Domains and motifs are much smaller, and they took about a couple of billion years to evolve, whereupon a profusion of their combinations (existing proteins) evolved much faster. Anyone who ever did mutagenesis and looked at real protein coding sequences witnessed clear signs of evolution: amino acid changes are usually produced by minimal changes in codons (the code is degenerate – 61 codons encode 20 amino acids; the remaining three are stop codons; so very often you only need to change one letter in a three-letter code to change amino acid).

    But for a person totally ignorant in physics a TV set is a miracle, clearly created by some kind of god. BTW, the best theological argument I’ve ever heard is this: “if there is no God, who is pulling the next Kleenex?”

  77. @Vishnugupta
    I believe Japanese workshare in the 787 and other Boeing program has more to do with the Japanese government subsidies and the de facto monopoly granted to Boeing in the Japanese civil aviation market not because Japanese make superb aerospace sub assemblies.

    Yes I know the Reagan administration arm twisted Japan into shelving it's indigenous fourth generation fighter program but Japanese fighters of third generation like the F1 were decidedly middling and there is no evidence that they were about to produce something whiz bang before US pressure shut down the program like in the case of say West Germany with its MBB Lampardyie stealth fighter project.

    Japanese industrial policy is no doubt the major reason for the large Japanese workshare in the 787, but no one seriously doubts the competence of the Japanese producers involved. Toray Industries is the world’s largest producer of carbon fiber after all.

    I’ve never been able to find much information on the indigenous FSX program. In The Japan That Can Say No it’s described as being more maneuverable than any existing fighter, but that could well be nonsense.

    I don’t see why Japan would be unable to produce top tier aircraft if it made a commitment to do so. It produced some very good types in WW2 when it was still a poor and primitive country after all.

    The Mitsubishi F1 was a derivative of a supersonic trainer and thus would not be expected to be impressive.

  78. @sudden death
    Soviet "philosophy and social sciences" were largely irrelevant and meaningless or severely damaged because of censorship, the same will be with Chinese "philosophy and social sciences".

    Soviet philosophy (called Marxist-Leninist, even though it wasn’t quite that) was a form of religion, as meaningless and nonsensical as any other.

    There was a good joke about it.
    – What is philosophy?
    – It’s when you try to catch an absolutely black cat in an absolutely dark room.
    – What is Marxist philosophy?
    – It’s when you try to catch an absolutely black cat in an absolutely dark room, knowing beforehand that it’s not there.
    – What is Marxist-Leninist philosophy?
    – It’s when you try to catch an absolutely black cat in an absolutely dark room, knowing beforehand that it’s not there, and exclaiming from time to time “gotcha!”

  79. @AaronB

    Sinosphere – Many more high-IQ people
     
    How do you figure?

    The Blue Empire contains all of Europe, Latin America, India, Japan, South Korea.

    Sorry to disappoint, but the Empire and its vassals include North America (minus Mexico), much of Europe (minus Russia), Australia (+NZ), and partially Japan, South Korea, and Israel (those three often do not toe the line, even though they usually pretend to do so). Latin America and India are not integral parts of the Imperium.

  80. @Hyperborean
    To be honest, in the near future, assuming a strict binary choice, the only states I could see choosing China over access to the rest of the developed world would be weak underdeveloped (and thus rather useless) countries or pariah states that have few choices anyway.

    That doesn't mean China can't develop certain fields on its own to a degree, but I don't see a very large sphere of influence of important countries knowledge-wise clustering around China.

    You are partially right. Nobody will actually cluster around China per se, but a lot of countries would cluster around those who pointedly refuse to toe the Imperial line: China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. As far as popular feelings go, about 7/8th of the world population hates the Empire, about 1% loves it, with the rest being indifferent sheeple of the “golden billion”.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The “Axis of Resistance” does not really exist. Russia just refused to sell the S-400 to Iran. Whatever the faults of Iran, it’s certainly strange that they won’t sell it to it due to the “tensions” (translation: because America wants to attack it), while NATO member Turkey (engaged in a proxy war with Russia in Syria) could receive it.
  81. @sudden death
    It would be stupid to deny that such informal censorship in the West exists, but it is also BS to say that it is "even worse" than in USSR or China. At worst you won't make pretty academic carrer if you're doing politically incorrect things, but you can study, write and sell anything you want, whereas in USSR or China you will be thrown straight to jail for that or get capital sentence at worst.

