Impact of China's rise in the world - Long term predictions (30-50 years)


hashtagpls

Junior Member
Registered Member
If the US imposed sanctions on nations like Brazil for cutting down the rainforest, and on Japan for overfishing etc. I'd give it full credit and stop wishing for its immediate demise. They only move if/when there is an immediate short-term profit to be gained, not when they actually need to move for the greater good. The problem with Pax-Anglo-Americana has always been that their fundamental core principles are destructive, self-serving and oligarchic. It's a problem within their axiomatic civilizational ethic, and they have infected most of the planet with their principles. They have all the power to make things right, but none of the wisdom or will to do so, despite their superficial claims of benevolence.
The Anglo stewardship of the world since the 90s has been an exercise in what happens when a nation aspires for power for the sake of power without any regard to moral righteousness. As Confucian teachings put it, the morals of the state's leaders are reflected upon the state itself and nowhere is this more apparent in the corruption of the anglo oligarchs. Venal, incompetent, lazy, and possessing the maturity of an 8th grader, they behave like a irate child upending a board game when they're losing, now wishing to turn the world aflame.
 

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
If we go down that path of animosity and absolute absence of respect and understanding, consider how far those limits go?

No one is perfect. A people can accuse Bhuddists of violence in Tibet before Communists came in to remove the ruling class and their "primitive ways", take a look at how depraved the Dalai Lama's cult was and is before the ironically morally superior Commies of old came with the revolution. It's not right or wrong in any absolute term. Not necessarily better or worse. Just different until a person takes a moral position. The same way a person can accuse Japan of whaling and China of using involuntary re-education AKA concentration rape camps AKA whatever propaganda or position you wish to believe. If one chooses to believe the worst version of the story of a Han committed ethnic cleansing of Uighur minorities (hypothetical!), what about a Han person in that universe condemning aspects of Muslim culture that is different. There is no end to what people can disagree, argue, hate, and fight about.

The wisdom here is to understand and accept differences while engaging in respectful, empathic dialogue built on facts and truth. The contrast against what the west does - build their empires on actual violence, threat of violence, lies, propaganda, exaggeration, gaslighting, selective criticism, selective focus, and some more lies. The fact this is allowed and rewarded to me prove that nature or divine will is somewhat cruel even malevolent (from a human understanding). Maybe there are certain "reasons" and "lessons" behind this but that's straying far for this thread. Maybe we just can't build a decent picture within our lifespans and these questions are too myopic.

Rather than unifying on similarities or at least ignoring differences, the Anglo-US led empire wishes to divide all of their enemies through this emotional manipulation. When it comes to Chinese ways that can maybe be considered culturally unique to Chinese attitudes, it's definitely more hands off. Differences are assumed and worked with. It's the silly attempts to re-educate at worst rather than lie about and kill.

The west would rather play dialectics and dangerous and insulting mind games that will sink humanity even lower than it already is. They'll do it all while wearing that liberal democracy facade of being morally superior while their civility is exposed as delicate. I'm not questioning the fact there are decent and kind people in the west. Obviously there are everywhere. It's simply dangerous to continue this facade and continue believing in the lies. How delicate the whole thing has been exposed for years now.
 

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
The Anglo stewardship of the world since the 90s has been an exercise in what happens when a nation aspires for power for the sake of power without any regard to moral righteousness. As Confucian teachings put it, the morals of the state's leaders are reflected upon the state itself and nowhere is this more apparent in the corruption of the anglo oligarchs. Venal, incompetent, lazy, and possessing the maturity of an 8th grader, they behave like a irate child upending a board game when they're losing, now wishing to turn the world aflame.

Western powers were propelled to the front of civilisation because they had the enlightenment which brought about the industrial revolution. Something between letting go of old belief systems, questioning and rebelling against them. Something perhaps to do with simple intellectual effort of questioning and the courage to step beyond. Perhaps as simple as the old suspicion that the more collectively deluded and superstitious a civilisation/society is, the more backward and stuck as backward (in every way except maybe environmental impact) this group is doomed to be until they lose those shackles.

