China's Historic First Human Space Mission: A New Space Race?

[Dissident Dan]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/976744.asp?0cv=CA00

GOBI DESERT, China, Oct. 15 — China launched its first human space mission on Wednesday, becoming the third country to send people into orbit. The flight repeats a feat that the Soviet Union and the United States first achieved four decades ago.

 

[Zero]

Go China!

 

[Jonathan]

Yeah Zero, that's what we want, an evil communist dictatorship with access to outer space. And i don't want to hear that they're democratic. If I'm Hitler, but tell you all I'm jaques charaque (don't know how to spell french names, I'm referring to the pres of france), that don't make it true, I'd still be Hitler.

 

[Adam]

Jonathan

... evil...

Care to explain this little chunk of pure ignorance?

... communist...

It's not communist.

... dictatorship...

It's not a dictatorship.

 

[Zero]

Who cares about the politics? Space travel is always cool, baby!

 

[Njorl]

Adam,

China is ruled by the Chinese communist party. It has outlawed all other political parties. Despite well publicised capitalist experiments, the vast majority of all industry is state owned and controlled. In what way, shape or form is China not communist?

While China is not a traditional one-man dictatorship, it is certainly a dictatorship of the communist party elite.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

BTW, 'evil' is a term often used in place of rational thinking, and I dislike its use in most political situations...unless someone has voted for incestuous infant canibalism or something!

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Njorl
Adam,

China is ruled by the Chinese communist party. It has outlawed all other political parties. Despite well publicised capitalist experiments, the vast majority of all industry is state owned and controlled. In what way, shape or form is China not communist?

While China is not a traditional one-man dictatorship, it is certainly a dictatorship of the communist party elite.

Njorl

Despite propaganda over the past few decades, it is not communism when the government owns and runs the state assets. The word "communism" comes from "communis". Communism is when the people own and control the state assets. When the government controls state assets, it is socialism. China is a socialist state.

 

[Njorl]

...and "gay" means light-hearted and happy!

Sorry Adam, that definition of communism has not been current for about 150 years. What you describe is 'Utopian Socialism'. Interestingly, those known as utopian socialists in the 19th century did call it communism. In the middle of the 19th century, those known as communists were divided into those who believed in social determinism (utopian socialists) and economic determinism (Marxists). As the struggle between working class and ruling class became violent, the utopians, not wanting to be persecuted, stopped referring to themselves as communists. The successful revolution in Russia forced a further change in the meaning of communism. The Russian situation was inconsistant with Marx's predictions. Lenin's success gave him the authority to rewrite the communist philosophy as he saw fit.

Maybe your use of 'communism' is more logical, and is the original meaning of the word, but the point of language is communication.

Njorl

 

[Adam]

Sure, language evolves. But "Gimme mo money ho" is not English. Sometimes words have meanings. Communism, commune, communal, community... See a common thread? I'll stick with the real meaning.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Yeah Zero, that's what we want, an evil communist dictatorship with access to outer space. And i don't want to hear that they're democratic. If I'm Hitler, but tell you all I'm jaques charaque (don't know how to spell french names, I'm referring to the pres of france), that don't make it true, I'd still be Hitler.

I hope your Ivory Tower isn't in the United States. Because those with glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Nereid]

Njorl: Despite well publicised capitalist experiments, the vast majority of all industry is state owned and controlled.

If 'industry' is defined in the narrow sense of 'heavy industry and oil & gas', you may be right. However, from the economic (as in 'economics') perspective, state ownership in China is modest and declining, certainly well below 50% of all economic activity. 'Control' is a more slippery concept; with some notable exceptions, the state exercises no more control in China than it does in most developing economies.

 

[GENIERE]

BTW, 'evil' is a term often used in place of rational thinking, and I dislike its use in most political situations...unless someone has voted for incestuous infant cannibalism or something!

