The Rise of China and the Future of the West...

[IllinoisDave]

and who knows, maybe westerns go to live in china to do the outsourcing...

Where do I sign up?

[pha]

David ZiXuan,

 

I'm not sure I agree with you there. China is very concerned with power. We've seen a dramatic rise in military expansion along with their economic expansion in the last 30 years. They have been working hard to build up their navy in particular for any conflicts that might occur in their own neighborhood. They have also been branching out, e.g. shooting down satellites. Many Chinese people will talk about how China is getting more powerful and that it will surpass the US in the near future. The Olympics this year in Beijing are, in fact, a showcase of China's power.

 

That being said, there is nothing extraordinary about that. China is no different than any other country, we are all engaged in a power play.

[Guest knloregon]

As good as the original article was there are contradictions.

 

Early on, Ikenbercy does talk about China's raising economic AND military challenge to the west, only later in the article to admit that China really has no chance any time in the predictable future to challenge western military might. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that they are purposefully NOT trying.

 

The worst thing the very pragmatic leadership of China wants is to appear as saber rattlers... China's navy (according to my Father---a former naval officer in the PLA)---is a joke as an offensive asset. Sub building is basicly for defense, and covert operations (landing operatives behind national lines without detection). China has warned the Bush admin., neo-cons, and the "Shock & Awe" boys for years that it didn't want weapons in space, and wasn't going to participate in a costly space weapons delivery system arms race. Push finally came to shove, and China demonstrated, with home grown technology that it could quickly dispatch such a system.

 

Its interesting that when you look at the US generals who publicly sounded the alarm after the satellite shoot down, it was a few very senior members of the miltary, soon to retire. And what happens to old generals after they retire? (sorry---"just fade away" is the wrong answer) ----they take jobs with defense contractors...

 

Several years ago, the proud Chinese navy---just to prove it could-- sailed a "fleet" around the world! It consisted of two missle frigates and a supply and refueling tanker..... Of course, the "fleet" couldn't get too far ahead of the tanker... (it was a very long trip)

 

 

MODS: Too political for you? Please don't delete!---Give me a chance!----I plan to post some comments equally or more scathing and offensive to the ears of my liberal bretheren here real soon!!...

 

WE'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION HERE!!!

[david_dawei]

David ZiXuan,

 

I'm not sure I agree with you there. China is very concerned with power. We've seen a dramatic rise in military expansion along with their economic expansion in the last 30 years. They have been working hard to build up their navy in particular for any conflicts that might occur in their own neighborhood. They have also been branching out, e.g. shooting down satellites. Many Chinese people will talk about how China is getting more powerful and that it will surpass the US in the near future. The Olympics this year in Beijing are, in fact, a showcase of China's power.

 

That being said, there is nothing extraordinary about that. China is no different than any other country, we are all engaged in a power play.

I do necessarily disagree...my point is really that their history shows they take a very, very controlled approach.... and now the stakes are really higher and so they must proceed with international concerns; they must build up.

 

Based on the Ming Dynasty, some feel that China probably was the world leader in of ship-building technologies and the science of navigation.

 

Yet, they suddenly placed a prohibition on ship building and then in the Qing dynasty continued to shut off ties to the outside world... At that time, the population of China was already just higher the current level of the US (over 200 years ago).

 

The US population is but 25% of China's, yet their military spending is $440 bil compared to $45 bil... or 877% more... (I could say that China was 10% of the US, but the number is not as dramatic )

 

On a per capita basis (relative to population, per person) it is a factor comparison of 1.5 for the US and 0.04 for China.

 

China's population is enough of a suggestion that it MUST pass the US at some point... And they could of be the world power a long time ago and choose not to pursue that course.... but as they are not being as isolationist as in their past, they are also not as withholding as in their past.

[Guest knloregon]

So DZ,

 

When you say that: "China's population is enough of a suggestion that it must pass the US at some point"---in what way?

[david_dawei]

So DZ,

 

When you say that: "China's population is enough of a suggestion that it must pass the US at some point"---in what way?

I meant that 1.3 bil people implies that they have the capacity right off the bat to go ahead of other countries in certain areas.... Meaning, a country of 100 mil would not appear to have the same populous backbone to achieve some things.

 

So, an example which most will accept: China's population would imply they will have more cars [potentially] on the road [than the US]and thus would be a larger contributor towards raw emissions. That is a logical scale issue... but I've always said it's important to balance that with per capita numbers so that it's looked at relative to populations so the field is leveled a little more than just raw numbers.