    That might have been close to the truth in Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China, but it is untrue in the USSR since 1960s and in China after Deng ascendancy.

    As to the consequences of censorship in the West to an individual, the fates of Manning and Assange, or that of Seth Rich, tell a different story.

  82. @sudden death
    Regarding physical sciences this is correct, but it is worth noting that Soviets still managed to fuck up whole fields of hard science such as genetics or cybernetics on their home soil because of ideological reasons coupled with peculiarities of dictatorship.

    That was true until Khrushchev was deposed in 1964. After that the Party stopped meddling in real sciences.

  83. @AnonFromTN
    You are partially right. Nobody will actually cluster around China per se, but a lot of countries would cluster around those who pointedly refuse to toe the Imperial line: China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. As far as popular feelings go, about 7/8th of the world population hates the Empire, about 1% loves it, with the rest being indifferent sheeple of the “golden billion”.

    The “Axis of Resistance” does not really exist. Russia just refused to sell the S-400 to Iran. Whatever the faults of Iran, it’s certainly strange that they won’t sell it to it due to the “tensions” (translation: because America wants to attack it), while NATO member Turkey (engaged in a proxy war with Russia in Syria) could receive it.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    The Axis does not exist, but the resistance does. BTW, the rumor that Russia refused to sell C-400 to Iran came from Bloomberg. If you trust it, I have a bridge to sell you.
  84. @reiner Tor
    The “Axis of Resistance” does not really exist. Russia just refused to sell the S-400 to Iran. Whatever the faults of Iran, it’s certainly strange that they won’t sell it to it due to the “tensions” (translation: because America wants to attack it), while NATO member Turkey (engaged in a proxy war with Russia in Syria) could receive it.

    The Axis does not exist, but the resistance does. BTW, the rumor that Russia refused to sell C-400 to Iran came from Bloomberg. If you trust it, I have a bridge to sell you.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the rumor that Russia refused to sell C-400 to Iran came from Bloomberg
     
    Oops, yes.
  85. anon[381] • Disclaimer says:

    “immigration doesn’t play such a big role as has no effect on absolute number of smart fractions”

    Now. But in the near future that growing dumb fraction will make all the policies and provide all the funding through congressional legislation for that smart fraction. And that’s where the power of wokeness originated from in the first place as it would be much less influential in a USA with 1980 demographics. It wouldn’t be too hard for a future AOC-type in a POC-ruled USA to crush scientific research and development with a just a few bad policies, like requiring equal female or racial minority representation under threat of punishment. When that inevitably fails, they could simply affirmative action their own – less qualified – kind into key positions with disastrous results; Obama was a master of this.

    As an example, witness the destruction of US military standards in just a few short years under the yoke of woke Obama: they were faking elite army ranger scores to get females into units they were unqualified for; West Point Academy became a joke where the faculty was too afraid to discipline an avowed communist for fear of being called a racist and they modified their history curriculum with all manner of morale-sapping divisive racialist teachings known to cadets as “I hate America” courses; women were integrated despite open congressional testimony relating studies proving this reduced readiness; numerous ship crashes; falling dress and hygiene standards even among supposed elite marines; recruitment issues even considering no large wars and high financial incentives; US military recruitment ads eschewed patriotism for a global vacation mentality; a divisive racist blood libel was perpetuated at West Point just after Trump’s election (they let the black perpetrator get away with it after the school’s pozzed commandant denounced white racists on CNN); and now, continuing the tradition, West Point just graduated its largest AA class in history … and the reaper may soon be coming for the airforce as the Eye of Soros has noticed how white and male fighter pilots are (that’s why the Pentagon is so desperate to switch to aerial ai-powered drones: they need to switch over before the pozz infects and ruins a critical area required for military dominance).

    In fact, those policies are similar to what Kamala Harris is threatening California corporations with now: fines unless women make exactly the same, irrespective of qualification or work load. California already fines corporations for not including a female on their boards. Do you really think that will stop with women? Why not blacks? But then Hispanics, Arabs, Jews, and nearly every other member of the POC coalition will need their guaranteed spot, too. That’s exactly what happened with the democrats’ anti-Semitism bill. Not satisfied with merely denouncing something that benefits only one of their tribes, Jews, it devolved into a hate-whitey fest where nearly every one of their coalition members pretended to be a victim at the hands of whites. In that environment, I can easily imagine a whole suite of bad polices that might cause either a reduction of scientific funding or create an outflow of talent from the US, and there is certainly already the precedent for whites to flee areas when the demographics become openly hostile: South Africa (1 million whites have left since the early 90s); California (2 million whites have left since 1980); Zimbabwe (90% of whites have left since blacks took over); and countless American and European metropolitan areas once racial minorities moved in.