Well Zero you can certainly call China “Evil” as even today infant cannibalism is practiced. Do a Google for “China cannibalism” and find many entries, including some with price lists for body parts.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Nereid
If 'industry' is defined in the narrow sense of 'heavy industry and oil & gas', you may be right. However, from the economic (as in 'economics') perspective, state ownership in China is modest and declining, certainly well below 50% of all economic activity. 'Control' is a more slippery concept; with some notable exceptions, the state exercises no more control in China than it does in most developing economies.

State owned and controlled production is 34%
State owned collectively controlled production is 10%
Local government controlled production is 30%
Individually owned pruduction is 11%
Publicly traded production 1s 14%

Njorl

 

[Nereid]

Source?

 

[Njorl]

I'll see if I can find it online somewhere. I had read it a few days ago.

Njorl

Edited to add -> This site has info up to 1993 on table 5, but it looks like they lumped together state and local collectives.
http://www.pitt.edu/~ibcmod/journal/articles/huang.html

Edited again ->This site looks like it drew from the same source that I recall, the China statistical yearbook. It also has interesting points to make about the Chinese economy. While technically communist (or socialist if you insist) because much industry is state owned, they are letting market forces set prices.
http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e19/putter.htm

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Well Zero you can certainly call China “Evil” as even today infant cannibalism is practiced. Do a Google for “China cannibalism” and find many entries, including some with price lists for body parts.

Well that's absolutely horrible! And since I read it on the internet it must be true! Did you hear about the Guatemalans? They like to rape nuns and drink puppy blood.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW, 'evil' is a term often used in place of rational thinking, and I dislike its use in most political situations...unless someone has voted for incestuous infant canibalism or something!

Hang on while I run a search for the words "bush" and "evil" appearing in the same post...

 

[RageSk8]

China has a horrible civil rights record - I have no problem with hoping "democracy" replaces the current political system.

 

[Njorl]

Calling nations evil is silly and pointless. Nations evolve according to geopolitical and cultural pressures. The Chinese government is ruthless, oppressive and fervently nationalistic. Have they ever had any contact with other nations that would have influenced them to be any other way? The treatment of Chinese people by the western powers, Japan and Russia is one of the most disgraceful episodes of human history. They will bear a grudge for a very long time. Yes, they are brutal, but can we lecture them about brutality after British opium wars, or the German ambassador decided to use Chinese peasants for target practice, or the Rape of Nanking.

Njorl

 

[recon]

Well, I still think that them being able to send astronauts up to space was a big accomplishment, considering that they did it mostly without any outside help (at least that's what the October Issue of the Scientific American said). My country still has a long time to go before it even starts to think about sending a SATELLITE or UNMANNED spacecraft into space.

Go taikonaut!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Hang on while I run a search for the words "bush" and "evil" appearing in the same post...

Do you mind staying on topic?

 

[RageSk8]

They will bear a grudge for a very long time. Yes, they are brutal, but can we lecture them about brutality after British opium wars, or the German ambassador decided to use Chinese peasants for target practice, or the Rape of Nanking.

Of course we can lecture them! The history of Western civilization is full of horrible things, this is important to recognize, but quite frankly it is irrelevant to moral judgments about China today. Suicide bombers are created by political and religious realities, it is important to understand this, but that should not stop us from speaking out against and attempting to stop suicide bombings. Likewise with China, the history of China is important to understand, it is important to recognize the West's role in bringing about China's current political reality, but that should not stop us from condemning and working to change that political reality.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by recon
Well, I still think that them being able to send astronauts up to space was a big accomplishment, considering that they did it mostly without any outside help (at least that's what the October Issue of the Scientific American said). My country still has a long time to go before it even starts to think about sending a SATELLITE or UNMANNED spacecraft into space.

Go taikonaut!

 

[Jonathan]

I find you all to be less extreme to my comment than I was expecting. I'm sorry I didn't show up sooner, I didn't expect this much activity. I think I generally agree with RageSk8 and Njorl. Now as to Zero and Russ, think you both have a good point. We do need to be careful how we throw around the word evil, but we must admit the the Chinese Gov't doesn't treat its people well. Russ also has a good point bringing up what might be a bit of hypocracy there. I do believe that no matter the topic, if hypocracy in someone's argument can be pointed out, it serves the debate of the original topic. Yes, my use of the words communist and dictatorship were a little vague, but as I think Njorl (was it?) pointed out, though it's not accurate, it's pretty much correct. I do disagree with Njorl in that one's national past of being mistreated is no excuse to misbehave now, though it will give you a disposition towards that in the case of the Chinese.

