I suspect it'll be a moot issue in a few years. As you and I have discussed, China is heading in the direction of freedom lately. It's sad that they did this, but I suspect they'll reverse the decision soon enough.
On the other hand, I'm fully with Google in their decision. They have a business to run. And besides, there's only so much that Beijing can hide for so long.
I doubt China will over turn the decision. There's still a lot of censorship in China... and as much as they claim to be more free than before... they still have no respect for human rights.
I personally couldn't stand most Chinese from China after they go through college. They get so brainwashed it's sick.
I'm not trying to claim that the evils of socialism aren't still very much embedded in the government from Beijing. However, property rights - a major foundation of freedom - are becoming more and more recognized.
As for brainwashing, I don't doubt you for a moment. I haven't discussed the issue with my roommate (Chinese from PRC), nor will I. On the other hand, universities in the United States do a pretty good job of getting a large number of social science majors (particularly sociology, "women's studies", etc) to graduate every bit as pro-communist as anyone from a PRC university. Perhaps moreso, because they're less likely to see the ill effects firsthand. In any case, this doesn't look good for either side, but I'd be curious how the two end up in a few generations.
I don't know how I reside on where China will be in another few generations. In American newspaper articles, I see many reports on unrest and harsh repression of PRC protests. I think China could go both ways (heh heh), either towards larger-scale politcal unrest and social instability, or towards...well anything "better" than what they have now (hopefully better will encompass less pollution; I'm sick of going there and having to blow black stuff out of my nose).
I feel that America definitely will decline from its current economic power in the future, not because it'll be eclipsed by another country, but basically because it's digging its own intellectual grave. Ben Stein covers most of these reasons much better than I can in this article
An interesting thing discovered after the fall of the Iron Curtain was that capitalist countries had cleaner air than non-capitalist countries: in some cases, air in major U.S. industrial cities was cleaner than that of major cities in non-industrialized countries!
But yes, China could go both ways.
I haven't read the Stein article, but I shall later. U.S. economic power is in a decline, but my general attitude is, "So what?" An important principle, I feel, is that it isn't important what happens to "America," but rather it is important what happens to the people in America.
On the other hand, Ben Stein is smart enough that I'll bet he's not chronicling economic decline except as a motive for some bigger problem. Don't interpret my above paragraph as anything negative towards him. He's still one of the smartest men I've ever met.
Woah, you've met Ben Stein? I'm guessing through your dad. When/where?
I wouldn't be surprised that the US has cleaner air than any other said country. That's not to say that our country produces less waste in my eyes, simply that local citizens will vote to keep it out of our country/state/area etc. The Bhopal chemical spill, for example, was due to an American company.
I met Ben Stein through both parents. Mom knew him when she was a banker (before I was born). Dad knew a producer of Win Ben Stein's Money, who got us tickets to see it. We went and he got Ben Stein to come say hi after the show. He remembered mom by name. Or at least pretended to.
Anyway, I'm not trying to claim that Americans are cleaner than other nations. You're exactly right about why we have cleaner places: industrialization has brought us sufficient leisure that we can do something about these things. A clean environment isn't a luxury other people can generally afford.
As for Bhopol, can you imagine what would happen if that happened in the U.S.? Compare it, say, to the Exxon-Valdez, and how much that cost the company. Given this, what conditions do you think cause the type of atmosphere where pollution becomes either acceptable or at least possible for one who doesn't live there to cause it?
oo I like that question. I think that such conditions can be caused by a number of reasons.
Actually...after having thought about it, I think there's only one: 1. control of the country (or a region) in the hands of those who are willing to sell such rights to companies for the right price (or look the other way for the right price).
I would think that someone wouldn't overlook this information in general, though I suppose in some cases it can be ignorance of the local [administrator/people] that allows companies to get away with such acts. In this case though, even America isn't safe.
If by best condition you mean the least touched by human industrialization, my guess would be Alaska. Almost no one lives there, so there are little to no factories that dump. It's also relatively hostile terrain, so there are few resources to deplete. I would also say the west coast states on a relative scale: they're all more liberal and to me that equates with environmental consciousness vs economic/growth conscious.
The most polluted areas, so I'm told, are mostly on the east coast, due to the many ecologically unsound practices of industries dating as far back as the colonies. The link between the worst and the best condition-ed areas seem to be how long people have been living in a particular area. I'm not sure if you were pointing my thoughts in this direction. Were you?
I'm not sure about your last question. Are you asking who controls the abusable land? Or who controls land that, if abused, would not affect the controller?
There are actually significant ecological problems in Alaska from oil. It isn't the cause you think: oil builds up and can push through the ground. The same thing happens on California's coast. It is somewhat ironic that moderate oil drilling will improve the environment in many places, not limited to the location of drilling.
By the way, the New England area is far more liberal than anything on the west coast, except perhaps for San Francisco. But it turns out that political orientation of an area doesn't directly affect the ecological condition
( ... )
New York and CA are predominantly Democratic states--it seems that more ethnically diverse areas tend to be. Since New York is part of that region--I'd contest that the whole of New England is "more liberal" than the west coast without a stronger definition
( ... )
Your friend is undoubtedly right about the funding and management problems. Are you surprised? Why should the government care about the land? No one in that entire chain of command stands to benefit from proper vs improper management of the land, and guess which is easier to do?
I agree with you halfway about incentives. They do matter, but they aren't the only deciding factor. When the people-elected government tries to protect land, it's meant to be altruistic. Perhaps for that reason, funding is poor and I suspect that bad management is caused by that.