    I do not believe people who claim that immigration will play little or no role are correct in that assertion. American birthright citizenship ensures that it will. Unlike a country, say Japan (or maybe Germany when I was there ages ago), where minorities might move there but find it difficult to become citizens, the children of ALL people born on American soil are automatically American and can vote in elections once they turn 18 years of age, regardless of parental citizenship status. That guarantees the demographic balance will tip at some point just as it did in Turkey, with negative results in terms of government policy (differential birth rates between smart urbanites and less bright rural conservatives empowered religious Muslims in Turkey at the ballot box, ending the previous secular rule by the military).

    A critical question in my mind is whether the Chinese will open up their borders to white European talent in response. It wouldn’t surprise me if they ended up creating special administrative zones a la Hong Kong for some future brain drain effort. They are certainly hinting at such an effort by floating plans for building the world’s largest particle accelerator. Will the US respond by building their own? I doubt it. And will smart whites of the future prefer to live in a clean, orderly China free of the constant barrage of racism directed at them in the media or will they prefer living in a degenerate West where they are told by social media and fake news rags like The Guardian and Buzzfeed they are irredeemably evil due to their ancestry? Check out most upperclass white liberal neighborhoods in the United States, and I think you will find your answer.

  86. @kelvin273
    > Doesn’t that bear out my point, that we are siphoning away even Chinese scientists?

    More American hubris. In a country with command economy, permissions are needed even to relocate to another village or town, you think that people with high scientific potential will be allowed to exit the country?? Those that leave are most probably second rate students that do not have the intelligence to enter the local universities and and have to pay hefty university fees overseas. Sure there could be some late developers who blossom later.

    How many mouths can a Nobel prize feed? In the national priority of China Physics ranks number 7, two level below Ecology. Top priorities are Engineering, Material Science and Applied Chemistry (power chemistry for battery and electric car). In command economy the elite students are geared towards those priorities since high schools, their own interests are immaterial.

    The NatureIndex does not include engineering, but the performance of China, Russia and India are all lop-sided on Chemistry, only the spin off from Applied Chemistry. And the Physics that count are all unpublishable top secrets. Biology only received large funding since last year and they are able to clone primate through somatic cell nuclear transfer (e.g. ability to clone from just skin cells) even when US was first able to clone primate using the simpler and limited potential embryo splitting (only from fertilized eggs) but then development stalled not because of ethical reasons.

    The Chinese research priorities are reflected by the number of university courses with their so called “Double First Majors” which receive special fundings from the state. Material Sci and Material Eng alone has 30, beside all the other engineering and technology. Physics? Only 7. Even Ecology has 11. Math has 14. Physics is mostly vanity science.

  87. @Hyperborean
    Huawei CEO interview:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131163598779244545

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131165495191887873

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131166665138417664

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131168940393205764

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131170942514868224

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131179141028618240

    OT

    You should use the regular Twitter URL instead of the mobile link to embed.

  88. @Hyperborean
    Huawei CEO interview:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131163598779244545

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131165495191887873

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131166665138417664

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131168940393205764

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131170942514868224

    https://mobile.twitter.com/yiqinfu/status/1131179141028618240

    It’s pretty interesting. Huawei wants business as usual. He also wants his daughter back.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    He can't have both.

    Spandrell commentary

    So basically Huawei’s founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei is a typical Boomer cuck who believes in global capital and thinks China needs more immigrants and liberalism.

    Thankfully Xi Jinping is having none of it.

    ...

    Read the rest of the thread. The Western press isn’t quoting him at all. They’re just throwing gas in the flames and making it like he’s some evil racist or something.

    ...

    There’s that, but I think he’s sincere. His generation are very much in love with the West. Tiananmen generation, back when China didn’t even have proper toilets.

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.
     
    https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/1131216671455289344
    , @Mitleser
    He can't have both.