 

[Njorl]

Of course we can lecture them!

I probably should have said should we lecture them.

I believe that any discourse delivered from a stance of moral superiority will fall flat. I don't claim that China's past is an excuse for their excesses, I claim it is a reason for them. Any attempts to dictate internal policies to China will be seen in the light of this history, and so will be counterproductive. I believe that it is a good thing to try to change China's behavior, but confrontation, even restricted to diplomatic and economic confrontation, will not be effective until they gain a greater understanding of the west, and have less suspicion of our motives.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I find you all to be less extreme to my comment than I was expecting. I'm sorry I didn't show up sooner, I didn't expect this much activity. I think I generally agree with RageSk8 and Njorl. Now as to Zero and Russ, think you both have a good point. We do need to be careful how we throw around the word evil, but we must admit the the Chinese Gov't doesn't treat its people well. Russ also has a good point bringing up what might be a bit of hypocracy there. I do believe that no matter the topic, if hypocracy in someone's argument can be pointed out, it serves the debate of the original topic. Yes, my use of the words communist and dictatorship were a little vague, but as I think Njorl (was it?) pointed out, though it's not accurate, it's pretty much correct. I do disagree with Njorl in that one's national past of being mistreated is no excuse to misbehave now, though it will give you a disposition towards that in the case of the Chinese.

I think we've established in another threat that no country truly occupies some sort of moral high ground. China certainly has its flaws, but that hasn't stopped American companies from spending huge amounts of money there, and moving lots of jobs there. If are really anyi-China, boycott WalMart.

 

[Zero]

Now, let's talk about the Chinese in space already! It could certainly mean a huge advance in some forms of science, especially with the fresh perspective of a new space program. This could be an exciting time!

 

[FZ+]

From the political perspective, I just hope the folks in power - particularly with the US see the chinese space programme as an opportunity to encourage greater openness and cooperation, as NASA did during the later years of the Soviet union. Reacting to it all as a threat (OMG, evil godless communists in space! Maybe they are building nukes up there!), as some neo-cons do, isn't going to help anyone.

 

[Jonathan]

Zero: I do prefer not to buy things made in China.
FZ+:They are evil, if I may use such a broad and vague term, and we don't know that they aren't planning to put nukes up there.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Zero: I do prefer not to buy things made in China.
FZ+:They are evil, if I may use such a broad and vague term, and we don't know that they aren't planning to put nukes up there.

Of course they are...after all, America plans on taking over the world, so why wouldn't some other country want to take a shot at it?

 

[Jonathan]

I sense a hint of sarcasm...but in all truth a capitalist economy will eventually die if it does not get the expansion it craves. But we shouldn't take over the world. We should take over the uninhabited areas of outer space. Now Zero, just in case you meant that literally, since one man can only control (to some extent) the US for 8 years, and that's not enough to take over the world, esp. if the people don't want to (because then they will impeach him), then the US cannot possibly be planning to take over the world. Unless of course there is a massive conspiracy, in which case I better shut up before 'they' read this.
Now, back to the Chinese and outer space. First, what new perspectives might they bring? What new technologies? Actually, if Clinton did, as some alledge, sell military secrets to the Chinese for campaign money, then how much of this is really their accomplishment? If it is true, can they really bring much of anything to the table, since they would probably have only incomplete information, and not everything we know?

 

[Zero]

Wow...weird Clinton lies and a lack of understanding of how government works...cool! Dude, no lie, the plan to take over the world is currently under way, right out in the open, disguised in mildly complicated language. And, the folks in charge of it belong to no one administration, but exist in the think tanks which advise political parties. Do a little reading on PNAC, and read their views with my frame of mind as a guide.
And, even if China starts with the technology from other countries, they are liable to do something different, simply because their needs, resources, and goals will be different.

