Eight Out Of China’s Top Nine Government Officials Are Scientists(singularityhub.com)
singularityhub.com
Eight Out Of China’s Top Nine Government Officials Are Scientists
http://singularityhub.com/2011/05/17/eight-out-of-chinas-top-nine-government-officials-are-scientists/
116 comments
Right. To add to this, in the US system:
-- the vast majority of bureaucrats with power over the average man are not elected or even subject to firing
-- we do not truly have a system of one man/one vote. the guy who writes the new york times headlines on election day literally controls at least a million votes.
-- the candidates who are dubbed "serious" by the media are not chosen at random. By any quantitative theory of political voice, that up front winnowing from 300 million to ten or so is more substantive than the election itself.
-- in the business sector, power is wielded with far more responsibility. there is a CEO and an identifiable company behind a product, which can go out of business if it displeases its customers, and which is subject to feedback on an instantaneous basis through purchases. by contrast most govt projects are products of committees, with permanent funding and diluted accountability only in the form of the 2-4 year election cycle.
in short, voting with your wallet or voting with your feet means far greater efficacy and voice than going through the ceremony of voting with a ballot.
-- Rule by an elite is inevitable. The process by which that elite is selected is everything. The US used to be much more aware of this, referring to itself as a "republic" rather than a "democracy".
-- The Chinese model is a lot easier to understand when comparing it to Apple. Should Steve Jobs choose his successor through a plebiscite in which he ostensibly has the same voice as a retail store employee hired yesterday? Or should he choose a leader who he thinks will follow his path? In the latter case legitimacy among Apple employees ultimately rests on the bottom line success of Apple, with the necessary safety valves being exit (freedom to quit) and market (revenue growth) rather than voice (noisily protesting Jobs' successor).
In the same way, most Chinese believe that Deng was the best qualified person in China to choose his successor. And legitimacy comes from continually posting solid bottom line numbers, something the US has not done for a while.
-- the vast majority of bureaucrats with power over the average man are not elected or even subject to firing
-- we do not truly have a system of one man/one vote. the guy who writes the new york times headlines on election day literally controls at least a million votes.
-- the candidates who are dubbed "serious" by the media are not chosen at random. By any quantitative theory of political voice, that up front winnowing from 300 million to ten or so is more substantive than the election itself.
-- in the business sector, power is wielded with far more responsibility. there is a CEO and an identifiable company behind a product, which can go out of business if it displeases its customers, and which is subject to feedback on an instantaneous basis through purchases. by contrast most govt projects are products of committees, with permanent funding and diluted accountability only in the form of the 2-4 year election cycle.
in short, voting with your wallet or voting with your feet means far greater efficacy and voice than going through the ceremony of voting with a ballot.
-- Rule by an elite is inevitable. The process by which that elite is selected is everything. The US used to be much more aware of this, referring to itself as a "republic" rather than a "democracy".
-- The Chinese model is a lot easier to understand when comparing it to Apple. Should Steve Jobs choose his successor through a plebiscite in which he ostensibly has the same voice as a retail store employee hired yesterday? Or should he choose a leader who he thinks will follow his path? In the latter case legitimacy among Apple employees ultimately rests on the bottom line success of Apple, with the necessary safety valves being exit (freedom to quit) and market (revenue growth) rather than voice (noisily protesting Jobs' successor).
In the same way, most Chinese believe that Deng was the best qualified person in China to choose his successor. And legitimacy comes from continually posting solid bottom line numbers, something the US has not done for a while.
I think you also should add to the list that given a choice, people will chose leaders who they are able to like the most.
This means that if China's existing leadership is heavily engineering based, the power structures will form in such way that aspiring politicos study engineering.
After all, we are all having this debate because we, being engineers, want to see more engineers in high office.
This means that if China's existing leadership is heavily engineering based, the power structures will form in such way that aspiring politicos study engineering.
After all, we are all having this debate because we, being engineers, want to see more engineers in high office.
It's maybe a trade-off? Sure we have bozos for politicians in the US, but in the US government corruption usually doesn't lead to people 'disappearing.' Though we're definitely making great strides in that direction.
The United States still has, overall, a much better set of governance, courts, regulation, etc. than China. But the USA is trending gradually downwards and China is trending quickly upwards.
Now it's interesting, countries can catch up a lot faster than they can lead. If a country is a bit backwards, with the right set of leadership, they can very quickly modernize, becoming extremely important economically and geopolitically in ~30 years when starting almost from scratch. But many of those rapid modernizations peter out once a lot of the proven methods are implemented.
Sometimes that means flat growth, like Japan. Sometimes collapse, like Nazi Germany. Sometimes gradual decline, like the USSR. Singapore has done a pretty outstanding job of keeping their upwards trends going and they're about 50 years into their building phase - I think that's the longest rapid sustained modernization in history?
So anyways, yes, I'll take the USA's system over China's today. And tomorrow. And probably 5 years from now. But maybe not 20 years from now if all else stays equal, and China can adapt after they've caught most of the low hanging fruit.
Now it's interesting, countries can catch up a lot faster than they can lead. If a country is a bit backwards, with the right set of leadership, they can very quickly modernize, becoming extremely important economically and geopolitically in ~30 years when starting almost from scratch. But many of those rapid modernizations peter out once a lot of the proven methods are implemented.
Sometimes that means flat growth, like Japan. Sometimes collapse, like Nazi Germany. Sometimes gradual decline, like the USSR. Singapore has done a pretty outstanding job of keeping their upwards trends going and they're about 50 years into their building phase - I think that's the longest rapid sustained modernization in history?
So anyways, yes, I'll take the USA's system over China's today. And tomorrow. And probably 5 years from now. But maybe not 20 years from now if all else stays equal, and China can adapt after they've caught most of the low hanging fruit.
If a country is a bit backwards, with the right set of leadership, they can very quickly modernize, becoming extremely important economically and geopolitically in ~30 years when starting almost from scratch.
It's not only leadership. If there is a long track record of commerce and admiration of scholarship, a culture can enable rapid modernization. I think this is why Japan, Korea, and China have done very well for themselves.
It's not only leadership. If there is a long track record of commerce and admiration of scholarship, a culture can enable rapid modernization. I think this is why Japan, Korea, and China have done very well for themselves.
Cultural antecedents are not a necessary pre-condition for modernisation. The USSR modernised very rapidly and it started off with mass illiteracy.
The USSR modernised very rapidly and it started off with mass illiteracy.
Yes, but look at them now. The territories of the former USSR do not constitute the best climate for business. Cultural antecedents are not a necessary pre-condition, but they seem to help.
Yes, but look at them now. The territories of the former USSR do not constitute the best climate for business. Cultural antecedents are not a necessary pre-condition, but they seem to help.
Fair enough.
>But the USA is trending gradually downwards and China is trending quickly upwards.
In population, wealth, etc. sure. But in terms of corruption? Having people who do no harm in power is often better than having people who do great good. If a great leader is just that - great. Not good, but great. Greatness has the capacity for evil and good. The advantage of a less skilled leadership is that they're only really able to do middling things, whether middlingly evil or middlingly good.
