Mr Stross do you realize that if you were hosting this blog from China you could be subject to arrest at anytime? Some of the criticisms you have made of the Conservative government in the UK, criticisms I share by the way, could land you in prison if you made them of the Chinese government in China.
Somehow, I fail to see how this observation makes the point you seem to think it's making ;-) Could you be a bit less skimpy in detailing the links in your causal chain of reasoning?[1]
Why, precisely, do you think a dominant China would make me more subject to arrest in the United States for making public my displeasure with that foreign power?
[1]Once again what we have here is a narrative as opposed to a testable hypothesis that makes falsifiable predictions. Seems to be a bad habit all around, and one that's rather difficult to break, unfortunately.
]]>Imperial power corrupts, because with it flows a huge amount of money and, well, power. Global hegemony corrupts maximally. And the beauty of the current American system is that its foundational mythology makes it very difficult for anyone who has grown up with it to recognize that the praxis of hegemonic power is almost diametrically opposed to the values that the hegemonic power was supposedly founded to protect.
]]>There is No Such Thing as a good global hegemon (Iain Banks' Culture excepted -- and they're a work of utopian fiction). Imperial power corrupts, because with it flows a huge amount of money and, well, power. Global hegemony corrupts maximally.
Not often noticed or mentioned, but the back story in Anerson's Tau Zero addresses this point. Those nice Swedes, the people who make Volvos, whose King had ABBA entertain at a gala affair, well what could possibly go wrong with putting responsibility for how the world was run in their hands? Could be worse, right? As it turns out, public opinion on that one reversed rather dramatically on that one once Sweden actually had the whip hand.
And the beauty of the current American system is that its foundational mythology makes it very difficult for anyone who has grown up with it to recognize that the praxis of hegemonic power is almost diametrically opposed to the values that the hegemonic power was supposedly founded to protect.
That's a Chomsky staple. But one I happen to agree with. The thing is, I don't think he went far enough in applying this notion. Imagine a world - as so many did way back when - where it is Western Europe and North America that collapses leaving the U.S.S.R. to fill the void. My impression is that in those oh-so-earnest conversations between exchange students living in a fictional Petrograd dorm, one of the natives would very sincerely and painfully explain how his great country actually saved the U.S. from itself and the soul-devouring Chthonic entity that is Capitalism.
Sterling has written a few stories where it is the Middle East that is ascendant in the 21st, and that they believe they have saved the rest of the world after it's willful turn away from God and Godliness.
And if it was France, we'd hear endless harangues about how they saved the rest of the world from bad cooking and bad wine. Really, we poor tasteless wretches ought to thank them. Even if we are forbidden from speaking French, the language of the Court, seeing as how we profane that language every time it's syllables pass our lips.
So it goes :-)
]]>Poor countries don't have a lot of room to do anything except stick more firmly to the road they're going down already. And if China is as evil or crazy as someone like Derbyshire would have you believe, I doubt a collapse would improve their mood or manners. Besides, I think it's pretty cool China are in the space race, and that's good motivation for the US space programs.
As for bashing religion, been there done that, in my libertarian / L5 Society days. It's pretty much wasted effort and only causes a reaction in people who otherwise don't feel very strongly about religion one way or the other. Religion's not going away anytime soon, at least because it's too handy an outlet for one's inclinations. But even if it were to disappear tomorrow, the 19th and 20th century have proved that people will find other justifications to get themselves through a long night and/or screw someone over.
]]>As for the South Korea/Japan defence thing, are you familiar with the term containment? (Hint: losing the cold war to a rival hegemonic power would have really put a cramp on the US economy.)
]]>"Nope. See the moderation policy. I'll ban anything and anyone I damn well please. (But note that I didn't, in this case.)" I see. Well, given those sentiments, I guess it's not that surprising that you have a much more sanguine view of China and its government than I do. And for all the talk about empire and global hegemony, could someone please provide evidence that the U.S. wages its power in a purely selfish manner to enrich itself at the expense of others?
WHOOOOOOOOSH!
Can anyone who is filled with trepidation at the thought of China becoming the dominant world power explain - Specifically! - what actions and policies would be implemented on the world stage that would be so terrible it would count as a qualitative change for the worse?
I can't emphasize the word "specific" enough.
]]>Anyway, thanks for posting this Charlie.
]]>It seems unlikely that there's going to be much of a US space program for a long time to come. There aren't many robot probes being planned and having any committed funding, and the manned program is spurlos versenkt (NASA is even being forced by Congress to spend money on the Orion vehicle this year, when that whole project has already been scrapped). I see little likelihood that the political mess in Washington is going to be fixed anytime soon, and until it is, there isn't going to be any political will whatsoever for space projects.
As a long time space junkie (I remember watching Echo 1 go over when I was a kid) I take absolutely no pleasure in this prediction.
]]>The US space program could collapse tomorrow, and there'll be boots on the moon again within twenty five years. Just not American boots.
]]>Firstly, ESA's long range robot exploration program is still running fine, despite the euro-zone wobblies. Secondly, Russia's economy is re-growing rapidly and sooner or later they're going to go back into that game. Thirdly, India is showing signs of getting into a space race with China. The US space program could collapse tomorrow, and there'll be boots on the moon again within twenty five years. Just not American boots.
Yes, definitely file this one under reasons to be cheerful. People grumbling about this sort of thing remind me of my mechanic dad grumbling about "buying American". Well, I drive a Toyota, and have been for over twenty years. And I'm not going to by a GM auto just because it's "American". Hmmm. Come to that, I wonder how many of those going on about the loss of USian supremacy buy an American car, wear clothes made solely in America, post from a computer built by totally homegrown companies operating inside the national borders, etc. Not many, I would wager.
Anyway, yet more reasons to be cheerful: I've been following the trade show and it looks like there's some pretty slick stuff rolling out this year. There's been a real explosion of tablet offerings, and in particular, that XOOM tablet is SHINY!
]]>Life expectancy isn't great; folks with DS tend to succumb to dementia some time between 50 and 60 years of age (with the prevalence of Alzheimer's hitting 75% in the seventh decade). But with the right educational facilities and support, quality of life and outcomes can be surprisingly high. Go back 30 years: the consensus was that trying to teach them to read was pointless, and life expectancy was 25 years. Today life expectancy is 49 years, and the high water mark for education is graduation from university (although this is admittedly rare) thanks to much better educational techniques. Again, back in 1980 40-80% of DS children suffered hearing loss or deafness; today 98% have normal hearing (thanks to better understanding of how to manage the condition).
Yes, raising a child with DS is more costly than raising a child who doesn't have a chromosomal abnormality. But the outlook for such a child today is vastly better than it was 30 years ago.
]]>