 

[russ_watters]

Ahh yes, the old excruciatingly slow (or depending on your timeframe, backwards) plan to take over the world.

I'll be ok though because I'm a Stonecutter and a Skull.

In any case, this is a new conspiracy theory to me. Does this one parallel some of the dozen or so others or just take over where they left off (faded away)? Every American president has one, then there are the ones that are more general (the slow-moving, multi-century conspiracies).

Edit:
Ok, after reading the WEBSITE, I'd say this can be categorized as a trans-Reagan era conspiracy theory. Medium timeframe.

edit:
Or did you mean http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~ryanm6/webring.htm PNAC?

 

[Nereid]

China - size of the private sector

Njorl, quoting some 1993 data on the state/private composition of the Chinese economy:
State owned and controlled production is 34%
State owned collectively controlled production is 10%
Local government controlled production is 30%
Individually owned pruduction is 11%
Publicly traded production is 14%

I found the following from an article in The Economist, dated 6 April, 2000:

So just how well has the private sector done since its first, tentative and often disguised reappearance? Splendidly, by all accounts; but measuring its size is tricky. In the absence of hard data, estimates have depended largely on analysts’ views about China’s prospects at any particular moment. At the height of the euphoria about China in the early 1990s, some observers—including The Economist—thought the private sector might already account for as much as 75% of the economy. That was far too optimistic, and the mood may have swung too violently in the opposite direction: some people now put the private sector at only 25% of total output. More considered work by the China Economic Quarterly (CEQ), an independent publication, puts the private sector somewhere between those two extremes, at a little over half of the economy. If true, that would still be a considerable accomplishment for a form of ownership that two decades ago did not exist.

The article goes on to examine each sector in some detail - farming, industry and construction, and services; each has its own characteristics, and the article concludes that the private sector will continue to expand, with the state likely to reserve certain industries for itself.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ahh yes, the old excruciatingly slow (or depending on your timeframe, backwards) plan to take over the world.

I'll be ok though because I'm a Stonecutter and a Skull.

In any case, this is a new conspiracy theory to me. Does this one parallel some of the dozen or so others or just take over where they left off (faded away)? Every American president has one, then there are the ones that are more general (the slow-moving, multi-century conspiracies).

Edit:
Ok, after reading the WEBSITE, I'd say this can be categorized as a trans-Reagan era conspiracy theory. Medium timeframe.

edit:
Or did you mean http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~ryanm6/webring.htm PNAC?

You're cute, Russ...and using the general conservative spin technique of dismissing everything in order to avoid serious thought.

 

[GENIERE]

If Zero’s infamous one-liners are indicative of serious thought, then Russ’s posts must be considered literary masterpieces.

You're cute, Russ...and using the general conservative spin technique of dismissing everything in order to avoid serious thought.

 

[Mercator]

I live in China. I have seen the evolution since 1988 and it's spectacular, not only economicaly. The space program is another peak in the rapid development of China. The design of the cylindrical capsule was based on the Russian Soyuz, I don't think that Clinton had much to do with it, he preferred the cigar form I was told. Anyway, it is without doubt true that they have used existing technology. So what? Remember Wernher Von Braun? This also sheds a light on the political side of this issue. If it was OK that a Nazi who ACTUALLY helped Hitler to try to fulfill his dream of world domination to help the Americans develop their space program, then what is wrong with the Chinese trying to get in space? I consider it a good thing. China will gain confidence and become a real part of the rest of the world. Their emerging power is needed to restore the balance in the world so that some countries will stop invading others for fake reasons.

The economic development of China also brings along greater freedom. I will be the last one to say that China is a democracy and there is a long way to go. But if I look back on the last five years, there has been steady progress. It is a formidable task for the Chinese leader to turn a backward agrarian society into a prosperous and democratic one. I think the people who are responsible for the chaos in Iraq are not in a position to criticize the path the Chinese are taking. Jiang Zhemenin has been in power for 13 years, too long but much better than his predecessors. His power behind the screens is also much more limited. There are many more signs like this. You may call it Socialims, Communism , whatever, I call it a slow democratization process and I hope that the rest of the world will welcome it.