Western tribes/nations/empires have been at war with each other before this and after it. Only after WW2 (both WW were western nation dominated for a reason!) have western powers been at relatively uneasy peace, unified only by the clear superiority in overall power of the US and the threat of the unknown (represented by the Soviets)... hence unifying under the US umbrella.

They are well practiced at war and know war all too well for very long... much longer than the Chinese have been. Chinese were never really about warring or desired it or used it as a means of conquest. Chinese used culture, literature, technology for example and implemented "tributory" status for others they considered lower in overall power while respecting their ways, their differences, and their sovereignty. Vietnam is the exception and its northern parts long considered as "China" because they were a southern kindgom that spoke dialects identical to those from southern China ... and Mongol rule in China did see periods of conquest. I mean they did conquer China after all so yeah.

Western mindset is about conquering. Conquering others, conquering different, conquering nature. They did it to themselves and do it to others. China passed that stage since the first emperor and sort of got over that tribal warfare between lands that are literally days walk away. Unifying difference is actually a commendable thing and worthy of attention and study. Unifying by force, then by shared belief of something greater than themselves. With China, it's historically been mostly cultural and pseudo religious... more appropriately defined as cultural to be honest but hallmarks of religion - the path and general belief and devotion to living/preparing for the eternal existence, levels of Daoist "enlightenment" and is pretty much the same thing as Judeo Christian ways of old as well with detail differences.

West unified by common "enemies" they themselves allowed to become and continue as enemies (honestly it's hilarious many don't see the fault of their ways). Islamic world unified by a means that is quite similar to how the ancient Chinese world (of divided kingdoms and tribes) were unified - a base belief system of course among plenty of other smaller factors. The current EU is a step towards achieving unity. Wasn't so long ago at all when they were cussing and lying about each other and killing with horrifying enthusiasm. So EU sort of like a step towards this sense of unifying relatively minor but CLEAR differences.

The reason is because the western mindset is brought up on encouraging individuality and nearly always rewarding and promoting this. It's sometimes a good thing but very often terrible. Almost all others are brought up on being more considerate of the group and of the other. The west is about conquering the other and demonstrating superiority even if won by ill means. Chinese empire is thoroughly incapable of addressing the western attacks and problem by engaging it with the same means. It'll get beaten all the time. It cannot engage the world with its usual means because of the western exaggerations and non-stop psychological warfare mentioned before. It's already deeply rooted and cannot be overcome without much time spent expertly reversing the damage and allowing truth, understanding, and intelligence to take hold over the world. This will not happen in our lifetimes. Therefore China's rise will be limited to the tangible stuff within its own borders. The science and tech it develops and sells. The money and resources it makes and collects. The people who eventually slowly but surely have their lives improved and more opportunities granted. Convert all that into meaningful things like the ones mentioned while correcting all the errors and issues within and about China that is certainly undesirable but unfortunate and sometimes even necessary.

The western ways is basically irresponsible - constantly electing candy shop owners and salesman when they need a dentist. The Chinese way at least understands sometimes a step back in necessary and sometimes bitter medicine is necessary for the eventual greater good. Sometimes it's more dire and a matter of survival. The mindset and cultural differences are astronomical not only because our thinking and even biology evolved differently and evolved apart under different circumstances for millennia.
 
Last edited:

Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's important to quantify the issues and review their actual consequences...

I have... I suggest that you also look into these issues and their gravity, and also look at the complete unwillingness of the involved parties to pay attention to the quantifiable data, of which there is more than enough.
 

Lethe

Senior Member
If you switched China with US in the above synopsis, the plot could have come from one of Jeff Head's jingoistic war novels.

That's the problem with you people. You keep projecting Western colonial desires onto China.

