Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

Thread: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

  1. #61
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,036

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    Have you even read one news story in the past year? Here's a google search with the string cut+to+education. Good luck, you've got a lot of reading to do:

    Google
    And throwing money at education has worked so very well.

    Spending money on a bunch of derelict kids with single parents and absent fathers who don't give a crap about education in the first place.......................

    Oh, never mind.

  2. #62
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    And throwing money at education has worked so very well.

    Spending money on a bunch of derelict kids with single parents and absent fathers who don't give a crap about education in the first place.......................

    Oh, never mind.
    Haha - coming from you that's highly ironic
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #63
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    College attendance isn't really the problem in the U.S. College completion is. A look at 1995 and 2008 OECD statistics shows that college graduation rates have flattened in the U.S. even as those in other OECD countries have pushed higher than the U.S. In 1995, the U.S. ranked 1st in the OECD. In 2008, it had fallen to 14th.
    This is one of the reasons I don't buy into the "make college available to everyone" argument. College *isn't* for everyone. At the risk of being excoriated by those who have embraced the "college is necessary" myth, the truth of the matter is that many people have wonderful, successful, happy lives having never learned calculus, pondered Plato, or memorized the Krebs cycle. I have many such friends who are doing wonderfully in sales or business, and who received their "education" working their way up the ranks [to clarify, I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing our best to encourage students to seek intellectual fulfillment in areas like math and science].

    My home state is one that has certainly seen an increase in enrollment and a decrease in rate of completion. We brought the lottery in to "make college available to everyone." Got a B average? Consider it paid. It maybe sounds like a good way to bring education to poorer students, but the real outcome has been that most of these students drop out. The end result is a highly regressive "tax" that "takes" money from the poorer, less educated segment of our population (those most likely to spend significant portions of income on the lottery) to subsidize the education of middle and upper middle class students.

    We need to stop attacking the "throngs of capable students who really want to go to college but just can't pay for it" problem and attend to the "throngs of students who aren't capable of college level work or who have no intellectual desire to pursue learning" problem.
    Last edited by Taylor; 03-30-11 at 04:12 PM.

  4. #64
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The Unipolar paradigm is a myth. The last attempt at it was by PNAC, when they reasoned that the US could become the world's only superpower, now that a power vacuum existed (at that time). Needless to say, it didn't work out. China has a sphere of power, so do the South American nations, and so do a couple of other areas of the world. True, the US is still the most powerful nation in the world, but it does not have the power to influence the entire world, as PNAC had hoped. In fact, the US is now experiencing a decline of it's influence in the world.
    Actually, the U.S. has been the sole superpower since World War II. Certainly the Soviet Union had been a challenge, but they had nowhere near the level of power and influence as the United States. The Soviets were spending exorbitant amounts compared to the U.S. just trying to keep a slight edge in space travel firsts, while we consistently had the edge in the more strategic aspects of space power like spy satellites. What the Soviets always lacked was power projection. For the United States power projection has not been an issue since the 1940's. Our naval assets far outclassed anything the Soviets brought to bear.

    Rather, at present we are actually seeing the U.S. status as sole superpower become challenged. China, the European Union, and Russia are making global plays while other countries like Iran and Venezuela make regional plays that also serve to erode American power. To a great extent the collapse of the Soviet Union has actually increased Russia's potential as a rival power.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    If you lived in Taiwan or any number of other regional states that feel threatened by China's rising military, you may feel differently. Of course, once again leave it to you to take the side of a totalitarian dictatorship...
    It is only natural for Taiwan to feel threatened by the mainland's increasing military power. The limitations of Chinese military power have always been linked with Taiwan's de-facto independence. So long as the local power dynamic allows for some determined resistance there is always the chance of deflecting a forceful assertion of China's sovereignty over the territory. However, in my opinion, that dynamic has already shifted in China's favor as at its present state they have enough offensive power to overwhelm Taiwan's defenses and methodically decimate its military capabilities. For Taiwan it is just a matter of years before any prospect of U.S. intervention can be definitively discounted. Certainly the majority of Taiwanese who favor the present state of affairs and undoubtedly those who want de jure independence fret at the idea of their fate being entirely at the mercy of China.

