8 ms·

I live in China, I think the best way to summarise everything we do at all level is: the end justifies the means. Need to seize power ? Murder all members of t

I live in China, I think the best way to summarise everything we do at all level is: the end justifies the means. Need to seize power ? Murder all members of the former power. Need to make poor peasants rich middle class ? Build entire cities, put them there, and done. Need to build a metro station ? Take the land, build it. Need to make Hong Kong a more physically integrated part of the country ? Build a gigantic bridge to Zuhai even if nobody actually need to use it. The problem ofc is that sometimes the means is more costly than the benefit of the end result, and also that the goal of the end result is never debated, but I suppose that will change eventually, once we've incurred too high a cost for too little a benefit overall.

phendrenad2 5y ago
Somewhere between US stagnation and China/UAE building for the sake of building lies a happy medium.
- chii 4y ago
  i bet that happy medium is not a stable equilibrium because any force on one side (or the other) pushes the balance. There's no restoring force.
- maxcan 4y ago
  Yes, and its called Singapore and Japan.
caycep 5y ago
I also somewhat worry the attention to safety standards make Aperture Science seem like a paragon of OSHA compliance....
- Yaina 4y ago
  Remember: Alert your supervisor! https://www.deviantart.com/orbital-vector/art/Portal-2-Remember-Alert-Your-Supervisor-Sign-857953438 https://www.deviantart.com/orbital-vector/art/Portal-2-Remem...
throwusawayus 5y ago
at all levels ? there must be limits to this approach right ??? otherwise this way of thinking gets terrifying fast and rapidly descends into conspiracy theory land example: "need to find a socially-acceptable solution to a demographic time bomb caused by decades of one child policy, while still maintaining ethnic homogeneity ? perform gain-of-function research to develop a vector that disproportionately harms the elderly" to be absolutely clear, I don't believe this was actually the case in 2019 at all - but as an no-limits "end justifies the means" thought exercise - it is easy to arrive at inhuman dystopian nightmares
- peakaboo 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - phs318u 5y ago
    I’m sorry but what are you referring to? This seems like a pretty extreme claim. Care to expand?
    - saghm 4y ago
      Yeah, I'm not really sure what they're talking about. If anything, the development of the vaccine for COVID impressed with how quickly we were able to iterate from proof of concepts to actually getting the vaccine distributed and given out. That's not to say that the process was perfect, but overall, I think the end result was much better than I would have predicted if asked hypothetically how long it would take to from the appearance to a new virus until when vaccines were actually administered nationwide to whoever wanted them. Unless that's what GP is saying, that the availability of vaccines for a wider variety of diseases were being artificially suppressed? I'm not sure I'd consider that to be much of a conspiracy theory though. I think it's clear from efforts to squash stuff like polio and smallpox have made it clear that it's practically possible to mass distribute vaccines without gatekeeping based on who can afford it, but in general it would require either an extremely benevolent entity who came up with the vaccine and is willing to forgo profits or some sort of government intervention; I don't think it's really surprising that this doesn't happen more often.
downrightmike 4y ago
- jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
  - SgtBastard 4y ago
    Citation extremely needed
    - jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
      How about the Chief Prosecutor for two UN Criminal Tribunals? There are many more sources on the wikipedia page for "War Crimes in Kosovo" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Del_Ponte https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Del_Ponte
      - deedree 4y ago
        That says there’s no evidence. While it may still be true you can’t just state like it’s a well known and accepted fact. That is certainly not true. If you want to make controversial claims you’d better make sure you can back it up. Right now it does not add in a valuable way to the conversation.
        jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
        The following wikipedia article contains hundreds of sources for war crimes committed on both sides (Yugoslav and KLA). KLA were officially NATO allies, and a lot of video evidence and official UN evidence exists regarding alleged locations, witness intimidation, and failure to prosecute KLA's top commanders. There is a 3 hour documentary produced about the whole war in which Carla Del Ponte was featured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War
mmaunder 4y ago
In China, authority overcomes any friction and drives a project forward. In the US there is no authority and there is no common purpose or enemy. So thousands of self interested parties abuse the system in a very time consuming way. If a major war was to break out, that would provide powerful common purpose and mountains would be moved in weeks, as history has shown. Same would apply in the case of a major environmental catastrophe. Encapsulating innovation inside a corporation is the one way in the US to create a common purpose and shield a group from bureaucratic capture.
- a0-prw 4y ago
  If a major war was to break out, the only mountains there would be, would be mountains of dead.
- nicbou 4y ago
  The risk with the first method is that if the authority is wrong, no one can correct its course. One unlucky dice roll and you have 30 years of a dangerously incompetent maniac. Some will only judge such countries by their lucky rolls. While a war unites a nation, it’s offset by the waste and destruction it creates. The cold war didn’t build more school and hospitals. All those resources went elsewhere, with the occasional dividend for civilians. Mountains do get moved quickly when you sign blank cheques, but at a greater cost, with more waste and corruption. We put way too much faith in crash programs.
  - karpierz 4y ago
    I think this is why authoritarian governments can be more effective at economic growth when they're behind; they just follow the path that a more economically advanced power did, but with more focus and less concern for individual welfare. Hence China's rapid industrialization. If that's true, then it'd fall apart when the central authority either becomes too inept or corrupt and the path to follow becomes less clear. Essentially, when the low hanging fruit is gone, the corruption/inepts of the authority would become clear.
    - 4y ago
roenxi 4y ago
It isn't so much that I disagree as I think the frame is a bit skewed. When America is operating at its peak everyone has similar complaints (switching "end justifies the means" with "you can do whatever you like if you have money" because historically the US operates using money as a medium). Whenever anything happens people complain that some interests aren't represented or that resources aren't being used in the way they'd like. The point of the article is more that the US has systemically made it illegal to deploy resources quickly and effectively.
taylorhou 4y ago
Most people in general have a short term cost/benefit analysis period. What China seemingly does different is they have 10, 20, 50+ year plans which in the time horizon of their multi-thousand year history even seems short term. Your example of the bridge may seem like no one uses it today but most likely in the future, it will be used and the scale will tip towards it being vastly beneficial compared to its cost. When countries like the USA have an entire history (not including native americans) of ~300 years, planning anything for 30 years out seems relatively crazy in comparison. All about perspective.
- Retric 4y ago
  Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. China the county younger than the US. Linking the history as a monolithic entity is really propaganda more than anything else. They are sure trying to create a culturural identity across a country with multiple cultures and languages.
  - technobabbler 4y ago
    > Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. It's not that simple. If something changes within the 50 years (and it certainly will), they can pivot away and work on something else. It's more that they have a relatively unified, authoritarian government with absolute power and no external checks and balances. At our other extreme, we have a two-party deadlock stretching back decades, and every major policy gets turned back after 4-8 years when the other party regains power. It's impossible to plan or build for the future that way. We used to be able to send people to the moon, develop nuclear power, build interstates and dams, win not just wars but hearts and minds, rebuild Germany and Japan... and now... we can't even evacuate Afghanistan, can't stop our citizens from being so pissed off they storm the capitol, can't do anything about climate change, can't have a sane discussion about educational curricula, can't maintain infrastructure, can't keep our people off the streets, can't deal with a pandemic... We've become good at one thing and one thing only: allowing private actors to optimize for massive short-term profits at the expense of society and the future. That's no way to run a country. We've turned citizens into gladiators fighting over scraps. Not saying we should emulate Chinese authoritarianism, but having a national vision lasting more than one election cycle isn't a bad thing. Being able to unite a country behind a major social project isn't a bad thing. Being able to even THINK of a country as a country, instead of warring factions, isn't a bad thing.