[Guest knloregon]

DZ,

 

I tried to take a "learn from China" tack with some of my liberal friends here in Portland, without success (politically correct thought dictates that China is a basket case on all conservation issues, with backwards, third-world thinking on the environment---here in Portland if you arn't Euro-centric in your thinking about urban planning and green issues, you are laughingly backwards):

 

Take for instance the whole global warming, "green" movement ---(I'm not a big global warming worrier, but geo-politics concern me, and this does fit here because it addresses the western liberal hegmon discussed at length by Ikenbercy)

 

Consider this: China continues to make passenger rail transportation improvements (China is half way through a five year plan to increase train speeds)..

 

In the US, every holiday travel cycle shows how dependent we (US) are on foreign fuel sources. Not only is this not green, but it is also a huge geo-political weakness.

 

Meanwhile, China over long hoidays move 300 million people by rail! (figure from lunar new year 2006). ---more than the entire population of the US.

 

Yes, China is allowing more private ownership of cars, but from a pure political (and geo-political) standpoint does its authoritarian system of central transportation planning make more sense (environmental and geo-political) in the long run than the western, liberal democratic model?

 

For instance, given a fuel shortage (I mean a real crisis, not long lines at the pump) China vs. the US ---does anyone at the Candle doubt that China's economy, (with the mass-transit infrastructure in place) will adapt (and survive) better than the US?

[IllinoisDave]

does its authoritarian system of central transportation planning make more sense (environmental and geo-political) in the long run than the western, liberal democratic model?

 

Liberal democratic model? WTF does that mean? Are you blaming the fact that here in the west anyone can own their own car and drive it whenever they want on liberals?

 

I'm pretty sure we're not entirely responsible for that particular freedom but if you want to give us credit for it, who are we to argue.

[Guest knloregon]

Ah........ Dave,

 

In Foreign Affairs, the liberal/democratic model = western governments and society.... not American liberal/conservative political politics...

 

(although, it is true, I refered to both in my post---sorry for not being clearer...)

[pkfops]

does its authoritarian system of central transportation planning make more sense (environmental and geo-political) in the long run than the western, liberal democratic model?

 

Liberal democratic model? WTF does that mean? Are you blaming the fact that here in the west anyone can own their own car and drive it whenever they want on liberals?

 

I'm pretty sure we're not entirely responsible for that particular freedom but if you want to give us credit for it, who are we to argue.

 

Only in the US do you see someone using a big pickup (10mpg) as a commute vehicle.

[IllinoisDave]

Ah........ Dave,

 

In Foreign Affairs, the liberal/democratic model = western governments and society.... not American liberal/conservative political politics...

 

(although, it is true, I refered to both in my post---sorry for not being clearer...)

 

Yes, you're liberal use of the word liberal does lend itself to a liberal interpretation of your meaning.

[david_dawei]

DZ,

 

I tried to take a "learn from China" tack with some of my liberal friends here in Portland, without success (politically correct thought dictates that China is a basket case on all conservation issues, with backwards, third-world thinking on the environment---here in Portland if you arn't Euro-centric in your thinking about urban planning and green issues, you are laughingly backwards):

 

Take for instance the whole global warming, "green" movement ---(I'm not a big global warming worrier, but geo-politics concern me, and this does fit here because it addresses the western liberal hegmon discussed at length by Ikenbercy)

 

Consider this: China continues to make passenger rail transportation improvements (China is half way through a five year plan to increase train speeds)..

 

In the US, every holiday travel cycle shows how dependent we (US) are on foreign fuel sources. Not only is this not green, but it is also a huge geo-political weakness.

 

Meanwhile, China over long hoidays move 300 million people by rail! (figure from lunar new year 2006). ---more than the entire population of the US.

 

Yes, China is allowing more private ownership of cars, but from a pure political (and geo-political) standpoint does its authoritarian system of central transportation planning make more sense (environmental and geo-political) in the long run than the western, liberal democratic model?

 

For instance, given a fuel shortage (I mean a real crisis, not long lines at the pump) China vs. the US ---does anyone at the Candle doubt that China's economy, (with the mass-transit infrastructure in place) will adapt (and survive) better than the US?

For the records: I took no meaning by your use of "liberal"... maybe that's why my head was snapped by my other thread...

 

And I find your implications, if I understand them correctly, as correct.

 

I think that China is much more concerned with how to fix their domestic dependence of resource; they are now working on the Beijing to Shanghai rail which will cut time in half.