    Beyond that I can think of no country that would be particularly fearful of China. Any rising power is likely to create reservations just as several countries in the region become apprehensive over talk of Japanese militarization. Still, from what I can tell those countries most concerned about China have an obvious investment in a matter directly impacted by that changing power dynamic or a history of hostility with China. Japan and Vietnam both certainly have that history of hostility and so their reservations are to be expected. The same goes for India.

    Aside from those countries I cannot think of many that have serious reservations. Even South Korea is more receptive of China's rise.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    If only DOL and others knew what the Chinese REALLY thought of the U.S., Japan and other states...
    While I have not met someone from mainland China in person I have talked to enough people from there online to understand that attitudes in China are not really that hostile. Given the history of U.S. relations with China or Japanese relations with China it would be unreasonable to expect there to not be some ill will.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In general, democratic systems have far greater capacity for recovery and renewal in the face of changing environments than non-democratic ones do.
    I agreed with you up to this point. My opinion is that democratic systems mainly serve the purpose of ameliorating abuses by authority. While shaping policy does represent an integral part of such a purpose this does not mean a democratic system will be inherently more capable of responding to dynamic situations. That has everything to do with the structure of the system itself. Here in the U.S. our political system does provide key democratic checks on power, but it also inhibits the responsiveness of government at times to both external and internal forces including popular opinion. We can see in Europe that its democratic system, though allowing it to make certain decisive gains in areas like energy and the environment, inhibit its ability to respond to financial pressures and regional concerns.

    Rather the main element that determines a government's ability to respond is its ideological openness and ability to arrive at consensus measures. This is actually where China excels and, in my opinion, constitute democratic aspects of its system that are in some ways better than those of Western-style democratic systems. Of course, I presume when you say democratic systems you are specifically referring to the Western-style system.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Having been to China on numerous occasions, I'm well aware of the actual and perceived grievances (for lack of a better term) and latent nationalism that exist in some sectors of Chinese society. Bad management of the bilateral relationship can well tap those more negative perceptions and nurture a more hostile bilateral trajectory. That is not the only outcome nor is it the assured outcome. Broad shared interests can, if they are focused on to mutual benefit, avoid that course. The ultimate outcome will depend on the choices made by the Chinese and U.S. leaders today and tomorrow.

    Efforts to rein in or contain China as some pundits recommend or to otherwise humiliate China will be very destructive to the bilateral relationship, not to mention very likely unsuccessful. That's a course the U.S. should avoid, as it is that course that creates perhaps the greatest prospect of a hostile China even as China's power is growing both in absolute and relative terms. Differences should be handled carefully through diplomatic channels, but both parties will need to be cognizant of one another's critical interests and constraints. Some careful balancing will be required.
    My opinion is that the U.S. likely will pursue containment of China, but that it will not be enough to override our convergent interests. I mean, the U.S. is actually trying to contain the EU yet it still manages to work with it when there are common goals. With China our mutual interests are so numerous as to provide a disincentive for any direct hostility.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The risk of such an outcome would increase beyond the medium-term, but at this point in time that outcome is not assured. Much latitude for choice still exists. There also remains a prospect that a transformational leader could be elected at some point down the road, make some very difficult choices, and shift the nation's overall trajectory.

    Furthermore, as the political leadership largely reflects the attitudes of the public that elects it, I agree with you that the electorate is a big part of the problem or solution, depending on how things play out. The electorate is not some helpless group of bystanders who have no influence or voice. Whether the electorate choose that role is a different matter, but ultimate responsibility still resides in the electorate even if the electorate chooses to neglect its obligations.
    While the people are certainly responsible for how government behaves to an extent you cannot neglect the levels to which those in power will resort to in order to keep the people from exercising their authority in a way detrimental to entrenched interests. The current state of affairs is beneficial to many people in the unaccountable bureaucratic and corporate world and they will use whatever levers are available to them in order to impede popular opposition to that state of affairs. Most of the sources of information people consult on matters of public interest are under the control of those people and so ultimately the authorities instruct the people in such a manner as to provide a beneficial solution for them no matter the outcome of the election,

