Regarding the CRSS article, I make (more briefly) the same point I made in response the the Wednesday posting:
Even if it is not already too late to change "China’s resolve to move faster to achieve autonomy" - and I suspect that it is, given the recent actions of the US, including extraterritorial actions such as the pressure on ASML - the argument here seems incoherent.
If the idea is "to maintain a competitive edge", then this means allowing ("not ... preventing") China to continue to produce inferior semiconductors. Why would anyone think that attempting to consign China to a permanent inferior status would not similarly lead to attempts on the part of China to become more autonomous?
"we are now moving to public-health policymaking via leaked draft powerpoint document"
It's Lincoln's sin -- presuming the possibility of regaining unity with confederates -- in modern form.
At this point, the appropriate approach involves charging a whole lot of people with bio-terrorism, mandatory vaccination, and a whole lot else to achieve extirpation.
There are unrecoverable errors. There's been a bunch. Enough instances of unrecoverable turns into non-survivable.
Are your solutions the road to totalitarianism? I can easily see a "means justifies the ends" argument being used. The screws will need to be turned carefully to make this even halfway palatable.
For the US, I think we may finally be coming to a decision on how to deal with the apparently irreconcilable partisanship of the population. History shows that the Civil War aftermath created problems still not resolved 150 years later. It just may be better for the population[s] to hasten the end of US hegemony by allowing states to secede from the union. This will make way for China to realize its position as the global leader (ugh), something that may be inevitable eventually anyway. GB managed to [painfully] retreat from global power after WWII. Maybe the US can too, albeit without a similar-minded nation to relinquish the reins to. It is a pity we don't have neat geographical borders for the split[s] - many people may have to move to states or population centers that better suit their politics.
Near-term dystopia awaits in the wings unless sanity returns.
If you have a choice between extinction and totalitarianism, you pick totalitarianism, because that can change, and extinction can't.
The US disintegrating is a confederate objective. The idea that any of the money or slaves will be allowed to leave the territory of the reborn confederacy is risible. (If you pay attention to what people who live in those states are saying, they're not being ambiguous on this point.)
No one is going to be a global power in 2050. It's just possible we're going to keep machine civilisation. (On the odds, this present decade is the decade where all of politics collapses into food.)
You're not looking at a lack of sanity; you're looking at focused, determined, generational effort to dismiss facts because facts conflict with the construction of authority that benefits a significant group of oligarchs. Deciding a large group of people are insane is always wrong. You may not like their axioms, their ethics, or their purposes, but they're collectively pursuing what best achieves their goals. It's not going to go away on its own; it exists to keep existing.
Regarding the CRSS article, I make (more briefly) the same point I made in response the the Wednesday posting:
Even if it is not already too late to change "China’s resolve to move faster to achieve autonomy" - and I suspect that it is, given the recent actions of the US, including extraterritorial actions such as the pressure on ASML - the argument here seems incoherent.
If the idea is "to maintain a competitive edge", then this means allowing ("not ... preventing") China to continue to produce inferior semiconductors. Why would anyone think that attempting to consign China to a permanent inferior status would not similarly lead to attempts on the part of China to become more autonomous?
"we are now moving to public-health policymaking via leaked draft powerpoint document"
It's Lincoln's sin -- presuming the possibility of regaining unity with confederates -- in modern form.
At this point, the appropriate approach involves charging a whole lot of people with bio-terrorism, mandatory vaccination, and a whole lot else to achieve extirpation.
There are unrecoverable errors. There's been a bunch. Enough instances of unrecoverable turns into non-survivable.
Are your solutions the road to totalitarianism? I can easily see a "means justifies the ends" argument being used. The screws will need to be turned carefully to make this even halfway palatable.
For the US, I think we may finally be coming to a decision on how to deal with the apparently irreconcilable partisanship of the population. History shows that the Civil War aftermath created problems still not resolved 150 years later. It just may be better for the population[s] to hasten the end of US hegemony by allowing states to secede from the union. This will make way for China to realize its position as the global leader (ugh), something that may be inevitable eventually anyway. GB managed to [painfully] retreat from global power after WWII. Maybe the US can too, albeit without a similar-minded nation to relinquish the reins to. It is a pity we don't have neat geographical borders for the split[s] - many people may have to move to states or population centers that better suit their politics.
Near-term dystopia awaits in the wings unless sanity returns.
If you have a choice between extinction and totalitarianism, you pick totalitarianism, because that can change, and extinction can't.
The US disintegrating is a confederate objective. The idea that any of the money or slaves will be allowed to leave the territory of the reborn confederacy is risible. (If you pay attention to what people who live in those states are saying, they're not being ambiguous on this point.)
No one is going to be a global power in 2050. It's just possible we're going to keep machine civilisation. (On the odds, this present decade is the decade where all of politics collapses into food.)
You're not looking at a lack of sanity; you're looking at focused, determined, generational effort to dismiss facts because facts conflict with the construction of authority that benefits a significant group of oligarchs. Deciding a large group of people are insane is always wrong. You may not like their axioms, their ethics, or their purposes, but they're collectively pursuing what best achieves their goals. It's not going to go away on its own; it exists to keep existing.