In population, wealth, etc. sure. But in terms of corruption? Having people who do no harm in power is often better than having people who do great good. If a great leader is just that - great. Not good, but great. Greatness has the capacity for evil and good. The advantage of a less skilled leadership is that they're only really able to do middling things, whether middlingly evil or middlingly good.
Back in the 1990s economists found that the major cause of improvements for the "Asian tigers" was due to increases in inputs -- that is, people and material were actually used for the first time. But productivity per person or unit of capital is actually quite poor and in the long run, this places a limit on that rapid growth.
We're already seeing work being outsourced from China to even cheaper countries as China's supply of labour becomes fully engaged.
We're already seeing work being outsourced from China to even cheaper countries as China's supply of labour becomes fully engaged.
You're right, but the trend in the US is towards more repression, while the trend in China is towards less. We are destroying our middle class, they are creating and growing theirs at an incredible rate.
The attitude that I get from a lot of Chinese is that they feel the present government is a necessary evil - i.e., in exchange for many political and religious freedoms, they get progress, and an immense improvement to the quality of life of hundreds of millions... where before there was only starvation and misery. And progress they have gotten, which is more than I can say for us in the last decade or so.
The attitude that I get from a lot of Chinese is that they feel the present government is a necessary evil - i.e., in exchange for many political and religious freedoms, they get progress, and an immense improvement to the quality of life of hundreds of millions... where before there was only starvation and misery. And progress they have gotten, which is more than I can say for us in the last decade or so.
The Chineese exchange students, that is, the ones who are not nationalized in America, the off the boat people, at my school think rather differently. They consider the government of China, for the most part, simply the nature of china. It isn't a necessary evil, its just the way things are.
They consider the government of China, for the most part, simply the nature of china. It isn't a necessary evil, its just the way things are.
This is exactly what is meant by the Chinese "Civilization State."
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-unde...
I've had Chinese coworkers openly feel sorry for me because I have asian features and I don't know how to read/write Chinese characters, and I'm not even Chinese!
This is exactly what is meant by the Chinese "Civilization State."
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-unde...
I've had Chinese coworkers openly feel sorry for me because I have asian features and I don't know how to read/write Chinese characters, and I'm not even Chinese!
We've all got different friends, but I'd offer a different perspective. Most Chinese I know dislike their government, but are apathetic towards it, or too busy trying to live their own lives.
And China is recently tending towards more sophisticated repression, rather than less of it in general. Perhaps the US and China will end up in the same place!
And China is recently tending towards more sophisticated repression, rather than less of it in general. Perhaps the US and China will end up in the same place!
"A sufficiently sophisticated repression is indistinguishable from democracy?"
Chomsky has a great quote about this: In the U.S. there is basically one party - The Business Party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations of the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies, as is most of the population.
I'm not against business, but it shouldn't be our singular goal as a society.
I'm not against business, but it shouldn't be our singular goal as a society.
Chomsky denied the Cambodian Holocaust while it was occurring and has never apologized or really publicly reckoned with this. He also keeps his fortune in tax shelters while inveighing against others who do the same. I would thus take his comments about the manifold evils of business with a wee grain of salt; the regimes he has unapologetically flacked for have killed many more people than Google has.
>He also keeps his fortune in tax shelters
His "fortune"? You know he's a college professor right?
His "fortune"? You know he's a college professor right?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.ht...
But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. (However, Chomsky did say that his tax shelter is OK because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people.")
Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite his anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist Chomsky has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd recently put it in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those "open to being "commodified" -- that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be."
Chomsky's business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at US$12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.
But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. (However, Chomsky did say that his tax shelter is OK because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people.")
Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite his anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist Chomsky has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd recently put it in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those "open to being "commodified" -- that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be."
Chomsky's business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at US$12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.
This is more of typical "find some way to make everyone who takes any action into a hypocrite". First of all, just because Chomsky believes something doesn't mean he has to practice it if no one else is. What would it benefit the world for him to be poor?
I have some strong Anarchistic beliefs (i.e. the immorality of one man ruling another, not the smash-things-up kind) but I do literally nothing (outside of talking) for it because it's not practical. I could only ruin my own quality of life and who would see that kind of example and say "wow, count me in!". I'm in a capitalist system so I may as well learn it and use it to the best of my abilities. It's almost certain to be the only system I ever live under no matter what actions I take.
Likewise, very few people listen to Chomsky so he may as well use the system he will live his whole life in to the best of his ability.
And finally, the messenger is different than the message. It is perfectly valid for a smoker to preach about the evils of smoking. He can even call people who smoke stupid. Him smoking doesn't make his message invalid.
I have some strong Anarchistic beliefs (i.e. the immorality of one man ruling another, not the smash-things-up kind) but I do literally nothing (outside of talking) for it because it's not practical. I could only ruin my own quality of life and who would see that kind of example and say "wow, count me in!". I'm in a capitalist system so I may as well learn it and use it to the best of my abilities. It's almost certain to be the only system I ever live under no matter what actions I take.
Likewise, very few people listen to Chomsky so he may as well use the system he will live his whole life in to the best of his ability.
And finally, the messenger is different than the message. It is perfectly valid for a smoker to preach about the evils of smoking. He can even call people who smoke stupid. Him smoking doesn't make his message invalid.
Look, I'm not saying you're a bad guy or that working within the system for change is illegitimate.
My point is this: smoking while convincing others that smoking is bad makes you worse off but others better off. That's a failure of will.
But piling up millions in a trust while arguing that other rich people should be punitively taxed makes Chomsky better off but others worse off. That's hypocrisy.
My point is this: smoking while convincing others that smoking is bad makes you worse off but others better off. That's a failure of will.
But piling up millions in a trust while arguing that other rich people should be punitively taxed makes Chomsky better off but others worse off. That's hypocrisy.
It would only be hypocrisy if he said they should be punitively taxed and he shouldn't. So long as those holes exist he would be foolish to not use them.
He's in the same situation as Warren Buffet: both condemn/ridicule the current system and both do what ever is available to them within the current system.
He's in the same situation as Warren Buffet: both condemn/ridicule the current system and both do what ever is available to them within the current system.
Communist governments have usually attracted intellectuals to higher levels of power -- the results so far haven't been uplifting.
I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner", only a list of pros/cons whose weighting will be shaped by your perceptions and bias.
The explosive growth of China hides most of the warts of the system. When you have economic growth so fast that new, uninhabited cities get built, there's obviously some excess and policy issues at play.
The US is an imperial power, and the conduct of policy and statesmanship changes in that role. While the President is the front-man and sets the agenda, the work is done and policy is made by anonymous officials in the sprawling bureaucracy. And I betcha if you analyzed a Chinese and American bureaucrat, you would find that they look, act and think alike.
I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner", only a list of pros/cons whose weighting will be shaped by your perceptions and bias.
The explosive growth of China hides most of the warts of the system. When you have economic growth so fast that new, uninhabited cities get built, there's obviously some excess and policy issues at play.
