Will China supplant the U.S. as a great power?

In the excellent book, "Nanofuture," by J. Storrs Hall, the author describes a possible future scenario where the United States and the West fall seriously behind China in nanotech development.

"It's 2015. In the United States, business as usual has been allowed to prevail. Interest in science has continued to decline. Virtually all the scientists and engineers our universities produce come from, and most return to, other countries. Funding for research is mostly for medical applications, and that is mired in political debates over stem cells and choked with red tape attempting to make it totally safe.
Meanwhile, China has pushed ahead on a broad range of fronts and has produced Stage III replicators. Products begin to appear from China that cannot be made economically anywhere else. No official notice is taken in the United States because our labs can still produce better stuff in expensive, one-off, form. The Chinese are accused of "dumping" and some nanotech products are banned.

China proceeds to stage IV and Western Technology begins to look distinctly second-rate. They are rumored to have engineering design supercomputers. The latest generation of Chinese jets and spacecraft have significantly better capabilities than ours and was designed and produced in half the time. The US military sounds an alarm.

The administration undertakes a crash program to demonize nanotech as "weapons of mass destruction" and get a UN resolution prohibiting it anywhere in the world. This stalls in debated and goes nowhere. The United States makes a unilateral ultimatum to China demanding a halt to all nanotechnology. China demurs, and announces that if attacked with nuclear weapons, it will release aerovores into the atmosphere."

I find this a very terrifying scenario, especially because of China's past track record and probable intentions for the future. Does the U.S. have a very good chance of falling behind technologically as shown in the scenario? And how do you think the Chinese government would use such technological/military superiority if they had it?


Best wishes,

John Grigg

Maybe the US should start being a little nicer to India?

I think it all depends on the next president if its another darkage presidency then Pakistan will have better tech than us.

I don't think that the US, or the rest of the western world for that matter, would allow itself to fall behind China in technological development. The evangelical banter that is so prevalent in this country is designed to garner votes and maintain the Neo-con base. But make no mistake, America is anything but oblivious to technological progress. If there is a buck to be made, we will be there. You can count on it. It's strictly business baby. )

I am hopeful that the newly competitive markets in the Far East, which are largely unhampered by the cultural inhibitions we find in the west, will light a fire under everyone's ass and produce an increase in the global pace of technological development.

Excessively specific fictional scenarios in futurism are almost always wrong. China could take advantage of nanotech first, but there's an equal or greater probability that molecular manufacturing will be developed first by India, Canada, USA, Russia, Great Britain, Japan, or France. All the possibilities have been discussed, for example, at Foresight conferences. JoSH just picks China because there's been a lot of discussion lately about China's industrial growth and how they're allegedly going to beat the USA in higher education, at some point. But industrial growth |= probability of acquiring MNT first.

In general, I disagree with rjws (President doesn't matter *all that much*) and agree with Don (most neocons are racist and it chills them to the bone to envision "Chinaman superiority"). Chinese scientists have so little experience playing with capital-intensive equipment... whereas the USA has been techno-happy since the 50s.

In general, I disagree with rjws (President doesn't matter *all that much*)

You have to admit Bush and his Bioethics council are riding hard on Science, The only real effect I guess has been embryonic Stem cell research. I think the more repressive atmosphere for science has cost us a few good scientists as well.



Capitalism Is somewhat its own reward when it comes to accelerating science, Though sometimes it backfires when a potentially helpful technology would not make money.


If China did develop Nanotech first Im sure we'd aquire it some how [thumb]

I believe the usa is already working on nanotech. In fact I'd bet on it. Many other countries are working on it as well. I see nothing wrong with the capitalistic driven system of science. Since when has government controlled science proven better in the long run over our system? The soviets got most of their technology by stealing it from us, for example the bomb. They are playing catch up to our lead.

I agree the anti-science climate in this country is troubling. The president does tend to encourage that and I'll be glad when he's gone. It's more than that, it's become a cultural thing. Our heroes are sports figures, not researchers. Still, we have a good lead and I doubt any country is going to move past us any time soon. They may garner an edge in certain areas of technology and this has already happened. I don't see usa becoming a third world country in the next 50 years at least.

I agree the anti-science climate in this country is troubling. The president does tend to encourage that and I'll be glad when he's gone. It's more than that, it's become a cultural thing. Our heroes are sports figures, not researchers.

I believe this is the situation most every western countries. It seems the de facto measure of usefulness of a person is how fast can run with a ball. Does not make much sense, and I have a slight fear it just might cost me my immortality.

Anyway, this article is a joke but this is how it really ought to be in my mind. The hardcore scientist are the real superstars in this world IMO:

"Stephen Jay Gould Speaks Out Against Science Paparazzi"

http://www.theonion....tent/node/28269

I believe this is the situation most every western countries. It seems the de facto measure of usefulness of a person is how fast can run with a ball. Does not make much sense, and I have a slight fear it just might cost me my immortality.

Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how many wars organized sports are preventing every year? [lol]

MichaelAnissimov wrote:
In general, I disagree with rjws (President doesn't matter *all that much*) and agree with Don (most neocons are racist and it chills them to the bone to envision "Chinaman superiority"). Chinese scientists have so little experience playing with capital-intensive equipment... whereas the USA has been techno-happy since the 50s.
>

China is investing billions in nanotech research (as we are) and playing catch-up with their Western counterparts at break-neck speed. They are *very* fast learners, and what they may not develop themselves they have no problem stealing from the West (their intelligence operatives are especially adept at this). I don't need to go on too long about how every year they crank out many more scientists and engineers than we do (some of whom are ironically trained in the U.S. and then return home).

Make no mistake, China is a major threat to world stability & peace. They are modernizing and expanding their military with an ever-enlarging military budget. And what they cannot in timely fashion develop on their own, they will steal (such as the Aegis naval combat system). Even when they eventually "take back Taiwan," they will not be content in terms of their ambitions. There are serious contentions that the Chinese government has longterm plans to sponsor world terrorism in the hope of undermining U.S. and Western power.

Don Spanton wrote:
I am hopeful that the newly competitive markets in the Far East, which are largely unhampered by the cultural inhibitions we find in the west, will light a fire under everyone's ass and produce an increase in the global pace of technological development.
>

SO AM I!! Let's hear it for national rivalries (as long as they don't get too out of hand)! Nanotech research will go fine even without Chinese competition, but in the biotech field we really need them to keep us motivated. Even Republican Party and Evangelical interference will be kept in check when national security & economic competiveness are seen as being threatened.

lunarsolarpower wrote:
Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how many wars organized sports are preventing every year?
>

I remember a college history professor of mine saying an ancient Greek Athenian father once told his depressed son (he had failed to win a medal in his events) on the way home from an Olympics, "I am very grateful I still have you with me, my son, because you only lost a race against a Spartan, rather than a fight against him on a battlefield."

But on the other hand, Nazi Germany used an Olympics as a propoganda tool in the 30's, while they were gearing up for war. I wonder if Communist China is headed the same way.


Best wishes,

John Grigg

China is a major threat to world stability & peace.

So is the US for that matter.

They are modernizing and expanding their military with an ever-enlarging military budget.

And the US isn't?

Just out of curiosity, let's take a look at the latest data for US and Chinese military spending...

US (2004) $466B
China (2004) $65B **

oooh, the Chinese with their $65B, I'm really scared. [lol]



**globalsecurity.org

John_Ventureville wrote:
Don Spanton wrote:
QUOTE
China is a major threat to world stability & peace.


So is the US for that matter.
>

The U.S. I admit does its share of wrongdoing, but the guiding principles of our nation (when we look to them) such as the constitution are the values we aspire to when we are at our best and living up to our rich legacy. Other nations such as China and Russia see the world in ways very unimpeded by the need to try to be a force for good.

>
QUOTE

They are modernizing and expanding their military with an ever-enlarging military budget.


And the US isn't?
>

We need to continually modernize our military so we can stand up to the potential future aggression of potential rogue powers like China. Just imagine what the Chinese leadership would do if they alone had the military power the U.S. currently has. Do you really think they would be 1/100th as restrained in its use as the U.S. is? Don't bet on it!

>
Just out of curiosity, let's take a look at the latest data for US and Chinese military spending...

US (2004) $466B
China (2004) $65B **

oooh, the Chinese with their $65B, I'm really scared.
>

The shrewdness of the Chinese Communist government is that they have not poured too much money into their military, but instead have focused on their economy because they realize that is the ultimate longterm key to military strength. If you look at things with the long view, you will find over the next two decades that 65 billion will swell to a vastly higher figure. And the 65 billion figure is deceptive, because the Chinese now build many of their weapons systems in-country so they can keep costs way down. China is a longterm threat to world peace and as with the old Soviet Union, the U.S. will have to be vigilante over the coming decades to try to build bonds of mutual trust and understanding with them. But I frankly don't see that happening until the Chinese Communist government is a thing of the past. And this is because it is a government with little or no respect for human rights which even appears to be supporting terrorism as a means of undermining the West.

It's easy among the young and also the not so young to see only the bad about the U.S. and say our potential enemies are not so bad. But the price in blood and pain will be horrific if we don't contain the Communist Chinese government's hopes for exploitive expansion and intimidation. If you think the U.S. is bad now, just wait and see the what the Chinese Communists will be doing in about ten to twenty years when they have a truly modern and powerful military force capable of projecting power anywhere on the globe.

Best wishes,

John Grigg

I feel like I'm dialoging with a milder version of my former self.

John, I came up with a saying a while back to express the epiphany I had when breaking out of your current mindset.

"It is not us versus them, it us versus ourselves."

Think about it.

I don't mean to sound condescending, btw. It is just that I use to view things in a manner very similarly to you and now I look back and see so much that is wrong with a hawkish foreign policy perspective. Back in the day, I must have read almost every book/article ever written by Kissinger, Brzezinksi, Kaplan, Kristol, Boot, Kagan, Hanson, Krauthammer...Say, are you an NAC man, or do you prefer CSP?