 

They are leaders in hydroelectric power; they have a plan out to 2050 on nuclear power; while coal is their main nemesis, the obvious is that they seek to reduce this over the next 100 years.

 

Yes, I said 100 years as their planning is always slow and methodical compared to the US where short sighted visions create non-action.

 

China is too big sometimes to compare to the US... but on the other hand, their willingness to take on incredible projects should reflect more admiration than they get.

 

Their use of motor vehicles will certain be a concern, but their use of mass transportation, bicycles, and pedestrians are indicative of their more serious position than most western countries.

[pha]

David Zixuan,

 

I'm afraid this conversation would get too political for CFL. I have some examples that I would like to bring up of how China is not in fact isolationist, mostly having to do with certain "parts of the country" that well, let's just say march to the beat of a different drum. But this is not the place for all that. Plus, I really like your kitchen sinks so I wouldn't want to risk getting into a row with you. Hehe.

[chilton747]

DZ,

 

I tried to take a "learn from China" tack with some of my liberal friends here in Portland, without success (politically correct thought dictates that China is a basket case on all conservation issues, with backwards, third-world thinking on the environment---here in Portland if you arn't Euro-centric in your thinking about urban planning and green issues, you are laughingly backwards):

 

Take for instance the whole global warming, "green" movement ---(I'm not a big global warming worrier, but geo-politics concern me, and this does fit here because it addresses the western liberal hegmon discussed at length by Ikenbercy)

 

Consider this: China continues to make passenger rail transportation improvements (China is half way through a five year plan to increase train speeds)..

 

In the US, every holiday travel cycle shows how dependent we (US) are on foreign fuel sources. Not only is this not green, but it is also a huge geo-political weakness.

 

Meanwhile, China over long hoidays move 300 million people by rail! (figure from lunar new year 2006). ---more than the entire population of the US.

 

Yes, China is allowing more private ownership of cars, but from a pure political (and geo-political) standpoint does its authoritarian system of central transportation planning make more sense (environmental and geo-political) in the long run than the western, liberal democratic model?

 

For instance, given a fuel shortage (I mean a real crisis, not long lines at the pump) China vs. the US ---does anyone at the Candle doubt that China's economy, (with the mass-transit infrastructure in place) will adapt (and survive) better than the US?

For the records: I took no meaning by your use of "liberal"... maybe that's why my head was snapped by my other thread...

 

And I find your implications, if I understand them correctly, as correct.

 

I think that China is much more concerned with how to fix their domestic dependence of resource; they are now working on the Beijing to Shanghai rail which will cut time in half.

 

They are leaders in hydroelectric power; they have a plan out to 2050 on nuclear power; while coal is their main nemesis, the obvious is that they seek to reduce this over the next 100 years.

 

Yes, I said 100 years as their planning is always slow and methodical compared to the US where short sighted visions create non-action.

 

China is too big sometimes to compare to the US... but on the other hand, their willingness to take on incredible projects should reflect more admiration than they get.

 

Their use of motor vehicles will certain be a concern, but their use of mass transportation, bicycles, and pedestrians are indicative of their more serious position than most western countries.

They are not near as lazy as us. Their history proves this over and over,

[david_dawei]

David Zixuan,

 

I'm afraid this conversation would get too political for CFL. I have some examples that I would like to bring up of how China is not in fact isolationist, mostly having to do with certain "parts of the country" that well, let's just say march to the beat of a different drum. But this is not the place for all that. Plus, I really like your kitchen sinks so I wouldn't want to risk getting into a row with you. Hehe.

My point was they appear to have some history of isolationism that might of been a part of why they didn't emerge earlier in history on a global scale...

 

I'm not saying they are necessarily as much of one now... and I'm sure there are examples of non-isolationism in their past (obviously they traded for a long time); my thinking is about that aspect of it which may of been used intentional (in the past_ to just keep them not worrying about being global leaders. Certainly, today is different and the thinking is different...

 

Your free to share issues about china and it's history as it pertains to 'their rise' or the future of the west.. that is the topic...

 

As to different parts of the country marching to a different drum... this is a very true historical issue.. the further you are from the central government, the more freedoms one exhibits and the less interference that occurs... I think the split in the Song Dynasty was a force in this direction... and maybe no doubt that the merchantile ports in the south were so successful... and why opium trade persisted beyond the ban set by the northern captial (BJ)...

 

[if people would stop worrying and stop posting the word POLITICAL, then maybe more could be accepted; but too many make much ado about it sometimes--not picking on you Pha.. I'd like to hear you out].

Edited January 3, 2008 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)