phendrenad2 5y ago

Somewhere between US stagnation and China/UAE building for the sake of building lies a happy medium.

chii 4y ago
i bet that happy medium is not a stable equilibrium because any force on one side (or the other) pushes the balance. There's no restoring force.
maxcan 4y ago
Yes, and its called Singapore and Japan.

caycep 5y ago

I also somewhat worry the attention to safety standards make Aperture Science seem like a paragon of OSHA compliance....

Yaina 4y ago
Remember: Alert your supervisor! https://www.deviantart.com/orbital-vector/art/Portal-2-Remember-Alert-Your-Supervisor-Sign-857953438 https://www.deviantart.com/orbital-vector/art/Portal-2-Remem...

throwusawayus 5y ago

at all levels ? there must be limits to this approach right ??? otherwise this way of thinking gets terrifying fast and rapidly descends into conspiracy theory land example: "need to find a socially-acceptable solution to a demographic time bomb caused by decades of one child policy, while still maintaining ethnic homogeneity ? perform gain-of-function research to develop a vector that disproportionately harms the elderly" to be absolutely clear, I don't believe this was actually the case in 2019 at all - but as an no-limits "end justifies the means" thought exercise - it is easy to arrive at inhuman dystopian nightmares

peakaboo 5y ago
[flagged]
- phs318u 5y ago
  I’m sorry but what are you referring to? This seems like a pretty extreme claim. Care to expand?
  - saghm 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm not really sure what they're talking about. If anything, the development of the vaccine for COVID impressed with how quickly we were able to iterate from proof of concepts to actually getting the vaccine distributed and given out. That's not to say that the process was perfect, but overall, I think the end result was much better than I would have predicted if asked hypothetically how long it would take to from the appearance to a new virus until when vaccines were actually administered nationwide to whoever wanted them. Unless that's what GP is saying, that the availability of vaccines for a wider variety of diseases were being artificially suppressed? I'm not sure I'd consider that to be much of a conspiracy theory though. I think it's clear from efforts to squash stuff like polio and smallpox have made it clear that it's practically possible to mass distribute vaccines without gatekeeping based on who can afford it, but in general it would require either an extremely benevolent entity who came up with the vaccine and is willing to forgo profits or some sort of government intervention; I don't think it's really surprising that this doesn't happen more often.