If you want, I could switch over to being a neo-con right here on this thread. Viral memetics are a funny thing Once you've developed an immunity it is actually quite entertaining to play off dialectics.

There are serious contentions that the Chinese government has longterm plans to sponsor world terrorism in the hope of undermining U.S. and Western power.

Any references on this one..? I agree that the Chinese leadership is extremely shrewd. Yes, they are investing money in their military as best they can.

Ultimately though, the superiority question will revolve around how much money and intelligence is invested *specifically* in MNT or other high-leverage technologies (there aren't many).

I wrote:
There are serious contentions that the Chinese government has longterm plans to sponsor world terrorism in the hope of undermining U.S. and Western power.

MichaelAnissimov asked:
Any references on this one..? I agree that the Chinese leadership is extremely shrewd. Yes, they are investing money in their military as best they can.
>

A Chinese arms dealer with strong PLA ties was arrested several years ago for trying to sell portable anti-aircraft missle systems to undercover U.S. agents who made it painfully clear they desired to use them to "shoot down American airliners." He had no problem with that.

Also a new Chinese military doctrine document which fell into Western hands was found to be a handbook on the theory and practice of using alternatives to direct military confrontation to undermine the United States. The authors felt the attack on the World Trade Center was an example to be closely studied for being a successful attack on the West. This is frightening to say the least.

Lastly, rogue nations such as Iran and Syria buy much of their best weapons systems now from the more than willing Chinese. It's definitely a bad thing when nations which supply terrorist organizations are in turn supplied by our "ally" China with quality weapons systems.

What I find ironic about all of this is that China is supposedly one of our "partners" in the War on Terror. They of course don't want *themselves* to be victimized by those who would attack their regime for various religious and ideological reasons and so they do talk alot about doing their share in the War of Terror. But they seem to have no problem with feeling terrorism is simply another tool in their arsenal to be used against us (if they can get away with it).

Best wishes,

John Grigg

Probably a very important aspect in which Chinese society is distinct from western societies is the level of ethics or culture that is part of it¡¦s background and that is allowed to influence economic decisions. I know these issues are very hard to compare, but my feeling is that, based on reading general and easy available information in newspapers, that this is foremost the most important issue to consider.

For instance, China is developing transportation infra structure in a rate that is almost unachievable in the west. The reason for this could very well be the fact that they do not have a need to use high environmental and safety standards. I think the same applies to operational deployment.

Employment is cheap and very easy replaced in this "isle of plenty".

In the west we are very concerned about ethical issues, sometimes in a way that it turns out to be counter productive even viewed from our own cultural and ethical perspective.

Also our social, political and democratic background is somewhat different......

This results in higher development and deployment costs in the western part of the world. We do have a lot of "overhead¨ to support. Our society is very expensive and I do not whish to lose the high level of general quality it provides. There's a lot at stake here.

But it comes with high costs, long delays and periods of uncertainty due to the high level of general commitment that is needed in our culture.

It's the western qualitative approach against the Chinese quantitative approach?

Nationalism is a morality. And as my signature says, "Morality is herd instinct in the individual."

DonSpanton wrote:
Nationalism is a morality. And as my signature says, "Morality is herd instinct in the individual."
>

Ahhh..., but what defines a nation is what they do with that herd instinct.

John

Yes, right indeed. Is this nationalism or herd instinct the direct cause of the behaviour of China or is it used by Chinese leaders to get their work done as a "motivational" tool?

Probably not 100% "or", a combination of the 2 at least. Since the Chinese don't have the democratic background, I suspect that manipulation is one of the easy tools.

It's this property of Chinese society and the issues I mentioned in my previous post that determines it's short term (two or three generations) high efficiency, not the technology they use it on/with. If nano technology becomes booming, they use it on that, in case T-shirts with embedded health sensors become booming, they will do that also.

It’s the structure of Chinese society that’s the dominant factor in the success of China’s economy. The $$'s to be earned by the happy few is the major motivation.

A recent survey of 180 PhD holders found that 60 percent had paid to have their papers published and a similar percentage had copied others' work.

Other articles also expound on how the gap between graduates in US and China is exaggerated. And what good are these graduates if the quality of their schools sucks compared to ours? I'm not saying that China isn't a long-term threat, just that they have a little ways to go, and I doubt they will get nanofactories first.

Have to agree with Anissimov, I live in China for 3 years, Chuina does not have the technology to get in to nano, just yet, still their needs are many, you can not look at china as a cohesive front or group, even that the population is large, it is also very wide spread through the nation, the ares that most benefit are the priviledge provinces, where merchandise and manufacturing congregates.

Also, what is the definition of a super power, is that based on the consumption, trade, welfare of its citizens, military migth ???, how do you define a super power ?, if it is based on an economical aspect, we will have to say that the small DUBAI, will most certainly qualify for it, if it is based on consumption, people and trade, most likely the European Union, if is based on trade against export, by all means China, so it is not quite clear any longer what falls under the super power umbrella.

We must also indicate that nano technology is here already, but we are not yet to see its application as so many of this century inventions and developed technologies that have still failed to benefit or be within the reach of the common mass.