> Forcing your enemy to invest heavily in such key sectors is pretty stupid. Eventually, one way or another, Chinese will master the state-of-the-art. A few good examples here - LCD industry, weapons.
Not if your enemy has a habit of reverse engineering and copying everything they buy.
I recall that China was has a competition for foreign companies to sell them attack helicopters. They had trials and evaluations, and settled on a South African one. You'd assume they made a big order, right? Wrong. They placed an order for a single copy, which the South African company wisely declined.
I can't seem to find a source for the above story, but I think I read it in Wired maybe 5-10 years ago.
> China today is about Gilded Age-type capitalism with a strain of collectivism running through it.
From what I gather, this is unfortunately true.
> The Chinese Communist Party functions the same way Chinese government has functioned for thousands of years. Anyone can join, if he can pass the necessary tests. Passing tests to gain a coveted spot in the government has been a national priority since before Confucius's day, 2.5 millennia ago, and continues to be today.
Nah. I don't think you have to pass any tests. You get into the party if you or your parents have the right connections or are willing to bribe the right people.
> China does not have legally enshrined freedom of speech. But at a societal level, the 'real' freedom of speech is greater than what I've experienced in America. In America, you must very carefully watch your words, lest you offend any of a number of easily offended groups.
China doesn't have "real" freedom of speech because you can voice your personal prejudices with fewer social repercussions. China is literally throwing defense lawyers in jail because they have the temerity to defend their clients against the government prosecutors! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa... There is no "real" freedom of speech in China in any way.
Try to organize a protest march against Xi Jinping in China and let me know if you still think that "the 'real' freedom of speech is greater in China."
> That’s a false dichotomy. China is ostensibly commmunist but free market is alive and well (with heavy doses of state directed influence, but so as in other western countries, witness the military industrial complex)
"Freedom" does not mean only the "free market." China is certainly against many things Westerners would consider necessary for freedom:
> Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society.
> These seven perils were enumerated in a memo, referred to as Document No. 9, that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past.
The Chinese communist party literally opposed to constitutional democracy (meaning checks on its power), human rights and accurate, nonpartisan history.
> China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship that some of the west seem to think they are.
You do realize that they're closer to being a dictatorship now than they've been for decades? Xi has purged most of his rivals and has recently abolished term limits for his positions, so he could rule indefinitely.
> I'm still wondering why there should be an economic, political or commercial conflict between China and the rest of the world esp. US. Such conflicts are wasteful with when we all should work together on common goals - space exploration, fighting against diseases, climate change etc.
I know! The US should just resign itself to being a provider or raw materials to the Chinese party-state, so we can focus on China achieving those glorious common goals!
China is rising to fight common perils such as "'Western constitutional democracy'; others included promoting 'universal values' of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation." (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...)
More seriously now: your perspective is embarrassingly naive, and forgets, many, many significant areas of difference between the US and China. China's leadership, now, is committed to am authoritarian, autocratic path. No amount of progress in "space exploration" is worth throwing support behind that kind of government.
> Theology is not present in universities, religious studies is. Theology is taught in special schools, because it fundamentally does not work the same way as other studies
Your comment demonstrates a profound ignorance of what you claim to be talking about. Theology was one of the most prestigious subjects taught in the original medieval universities (many of which are the most prestigious contemporary ones, e.g. Oxford), and continues to be taught in them today.
>Choice of seven papers across four subject areas, from which students select freely
Biblical studies
Systematic theology and ethics
History of religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism)
Religion and religions (Contemporary Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Hinduism)
Within my choice of words, I would call this religious studies. I'm reserving theology for when you focus on a specific religion, and the idea is that that religion is actually true (as opposed to studying many religions like you'd read many authors in an English degree.) Still, if Oxford disagrees with me about the dictionary then it is probably me who is abusing language. ;)
> Still, if Oxford disagrees with me about the dictionary then it is probably me who is abusing language. ;)
I'd say so. Esoteric personal definitions for established terms, even if they make a lot of sense to you, don't typically lead to productive discussions. It's probably best not to wade into one, correcting people, unless you actually understand the vocabulary.
> In the years I have lived without a car, my example of walking everywhere has tended to popularize walking wherever I lived. (Yes, even when I was homeless.) After seeing an uptick in walking, you could see visible evidence of improved air quality, such as healthier plant life in the area.
> Crime also went down. In the apartment complex where I gave up my car, the cops stopped staking out the entrance on weekend evenings. In another city, helicopter manhunts and similar police activity trended down.
This is a pretty fantastic, and frankly unbelievable claim.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with Jane Jacobs' work. Her position was that eyes on the street was the key to safety in urban areas. This is that mechanism in action.
> Her position was that eyes on the street was the key to safety in urban areas.
I'm sure that's true. However, the unbelievable part was the influence you ascribe to yourself. I do not believe that you, personally, set in motion a chain of events "wherever [you] live" that "lowers crime" and causes "healthier plant life."