As for the Cannibalsim story: a few months ago an "artist" announced that he would eat a baby. There was an outrage in the Chinese press about this and the guy got arrested. Of course the internet soon after buzzed with stories and pictures about this and generalized the behaviour of this sick individual. This is a good example of the way China is treated in the minds of the people. Apparently we "whites" have still to deal with some strong prejudices about other "evil" races.

 

[GENIERE]

There’s no doubt that China is improving in all respects, but has a long way to go, especially re: individual rights. The only problem I have regarding their space program is the hypocrisy of the liberal posters on this forum. Obviously the enormous funding for the space program must reduce the availability of funds for social programs, as does the funding for the 3.5 million-man army. Presumably the large army is needed to quell rebellions in Tibet, and protect them from Nepal. The dams built on the Yangtze River were a damning offense to ecology in China, but no outcry from our green party. It seems that if a country has a communist or socialist government, it is immune to criticism from the lefties.

Question: What percent of the GNP of China is from Hong Kong?

As far as cannibalism, recently an AP news item related that a Chinese female physician and others ate aborted fetuses. She stated that it is better than allowing it to go to waste. AP indicated it was not uncommon. If I can find the item, I’ll post it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
If Zero’s infamous one-liners are indicative of serious thought, then Russ’s posts must be considered literary masterpieces.

Care to add something? OR is this going to be one-liners all the way?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
There’s no doubt that China is improving in all respects, but has a long way to go, especially re: individual rights. The only problem I have regarding their space program is the hypocrisy of the liberal posters on this forum. Obviously the enormous funding for the space program must reduce the availability of funds for social programs, as does the funding for the 3.5 million-man army. Presumably the large army is needed to quell rebellions in Tibet, and protect them from Nepal. The dams built on the Yangtze River were a damning offense to ecology in China, but no outcry from our green party. It seems that if a country has a communist or socialist government, it is immune to criticism from the lefties.

Question: What percent of the GNP of China is from Hong Kong?

As far as cannibalism, recently an AP news item related that a Chinese female physician and others ate aborted fetuses. She stated that it is better than allowing it to go to waste. AP indicated it was not uncommon. If I can find the item, I’ll post it.

Nah, boss...we still hate China, and think they are mostly dirty rats. I thought hopefully we could take a time-out from politics and say horray for space exploration, but I guess not(Funny, though, how American countries still do plenty of trade with China, and no one complains about that either..boycott Walmart!)

 

[Adam]

Cannibalism: It happens in the USA too.

State owned production: What's the problem with it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
Cannibalism: It happens in the USA too.

State owned production: What's the problem with it?

Its EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! Mostly, because it doesn't allow(on paper) the right group of people to exploit the rest of the people for their personal profit. (In reality, poor people still get screwed over so that rich people can profit, so I don't know why anyone is complaining...)

 

[Mercator]

I like your one-liners, Zero. (In combination with your style we could call them Zero-liners ) I wish I had the gift to be so concise in my thoughts.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by GENIERE
If Zero’s infamous one-liners are indicative of serious thought, then Russ’s posts must be considered literary masterpieces.

You made my day, Geniere, thanks.

Nereid, I think another complexity in the economic picture that needs to be taken into account is the relative productivity of the private vs state industries. 50% of the GDP might come from private industries, but if those industries are twice as productive as the equivalent state (very conservative - it might be 4x as productive) industries it still means that only 1/3 (if I did the math right) of the industry in the country is private.

Mercator, my problem with the Chinese space program is the same as my problem with the Soviet and American ones during the Cold War - its goal is not space exploration, its a political/military demonstration of power. Aside from that, I wish them luck.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


Mercator, my problem with the Chinese space program is the same as my problem with the Soviet and American ones during the Cold War - its goal is not space exploration, its a political/military demonstration of power. Aside from that, I wish them luck.

Well, we can be optimistic...the law of unintended consequences can work both ways, you know?

