Please take the time to read the actual content before commenting…
“The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
21–30 of 87 posts
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#22Notably absent: any thoughts on being reliant on the United States :-)
[deleted]
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#23The comments in this thread are kneejerk responses to the quote in the OP, which is silly because if you people had just clicked the link you'd realise that the report is mainly focused on China. We are _all_ too reliant on China and addressing the issue is not "nationalistic" or "North Korean juche" or the other rubbish I've read ITT so far.
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#24Average citizens, OTOH, regret Brexit and wish they were more integrated into the EU:
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/brexit-buyers-remorse-over-50-10...
I guess we'll see how that shakes out
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/britain-br...
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#25Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…
But let’s also not throw out the baby with the bathwater in the _opposite_ direction. We should not be reliant on Russia for energy to such an extent that our economy gets destroyed when a Russian tyrant goes on an ego trip. We should not be allowing Chinese entities to own our energy infrastructure. We should not be allowing foreign nationals to buy up massive amounts of property in London with shady money, distorti…
We should not be reliant on fossil fuels for energy, period. There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that extracting, transporting, storing, and burning all that poisonous crap is very bad for humankind.
The sooner we move to other sources (fusion (!), solar, wind, etc.), the better for humankind. However, companies that make money from fossil fuels don't want that, and for the past four decades they've had the political and economic cloud to slow down or even stop progress.
We have such "single points of failure" in the global economy because we have allowed market power to become highly concentrated, nationally and globally, without any checks and balances.
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#26While there is certainly some truth and wisdom to this view, it also worries me. I see the increasing globalization and interdependence of the modern world as one of the major reasons for the decrease in armed conflicts. You are a lot less likely to attack someone who is a trade partner. There is a saying that “there has never been an armed conflict between two nations that both had a McDonald’s”. Russia has broken t…
Besides preventing conflict, globalization was supposed to increase democracy in the world. Increasing trade relations with China was in part to make them more democratic, as the theory was the more prosperous a nation is, the more democratic they become. I think we got it backwards. Now we know it doesn’t work, and this historic reason for globalization is moot.
If you ever visited China 20 years ago and now, you may have noticed the change in openness, though.
The first time I went, I was confined to limited areas, and had to be followed by a state appointed guide for my entire trip. I couldn't kiss my girlfriend in the street, it was considered bad behavior.
Now, I can just go alone, and where I please, and demonstrations of affection are not as frown upon. Women also seem have more freedom than before.
China was always a dictatorship, but I would say it looks more free that it used to be, at least from my very limited external point of view.
Now, China is still corrupted, with massive informational control. And it also became terribly polluted, and under systematic automatic surveillance, so I'm not sure it balances out, but it's not like there is an objective scale to those things.
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#27The comments in this thread are kneejerk responses to the quote in the OP, which is silly because if you people had just clicked the link you'd realise that the report is mainly focused on China. We are _all_ too reliant on China and addressing the issue is not "nationalistic" or "North Korean juche" or the other rubbish I've read ITT so far.
IMO that’s also a kneejerk response.
There are dangers to our already-declining reliance on China, but also benefits. The big one is that countries with deeply entangled economies rarely go to war with each other. A world where we don’t rely on China for anything is a world where we are more likely at war with them.
“Security means not depending on anyone else” is just off-the-grid survivalism writ large. It’s true in some very narrow sense, but it is also naive to think it’s even possible, especially while continuing to pursue any other goals.
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#28Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…
Wisdom comes from searching for balance. Slogans and absolutisms are designed to tap frustrations to manipulate the masses.
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#29Reads like a slogan for anti-globalization and nationalism. As with all slogans, it ignores important details that contradict it. Over the past four decades, our current global economic system, promoting economic integration and interdependence between countries, has lifted billions out of poverty.[a][b] Billions. No sensible discussion of globalization can ignore that . The current backlash is not against globalizat…
There’s also (4) dependence on other, potentially hostile regimes on “national security” imports/products like steel, chips, oil, energy, …
Yes, but keep in mind that we find ourselves here due to the rising concentration of market power in fewer and fewer global mega corporations (e.g., TSMC in chips). Over the past four decades, there have been few checks and balances on the concentration of corporate power, both at the national and global levels.
Re: “The more reliant we are on others, the less resilient we are as a nation”
#30I’m going to have to disagree with the core premise here. At face value, this article implies that if we all just live alone in the woods and hunt and grow our own food, that somehow we will be stronger as a people. The irony here is that this is coming from a post made on the internet. The internet is comprised of a large network of servers and infrastructure that isn’t possible without relying heavily on the labour…
At a granular level, the earth can't produce enough food for all of us to live by subsistence, without technologies that require a relatively sophisticated society just to function. For example, more than half of the world's animal population is sustained by the Haber process.