    Right now, I don't believe the U.S. needs true national renewal (a kind of internal revolution that shatters existing institutions/norms and fashions new ones), though difficult choices are needed in some areas. Some of those choices will entail a measure of sacrifice and pain. When the country's fate is much less a matter of choice e.g., an undereducated workforce has resulted in its having lost competitiveness, degrading living standards (relative to many other countries), and loss of economic/military capacity due to technology gaps, then such renewal will be needed. The pain during that period would be much greater than what is required if the nation tackles some of its difficult choices in the near-term and medium-term. Moreover, prospects for success would be much less certain than if the U.S. addresses its great problems prior to the onset of such a situation.
    I think a sort of revolution like you described is needed in this country. Most people would not see it because most people are simply not confronted with the inherent problems in our system. The masses are indoctrinated with so many ideas by the system that they cannot even begin to understand what should be done to resolve these problems.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #65
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Having been to China on numerous occasions, I'm well aware of the actual and perceived grievances (for lack of a better term) and latent nationalism that exist in some sectors of Chinese society. Bad management of the bilateral relationship can well tap those more negative perceptions and nurture a more hostile bilateral trajectory. That is not the only outcome nor is it the assured outcome. Broad shared interests can, if they are focused on to mutual benefit, avoid that course. The ultimate outcome will depend on the choices made by the Chinese and U.S. leaders today and tomorrow.
    The old "having been to China" speal again... How well do you UNDERSTAND China? How well do you know the language? How much have you travelled there and lived there and been off the beaten path. Have you only seen what the government wants you to see or have you seen other elements of the country. I have lived there, speak the language as well as can read it. If you know what was being taught in their classrooms about the rest of us, you would have more reason for concern. If you knew what was being taught about their own history and how it relates to their destiny today, you would have more reason for concern. However, most people don't want to hear that and by the time they figure it out, it will be too late.

    Efforts to rein in or contain China as some pundits recommend or to otherwise humiliate China will be very destructive to the bilateral relationship, not to mention very likely unsuccessful. That's a course the U.S. should avoid, as it is that course that creates perhaps the greatest prospect of a hostile China even as China's power is growing both in absolute and relative terms. Differences should be handled carefully through diplomatic channels, but both parties will need to be cognizant of one another's critical interests and constraints. Some careful balancing will be required.
    I don't think "humiliating" China is a good idea. However, we need to be MUCh tougher with China in terms of respect for international law and the sovereignty of its neighbors, its responsibilities under various trade deals as well as being a responsible trading partner who opens its markets as it expects others to open their markets to them. The massive transfer of technology to China by Western businesses is already done and that is a terrible thing. However, we need leaders who will be TOUGH on China, not to humiliate, but to make sure the leaders of China realize that we will not be pushovers and expect them to be a responsible member of the international community.

    And how much longer are we going to put up with crap like this from China?
    Last edited by ludahai; 03-30-11 at 08:59 PM.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #66
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    It is only natural for Taiwan to feel threatened by the mainland's increasing military power. The limitations of Chinese military power have always been linked with Taiwan's de-facto independence. So long as the local power dynamic allows for some determined resistance there is always the chance of deflecting a forceful assertion of China's sovereignty over the territory. However, in my opinion, that dynamic has already shifted in China's favor as at its present state they have enough offensive power to overwhelm Taiwan's defenses and methodically decimate its military capabilities. For Taiwan it is just a matter of years before any prospect of U.S. intervention can be definitively discounted. Certainly the majority of Taiwanese who favor the present state of affairs and undoubtedly those who want de jure independence fret at the idea of their fate being entirely at the mercy of China.
    And we are supposed to believe in this "peaceful rise" of China when they constantly threaten the 23 million people of the free island country of Taiwan?

    Beyond that I can think of no country that would be particularly fearful of China. Any rising power is likely to create reservations just as several countries in the region become apprehensive over talk of Japanese militarization. Still, from what I can tell those countries most concerned about China have an obvious investment in a matter directly impacted by that changing power dynamic or a history of hostility with China. Japan and Vietnam both certainly have that history of hostility and so their reservations are to be expected. The same goes for India.
    Viet Nam is VERY concerned. China has been encoraching on their EEZ and claims a significant amount of maritime territory that rightfully belongs to Viet Nam. Similarly, there have been encroachments by China on the territorial waters of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and even Indonesia. All of these states are concerned with the prospect of China's rise militarily and what it means for their own security.

    Aside from those countries I cannot think of many that have serious reservations. Even South Korea is more receptive of China's rise.
    All of them have serious reservations, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. South Korea was the one holdout for a while, but events over the past year (the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel by the PRCs satellite in North Korea and multiple encroachments on ROK territorial waters by PRC vessels among them) as well as the dispute over the historical kingdom of Goguryo and Balhae have caused considerable concern in South Korea.

    While I have not met someone from mainland China in person I have talked to enough people from there online to understand that attitudes in China are not really that hostile. Given the history of U.S. relations with China or Japanese relations with China it would be unreasonable to expect there to not be some ill will.
    You haven't met anyone from China in person yet you claim to understand them so well... Let me remember this fact when you try to convince us that you understand the Chinese so well. You have no basis for knowledge in this area. I have heard college lectures (that I was not supposed to hear) regarding China's relations with other countries. I have seen their response to every little slight. I have seen their lies regarding the U.S. when the U.S. accidently bombed their embassy and saw first hand the anti-U.S. demonstrations. I remember the anti-Japan demonstrations a few years ago after China lost the Asian Cup Final to China. You really do NOT understand what is going on over there. You have no credibility on this WHATSOEVER!!!
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #67
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Beyond that I can think of no country that would be particularly fearful of China. Any rising power is likely to create reservations just as several countries in the region become apprehensive over talk of Japanese militarization. Still, from what I can tell those countries most concerned about China have an obvious investment in a matter directly impacted by that changing power dynamic or a history of hostility with China. Japan and Vietnam both certainly have that history of hostility and so their reservations are to be expected. The same goes for India.

    Aside from those countries I cannot think of many that have serious reservations. Even South Korea is more receptive of China's rise.
    Do you realize...China will have two carriers by 2015.

    China is looking at power projection. With 2 carriers, they'll be able to have one deployed continuously (almost), and in an emergency, maybe both. I see their advantage as mainly political. Once they have them in service, expect to see them in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf and operating around Africa. The goal is to show third world nations that the US isn't the only one with carriers and capable aircraft.

    Against a US carrier, they don't add up to much, but against a nation without much in the way of aircraft, they provide a striking force. Try the Spratly Islands. Major oil field and they are claimed by China, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. Having a carrier around helps with keeping them when you move in the occupation forces and start drilling a well head and a pipeline to China.

  8. #68
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by whysoserious View Post
    Uhh, here are some places that are currently cutting or proposing cuts to education:

    Mississippi (how could you not have heard about this?): Governor, R
    Colorado : Governor, D
    Rochester, NY: Mayor, R
    Pennsylvania: Governor, R

    There's literally tons more, but I'd say that shoots your idea that Obama is making all the education cuts pretty null and void.
    Nice generalities, so where are the cuts coming from? Is it the federal govt?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Ludahai,

    I have regular contact with people in China (and not just virtual contact), have been there on numerous occasions, and will be there again on numerous occasions. I've seen some of the things that could well disturb you. I've seen others that are more hopeful. The picture is mixed. There are both opportunities and risks. Therefore, I'm not going to view things either solely from the vantage point of fear or only from the perspective of idealistic optimism.

    Of course, it is important to qualify that I am talking from the perspective of bilateral U.S.-China relations. I don't seek to minimize the very real and legitimate concerns many people in Taiwan have. Taiwan's margin for error is much smaller than that of the U.S. The U.S. has to worry about the region's stability and its balance of power. Many people in Taiwan have existential worries, as China still views Taiwan as a part of China, albeit a part that is temporarily separated.

    I am also well aware of the almost mortal fears that the CCP has about loss of control of key pillars of power (including information, something that Google did not understand when it chose to issue an ultimatum on filtering of its search engine to China's government--a confrontation it could not expect to win--departed the country, and then returned after making concessions to the Chinese government), the role doctrine plays in shaping the CCP's worldview, the perceptions concerning foreign exploitation during periods of China's weakness, past episodes of fragmentation when central power waned, past revolutionary episodes, latent nationalism, etc. All those elements color the overall outlook and are likely to do so well into the future.

    But things are far from hopeless, at least from a U.S. perspective. There are broad shared interests and that's one foundation on which a constructive partnership can be forged, even while recognizing that there are also areas of difference. Consequently, there are genuine risks, too. But at this point in time, a Cold War-type confrontation (between the U.S. and China) need not be a foregone conclusion. Various paths along which the relationship can proceed exist. Today's choices by China's and the American leaders will shape the evolution of that relationship. Circumstances will, too.

    Having said all that, the "surprise" that some express that China is building its hard power commensurate with its growing economic power can only exist from a position of naivete. China was once a great power. Aspirations for a return to such stature are not unexpected, if not the norm when the opportunity presents itself. Furthermore, China is proceeding along the typical path of states that are on a rising power trajectory. Its pursuit of hard power and expanded regional influence is not an exception. There should be no surprises concerning those developments.

    I don't think "humiliating" China is a good idea. However, we need to be MUCh tougher with China in terms of respect for international law and the sovereignty of its neighbors...
    It appears that you are assuming that I do not believe the U.S. should be tough where its interests and allies are concerned. If so, that is a fundamental misread of my position.

    The U.S. absolutely should be prepared to safeguard its critical regional interests and allies politically, and if necessary, militarily. It should continue to assure a regional balance of power that promotes stability and security, especially as significant historic rivalries and multinational maritime disputes exist (and could be exacerbated by resource scarcity, among other possible triggers). My point is that U.S. firmness should be expressed privately and directly. At all times messages of such firmness should be made credible by appropriate actions, otherwise one is doing nothing more than engaging in hollow posturing. In short, advocating the pursuit of cooperation where opportunities and shared interests permit it does not require the United States to sacrifice or ignore its critical interests or allies.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-31-11 at 12:07 AM.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I agreed with you up to this point. My opinion is that democratic systems mainly serve the purpose of ameliorating abuses by authority. While shaping policy does represent an integral part of such a purpose this does not mean a democratic system will be inherently more capable of responding to dynamic situations. That has everything to do with the structure of the system itself. Here in the U.S. our political system does provide key democratic checks on power, but it also inhibits the responsiveness of government at times to both external and internal forces including popular opinion. We can see in Europe that its democratic system, though allowing it to make certain decisive gains in areas like energy and the environment, inhibit its ability to respond to financial pressures and regional concerns.

    Rather the main element that determines a government's ability to respond is its ideological openness and ability to arrive at consensus measures. This is actually where China excels and, in my opinion, constitute democratic aspects of its system that are in some ways better than those of Western-style democratic systems. Of course, I presume when you say democratic systems you are specifically referring to the Western-style system.
    Several quick points:

    By "democratic systems" I do not accept the narrow definition that a system that merely holds regular freely-contested elections is by itself democratic. There needs to be appropriate checks in place to avoid the "tyranny by the majority" or all-powerful executive problems, legal/institutional framework in which the people have a voice e.g., through representative organs, etc. Ideological openness and a capacity to form consensus are important elements of an effective democratic system. When a system becomes increasingly polarized ideologically and the ability to form consensus dissipates, it is no longer effective in the democratic sense. It becomes rigid and loses the flexibility inherent in an effective democratic system. The U.S. risks evolving down that path.

    Also, I don't mean to limit myself to Western-style democratic systems. I do not wish to preclude the possibility that representative systems cannot evolve along other lines.

    My point about adapting to change is that democratic systems, because they are broadly representative, can be inherently more flexible. They are more flexible when effective, because they are responsive to the needs of the people they represent. In contrast, authoritarian systems are much more rigid. However, when it comes to certain crises that require rapid and revolutionary changes, that's an area where an authoritarian system might have somewhat of an advantage e.g., tough choices can quickly be made even when deeply unpopular, as there is no need to form a consensus, which can take time, require effort, and entail compromises. But that's a unique situation. Transformational leaders along the lines of a Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt, can perform similar functions within democratic systems, but such leaders are quite rare.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •