This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well, it's certainly an AAQC for me, even if I'm going to quibble on a few key points:
I don't think involution is the right call for the US. Rules-based international order (or globalism) seems to have been a massive benefit to the States, even as it helped the rest of the world flourish through the currently disrupted Pax Americana, though this obviously helped competitors like China as well.
If the US wants to maintain its wealth, it will inevitably need to continue securing supply chains across the globe, including maintaining its deterrent capabilities, for issues like Ukraine where nobody (perhaps barring France) particularly wants things to go nuclear.
After all, China is investing so heavily in coal, both in terms of power plants, production, and land-based alternative routes to producers like Russia, because they're fundamentally afraid of what might happen if the US cut them off, for many things, but primarily oil, be it at the Strait of Malacca, near Japan and so on. Of course, they're also building naval power both in case they want to fight over Taiwan (pure nationalistic stupidity, there'll be little of value left, especially in terms of chip fabs, if the conflict goes hot. The US would likely prefer to evacuate Taiwanese researchers and workers and destroy the fabs rather than having them be captured, especially since the CHIPS act has been rather underwhelming).
An actual war with China, should it happen in the near-term before we have ASI (and once again, despite the stupidity involved in the implementation of CHIPS, the US still leads by a country mile when it comes to actual AI research, even if it's corporate), will almost certainly be global, regardless of whether it earns the moniker of WW3. So a US focused on industrialization (especially with full automation approaching), should aim to both to defend its shores and allies, while also producing enough raw military materiél to fight in less friendly shores).
Whatever takeoff we have till ASI, it's still in the slow phase, and while it's impossible to outright declare a victor, my money is on the US winning the race, be it through universal eudaimonia or getting us all paperclipped. Right now, China is only capable of picking a fight over Taiwan and that seems to me like a pure waste of time, and will likely be that way for the foreseeable future.
From a game theoretic perspective China has no incentive to pick a fight over Taiwan. The rates of change in technological and military power favor China. If they want a military victory, then the longer they wait the better their chances.
The US has the opposite incentives. The longer they wait, the worse. But they can’t be seen as too obviously instigating a war, so they make moves to keep the temperature high in hopes that eventually someone takes the bait and provides a causus belli. Think of the P3 that got clipped by an overzealous Chinese fighter pilot in the early aughts. Even then it was tense moment, and the US didn’t consider China a real adversary at that time. If something like that happened again a player could maneuver into a war.
A successful CHIPS act move actually increases the chances of war. If China senses that they’re no longer closing the gap then it becomes “now or never” for them. And they have far less need to manufacture a legitimate causus belli.
Not in terms of manpower which is about to take a nose dive.
More options
Context Copy link
Between China and Taiwan, sure. Between China and the US, not necessarily. Between China and the US-alliance-network that might back Taiwan, no. Particularly since more than one of those network members could enable Taiwan to achieve something like near-breakout capability, drone swarms, or other dynamics that drastically increase the costs.
The gametheoretic perspective is that China has a relatively limited window of relative disproportionate advantage, before degrading, possibly sharply.
More options
Context Copy link
Just like actual humans don't act like Homo Economicus they don't act like Homo Strategicus either. If China invades Taiwan it will be the result of internal political factions within China competing and exerting pressure, not the result of a logical decision about how best to optimize the chance of winning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When I said 'defend allies without going on global adventures' I meant taking a stand to defend Taiwan if it were attacked as opposed to isolationism - that wasn't clear in my post though. However, the US has lots of troops all over the world, that huge base in Africa that was recently closed for example. They should cut down on non-defensive missions - Syria for instance.
I reckon it would be hard to evacuate the key Taiwanese workers in time, would you leave your family behind as hostages? What kind of message does that send to the lowly infantryman if the elites are fleeing before the war begins? The machinery would be wrecked but a lot of the brainpower might fall into Chinese hands. Furthermore, Taiwan is useful for submarine bases (the Yellow Sea is quite shallow) and it controls the sea routes leading to South Korea and Japan.
Quite an important issue. If Chinese propaganda is to be believed, they've got factories that can produce 1000 cruise/anti-ship missiles per day. Well, they can produce 1000 electric cars per day so it seems mildly reasonable that they could - though they could also be lying and/or deceptive about what kind of missile they're making. When it comes to automation China is also quite strong - they install more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined.
The US does have an edge in ASI, maybe a decisive one. Demolishing the Nvidia/Google AI chip pipeline might be the only way China can catch up.
I think that if it possible to perform an evacuation, it'll be done. That's leaving aside unlikely scenarios like chinese commandos storming the parliament or a container ship spilling out drones like a clown car. I expect that many Taiwanese politicians certainly hope to not have to stick around when the CCP invades, and skilled fab workers are much more valuable.
And it doesn't necessarily have to be public. Tragic, the fab caught fire, and half the employees are missing in the midst of a war, who can say who's responsible? I don't expect the US to salt the earth unless they feel compelled to, as in it's obvious China will win. Either way, the fabs won't survive.
That's rather minor isn't it? After all, there's a reason they're concerned about their neighbors only a few dozen kilometers away across the Formosan Strait. Knocking out Taiwan eliminates an adversary, but if China wants to mess with SK and Japan they don't need Taiwan to do so.
More options
Context Copy link
One of the reasons the US has bases all over the world is so it can quickly deploy forces in defense of allies. For example, the recently-closed based in Niger was helping the government of that country (and neighboring regions) defend against ISIS and Boko Haram. Bases in the Middle East can help defend KSA, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE against Iran, Houthis, etc.. Base in Okinawa and the Philippines protect those countries from China. And so on. While I'm sympathetic to your broad view that the US has overestimated its strength and should be focused on protecting what it has, it's not clear to me that the material means of doing so are radically different. E.g., if a US ally in East Africa is attacked, the solution is sending a carrier group.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link