The government shouldn't care about the land. I don't mean that in a right/wrong sense, but in the sense that individuals in office have no personal reason to see that some land gets protected--apart from personal views or a desire to carry out the wishes of (some/many) voters. Companies may take care of their land right now, but one or a few poor executives could change that. Should company policy change concerning land maintenance, the government may not be able to do anything or even know about it. Corporate property is harder to regulate than government-owned.
The college students I met in China didn't seem so bad. I hear particular bad stories from my friends and my sister about the mainland Chinese they've met. Care to share yours?
I know that Maoist marxism is a required class for students at Peking University. The few Chinese students I talked to about those classes don't pay much mind to the content. They just treat the class very much like it's a hurdle to reach their college degree--not so unlike how many UCI students I've overheard complain about the uselessness of calculus as a required class. Personally, I believe calculus is quite useful, but I suppose Maoist Marxism and Calc are all the same to an English major. Point in case: they weren't treating the subject as insightful or interesting, just as something that had to me memorized/learned.
but I suppose Maoist Marxism and Calc are all the same to an English major
In some universities, you may need to believe in Maoist Marxism - or at least convince some people you do - in order to get an English degree.
Here's something sad: they treat Maoist Marxism as most of us treat History classes. On the other hand, consider what passes for "critical thinking" in history classes these days and it ceases to be surprising.
On the other hand, I'm fully with Google in their decision. They have a business to run. And besides, there's only so much that Beijing can hide for so long.
Reply
I personally couldn't stand most Chinese from China after they go through college. They get so brainwashed it's sick.
Reply
As for brainwashing, I don't doubt you for a moment. I haven't discussed the issue with my roommate (Chinese from PRC), nor will I. On the other hand, universities in the United States do a pretty good job of getting a large number of social science majors (particularly sociology, "women's studies", etc) to graduate every bit as pro-communist as anyone from a PRC university. Perhaps moreso, because they're less likely to see the ill effects firsthand.
In any case, this doesn't look good for either side, but I'd be curious how the two end up in a few generations.
Reply
I feel that America definitely will decline from its current economic power in the future, not because it'll be eclipsed by another country, but basically because it's digging its own intellectual grave. Ben Stein covers most of these reasons much better than I can in this article
Reply
But yes, China could go both ways.
I haven't read the Stein article, but I shall later. U.S. economic power is in a decline, but my general attitude is, "So what?" An important principle, I feel, is that it isn't important what happens to "America," but rather it is important what happens to the people in America.
On the other hand, Ben Stein is smart enough that I'll bet he's not chronicling economic decline except as a motive for some bigger problem. Don't interpret my above paragraph as anything negative towards him. He's still one of the smartest men I've ever met.
Reply
I wouldn't be surprised that the US has cleaner air than any other said country. That's not to say that our country produces less waste in my eyes, simply that local citizens will vote to keep it out of our country/state/area etc. The Bhopal chemical spill, for example, was due to an American company.
Reply
Anyway, I'm not trying to claim that Americans are cleaner than other nations. You're exactly right about why we have cleaner places: industrialization has brought us sufficient leisure that we can do something about these things. A clean environment isn't a luxury other people can generally afford.
As for Bhopol, can you imagine what would happen if that happened in the U.S.? Compare it, say, to the Exxon-Valdez, and how much that cost the company. Given this, what conditions do you think cause the type of atmosphere where pollution becomes either acceptable or at least possible for one who doesn't live there to cause it?
Reply
Actually...after having thought about it, I think there's only one:
1. control of the country (or a region) in the hands of those who are willing to sell such rights to companies for the right price (or look the other way for the right price).
I would think that someone wouldn't overlook this information in general, though I suppose in some cases it can be ignorance of the local [administrator/people] that allows companies to get away with such acts. In this case though, even America isn't safe.
Reply
Who would have their hands on land that they could do this to (that is, sell to companies to allow them to police) without causing harm to themselves?
Reply
The most polluted areas, so I'm told, are mostly on the east coast, due to the many ecologically unsound practices of industries dating as far back as the colonies. The link between the worst and the best condition-ed areas seem to be how long people have been living in a particular area. I'm not sure if you were pointing my thoughts in this direction. Were you?
I'm not sure about your last question. Are you asking who controls the abusable land? Or who controls land that, if abused, would not affect the controller?
Reply
By the way, the New England area is far more liberal than anything on the west coast, except perhaps for San Francisco. But it turns out that political orientation of an area doesn't directly affect the ecological condition ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Incentives matter.
Reply
The government shouldn't care about the land. I don't mean that in a right/wrong sense, but in the sense that individuals in office have no personal reason to see that some land gets protected--apart from personal views or a desire to carry out the wishes of (some/many) voters. Companies may take care of their land right now, but one or a few poor executives could change that. Should company policy change concerning land maintenance, the government may not be able to do anything or even know about it. Corporate property is harder to regulate than government-owned.
Reply
I know that Maoist marxism is a required class for students at Peking University. The few Chinese students I talked to about those classes don't pay much mind to the content. They just treat the class very much like it's a hurdle to reach their college degree--not so unlike how many UCI students I've overheard complain about the uselessness of calculus as a required class. Personally, I believe calculus is quite useful, but I suppose Maoist Marxism and Calc are all the same to an English major. Point in case: they weren't treating the subject as insightful or interesting, just as something that had to me memorized/learned.
Reply
In some universities, you may need to believe in Maoist Marxism - or at least convince some people you do - in order to get an English degree.
Here's something sad: they treat Maoist Marxism as most of us treat History classes. On the other hand, consider what passes for "critical thinking" in history classes these days and it ceases to be surprising.
Reply
Leave a comment