The US is an imperial power, and the conduct of policy and statesmanship changes in that role. While the President is the front-man and sets the agenda, the work is done and policy is made by anonymous officials in the sprawling bureaucracy. And I betcha if you analyzed a Chinese and American bureaucrat, you would find that they look, act and think alike.
Nuanced comment here, good analysis. I agree with a lot, but two nitpicks about the first point -
1. I'd say Communist movements attract intellectuals. Communist governments usually do not employ those intellectuals for very long after taking power.
2. Despite the name and symbols, I don't think China is actually Communist any more. I don't know what to call them. If they remain a world power and continue to thrive, I'd bet quite a lot that a new word will be coined for their precise political/economic/geographical/military mix - there's quite literally no comps in history for what they're doing right now.
1. I'd say Communist movements attract intellectuals. Communist governments usually do not employ those intellectuals for very long after taking power.
2. Despite the name and symbols, I don't think China is actually Communist any more. I don't know what to call them. If they remain a world power and continue to thrive, I'd bet quite a lot that a new word will be coined for their precise political/economic/geographical/military mix - there's quite literally no comps in history for what they're doing right now.
I agree that China no longer fits the traditional definition of "Communist". Then again, Maoism didn't quite fit the mold either. China has a strong societal tradition that is different than the west.
While they may not be ideologically communist, China does continue to practice the governance style of communist governments. Think about the Soviet Union's model -- a major part of the Soviet story was purging the old in favor of the new, "scientific" way. China is doing a similar thing, but through different means. The "science" may have been quakery (witness the Aral Sea), but the central planners saw themselves as guided by logic and science, not petty feelings or popularity.
While they may not be ideologically communist, China does continue to practice the governance style of communist governments. Think about the Soviet Union's model -- a major part of the Soviet story was purging the old in favor of the new, "scientific" way. China is doing a similar thing, but through different means. The "science" may have been quakery (witness the Aral Sea), but the central planners saw themselves as guided by logic and science, not petty feelings or popularity.
For number 2. you could argue that they are mercantilist. Most of the enterprises are state backed, much like the Dutch or British East India companies. So the state takes a pretty big role in determining which companies will succeed.
You could argue that the Chinese state as a whole is in fact a large corporation.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)."
A leaders best ability is to lead. Hence, you would end up with intellectuals, scientists, economists and others who have a strong grasp of complex theories and systems. Opposed to having actors and political pretty boys leading.
Marx's saying goes even further with the corporate metaphor. The lower the 'worker' in the 'corporation' the less they get 'paid'/'need'. How is there any real difference with how Walmart views its minimum wage workers to how China views its farmers or sweatshop workers? From the top they're all just pawns to make a profit.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)."
A leaders best ability is to lead. Hence, you would end up with intellectuals, scientists, economists and others who have a strong grasp of complex theories and systems. Opposed to having actors and political pretty boys leading.
Marx's saying goes even further with the corporate metaphor. The lower the 'worker' in the 'corporation' the less they get 'paid'/'need'. How is there any real difference with how Walmart views its minimum wage workers to how China views its farmers or sweatshop workers? From the top they're all just pawns to make a profit.
Thanks lh. Might be worth noting how many communist governments invoked an "Owning books is counter-revolutionary treason" policy after taking power, too. Not really something for the intellectuals.
It's pretty much impossible for a government to remain Communist after formation.
According to Marx, a Communist state should disassemble itself after organizing society in such a way that it can sustain egalitarianism in a classless manner. Because dictatorial power is necessary to reorganize society from the top down, this power will be acquired by a Communist state. Unfortunately, every institution is self-serving and self-preserving, so ostensibly-Communist states are inevitably unable to complete the self-destructive process. When have you ever known a state to give up power? It just doesn't happen unless the state feels threatened in some way, and the state is unable to destroy the threat.
A Communist state will relentlessly attack any non-hierarchical movement attempting to organize a classless egalitarian society, because such movements are a threat to the state's power. Examples of this are present in both the Spanish Revolution and the Russian Revolution.
Bakunin was totally right. http://i.imgur.com/ijQEp.jpg
According to Marx, a Communist state should disassemble itself after organizing society in such a way that it can sustain egalitarianism in a classless manner. Because dictatorial power is necessary to reorganize society from the top down, this power will be acquired by a Communist state. Unfortunately, every institution is self-serving and self-preserving, so ostensibly-Communist states are inevitably unable to complete the self-destructive process. When have you ever known a state to give up power? It just doesn't happen unless the state feels threatened in some way, and the state is unable to destroy the threat.
A Communist state will relentlessly attack any non-hierarchical movement attempting to organize a classless egalitarian society, because such movements are a threat to the state's power. Examples of this are present in both the Spanish Revolution and the Russian Revolution.
Bakunin was totally right. http://i.imgur.com/ijQEp.jpg
It is a bit strange to see a comic that I've seen dozens of times before on /new/ posted on HN.
Communist governments have usually attracted intellectuals to higher levels of power -- the results so far haven't been uplifting.
No they don't. The Chinese cultural revolution has almost extinguished the intellectual class before ending. I don't recall a single scientist in The Soviet Union Politburo. Do you have any examples for your "usually", beyond this particular incarnation of the Chinese government?
No they don't. The Chinese cultural revolution has almost extinguished the intellectual class before ending. I don't recall a single scientist in The Soviet Union Politburo. Do you have any examples for your "usually", beyond this particular incarnation of the Chinese government?
> the results so far haven't been uplifting
10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive.
> I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner"
It's likely that one of these two countries is going to end up dominating the world. Of course, it's not so much about countries as social systems: both have their strengths and weaknesses.
> And I betcha if you analyzed a Chinese and American bureaucrat, you would find that they look, act and think alike.
I'm sure you're right.
10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive.
> I don't think that a comparison of the US system vs. China is going to produce a clear "winner"
It's likely that one of these two countries is going to end up dominating the world. Of course, it's not so much about countries as social systems: both have their strengths and weaknesses.
> And I betcha if you analyzed a Chinese and American bureaucrat, you would find that they look, act and think alike.
I'm sure you're right.
> 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive.
They are catching up to status quo. Mostly because they squandered the previous decades scientifically hunting down sparrows and enemies of the state.
They are catching up to status quo. Mostly because they squandered the previous decades scientifically hunting down sparrows and enemies of the state.
> They are catching up to status quo
Yes they are catching up. Three quarters of the countries in the world are catching up -- or trying to -- the most advanced countries, and that's been roughly the situation since the industrial revolution. The difference is that China has been more successful than anyone else at catching up; to the best of my knowledge no other country has ever managed as good a performance (except for poor countries that discover oil, which doesn't really count).
Yes they are catching up. Three quarters of the countries in the world are catching up -- or trying to -- the most advanced countries, and that's been roughly the situation since the industrial revolution. The difference is that China has been more successful than anyone else at catching up; to the best of my knowledge no other country has ever managed as good a performance (except for poor countries that discover oil, which doesn't really count).
Which is so different from the War on Terror and the Patriot Act.