Did China "hunt down" terrorists in neighboring stans following the Urumuqi massacres? Or did China work through international organizations like the SCO and strengthen its domestic policies?

Why would China bother with colonizing Australia? Ming China in the Zheng He era was the most powerful maritime nation in Asia. Did they colonize Malaysia or Indonesia? What exactly would colonizing Australia give China? Why do social experiments in a remote region with uncertain loyalty? What value would the results of such experiments have? To find better ways to oppress people?

I don't think there is any realistic comparison to be made between how China responds to an internal low-level security threat and how it would respond to an external genocidal conspiracy that kills tens of millions of Chinese citizens (and was intended to do worse). To state clearly, the notion is that certain groups have genetically engineered a virus intended to deal a fatal blow to Chinese civilisation. The anticipated response to this is that China will seek to capture or kill everyone associated with this conspiracy and that it will conduct operations across national borders to do so, such as special forces raids, airstrikes, assassinations by covert agents, etc.

My story does not anticipate that China would colonise Australia, only that it would exercise a degree of political control, akin to the USA in relation to Germany, Japan and Italy after WW2. This comes about because Australia is a defeated combatant alongside the USA in its conflict with China, and its remaining military forces are required to surrender. This is essentially intended to be read as a cautionary tale for Australia about the potential consequences of becoming too deeply enmeshed with the USA, e.g. hosting US forces, such that when the shooting starts between USA and China, Australia effectively has no choice but to be involved. I also didn't mean to suggest that China would directly "experiment" upon Australia, merely that it would regard Australia's cultural mix with interest, monitoring policies and outcomes.

Hopefully that clarifies a few things. Of course you are free to find these ideas implausible or otherwise objectionable but please remember that they are intended first and foremost as elements of an interesting story. They are not predictions, fears or hopes. If you think my ideas for China are implausible, wait till you hear about the ill-fated Napoleonic revival of Europe. :eek:
 
Last edited:

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think there is any realistic comparison to be made between how China responds to an internal low-level security threat and how it would respond to an external genocidal conspiracy that kills tens of millions of Chinese citizens (and was intended to do worse). To state clearly, the notion is that certain groups have genetically engineered a virus intended to deal a fatal blow to Chinese civilisation.

Dude, seriously!!?!

Whoever foreign agents that tried to pull this off would have been executed by their own country. I mean, just look at the numbers today. If this is how China's adversaries pull off destructive plots, we Chinese would wish them do it more often.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I don't think there is any realistic comparison to be made between how China responds to an internal low-level security threat and how it would respond to an external genocidal conspiracy that kills tens of millions of Chinese citizens (and was intended to do worse). To state clearly, the notion is that certain groups have genetically engineered a virus intended to deal a fatal blow to Chinese civilisation.

I fail to see how anyone can still seriously entertain the notion that a virus can be controlled.

Such an attack as you describe would initially cause a few thousand deaths, at most, in China, after which the Chinese would have the outbreak under control. Meanwhile, the rest of the world would be completely screwed.
 

Lethe

Senior Member
Dude, seriously!!?!

Whoever foreign agents that tried to pull this off would have been executed by their own country. I mean, just look at the numbers today. If this is how China's adversaries pull off destructive plots, we Chinese would wish them do it more often.

I think you underestimate the human capacity for evil. American plans to exterminate hundreds of millions of people with nuclear weapons long predate the ability of the Soviet Union or China to inflict the same casualties in return. It wasn't MAD that drove the Americans to develop such capabilities and make detailed plans for their execution. See also what Nazi Germany planned to do with Russia, and of course the Jewish holocaust.

The most direct inspiration for a genocidal biological warfare plot as a "final solution" to the problem posed by an ascendant China is Jack London's story 'The Unparalleled Invasion', published in 1910:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
Also "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert.

In real life history, in medieval times it was common to poison wells, and the Tatars during the time of the Black Plague broke a city by catapulting infected corpses into a town they were besieging. So biological warfare is not particularly new.
 

Top