←back to thread

521 points hd4 | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.895s | source | bottom
Show context
hunglee2 ◴[] No.45643396[source]
The US attempt to slow down China's technological development succeeds on the basis of preventing China from directly following the same path, but may backfire in the sense it forces innovation by China in a different direction. The overall outcome for us all may be increase efficiency as a result of this forced innovation, especially if Chinese companies continue to open source their advances, so we may in the end have reason to thank the US for their civilisational gate keeping
replies(17): >>45643584 #>>45643614 #>>45643618 #>>45643770 #>>45643876 #>>45644337 #>>45644641 #>>45644671 #>>45644907 #>>45645384 #>>45645721 #>>45646056 #>>45646138 #>>45648814 #>>45651479 #>>45651810 #>>45663019 #
notepad0x90 ◴[] No.45643876[source]
I think anti-immigrant rhetoric will have the most impact against the US. A lot of the people innovating on this stuff are being maligned and leaving in droves.

Aside from geography, attracting talent from all over the world is the one edge the US has a nation over countries like China. But now the US is trying to be xenophobic like China, restrict tech import/export like China but compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures.

The world, even Europe is looking for a new country to take on a leader/superpower role. China isn't there yet, but it might get there in a few years after their next-gen fighter jets and catching up to ASML.

But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india.

replies(9): >>45644175 #>>45644347 #>>45644446 #>>45644626 #>>45645154 #>>45647568 #>>45649325 #>>45652018 #>>45652682 #
1. hollerith ◴[] No.45647568[source]
>But now the US is trying to be xenophobic like China, restrict tech import/export like China but compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures.

Do I infer correctly that you believe that China has less internal strife and fissures than the US has?

replies(1): >>45652413 #
2. notepad0x90 ◴[] No.45652413[source]
By perception of the population at least, yes. I mean, the US is literally on the verge of a civil war lol.
replies(3): >>45652779 #>>45658668 #>>45659129 #
3. ◴[] No.45652779[source]
4. ◴[] No.45658668[source]
5. hollerith ◴[] No.45659129[source]
Yes, there's a lot of internal division (including now a few assassinations) in the US right now, but in general the US is pretty stable. E.g., it was stable from 1975 to about 2015.

The English-speaking lands where the US is now have seen two internal conflicts that killed at least 1% or so of the population: the American revolution, which killed about 1% of the population of the American colonies (but significantly less of the combined entity of England plus its American colonies) and the US Civil War, which killed about 2.4%.

Historically, China has been significantly less stable than that. Here is a link to a summary: https://chat.deepseek.com/share/16duc6iflzhav114dx

Here are 3 excerpts from that summary:

>The Transition from Yuan to Ming Dynasty (Mid-14th Century) . . . This period was one of the most devastating in human history. Plague and widespread warfare ravaged China. The population is estimated to have fallen from around 120 million at the Yuan peak to about 60-65 million at the start of the Ming. The death toll was catastrophic, easily exceeding 1% by an order of magnitude.

>The Ming-Qing Transition (c. 1618-1683) . . . While debated, estimates suggest a population decline of 20-40 million from a late-Ming peak of around 160-200 million. This includes deaths from war, famine, and plague.

>The Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864). This is the deadliest civil war in human history. Most conservative estimates place the death toll at 20-30 million people, with some estimates going as high as 70-100 million when including famine and disease. With a total population of around 400-450 million at the time, this represents a death toll of at least 5-7% of the entire population.

Imagine if the primary mission of the US Army was to put down internal rebellions and that everyone involved admitted that this was the main mission. That was the situation in China from 1949 to about 10 years ago, when it becomes no longer possible to identify with confidence the primary mission because Beijing added a second important mission, namely to use its navy and islands in the South China Sea to protect the sea lanes by which China imports oil from the Persian Gulf and exports manufactured goods around the world.

replies(1): >>45682220 #
6. notepad0x90 ◴[] No.45682220{3}[source]
1975? how about 1865? there is a real chance we won't ever have free and fair elections again. The amount of people dying isn't relevant to measure stability. political stability and a safe environment for the conduct of commerce is.

Historical stability of China isn't relevant either, I think the modern PRC government of china is all that matters for practical purposes.

Historically, China has been around for like 3 millennia, so it isn't a fair comparison, or a meaningful one.