> It’s a lesson we could learn more cheaply from the sad story of the British, Spanish and other empires. It doesn’t work. You can’t stay on top if your economy doesn’t.
Kind of tongue-in-cheek - but that's a lesson I learned from playing Civilization. I know it's just a game, yadda yadda, but sometimes I do wonder how much of it translates into reality. E.g., if this was a game of Civ, China's domination would be pretty much ensured at this point: they have so many "cities" that their "production" output and "science" output will overtake anyone else's in short order.
In fact, that's how I prefer to play the game often: just build minimal defenses to make sure my cities are not conquered, and invest in growth as much as possible. Sooner or later, I'm the 800 kg gorilla of the whole Civ map.
From what I remember, the overhead of high city counts in IV can be prohibitively high. It makes more sense to scale vertically rather than horizontally. Unless, of course, you employ the State Property civic (apt!). Interestingly, China has been switching to the Free Market civic for the last couple of decades... More trade routes and more incentive to support corporations, but higher overhead for the huge city count. There's a reason why you go through revolution when you change civics.
I think the difference in the real world is one of quality. Quantitatively we may have the same or less number of factories or scientists, but the quality of our science and research is so much better I think it would be very hard for China to compete if things turned hot.
I keep hearing this repeated, and it's completely false. Even if the Chinese educational system only turns out rote memorizing robots incapable of the kind of creative, breakthrough leaps of discovery the West prides itself on and will never evolve due to cultural momentum and restraints (which I don't buy either but that's a whole nother argument), being economically dominant will enable China to build world-class research facilities and import world-class talent.
The US benefited from such a scientific talent immigration trend after WWII. The European theoretical physics community is benefiting similarly from LHC and the short-sighted cancellation of SSC. Any area of research that requires massive, long-term, blue-sky funding will be dominated by governments willing and able to provide it, and will attract the best talent from all over the world.
The major problems China will face in this instance will be the language barrier and reticence of some scientists to work for a more authoritarian, censoring government. The former is easily solved, the latter is problematic but not insurmountable - even scientists have their price and plenty would convince themselves to work under such a regime in the exact same way Google did (change it for the better by 'engaging' it), especially when the alternative is a stagnant career and dead-end research due to lack of funding elsewhere.
This conceit that many in the US and West have that the quality of our science and research is innate and unimpeachable is both ignorant and complacent. Where there's a will there's a way, and China certainly has the will.
> This conceit that many in the US and West have that the quality of our science and research is innate and unimpeachable is both ignorant and complacent.
Back when Hua Tuo in China was using anesthesia to perform surgery (the period described in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and pictured in a movie called Red Cliff by John Woo - awesome epic BTW), the West was living in huts.
I have no doubt China could build high quality centers of science and import high quality researchers - my only argument was that until this happens the sheer number of scientists in China is not a good way to measure their science production (it's just not apples-to-apples like in a Civ game).
Comments
> It’s a lesson we could learn more cheaply from the sad story of the British, Spanish and other empires. It doesn’t work. You can’t stay on top if your economy doesn’t.
Kind of tongue-in-cheek - but that's a lesson I learned from playing Civilization. I know it's just a game, yadda yadda, but sometimes I do wonder how much of it translates into reality. E.g., if this was a game of Civ, China's domination would be pretty much ensured at this point: they have so many "cities" that their "production" output and "science" output will overtake anyone else's in short order.
In fact, that's how I prefer to play the game often: just build minimal defenses to make sure my cities are not conquered, and invest in growth as much as possible. Sooner or later, I'm the 800 kg gorilla of the whole Civ map.
Is the world more like Civilization III or IV?
From what I remember, the overhead of high city counts in IV can be prohibitively high. It makes more sense to scale vertically rather than horizontally. Unless, of course, you employ the State Property civic (apt!). Interestingly, China has been switching to the Free Market civic for the last couple of decades... More trade routes and more incentive to support corporations, but higher overhead for the huge city count. There's a reason why you go through revolution when you change civics.
In Civ with the current balance of power US would be launching an all out nuclear strike against China to win the game at this stage.
If you play Civ, you should really check out victoria II. Much more realistic
http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/victoria-2
Was wondering when I would see crossover between this board and those boards!
No OS X support... :(
I used to love Europa Universals 2. Looks like paradox doesn't value mac users anymore.
I think the difference in the real world is one of quality. Quantitatively we may have the same or less number of factories or scientists, but the quality of our science and research is so much better I think it would be very hard for China to compete if things turned hot.
I keep hearing this repeated, and it's completely false. Even if the Chinese educational system only turns out rote memorizing robots incapable of the kind of creative, breakthrough leaps of discovery the West prides itself on and will never evolve due to cultural momentum and restraints (which I don't buy either but that's a whole nother argument), being economically dominant will enable China to build world-class research facilities and import world-class talent.
The US benefited from such a scientific talent immigration trend after WWII. The European theoretical physics community is benefiting similarly from LHC and the short-sighted cancellation of SSC. Any area of research that requires massive, long-term, blue-sky funding will be dominated by governments willing and able to provide it, and will attract the best talent from all over the world.
The major problems China will face in this instance will be the language barrier and reticence of some scientists to work for a more authoritarian, censoring government. The former is easily solved, the latter is problematic but not insurmountable - even scientists have their price and plenty would convince themselves to work under such a regime in the exact same way Google did (change it for the better by 'engaging' it), especially when the alternative is a stagnant career and dead-end research due to lack of funding elsewhere.
This conceit that many in the US and West have that the quality of our science and research is innate and unimpeachable is both ignorant and complacent. Where there's a will there's a way, and China certainly has the will.
> This conceit that many in the US and West have that the quality of our science and research is innate and unimpeachable is both ignorant and complacent.
Back when Hua Tuo in China was using anesthesia to perform surgery (the period described in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and pictured in a movie called Red Cliff by John Woo - awesome epic BTW), the West was living in huts.
The wheel can turn, more than once.
I have no doubt China could build high quality centers of science and import high quality researchers - my only argument was that until this happens the sheer number of scientists in China is not a good way to measure their science production (it's just not apples-to-apples like in a Civ game).
Well, it is just that the english already won by domination back in the 19th century...