    Spandrell commentary

    So basically Huawei’s founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei is a typical Boomer cuck who believes in global capital and thinks China needs more immigrants and liberalism.

    Thankfully Xi Jinping is having none of it.

    ...

    Read the rest of the thread. The Western press isn’t quoting him at all. They’re just throwing gas in the flames and making it like he’s some evil racist or something.

    ...

    There’s that, but I think he’s sincere. His generation are very much in love with the West. Tiananmen generation, back when China didn’t even have proper toilets.

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.
     
    https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/1131216671455289344
  89. @AnonFromTN
    The Axis does not exist, but the resistance does. BTW, the rumor that Russia refused to sell C-400 to Iran came from Bloomberg. If you trust it, I have a bridge to sell you.

    the rumor that Russia refused to sell C-400 to Iran came from Bloomberg

    Oops, yes.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Double posts - please delete
  90. @reiner Tor
    It’s pretty interesting. Huawei wants business as usual. He also wants his daughter back.

    He can’t have both.

    Spandrell commentary

    So basically Huawei’s founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei is a typical Boomer cuck who believes in global capital and thinks China needs more immigrants and liberalism.

    Thankfully Xi Jinping is having none of it.

    Read the rest of the thread. The Western press isn’t quoting him at all. They’re just throwing gas in the flames and making it like he’s some evil racist or something.

    There’s that, but I think he’s sincere. His generation are very much in love with the West. Tiananmen generation, back when China didn’t even have proper toilets.

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.

  91. @reiner Tor
    It’s pretty interesting. Huawei wants business as usual. He also wants his daughter back.

    He can’t have both.

    Spandrell commentary

    So basically Huawei’s founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei is a typical Boomer cuck who believes in global capital and thinks China needs more immigrants and liberalism.

    Thankfully Xi Jinping is having none of it.

    Read the rest of the thread. The Western press isn’t quoting him at all. They’re just throwing gas in the flames and making it like he’s some evil racist or something.

    There’s that, but I think he’s sincere. His generation are very much in love with the West. Tiananmen generation, back when China didn’t even have proper toilets.

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.
     
    Maybe this is true, but at least wealthier and more travelling younger Chinese seem to me to be more "normalised", that is to say, they seem increasingly resemble internationalised bourgeois people from other developed countries in terms of mannerisms and fads.
    , @reiner Tor
    Boomer Cuck is a good description, though those are not necessarily his sincere views. With his daughter held as hostage and his business empire crumbling under the weight of US attacks, there's a chance he'd be saying those things even if he didn't think like that. With the US keeping his daughter in captivity and intent on destroying his business empire which he worked his whole building up, it's at least possible that his true thoughts are different.

    I'm not sure we know what he truly thinks, though probably if he was offered a "business as usual, and you get back your daughter," he'd take it without thinking. But he might actually hate the kidnappers of his daughter.

    One sign that those are not his real thoughts is the defiant tone of Huawei's quarterly earnings conference. Of course it could be his underlings who are responsible for that, so that's not conclusive either.
  92. @reiner Tor

    the rumor that Russia refused to sell C-400 to Iran came from Bloomberg
     
    Oops, yes.

    Double posts – please delete

  93. @Mitleser
    He can't have both.

    Spandrell commentary

    So basically Huawei’s founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei is a typical Boomer cuck who believes in global capital and thinks China needs more immigrants and liberalism.

    Thankfully Xi Jinping is having none of it.

    ...

    Read the rest of the thread. The Western press isn’t quoting him at all. They’re just throwing gas in the flames and making it like he’s some evil racist or something.

    ...

    There’s that, but I think he’s sincere. His generation are very much in love with the West. Tiananmen generation, back when China didn’t even have proper toilets.

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.
     
    https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/1131216671455289344

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.

    Maybe this is true, but at least wealthier and more travelling younger Chinese seem to me to be more “normalised”, that is to say, they seem increasingly resemble internationalised bourgeois people from other developed countries in terms of mannerisms and fads.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Though Europeans generally considered Chinese forms of government to be much superior to any European government until at least the late 18th century, and probably until the early 19th century. China's prestige then took an enormous hit from the First Opium War.

    So Globohomo having prestige among the Chinese (especially since it's such an easy poison - "just enjoy life and do what you like," basically a Satanic message) is normal. The question is if it's increasing or decreasing, and I'm not sure we have enough data on these trends.
  94. @Hyperborean

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.
     
