China vs US: Will Science & Tech Lead to World Rule?

[Kinn Sein]

Do you guys think that China will be able to catch up with or overtake the United States in Science and Technology in 30 or 50 years? Are Chinese smart enough to rule the world in every field including Science & Technology sector? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[russ_watters]

Science and technology are open systems, so it depends a lot on how you want to define "rule the world".

But by sheer numbers, China really should be putting out more PhDs and patents than anyone else.

 

[J77]

But by sheer numbers, China really should be putting out more PhDs and patents than anyone else.

I think "ruling" the world in something has a lot to do with quality over quantity though.

 

[rkkane]

But if your population is 5 times larger your 5 times more likely to have an einstein in your population. or you will have more of them than everywhere else.

 

[J77]

But if your population is 5 times larger your 5 times more likely to have an einstein in your population. or you will have more of them than everywhere else.

How does that work ?

Especially since Einstein came from Germany - which isn't exactly massive ?!?

 

[rkkane]

it's just probability, I'm not saying that will definitely be the case.

 

[J77]

it's just probability, I'm not saying that will definitely be the case.

I'm no statistical expert, but I don't think it works like that...

 

[rkkane]

then how does it work?

 

[selfAdjoint]

The idea that number of great gniuses is proportional to population is as simple-minded as the idea that national income is proportional to area. Human beings are so complicated, and interact so richly that these simple proportions, which might be OK if applied to fish or rabbits, are completely overwhelmed by cultural complexities.

Western Europe developed science in the early modern period, and that development was intimately braided into european cultural development of the time, religion, government, superstition, wars and revolutions, and the influence of randomly arising individuals all played a part, and we are still seeing that effect today. Area and population just don't amount to a hill of beans causally.

 

[Your.Master]

I would suggest that while it is not directly proportional, there is certainly a relationship with population which, all other relevant factors being equal (such as perhaps culture, the average living space per person in their region, politics...), would make a place like China more likely to spawn a genius. Certainly a random sample of one person in any given country in the world is unlikely to contain any geniuses, including countries with quite a few geniuses when you scale your sample space up.

I expect many, many people with at least as much scientific potential as Einstein have lived and died without fulfilling a noticeable fraction of Einstein's accomplishments.

 

[rkkane]

i didn't once mention proportional, i simply stated that having more people and more people being born made it more likely. which is nothing like saying that national income is proportional to area but more like saying that having a larger land area makes it more probable that you will have a field in your country which has an exceptional yeild.

 

[nannoh]

Lets just say that China has the numbers of the entire population of the United States within its military ranks, and then some. The numbers suggest that a conventional, military overthrow of the US and its neighbors is not an impossiblity. Whatever this undertaking would gain or prove is another question.

 

[russ_watters]

The idea that number of great gniuses is proportional to population is as simple-minded as the idea that national income is proportional to area. Human beings are so complicated, and interact so richly that these simple proportions, which might be OK if applied to fish or rabbits, are completely overwhelmed by cultural complexities.

Western Europe developed science in the early modern period, and that development was intimately braided into european cultural development of the time, religion, government, superstition, wars and revolutions, and the influence of randomly arising individuals all played a part, and we are still seeing that effect today. Area and population just don't amount to a hill of beans causally.

How does that not support my point? It is indeed true that an impoverished and backwards society is not going to produce an Einstein because of the environmental factors that weigh against it. But that doesn't mean that the genetic makeup isn't there in a certain fraction of people - it is just that the potential doesn't get realized.

Now apply that to China today (and in 20 or 40 years): If China gets sufficiently industrialized and modernized that potential Einesteins are recognized, cultivated, and allowed to grow, then they will produce more Einsteins than anywhere else in the world.

Reduced version of the logic:

-Genetic potential for high IQ is a nearly fixed fraction of population.
-Based on environmental factors, a certain number of high IQ individuals will have their potential realized and a certain number will not.
-The West has, for a while, has been much more capable of cultivating geniuses than the East.
-China's potential for cultivating geniuses is increasing.

So - if China's potential for cultivating geniuses increases to just a small fraction of the US's potential for cultivating geniuses, China will produce more individual geniuses than the US.

 

[nannoh]

The Franklin Institute lists some of the many Chinese inventions that came before US confederation here:

http://www.fi.edu/tfi/info/current/inventions.html

Including: gunpowder, the compass, spaghetti, and many more.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Somebody asked the question, "Since it is held that the stirrup, by allowing heavy cavalry, introduced the European feudal system and the Middle Ages, while the cannon, by knocking down castles, ended same a thousand years later, and since both inventions were Chinese, why they had no special effect on Chinese history?"