The War on Terror, foolish and wrong-headed though it has been, can't be placed on the same footing of destructiveness as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Not by several orders of magnitude. And you have to come through Stalinism and the Holocaust en route to making that comparison, so let's keep things in perspective here.
I guess I was responding to "hunting down sparrows and enemies of the state" rather than the revolution specifically, so I will accept they are in a different league.
Still, I'm not sure killing around 3% of Iraqis is something that can be dismissed as "foolish and wrong-headed" either.
Still, I'm not sure killing around 3% of Iraqis is something that can be dismissed as "foolish and wrong-headed" either.
As misguided as the Patriot Act is, it pales in comparison to the Great Cultural Revolution and other acts of horror insanity that devastated China after World War II.
Global domination is a funny thing. Did Britain impose its ways on the world and change it forever, or did the world change it?
The answer is "all of the above". Of course many Brits got rich at the expense of the others.
The answer is "all of the above". Of course many Brits got rich at the expense of the others.
> 10% growth every year for a quarter of a century? I regard that as very impressive.
It's not that impressive when you're chasing tail-lights and the folks ahead are (mostly) helping.
It's not that impressive when you're chasing tail-lights and the folks ahead are (mostly) helping.
Come on... Simply holding together such a big country is really a daily miracle. I live there and I can tell you Chinese people are not what you think, they are VERY HARD to govern. They never stop inventing ways to break the rules, they have a tendency to suddenly and unexpectedly jump all together on the same side of the boat. A daily miracle, I tell you, and most of this miracle is based on the rock-solid traditional education given in the country-side.
I'll tell you, the Chinese hard even harder to govern than the French. (I'm French, I know both.)
I'll tell you, the Chinese hard even harder to govern than the French. (I'm French, I know both.)
> Come on... Simply holding together such a big country is really a daily miracle. I live there and I can tell you Chinese people are not what you think, they are VERY HARD to govern.
You've identified the problem, but it's not the problem that you think that it is.
Why do you assume that "holding together" and "govern" is a good idea? More to the point, what would happen if the Chinese govt stopped trying to do so?
It's not like China is going to be invaded.
I was going to write something about keeping the gangsters in check, but then I remembered that official corruption is a huge problem in China, and most of that stems from this "govern" thing that you value so highly.
> They never stop inventing ways to break the rules,
Which is another reason why 10% is no big deal.
You've identified the problem, but it's not the problem that you think that it is.
Why do you assume that "holding together" and "govern" is a good idea? More to the point, what would happen if the Chinese govt stopped trying to do so?
It's not like China is going to be invaded.
I was going to write something about keeping the gangsters in check, but then I remembered that official corruption is a huge problem in China, and most of that stems from this "govern" thing that you value so highly.
> They never stop inventing ways to break the rules,
Which is another reason why 10% is no big deal.
The reason why democracy is a good thing is not because the general public is good at running a country, or even good at selecting people who are good at running a country.
The reason why democracy is a good thing is it forces the people in power to care about the effects their decisions have on the general public.
The reason why democracy is a good thing is it forces the people in power to care about the effects their decisions have on the general public.
Or to put it another way, it's the system that is most likely to throw complete and utter incompetents out of office in a reasonable period of time.
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
I think democracy is a good thing because it is generally good at keeping the government in line. Even though 90% of what Republicans and Democrats do are the same, it is that they're eternally afraid of the public reaction that they do keep themselves in line.
This is even more true in Westminster style Democracies where Members of Parliament can defect on decisions, or defect entirely to another party or go independent. Potentially at any time. Why? Because your local MP is supposed to act on your behalf, and you elect the one that stands for what you do. I know our present conservative government, and Prime Minister, would love to do nothing more than open the election debate and with their majority get some legislation passed. However, they're so afraid of fracturing their government that the PM has out and out said he will not reopen it.
Sadly this isn't always so, as here in Canada the NDP has a dozen or so MP's who were essentially placed as seat fillers (in Quebec), but because of a bizarre turn around those padded seats became their entire election campaign.
This is even more true in Westminster style Democracies where Members of Parliament can defect on decisions, or defect entirely to another party or go independent. Potentially at any time. Why? Because your local MP is supposed to act on your behalf, and you elect the one that stands for what you do. I know our present conservative government, and Prime Minister, would love to do nothing more than open the election debate and with their majority get some legislation passed. However, they're so afraid of fracturing their government that the PM has out and out said he will not reopen it.
Sadly this isn't always so, as here in Canada the NDP has a dozen or so MP's who were essentially placed as seat fillers (in Quebec), but because of a bizarre turn around those padded seats became their entire election campaign.
It prevents the people in power from deciding to enslave all right-handed people, but enslaving all left-handed people is still acceptable.
I'm not sure China's leadership has shown a more nuanced understanding of policy and statesmanship than America's leadership.
First, America has dominated the world for the last 30 years. We've got a lot of public fingers in a lot of public pies as the world's policeman. China takes no such stance. It wants oil, so it supports Sudan genocide. It wants a buffer zone between it and the West, so it supports North Korea. Just like the honey badger, China doesn't give a shit. It's relatively quiet and has tons of cash and (directly)stays out of other people's foreign affairs, so everybody more or less ignores it. I wouldn't call this a particularly nuanced understanding or implementation of foreign affairs policy.
Turning to domestic affairs, I wouldn't call China's policies nuanced either. Maybe draconian? Their one-child-per-family policy, their restrictions on speech and travel, their widespread confiscation and displacement, (I could go on) I would call evil, not nuanced.
They are booming, and a 10% growth rate will cover up a lot of poor decisions. Their growth is certainly a function of a few smart guys taking the reins and dragging them into the future, but that had a lot to do with last cadre of "smart" guys shackling them to a failed system for 50 years. And it doesn't mean that's the best way forward, either.
First, America has dominated the world for the last 30 years. We've got a lot of public fingers in a lot of public pies as the world's policeman. China takes no such stance. It wants oil, so it supports Sudan genocide. It wants a buffer zone between it and the West, so it supports North Korea. Just like the honey badger, China doesn't give a shit. It's relatively quiet and has tons of cash and (directly)stays out of other people's foreign affairs, so everybody more or less ignores it. I wouldn't call this a particularly nuanced understanding or implementation of foreign affairs policy.
Turning to domestic affairs, I wouldn't call China's policies nuanced either. Maybe draconian? Their one-child-per-family policy, their restrictions on speech and travel, their widespread confiscation and displacement, (I could go on) I would call evil, not nuanced.
They are booming, and a 10% growth rate will cover up a lot of poor decisions. Their growth is certainly a function of a few smart guys taking the reins and dragging them into the future, but that had a lot to do with last cadre of "smart" guys shackling them to a failed system for 50 years. And it doesn't mean that's the best way forward, either.
>Turning to domestic affairs, I wouldn't call China's policies nuanced either. Maybe draconian? Their one-child-per-family policy, their restrictions on speech and travel, their widespread confiscation and displacement, (I could go on) I would call evil, not nuanced.