 

[FZ+]

Zero: I do prefer not to buy things made in China.
FZ+:They are evil, if I may use such a broad and vague term, and we don't know that they aren't planning to put nukes up there.

Why, so that some guy working in a sweat shop has one less meal to bring home to his family. Jeez, what moral courage.

They are not evil. They may be ruthless, they may think things very differently to how the west thinks. But evil is an idiocy, a dangerous idiocy that clouds thought. The black and white concepts of evil have absolutely no meaning.

The world isn't going to disappear if you close your eyes, and the only way to achieve positive change is to engage with them diplomatically and scientifically.

How do you know the chinese are "evil"? Have you talked to them? Read their national newspapers? Understood them? How can you even presume to make such a judgement? No, all you can do is rabble on xenophobia.

The chinese aren't inhuman.

First, what new perspectives might they bring? What new technologies?

A perspective that isn't giving up.

Face it people. The old space powers are fading. The Russian space program is pretty much dead in the water. The US one is facing cutbacks after cutbacks, hiding before public aversion to necessary risks, and costs. The Europeans one... maybe, but they are fearful to commit themselves majorly. But for the chinese, this is just the beginning. The chinese public have only just got their taste of space, they have a sense of optimism that is missing in most of the other projects. In how many other countries do space launches get full blanket media coverage?

The chinese see space as a way forward. The US and other nations have an unique control now in what path it takes.

Mercator, my problem with the Chinese space program is the same as my problem with the Soviet and American ones during the Cold War - its goal is not space exploration, its a political/military demonstration of power.

Let us suppose now that the Chinese space program is based on ulterior motives. Have you looked at any chinese news sources regarding it - from the momentum built up on it, the program is unstoppable. What this all hinges on is how we react - if we embrace them opening, and continue the post-glasnost ideals of a free and undominatable space, then we can use this to sway the entire chinese nation. For then, they must inevitably entered into international cooperation, and by that we can guide them towards a more open china. Science crosses any barrier.

But if we act paraniocally, hide defensively, we can only encourage the more conservative members of the chinese government, and perhaps bring back the days of brinksmanship. That would be bad for everyone.

Obviously the enormous funding for the space program must reduce the availability of funds for social programs, as does the funding for the 3.5 million-man army.

Or, obviously it must reduce the funding for the 3.5 million-man army.

Presumably the large army is needed to quell rebellions in Tibet, and protect them from Nepal.

Might I remind you which decade we are living in?

The dams built on the Yangtze River were a damning offense to ecology in China, but no outcry from our green party. It seems that if a country has a communist or socialist government, it is immune to criticism from the lefties.

If you do not search, you do not find.

http://www.eca-watch.org/problems/china/2003_01_17_openletter.html

Need I relate the countless AI campaigns, the endless student demonstrations, the attacks on globalisation talks? Can you open your eyes for a moment before you talk such concentrated BS?

As far as cannibalism, recently an AP news item related that a Chinese female physician and others ate aborted fetuses. She stated that it is better than allowing it to go to waste. AP indicated it was not uncommon. If I can find the item, I’ll post it.

Why not post the number of gun deaths in the US and put it down as evidence that the US is "evil"? Or how about the prevalence of incest? Or pornography?

 

[Zero]

A few myths: 1) the American liberal supports China...this is a flat-out lie, as an affirmed liberasl, I have been disgusted by China's human rights record since I was a youngun...since Tienemen Square way back when. 2) Evil is in teh eye of the beholder. Russ suggested an American-led Iraq that would likely be only a few steps away from the "evil regime" of Saddam Hussein. In his own words, it would be run with an "Iron fist".

 

[Zero]

(BTW, I agree with some of Russ's ideas of how to rule Iraq...but I percieve them as deflating the idea of Saddam Hussein being a power-hungry madman...you sort of HAVE to clamp down on a created country like Iraq.)

 

[Nereid]

Adam: State owned production: What's the problem with it?

Well, for one thing, it's very wasteful of scarce resources (compared with capitalism), and tends to create some particularly pernicious forms of corruption. Of course, privately owned means of production generates different 'wrongs'