 

[J77]

I agree with quality over quantity. Of all the countries, the most geniuses came from there the last two hundred years. From aspirin to Mercedes to philology to quantum mechanics...It has to do with valuing education and pure unselfish dedication to knowledge. This is what made that nation great. I think in many ways, it still has not recovered from the shocks caused by the two world wars that upset the wonderful cultural milieu that produced so many geniuses.
As for the Chinese, they are the oldest and most creatively original people the region of South East Asia. As to what they are capable of in the future-who knows? They seem also good at borrowing and adapting. The creative potential is definitely there.
As for "ruling the world in technology" I think that is stating it a bit too far.

I think the German attitude is still there, plus they have a lot more great scientists from the East now - including the ability to find, and possibly translate, all the great Russian work.

In my field, Germans maintain a very strong position, as do the Russians, Dutch, Polish, English and other European countries.

I think China seems a bit diluted at the moment - or at another extreme tries too hard. I've had a lot of terrible papers to reject from Chinese researchers - stuff like what could be written on a train, so maybe I have a bad impression.

There could be a chance of a "genius" originating there - whatever that means - but it's not down to the size, more as has been mentioned the social environment. In the same way, you can't make a genius by making kids read and study 24/7.

It would be helpful if we had alist of so-called geniuses - I bet a lot of them come from small countries.

 

[rkkane]

Somebody asked the question, "Since it is held that the stirrup, by allowing heavy cavalry, introduced the European feudal system and the Middle Ages, while the cannon, by knocking down castles, ended same a thousand years later, and since both inventions were Chinese, why they had no special effect on Chinese history?"

perhaps the question should be why does western civilization adapt many new technologies which could have peaceful uses to war?

this whole discussion really depends on what you would define as genius, if einstein or motzart were locked in a room without windows or any books inside would they no longer be geniuses? Is genuis something in your brain or is it in your accomplishments?

 

[waht]

yea, Chinese are trying too hard, they are deperate in proving the world they are better. Why, because the government has brain washed them.

Currently, China is soaking up world's technology and knowledge. They are more occupied at learning what other people have done, and less so work on original ideas.

Now remember, China is communist, that means they severly control media and internet. Even though, there is probably more internet users in China than in US, they don't have access to a fraction of sites we have avialable.

Secondly, their access to world history is limited as well. Most Chinese have so clue about many currents events in the world. I remember my prof, saying the declaration of independence was leaked during Tienamen square in China, which blew their minds.

Thirdly, they can't freely express themselves, practice any religition, protest government, etc, or own anything. Their advances whether technological or scientific will be strictly controlled and used to advance the communist super power, and not the scientific community.

Success of Chinese people will depend whether they can overthrow their communist regime. Otherwise they will be in the dark.

 

[nannoh]

Somebody asked the question, "Since it is held that the stirrup, by allowing heavy cavalry, introduced the European feudal system and the Middle Ages, while the cannon, by knocking down castles, ended same a thousand years later, and since both inventions were Chinese, why they had no special effect on Chinese history?"

Where is it recorded that sturrups and gunpowder had no special effect on Chinese history? It may be that we are simply unversed in those chapters of human development.

Without the Chinese innovations the likelyhood of rapid advances in western society, technology and science would be diminished or at least delayed.

My question is, what was the civil environment that allowed the Chinese to discover such influential inventions so early in history? Western civilization has riden on the back of this technology, changing it to suit its purposes and claiming superiority at the expense of 1000s of years of Chinese research and development.

 

[selfAdjoint]

My question is, what was the civil environment that allowed the Chinese to discover such influential inventions so early in history? Western civilization has riden on the back of this technology, changing it to suit its purposes and claiming superiority at the expense of 1000s of years of Chinese research and development.

The answers to your question, which are neither simple nor short, can be found in Joseph Needham's magesterial multivolumed work Science and Civilization in China. Most good libraries should have the first three volumes.

 

[nannoh]

The answers to your question, which are neither simple nor short, can be found in Joseph Needham's magesterial multivolumed work Science and Civilization in China. Most good libraries should have the first three volumes.

Many thanks honorable selfAdjoint!

 

[Kinn Sein]

"One does not find intricate systems of Metaphysics and logic there as one can in ancient Greece and ancient India. Buddhism there is also a borrowed and assimilated phenomenon. "

How about " Taoism " ? It is a kind of Metaphysics originated in China.

 

[nesoxy]

yea, Chinese are trying too hard, they are deperate in proving the world they are better. Why, because the government has brain washed them.
Success of Chinese people will depend whether they can overthrow their communist regime. Otherwise they will be in the dark.