    Maybe this is true, but at least wealthier and more travelling younger Chinese seem to me to be more "normalised", that is to say, they seem increasingly resemble internationalised bourgeois people from other developed countries in terms of mannerisms and fads.

    Though Europeans generally considered Chinese forms of government to be much superior to any European government until at least the late 18th century, and probably until the early 19th century. China’s prestige then took an enormous hit from the First Opium War.

    So Globohomo having prestige among the Chinese (especially since it’s such an easy poison – “just enjoy life and do what you like,” basically a Satanic message) is normal. The question is if it’s increasing or decreasing, and I’m not sure we have enough data on these trends.

  95. @The Big Red Scary
    "the Big Bang was unpopular with atheists and communists"

    I'm too young to have encountered that, it seems. Do any particular examples come to mind?

    (late reply, I was traveling)

    The most notorious of anti-Big-Bang atheists was Hoyle who flat out declared that the duty of science is to prove that there is no creator and that’s why the infinitely old universe has to be favored. The phrase “Big Bang” is actually his so it’s a mockery invented by the biggest enemy of the theory:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

    He was the last notorious resistance. There much more earlier as the general philosophical assumption of 19th century – early 20th century physicists had been that the universe is infinite and infinitely old because in Newtonian mechanics an infinite universe can be stable – if it’s filled with matter to all directions the gravitational pull to each direction cancels each other.

    One of the first things that Albert Einstein noticed about his new equations of gravity was that you can’t have a stable infinite universe as the equation is no longer just a matter of adding up linear influences and gravity “piles on itself” so that any such universe collapses in a finite time. The way to avoid a collapsing universe is to have an expanding universe that for some reason has enough “momentum” to avoid folding under its own gravity – but that means the universe must have a beginning some finite time ago.

    So Einstein found the Big Bang but he thought that the impossibility of a stable infinite universe was a flaw in his theory and he started trying to change his theory rather than declare a new discovery – he later called this the greatest blunder of his career. So the Big Bang generally gets credited to this guy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    He was a Catholic priest, a Jesuit, who had to personally talk the Pope out of declaring the Big Bang a validation of the Catholic faith. In the early 20th century culture war the expanding universe had the “stigma” of coming from a religious Catholic and having been endorsed by the Pope when most scientists are atheists.

  96. @Mitleser
    He can't have both.

    Spandrell commentary

    So basically Huawei’s founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei is a typical Boomer cuck who believes in global capital and thinks China needs more immigrants and liberalism.

    Thankfully Xi Jinping is having none of it.

    ...

    Read the rest of the thread. The Western press isn’t quoting him at all. They’re just throwing gas in the flames and making it like he’s some evil racist or something.

    ...

    There’s that, but I think he’s sincere. His generation are very much in love with the West. Tiananmen generation, back when China didn’t even have proper toilets.

    The younger generation who’ve seen the effects of Globohomo abroad are much more nationalistic.
     
    https://twitter.com/thespandrell/status/1131216671455289344

    Boomer Cuck is a good description, though those are not necessarily his sincere views. With his daughter held as hostage and his business empire crumbling under the weight of US attacks, there’s a chance he’d be saying those things even if he didn’t think like that. With the US keeping his daughter in captivity and intent on destroying his business empire which he worked his whole building up, it’s at least possible that his true thoughts are different.

    I’m not sure we know what he truly thinks, though probably if he was offered a “business as usual, and you get back your daughter,” he’d take it without thinking. But he might actually hate the kidnappers of his daughter.

    One sign that those are not his real thoughts is the defiant tone of Huawei’s quarterly earnings conference. Of course it could be his underlings who are responsible for that, so that’s not conclusive either.

  97. IEEE has backed down, for now.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Even if, from now on, not one of the bans were ever be implemented, it’d still cost Huawei enormously.

    They should suddenly ban gambling in Macau. Except for casinos with a special permission, which would only be issued to Las Vegas Sands’ competitors.

  98. @Daniel Chieh
    IEEE has backed down, for now.

    https://twitter.com/LichtSpektrum/status/1135407819383947265

    Even if, from now on, not one of the bans were ever be implemented, it’d still cost Huawei enormously.

    They should suddenly ban gambling in Macau. Except for casinos with a special permission, which would only be issued to Las Vegas Sands’ competitors.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS