by
futureprogress | June 11, 2008 at 06:13 pm
896 views | 0 Recommendations |
8 comments
In the latest issue of
Edge the well-known Harvard psychologist
Steven Pinker questions the popular assertion that "China will be the next scientific and economic power." What prompted Pinker to question that assertion seems to be the recent rejection by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to publish the book:
What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable. The book, based on an edited selection from
The 2006 Edge Question, was published last year in the US (HarperCollins) and the UK (Free Press) as well as a number of foreign-language markets. The recent rejection came via the publisher that purchased the PRC Chinese language rights to the book, stating that the book "can't be published in China because some content is not accordant to Chinese regulations, for example, some content about religious, soul." [
sic]
Pinker, who wrote the forward to the book, went on to not only question China's power grab but the claim that any nation can become a technological superpower (and thus economic superpower) when it can be categorized as anti-intellectual. "There is a profound issue lurking here," writes Pinker. "Everyone says that China will be the next scientific and economic power. Is this compatible with their ongoing rejection of open debate and exploration of ideas? Is a technologically advanced society compatible with anti-intellectualism and suppression of debate? It's hard to see how China will ever compete with the West as a source of scientific and technological innovation if ideas cannot be discussed and evaluated."
Pinker goes on to state one possibility, "or will the Internet — which can never be completely censored — and a stream of PhDs returning from the West eventually pressure them to open up?" As ideal as this would seem to most free speech advocates, it does not seem to be consistent with the observed direction of China.
Typically, many westerners that live and work in China do so in the capacity of an expert and are hardly challenged on free speech issues. It is only when a foreigner appears to be "corrupting" a sizable number of natives that the PRC will exert its control and send the foreigner packing with little hope of ever returning; however such instances in the last two decades are quite rare. Instead, westerners are free to work and play which essentially amounts to a knowledge transfer from westerners to the locals. Once this knowledge transfer is wielded by a local it then comes under full regulation by the PRC. A system such as this allows for societal roles and industry to be created under complete control with little "corruption" to the system itself. Such a system may not be a key innovator in the technology and science worlds but can however take and assimilate knowledge into powerhouse technology industries at a scale unique to countries like China and India.
While Pinker's questions are valid their conclusions do not appear to be consistent with how China is growing both technologically and scientifically. As for the book, the Chinese living in China will not be reading it any time soon.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 18:19 on June 11th, 2008
hmm...
note to self: do not paste directly from gmail... and look for a preview button next time ;)
at 18:29 on June 11th, 2008
ahh... the formatting is well now ;)
at 21:40 on June 11th, 2008
"While Pinker's questions are valid their conclusions do not appear to be consistent with how China is growing both technologically and scientifically."
Were it not for Western capital investments in China and greedhead capitalists outsourcing their fellow Americans jobs to China, China wouldn't have such growth "both technologically and scientifically". But 'Muricans are too stupid to realize that. Keep voting Republican and Democrat. Let's all enjoy our economic race to third-world wages.
at 23:47 on June 11th, 2008
I don't think invoking the stupidity of Americans is important to your argument. Namely, should jobs be outsourced to China (or anywhere else for that matter)? As a firm believer in free markets, I am inclined to answer yes. Every private organization should do what they feel will bring more value to their shareholders, including capital investments in foreign ventures.
The problems do not really stem from the changing employment patterns in the U.S., the problems stem from government repression in the marketplace, specifically, allowing less money to be controlled by the people to act in their own interests. These policies have a further effect on supporting local monopolies by shielding them from competing with monopolies in other countries which further inhibits smaller competitive growths in those markets.
Small business is adaptable and fuels much of the economy so that the outsourcing of jobs is a temporary adjustment in an open market. Again, the problems you seem adamant about come from the Governments intrusion on our rights, not cheaper labor in China.
at 06:55 on June 12th, 2008
I mean no disrespect to you, futureprogress, but I'm always amazed at the people who believe that sending your friends, your neighbors, and your family's jobs overseas is a good thing. Not only will your friends, your neighbors, your family and possibly even yourself compete for third-world wages and jobs without benefits such as health insurance, the hard won advances that our workers made over the last century are going down the tubes simply for the benefit of the owner-class. The working class gets nothing out of the deal.
The decision to offshore is made by capitalists and by government- capitalists for the profits and government passes the laws which enable them to do so. If you think that by keeping more of your money from government repression (taxes) is the trick, you are further deluding yourself. Individuals acting in their own interests are impotent against the power of government and multinational interests working against them.
We build China's and India's economies at the cost of our own, but some think that's a good thing. Unbelievable.
at 13:57 on June 12th, 2008
Paul, I completely agree with your sentiment... no one wants to see a neighbor, friend or family member suffer.
I think we can also agree that the Government has been the single largest source of economic instability. In reality, it is the desire of the consumer to overwhelmingly ask our elected officials to spend someone else's money on us but not to spend our own money on anyone else. This is why a free market system is more ideal as it takes money from the Gov and returns it to the people so that each can act in accordance to their principal wants and desires creating an optimized system of micro-managed control with micro-distributed loads. If individuals are able to act in their own interests with more of their money, than that means less money is going to subsidize the loss of our freedoms, namely, into Government controlled programs that do much more harm than good.
"Nobody spends someone else's money as carefully as they spend their own. Nobody has the same dedication to achieving someone else objectives as they display for their own." - Friedman
You are correct however, giving less money to the Government is only part of the solution. To really make it stick, we need constitutional amendments for prohibiting state/fed governments from setting price controls and to stop congress from creating tariffs or setting limits. We also need to open our marketplace by unilaterally eliminating all tariffs, ideally over a five year period with a 20% decrease each year. This will ultimately remove many of the Government perversions to the free market and thus remove many of the unfair advantages given to the largest of corporations causing them to actually have to compete.
I have two questions for you:
When answering those I would like to point a few things out to you:
Lastly, we do build China and India's economy at some cost to us however we do so for some benefit to us as well. This idea is no stranger than investing your money into a venture that you firmly believe will bring you a positive return. Again, the issue is not _if_ we should invest in the growth of another country but who should do the investing and in what environment.
The working class is being squeezed; Gov. perversions to the marketplace on one side and a evolving global marketplace on the other. Without one of those the other probably would not hurt as much... but given that both are a reality there is real pain happening today. Should we attack the evolution of the global marketplace or should we attack the perversions that stop us from adapting and thus more greatly benefiting from the evolution?
---
DEHISTROY.US
at 11:50 on June 14th, 2008
Hi futureprogress,
To answer your two questions:
1. We should stop the bleeding of our jobs going overseas either by re-instituting tariffs which we had and our economy flourished with for over 200 years, and/or not doing business with nations which do not meet our minimum labor standards (min wage, 40 hr. work week, etc), standards which American workers fought hard to gain the last century.
2. Stopping jobs from going overseas will increase employment here, increase investment here, maintain or increase wages as well as taxes.
We build competing nations economies at the cost of our own, one current example being that by enriching India's and China's economies, they are now able to compete with us for oil which is one of the factors in high gas prices now. Brilliant, huh?
at 13:20 on July 7th, 2008
Thanks Paul.
I have decided to syndicate this conversation @ http://dehistroy.us/2008/07/07/an-economic-race-to-third-world-wages
My conclusion can also be found there.