I used to feel the same way until I visited China last year. Their social restrictions really are nuanced! They allow a lot of freedom to the rich/intelligentsia of appropriate ethnic groups and restrict the "restive" segments of their population. A lot of care has gone into the system by which their government maintains control while simultaneously trying to maximize growth and material comfort. It's not just naked oppression.
I used to feel the same way until I visited China last year. Their social restrictions really are nuanced! They allow a lot of freedom to the rich/intelligentsia of appropriate ethnic groups and restrict the "restive" segments of their population. A lot of care has gone into the system by which their government maintains control while simultaneously trying to maximize growth and material comfort. It's not just naked oppression.
While this is no doubt going to be unpopular here on HackerNews, I'm going to posit the following: This is almost as bad as have 8 of 9 people being Creationists.
Better than 90% of a council making decisions for the whole country being of the same persuasion is prone to severe group think. Scientists (or rather, engineers, if you RTFA) aren't immune to this any more than any of us are.
If you look at the best run businesses, they are often composed of people with variable backgrounds - people that approach problems from different perspectives. This has two major benefits: First, it allows you to gain from solutions that come from as many types of thought processes as possible and more importantly, it prevents you from blindly following dogma - if you can't convince somebody that doesn't follow your thought patterns of the viability or necessity of a particular idea, it probably shouldn't be perused.
One child policies that have resulted in a generation of males without females is pretty much exactly the type of policy I'd expect from a group of engineers.
Better than 90% of a council making decisions for the whole country being of the same persuasion is prone to severe group think. Scientists (or rather, engineers, if you RTFA) aren't immune to this any more than any of us are.
If you look at the best run businesses, they are often composed of people with variable backgrounds - people that approach problems from different perspectives. This has two major benefits: First, it allows you to gain from solutions that come from as many types of thought processes as possible and more importantly, it prevents you from blindly following dogma - if you can't convince somebody that doesn't follow your thought patterns of the viability or necessity of a particular idea, it probably shouldn't be perused.
One child policies that have resulted in a generation of males without females is pretty much exactly the type of policy I'd expect from a group of engineers.
The one child policy was not created by this cadre of leadership. The male/female imbalance also happens in India, which does not have such a policy.
While India does in fact have a similar imbalance, I invite you to look at the problem in the context of this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sex_ratio_below_15_per_cou...
Also: (order the chart descending by either at birth or <15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
The numbers are actually much stronger than I thought they would be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sex_ratio_below_15_per_cou...
Also: (order the chart descending by either at birth or <15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
The numbers are actually much stronger than I thought they would be.
Why are you picking out the data that best supports your thesis? 15–64 shows India and China at exactly the same ratio, even though India has no 1 child policy at all. The gender imbalance problem does not come from the 1 child policy. Don't pick and choose data to fit what you think, look at all of it.
The one child policy was only enacted in 1978. It stands to reason then that the 15-64 bracket isn't fully representing the effects of the policy.
The only brackets that properly account for impact of the policy are the more recent ones.
The only brackets that properly account for impact of the policy are the more recent ones.
Just look at it backwards. Even before the 1 child policy, both china and india have had a gender imbalance favouring males. After the 1 child policy in china alone, both india and china had a strong growth in gender imbalance, with china being only somewhat stronger. Your "control" without the 1 child policy also exhibited the same strong growth. A scientist would reasonably conclude that the 1 child policy seems to have little relevance to the issue, considering that another comparable country behaved in exactly the same manner without have such a policy in place.
Both China and India share pretty much exactly the same imbalance until the last two age-cohorts as you suggest, but while both increase, China's does so substantially more. This can't be ignored as being "exactly the same manner". To do so is being scientifically irresponsible.
My take is that both cultures have very prominent views on the preference for male children. You can see this even in the large Chinese and Indian communities here in North America. What has most likely happened is that the one child policy has simply enabled those cultural preferences in China much more than the exist in India.
It's also interesting that India itself has at several times flirted with restrictive population polices, including forced sterilization at right around the same time as China introduced their family planning program.
While that doesn't suggest that the one child policies are the only cause, I think there is enough evidence there to suggest they are a factor.
Nonetheless, all of this wasn't actually a real focus of my original point at all.
My take is that both cultures have very prominent views on the preference for male children. You can see this even in the large Chinese and Indian communities here in North America. What has most likely happened is that the one child policy has simply enabled those cultural preferences in China much more than the exist in India.
It's also interesting that India itself has at several times flirted with restrictive population polices, including forced sterilization at right around the same time as China introduced their family planning program.
While that doesn't suggest that the one child policies are the only cause, I think there is enough evidence there to suggest they are a factor.
Nonetheless, all of this wasn't actually a real focus of my original point at all.
Doesn't India have a policy of the parents of the daughter needing to pay for all wedding arrangements, making daughters less desirable?
While this is no doubt going to be unpopular here on HackerNews, I'm going to posit the following: This is almost as bad as have 8 of 9 people being Creationists.
...
One child policies that have resulted in a generation of males without females is pretty much exactly the type of policy I'd expect from a group of engineers.
Let us hope that they will do a better job with global politics and economics than they did with domestic policy.
Has there ever been a culture/major world power besotted with its own engineering prowess? Or is this just a way to describe western civilization in the 19th and 20th centuries? (In particular, Britain, United States, the USSR, and Germany.)
...
One child policies that have resulted in a generation of males without females is pretty much exactly the type of policy I'd expect from a group of engineers.
Let us hope that they will do a better job with global politics and economics than they did with domestic policy.
Has there ever been a culture/major world power besotted with its own engineering prowess? Or is this just a way to describe western civilization in the 19th and 20th centuries? (In particular, Britain, United States, the USSR, and Germany.)
"If you look at the best run businesses, they are often composed of people with variable backgrounds - people that approach problems from different perspectives."
Do you have cited studies to back this up?
Do you have cited studies to back this up?
> Do you have cited studies to back this up?
At first I thought this was satire. You'll excuse me if I take this in a more interesting direction.
Cited studies are not the first and last word on anything, especially when the question is "are scientists better than everyone else?"
Cited studies promote all kinds of false or questionable beliefs, particularly on political issues. As far as finding a study that answers the specific question "are diverse businesses better run?", I promise you won't have to look very far or very hard.
A common sense, thoughtful argument, backed up by information, trumps studies every time. And, surprisingly, an error-prone poll of a population of average intelligence trumps an intellectual's well-thought-out argument---this is why we have polling stations instead of a politburo.
At first I thought this was satire. You'll excuse me if I take this in a more interesting direction.
Cited studies are not the first and last word on anything, especially when the question is "are scientists better than everyone else?"
Cited studies promote all kinds of false or questionable beliefs, particularly on political issues. As far as finding a study that answers the specific question "are diverse businesses better run?", I promise you won't have to look very far or very hard.
A common sense, thoughtful argument, backed up by information, trumps studies every time. And, surprisingly, an error-prone poll of a population of average intelligence trumps an intellectual's well-thought-out argument---this is why we have polling stations instead of a politburo.
I must admit that beyond the anecdotal, I do not.
There is a relatively established method though of creating boards of directors and/or leadership "teams" to achieve better decision making patterns; for this exact reason.
The group is more often than not a better performer than the individual.
There is a relatively established method though of creating boards of directors and/or leadership "teams" to achieve better decision making patterns; for this exact reason.
The group is more often than not a better performer than the individual.
As an aside, I'm slightly more concerned with the generation of Only Children as opposed to the generation of 114 men to 100 girls...just to toss another layer of complexity into the mix.
This is a good article, but it does miss one incredibly important piece of the puzzle - the possibility that US citizens have an economically rational aversion to PhDs in science and engineering. A recent RAND study supports this point of view:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
I think it's critical to make science and engineering a desirable career path for young americans, but simply "making it cool" isn't the way to go - and could (as the article points out) actually be destructive in that it would cause harm to students who responded to the pr campaign only to find long training times and poor career prospects relative to their friends who did law, dentistry, medicine, mba, etc.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
I think it's critical to make science and engineering a desirable career path for young americans, but simply "making it cool" isn't the way to go - and could (as the article points out) actually be destructive in that it would cause harm to students who responded to the pr campaign only to find long training times and poor career prospects relative to their friends who did law, dentistry, medicine, mba, etc.
That's funny... Americans don't have an economically rational aversion to becoming movie stars in much the same way.
yeah, that is an amusing observation. of course, President Obama and various talking heads don't fret about the shortage of Americans in film school.
The serious question is whether we should launch a PR campaign to encourage young people to make decisions that may lead (at least according to RAND) to long training times with poor pay and career prospects relative to other paths typically available to the "best and brightest".
The serious question is whether we should launch a PR campaign to encourage young people to make decisions that may lead (at least according to RAND) to long training times with poor pay and career prospects relative to other paths typically available to the "best and brightest".
If the issue is public policy, then the goal should be public good, not individual good.
It's very possible that the best and brightest could live in greater comfort as criminals than scientists, but even if that were the case, any rational government would encourage them to be scientists since that would be better for the country.
Edit: Seriously? Care to explain your reasoning, downmodders? Why would a government encourage decisions that are destructive to society?
It's very possible that the best and brightest could live in greater comfort as criminals than scientists, but even if that were the case, any rational government would encourage them to be scientists since that would be better for the country.
Edit: Seriously? Care to explain your reasoning, downmodders? Why would a government encourage decisions that are destructive to society?
That's not at all a bad point. There are some activities that economists view aS rent collecting (or even wealth destroying) that are lucrative for the individual. Scientists and engineers are generally seen as the opposite of this (unless it's financial engineering). Almost every government actively tries to poach engineers from abroad...
Still, I recommend you read the rand study. They discuss ways to make sci/eng more appealing rather than launching a pr campaign to merely make it appear more appealing. The second could end up creating an even greater aversion to this career path.
Still, I recommend you read the rand study. They discuss ways to make sci/eng more appealing rather than launching a pr campaign to merely make it appear more appealing. The second could end up creating an even greater aversion to this career path.
There is a point-of-view that movie stars/rock stars/etc don't really work that hard and get a ton of money and fame, but that seems to actually deviate from reality.
Sorry to respond to my own comment, too late for edits...
I want to point out that I'm extremely enthusiastic about majoring in science or engineering, and I think an MS program (especially an employer sponsored one) can be a great way to dig a little deeper into a field or get a background in a new discipline (ie., get an MS in CS if your undergrad was in math or physics). In fact, someone with this background who gets a jd or mba almost has a superpower in those fields. Hard Sci/Eng/Math is also just a great background to get out there and start a company or start doing high value work the moment you hit the workforce.
PhDs are a different beast. Incredibly long training, often highly specialized, generally directed toward an academic career, even if alternatives are available, and kind of scary low pay considering the intelligence level and barriers to entry. I'm not saying CS PhDs aren't employable in Industry at fine salaries, but are they more employable than someone with a BS who rocked it in the workforce for 10 years instead? Are their salaries much higher than people who got professional degrees with shorter completion times and vastly lower attrition rates? No way.
Anyway, I should acknowledge a distinction here - the RAND study is more about PhDs, whereas this article is more about general background. Engineers may not populate government, but it's the most common background among fortune 500 CEOs, way out of proportion to the general degree population.
I want to point out that I'm extremely enthusiastic about majoring in science or engineering, and I think an MS program (especially an employer sponsored one) can be a great way to dig a little deeper into a field or get a background in a new discipline (ie., get an MS in CS if your undergrad was in math or physics). In fact, someone with this background who gets a jd or mba almost has a superpower in those fields. Hard Sci/Eng/Math is also just a great background to get out there and start a company or start doing high value work the moment you hit the workforce.
PhDs are a different beast. Incredibly long training, often highly specialized, generally directed toward an academic career, even if alternatives are available, and kind of scary low pay considering the intelligence level and barriers to entry. I'm not saying CS PhDs aren't employable in Industry at fine salaries, but are they more employable than someone with a BS who rocked it in the workforce for 10 years instead? Are their salaries much higher than people who got professional degrees with shorter completion times and vastly lower attrition rates? No way.
Anyway, I should acknowledge a distinction here - the RAND study is more about PhDs, whereas this article is more about general background. Engineers may not populate government, but it's the most common background among fortune 500 CEOs, way out of proportion to the general degree population.
If you were educated in a communist country at any time from 50s to 80s you would pretty much by default be either a scientist, an engineer, an architect or a doctor. Most likely an engineer.
It's like trying to predict the behavior of a Model-T buyer based on their color preference.
It's like trying to predict the behavior of a Model-T buyer based on their color preference.
I'll point out its a rookie mistake to compare what is basically the executive branch of China's government to America's representative branch. It's apples to oranges.
Looking at the executive branch, the United States has:
State, Hillary Clinton, Lawyer
Treasury, Timothy Geithner, International Economics
Defense, Robert Gates, PhD History
Justice, Eric Holder, Lawyer
Interior, Ken Salazar, Lawyer
Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, Lawyer
Commerce, Gary Locke, Lawyer
Labor, Hilda Solis, MPA
Health Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, MPA
Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, MPA, Masters in Architecture
Transportation, Ray Lahood, B.S. Education and Sociology.
Department of Energy, Stephen Chu, Ph.D. Physics
Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, Masters in English
Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Lawyer
Vice President, Joe Biden, Lawyer
Chief of Staff, William Daley, Lawyer
Director OMB, Jacob Lew, Lawyer
Administrator EPA, Lisa Jackson, Chemical Engineering
Trade Rep, Ron Kirk, Lawyer
UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, Doctorate in Philosophy
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Austan Goolsbee, Ph. D Economics
Better to draw your comparisons with this, than with congress.
Looking at the executive branch, the United States has:
State, Hillary Clinton, Lawyer
Treasury, Timothy Geithner, International Economics
Defense, Robert Gates, PhD History
Justice, Eric Holder, Lawyer
Interior, Ken Salazar, Lawyer
Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, Lawyer
Commerce, Gary Locke, Lawyer
Labor, Hilda Solis, MPA
Health Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, MPA
Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, MPA, Masters in Architecture
Transportation, Ray Lahood, B.S. Education and Sociology.
Department of Energy, Stephen Chu, Ph.D. Physics
Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, Masters in English
Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Lawyer
Vice President, Joe Biden, Lawyer
Chief of Staff, William Daley, Lawyer
Director OMB, Jacob Lew, Lawyer
Administrator EPA, Lisa Jackson, Chemical Engineering
Trade Rep, Ron Kirk, Lawyer
UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, Doctorate in Philosophy
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Austan Goolsbee, Ph. D Economics
Better to draw your comparisons with this, than with congress.
Not to nitpick, but they're engineers. The previous President, Jiang Zemin, was also an electrical engineer - before that generation, most leaders were educated by their experiences (i.e. the Long March) and not formally schooled.
It is interesting that not only are there cultural differences in the ways Chinese and western leaders approach problems, but also there's the "engineering" approach vs. the "legal" or "social sciences" approach more often seen in western nations.
It is interesting that not only are there cultural differences in the ways Chinese and western leaders approach problems, but also there's the "engineering" approach vs. the "legal" or "social sciences" approach more often seen in western nations.
The distinction between a scientist and an engineer is important here. In the dark days of modern China, mathematicians and scientists were regarded with as much suspicion as poets and philosophers. Engineering was one of the most intellectual professions you could have without being regarded as the enemy. (As for lawyers: there's not a lot of point in being a legal expert anywhere rule by fiat is common.)
The problem with the "engineering" approach is that it treats stability as an axiomatic good. It's quite hard to incorporate the rights of weird religious groups, troublesome journalists and out-and-out revolutionaries into such a world-view.
The problem with the "engineering" approach is that it treats stability as an axiomatic good. It's quite hard to incorporate the rights of weird religious groups, troublesome journalists and out-and-out revolutionaries into such a world-view.
A lot of that stability approach can be traced back through much of the history of the Han, to the point that I'd argue the engineering background isn't the source of the stabilizing pressure, but rather a facet of the Han culture.
Eight Out Of Nine American Bloggers Cannot Distinguish Between The Concept of A "Scientist" (As In Someone Who Devises Reproducible Experiments To Test Ideas To Determine Whether They Are Right Or Wrong, And Rejects The Wrong Ones) And Anyone In A Technical Profession.
...and did you know that 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Chinese government is dominated by engineers for the same reason that US government is dominated by lawyers, Japanese government is dominated by businessmen and French government is dominated by doctors and teachers. These are the most easily accessible prestige positions in the given country.
A relevant article from 2009 contrasting prevalence of American lawyer politicians vs. Chinese engineer politicians vs. French civil servants and so on.
http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638
http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638
One thing ;-) Author of this text wrote:
"You have to be pretty popular to get elected, so should we conclude that Chinese people in general look up to and admire their scientists?"
But those in China's government wasn't elected in popular vote and for sure not in election like those in US or other western countries.
So it isn't in this way that Chines people in general look up to and admire scientists, but Communists Party of China look up to and admire scientists.
But in general I agree, it looks that China and Korea are much more in science than in humanities.
But in general I agree, it looks that China and Korea are much more in science than in humanities.
interesting observation. It seems to me that the previous generation of leaders had an aspiration that the new leaders were better prepared than them. I imagine the old leaders had an admiration for science and engineering even though they were not really knowledgeable about it; they probably selected and groomed the new leaders with this in mind.
totally - I was wondering how the author could write something so obviously wrong like that?
There's an emphasis on science, but it's not an Enlightenment style love of the scientific method that drives this phenomenon.
Why not come at it from a different angle - what good would it be to be a philosopher in China? How far would you get? Or what about lawyers, in a country that has a pretty unhealthy disregard for legal process?
No, the reason scientists and engineers form that majority is because it's how you get ahead in Chinese society. China doesn't want (or tolerate) artistic and liberal sensitivities - it wants economic development and industry.
Why not come at it from a different angle - what good would it be to be a philosopher in China? How far would you get? Or what about lawyers, in a country that has a pretty unhealthy disregard for legal process?
No, the reason scientists and engineers form that majority is because it's how you get ahead in Chinese society. China doesn't want (or tolerate) artistic and liberal sensitivities - it wants economic development and industry.
Also Yulia Tymoshenko, rightful heir to the throne of Ukraine, is a cyberneticist. It seems to be a regular trend in former Communist countries, that political leaders have a technical background.
Is this really surprising? Technocracy and the associated belief that you can sit down and design or direct societies seem to be prerequisites for what has passed as most "communist" governments to date, right - so why not expect them to embrace and promote engineers, through higher education and indeed through politics and the civil service?
I think it is a trend for current communist countries/dictatorships. Of course there will be corruption and nepotism, but why would you decide on someone without an engineering background to run a country?
If you give voting power to the people they'll just choose someone with a nice face and smooth voice, telling its all gonna be ok.
If you give voting power to the people they'll just choose someone with a nice face and smooth voice, telling its all gonna be ok.
Not really. For one, China is still a totalitarian (communist is really wrongly used here) country. And also my impression is that Tymoshenko is more of an isolated case - my guess would be that most of the current post-totalitarian leaders are either former officers (Putin, Borissov, Basescu), humanitarian/law majors (Komorowski, Parvanov, Orban, Gasparovic) or economists (Havel).
Unfortunately most of them come from the first category :/
Unfortunately most of them come from the first category :/
I don't know much about the other ones, but Havel most assuredly is not an economist. He has a cultural background and is an author of a number of theater pieces. His successor at the post of Czech president (Klaus) is an economist, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from.
Just as a matter of interest - the current Czech prime minister, who, at least in theory, has more power than the president, has graduated in physics, and has actually worked in research for some time. Angela Merkel (coming from Eastern Germany) has also a scientific background (in physics and chemistry).
But otherwise, it seems you are right about the fact that there is no such rule about post-totalitarian leaders being educated in engineering or sciences in general.
Just as a matter of interest - the current Czech prime minister, who, at least in theory, has more power than the president, has graduated in physics, and has actually worked in research for some time. Angela Merkel (coming from Eastern Germany) has also a scientific background (in physics and chemistry).
But otherwise, it seems you are right about the fact that there is no such rule about post-totalitarian leaders being educated in engineering or sciences in general.
I stand corrected - just read that Havel has studied economcs for only two years before dropping out and that's probably the reason I have remembered him (wrongly) as an economist - I must have read it somewhere and it has probably stuck in my mind.
Btw, the rest of the Eastern European countries can learn a lot of things from the Czechs.
Btw, the rest of the Eastern European countries can learn a lot of things from the Czechs.
[deleted]
Perhaps this should cause some reflection on the following question: why do scientists seem to be disproportionately inclined to serve authoritarian regimes?
My guess is that scientists believe that people like themselves -- people whose ability in one field they imagine transfers to many others -- should control the world, and those that they consider their intellectual inferiors should shut up and surrender control to cognitive ubermenschen.
Unfortunately, that idea hasn't worked out too well in the past.
My guess is that scientists believe that people like themselves -- people whose ability in one field they imagine transfers to many others -- should control the world, and those that they consider their intellectual inferiors should shut up and surrender control to cognitive ubermenschen.