I was born and lived in communist country. in one communist country is very hard to have even decent labaratory so achieving some kind of science breaktrought is mission impossible. one of my best friends his grandfather invented something important, totaly new, a breaktrought machine, I am not sure what exctly. after he made it the machine was taken by the communist bureucrats and he was immedately fired from job and degraded to some stupid position. philosophy is this: if he was capapble enough to invent new machine he is very dangerous for the communist party. in china situation is the same. until they owerthrow communist regime they will only be capable of stealing western technology. in today's globalize world they are disturbing econnomy in whole, by their overpriced currency and stealing others patents.

 

[Kerrie]

How does that not support my point? It is indeed true that an impoverished and backwards society is not going to produce an Einstein because of the environmental factors that weigh against it. But that doesn't mean that the genetic makeup isn't there in a certain fraction of people - it is just that the potential doesn't get realized.

Now apply that to China today (and in 20 or 40 years): If China gets sufficiently industrialized and modernized that potential Einesteins are recognized, cultivated, and allowed to grow, then they will produce more Einsteins than anywhere else in the world.

Reduced version of the logic:

-Genetic potential for high IQ is a nearly fixed fraction of population.
-Based on environmental factors, a certain number of high IQ individuals will have their potential realized and a certain number will not.
-The West has, for a while, has been much more capable of cultivating geniuses than the East.
-China's potential for cultivating geniuses is increasing.

So - if China's potential for cultivating geniuses increases to just a small fraction of the US's potential for cultivating geniuses, China will produce more individual geniuses than the US.

don't forget about availability and access of education to these potential einsteins'

 

[selfAdjoint]

All of these discussions seem to be based on very high level stereotypes about (a)agricultural societies and (b) communist regimes.

Remember that science go its start in countries a lot more primitive technologically than we have today. I am not at all sure that more technology makes more Einsteins or Feynmanns - or Newtons or Gausses.

And the actual record of creative science in the Soviet Union belies the predjudice against them. Can you say Sakharov? Does anyone here know who Kolmogorov or Bogoliubov were?

 

[arildno]

All of these discussions seem to be based on very high level stereotypes about (a)agricultural societies and (b) communist regimes.

Remember that science go its start in countries a lot more primitive technologically than we have today. I am not at all sure that more technology makes more Einsteins or Feynmanns - or Newtons or Gausses.

And the actual record of creative science in the Soviet Union belies the predjudice against them. Can you say Sakharov? Does anyone here know who Kolmogorov or Bogoliubov were?

I know who Kolmogorov was!

And a host of other excellent mathematicians with a penchant for theoretical applied maths, like Arnold. The Russians have been on the top for decades, if not centuries.



It is saddening that so many Americans actually go around believing "they are the best".
They are confusing the specific historical trend gaining momentum from after World War 2 (or somewhat, but not much, before) in that USA bought/gave refuge to top-notch scientists from around the world with som ahistorical perspective.

It is the expensive, but excellent American science POLICY that has pushed USA to the forefront of science, rather than the backwater* it was previously (with a few notable exceptions like Gibb).

*Just make a statistic of significant impact articles by US-based scientists prior to 1940 or thereabouts.

The critical importance of brilliant immigrants like John von Neumann and Einstein (neither of whom was educated in the States) on the development of American science cannot be disputed, I think.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Um, the prewar US wasn't THAT bad. Michelson, Compton, Lawrence, Hubble... Some good names there. On the arxiv, in history of physics, there are currently two papers on how Van Vleck, working in virtual isolation at the U of Minnesota, nearly trumped Heisenberg in discovering matrix mechanics.

 

[russ_watters]

don't forget about availability and access of education to these potential einsteins'

Right, that's part of the "potential for cultivating geniuses".

And when did you sneak back in...?

 

[russ_watters]

All of these discussions seem to be based on very high level stereotypes about (a)agricultural societies and (b) communist regimes.

Remember that science go its start in countries a lot more primitive technologically than we have today. I am not at all sure that more technology makes more Einsteins or Feynmanns - or Newtons or Gausses.

And the actual record of creative science in the Soviet Union belies the predjudice against them. Can you say Sakharov? Does anyone here know who Kolmogorov or Bogoliubov were?

There wasn't any of that in my post, though there was some in follow-up posts. It isn't relevant. The USSR had a relatively high rate of finding, identifying, and cultivating special people of all types partly because of its communist government. But far and away the overriding factor differentiating the USSR from China would be poverty, and that is only loosely tied to their forms of government (in particular, China's problems go far beyond their government).

 

[navneet1990]

time is cyclic...everyone must get a fair chance to shine ...
the east had their share of the sunlight and now its the turn for the west.
one day the communism of china shall be its greatest strength... it is already growing so great...' the sun rose in the east and the east danced with knowledge. now the sun has set. and it is rising again to bathe the east again with its ray of knowledge.probably those who are born tonight will not be foolish enough like us to be blinded by the darkness and experience the light which the torch of the "daymen" shall carry for them. let us hope we are alive to watch the sun rise and live in the warmth.'