downrightmike 4y ago

jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
- SgtBastard 4y ago
  Citation extremely needed
  - jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
    How about the Chief Prosecutor for two UN Criminal Tribunals? There are many more sources on the wikipedia page for "War Crimes in Kosovo" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Del_Ponte https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Del_Ponte
    - deedree 4y ago
      That says there’s no evidence. While it may still be true you can’t just state like it’s a well known and accepted fact. That is certainly not true. If you want to make controversial claims you’d better make sure you can back it up. Right now it does not add in a valuable way to the conversation.
      - jsiaajdsdaa 4y ago
        The following wikipedia article contains hundreds of sources for war crimes committed on both sides (Yugoslav and KLA). KLA were officially NATO allies, and a lot of video evidence and official UN evidence exists regarding alleged locations, witness intimidation, and failure to prosecute KLA's top commanders. There is a 3 hour documentary produced about the whole war in which Carla Del Ponte was featured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War

mmaunder 4y ago

In China, authority overcomes any friction and drives a project forward. In the US there is no authority and there is no common purpose or enemy. So thousands of self interested parties abuse the system in a very time consuming way. If a major war was to break out, that would provide powerful common purpose and mountains would be moved in weeks, as history has shown. Same would apply in the case of a major environmental catastrophe. Encapsulating innovation inside a corporation is the one way in the US to create a common purpose and shield a group from bureaucratic capture.

a0-prw 4y ago
If a major war was to break out, the only mountains there would be, would be mountains of dead.
nicbou 4y ago
The risk with the first method is that if the authority is wrong, no one can correct its course. One unlucky dice roll and you have 30 years of a dangerously incompetent maniac. Some will only judge such countries by their lucky rolls. While a war unites a nation, it’s offset by the waste and destruction it creates. The cold war didn’t build more school and hospitals. All those resources went elsewhere, with the occasional dividend for civilians. Mountains do get moved quickly when you sign blank cheques, but at a greater cost, with more waste and corruption. We put way too much faith in crash programs.
- karpierz 4y ago
  I think this is why authoritarian governments can be more effective at economic growth when they're behind; they just follow the path that a more economically advanced power did, but with more focus and less concern for individual welfare. Hence China's rapid industrialization. If that's true, then it'd fall apart when the central authority either becomes too inept or corrupt and the path to follow becomes less clear. Essentially, when the low hanging fruit is gone, the corruption/inepts of the authority would become clear.
  - 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

It isn't so much that I disagree as I think the frame is a bit skewed. When America is operating at its peak everyone has similar complaints (switching "end justifies the means" with "you can do whatever you like if you have money" because historically the US operates using money as a medium). Whenever anything happens people complain that some interests aren't represented or that resources aren't being used in the way they'd like. The point of the article is more that the US has systemically made it illegal to deploy resources quickly and effectively.

taylorhou 4y ago

Most people in general have a short term cost/benefit analysis period. What China seemingly does different is they have 10, 20, 50+ year plans which in the time horizon of their multi-thousand year history even seems short term. Your example of the bridge may seem like no one uses it today but most likely in the future, it will be used and the scale will tip towards it being vastly beneficial compared to its cost. When countries like the USA have an entire history (not including native americans) of ~300 years, planning anything for 30 years out seems relatively crazy in comparison. All about perspective.

Retric 4y ago
Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. China the county younger than the US. Linking the history as a monolithic entity is really propaganda more than anything else. They are sure trying to create a culturural identity across a country with multiple cultures and languages.
- technobabbler 4y ago
  > Trying to use a 50 year plan is also a weakness. Technologies developed between now and then will make many goals obsolete before their finished. It's not that simple. If something changes within the 50 years (and it certainly will), they can pivot away and work on something else. It's more that they have a relatively unified, authoritarian government with absolute power and no external checks and balances. At our other extreme, we have a two-party deadlock stretching back decades, and every major policy gets turned back after 4-8 years when the other party regains power. It's impossible to plan or build for the future that way. We used to be able to send people to the moon, develop nuclear power, build interstates and dams, win not just wars but hearts and minds, rebuild Germany and Japan... and now... we can't even evacuate Afghanistan, can't stop our citizens from being so pissed off they storm the capitol, can't do anything about climate change, can't have a sane discussion about educational curricula, can't maintain infrastructure, can't keep our people off the streets, can't deal with a pandemic... We've become good at one thing and one thing only: allowing private actors to optimize for massive short-term profits at the expense of society and the future. That's no way to run a country. We've turned citizens into gladiators fighting over scraps. Not saying we should emulate Chinese authoritarianism, but having a national vision lasting more than one election cycle isn't a bad thing. Being able to unite a country behind a major social project isn't a bad thing. Being able to even THINK of a country as a country, instead of warring factions, isn't a bad thing.