Unfortunately, that idea hasn't worked out too well in the past.
Oh, we forgot about our head of the class: China. Astonishingly, since 1980 China has not won a single scientific Nobel Prize. Keep in mind, this is a country of 1.3 billion people.
If China is ruled by engineers, then it is ruled by groups that understand the economic implications of the rocket equation and how this can be overcome using existing technology. Moving off-world is going to be the next huge watershed in human history and economic growth, much as the age of exploration and colonization of North America by Europeans was the last one.
Making the leap past Type I on the Kardashev scale won't necessarily involve Nobel Prize winning breakthroughs in science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Instead, it will involve massive brute engineering and the political will to devote the resources to bootstrap it. The Chinese "Civilization State", ruled by engineers, is in a unique position to marshall those resources and be in the vanguard of what will be an economic and historic explosion of development.
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-unde...
I've seen this coming for almost a decade. If trends continue, China will not only be the next dominant power, but Chinese Civilization in the inner solar system will be to the last half of the 21st century what North America was to the 20th.
If China is ruled by engineers, then it is ruled by groups that understand the economic implications of the rocket equation and how this can be overcome using existing technology. Moving off-world is going to be the next huge watershed in human history and economic growth, much as the age of exploration and colonization of North America by Europeans was the last one.
Making the leap past Type I on the Kardashev scale won't necessarily involve Nobel Prize winning breakthroughs in science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Instead, it will involve massive brute engineering and the political will to devote the resources to bootstrap it. The Chinese "Civilization State", ruled by engineers, is in a unique position to marshall those resources and be in the vanguard of what will be an economic and historic explosion of development.
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/u-s-needs-to-deepen-its-unde...
I've seen this coming for almost a decade. If trends continue, China will not only be the next dominant power, but Chinese Civilization in the inner solar system will be to the last half of the 21st century what North America was to the 20th.
Having trained as a hydraulic engineer doesn't make Hu Jintao a scientist, it makes him an engineer. There's a difference.
They are not scientists, they are administrators with science and engineering degrees.
The linked article is titled "Eight Out Of China’s Top Nine Government Officials Are _Scientists_" but...
The article it references states "...eight of the top nine political posts are held by _engineers_." but unfortunately does not name them.
The article it references states "...eight of the top nine political posts are held by _engineers_." but unfortunately does not name them.
there is a difference between a scientist and someone with an engineering degree
And for some reason, many high-profile, that is, thwarted or captured, terrorists are engineers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.h...
The author first points out that science and engineering Ph.D.'s are disproportionately Asian, and that many return to their mother nations after education. That's true. He then points out that national success is built on the back of technology and science. Also true. But by ending with a back-patting, reassuring comparison with Japan and the claim that Americans have that truly essential quality, "entrepreneurial spirit" and innovation, and Asian nations don't, he makes a claim that reeks of hubris and will likely be quickly proved untrue. Science is the gas pedal, innovation is the fuel-- but without the pedal your full tank of gas isn't going to take your car anywhere. Confidence without substance is empty. My 2 cents
So politicians in China aren't bozos, but the politicians in the US are? Oh please. The top 9 government officials are no more intellectual than many of those in Obama's cabinet.
Economic growth is not the only measure of success. In fact, it is one of many.
Economic growth is not the only measure of success. In fact, it is one of many.
Bear in mind that a strong part of this is the fact that these guys are trying to use economic planning. In between all these Americans complaining (fairly) about their country's legal power culture, this is an important distinction. Most Western governments aren't economic planners, so technocracy is less interesting/appealing.
The article dances around the main reason the PISA scores don't say much about innovation, but doesn't say it: For innovation it's the top 5-10% that counts not the average.
I wouldn't be surprised if a study that compared the best 5% of students worldwide showed the US in a very different place, much higher in the rankings.
I wouldn't be surprised if a study that compared the best 5% of students worldwide showed the US in a very different place, much higher in the rankings.
They may be because when they were growing up studying science was their ticket to wealth,respect, and power.
Arguments, disagreements, and self correction are pillars of scientific minds.
Autocratic society in which a small disagreement can result is you vanishing, cannot possible nurture scientific minds.
My reading of the Chinese classics - or rather their authors - is that, historically, the single greatest ambition of China's intellectuals was to advise rulers on better governance. Which didn't seem to me a particularly productive or healthy relationship between the intellectual and political classes.
everybody just wants power, nerds and jocks alike
Countries should be led by economists, not scientists/engineers.
The Chinese economy is one giant mess. Too many imbalances, over-investments and bubbles. The spectacular 10% GDP growth rate was possible mainly because of bullying i.e., artificial depreciation of yuan giving unfair advantage to Chinese exporters.
The Chinese economy is one giant mess. Too many imbalances, over-investments and bubbles. The spectacular 10% GDP growth rate was possible mainly because of bullying i.e., artificial depreciation of yuan giving unfair advantage to Chinese exporters.
Are they scientists or engineers? As far as I know scientists do research, write papers, file for patents etc. etc. and Engineers build stuff. How many papers have the published?
Also, being a scientist does not mean that you will be a good administrator or politician. Politics is better left to politicians.
Also, being a scientist does not mean that you will be a good administrator or politician. Politics is better left to politicians.
well that's just great.
how many layers do you have to unpeel from our government before you find anybody that isn't a lawyer.
how many layers do you have to unpeel from our government before you find anybody that isn't a lawyer.
Different national political cultures, apparently.
http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638
http://www.economist.com/node/13496638?story_id=13496638
WHEN Barack Obama met Hu Jintao, his Chinese counterpart, at the G20 summit in London, it was an encounter not just between two presidents, but also between two professions and mindsets. A lawyer, trained to argue from first principles and haggle over words, was speaking to an engineer, who knew how to build physical structures and keep them intact.
The Chinese should build a Space Pier, in the form of a massive ramp with a huge accelerator on it.
The Chinese should build a Space Pier, in the form of a massive ramp with a huge accelerator on it.
This is a direct result of elections. People chose those who are more like themselves.
In China, the political elite also choose those who are similar in outlook. If the original ones were engineers, so to will the new rising stars be engineers.
In China, the political elite also choose those who are similar in outlook. If the original ones were engineers, so to will the new rising stars be engineers.
I wonder how many people actually read the article before commenting
"Remember him from Black Mesa? Your old administrator?"
Having
Scientists in the mold of capitalists and totalitarians? Disgusting.
...we gotta keep saber rattling that our way is better than theirs. Boo China, boo.
Edit: To the downvoter - okay, I'm joking around. But which of these premises do you disagree with?
1. The United States has more electoral politics in choosing its leaders than China.
2. The last 20 years of leadership in China show a much more nuanced understanding of policy and statesmanship than American leadership, where charisma and mass appeal tends to be more important than "hard credentials."
3. There might be a cause-and-effect relationship between point 1 and point 2.
Disagree with any of those? Yeah I'm joking around, but it's worth thinking about, no? Or maybe it's upsetting to think about... that I sympathize with...