Is it your personal view, as some other historical-social analysts have hoped, that China's cultural roots being quite different to all the other extant western civilisations that are more or less based upon Roman models of paranoid Empire, when/if they achieve ascendency, they might behave differently and create a better psychic, diplomatic and nodal world?
The historical evidence is clear: China has no record of military action outside its traditional territories except Korea in 1951, when threatened by MacArthur (operating against express wishes of Truman) and 3wks in 1978 or so when intruded briefly into Vietnam in support of Cambodia, and was sent home with a blood nose. World domination is not part of their national psyche, as this NSS states for US (nice of them to admit it at last). I think the Chinese fear of chaos is so great that it would paralyse them. Also, they know perfectly well that if they want something, they can buy it for 1% of the cost of going to war to get it. Chinese were merchants long before they were militarists. The puerile stance of the Australian government, that China is a military threat to this country and we must spend half a trillion protecting ourselves against them is ridiculous beyond words. They're realists, they know we will sell them anything they want dirt cheap and that they could not sustain military action this far from their bases.
Nonetheless, surely your biocognitive model also applies in China too? China's meteoric rise has put in place growth for decades to come even if their next leadership are fools, at some point for the Chinese leadership taking 'effective World hegemony' will be like plucking sweets from a baby.
Will they do that? Who could possibly know without a crystal ball or Tardis to hand.
But unless they start on an updated version of the Mongol Empire's 'Population readjustment policies', it is hard to imagine they could be WORSE than the transatlantic empire anyway.
The biocognitive model says that we have this strong biological urge but it is NOT an absolute, such as needing to breathe, eat, drink etc. We can turn it off and delay it if we choose, but training for such measures (it's called civilisation) must start young. I think the Chinese mostly do that whereas a very significant and influential part of the US population are trained to believe they can do what they like and the rest of the world can get fugged. Just this year, Trump has said he wants Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, Gaza and now most of Venezuela, and nobody says anything. If my kids said "I want that," they were told "No, you can't have that, you have to wait your turn, be satisfied with your things and learn to share..." Read that NSS from this point of view: they are saying "We can do what we like and you have to fall into line or we'll smash you." That is not compatible with the survival of the planet.
There are, of course, people in China with that attitude to dominate, but their 'communist' (Ie civil society-based govt) system perhaps dissuades or weeds them out - considerably more than the "Christian" Western systems do, anyway.
Whether that would change - Denmark's famous 'Jander's Law" (Where citizens are frowned upon for thinking they are "better" than anyone else, for both good and ill), has also greatly weakened in recent decades, due to 'modern' influences (Such as western corporate media fx) - if China become completely dominant is another question, for another generation. Every solution becomes the next problem to navigate.
An interesting perspective of the cultural differences between two contrasting powers. China has had a long tradition of elevating the very best minds to top administrative positions. Us administrators are also capable, but dominated by racketeers who either buy power or who are for sale.
China's values might now be less alien to to us those being lived out by the strategic partner that we 'had to have'.
I agree with Niall. China will continue to get its way through commerce rather than military force
I generally think the same. I'm not disagreeing with Niall, just probing for his thoughts on major developments.
BTW, the UK also used be run by the 'Wisest and trained', in the form of the civil service, trained in schools and colleges devoted to that task (China has the great advantage that has not devolved into a Class system and can take the best from all of society). The UK's system was undermined by Murdochian media promoting braindead reactionaryism through airwaves and print. Now fleaweight morons like Liz Truss and BloJo can fire senior civil servants at a whim if they oppose their BS policies, based upon HIGHLY rigged 'election' results. And the quality of the bureaucracy has devolved as well, by all accounts.
TBH, given a choice right now, I'd put Russia China and Iran in charge of a UN body that oversees global development and disarmament, dissolve NATO, and force western corporate media (At a minimum) to turn into cooperatives.
Thing is, power attracts the corrupt, and any concentration of power has the same result.
Is it your personal view, as some other historical-social analysts have hoped, that China's cultural roots being quite different to all the other extant western civilisations that are more or less based upon Roman models of paranoid Empire, when/if they achieve ascendency, they might behave differently and create a better psychic, diplomatic and nodal world?
The historical evidence is clear: China has no record of military action outside its traditional territories except Korea in 1951, when threatened by MacArthur (operating against express wishes of Truman) and 3wks in 1978 or so when intruded briefly into Vietnam in support of Cambodia, and was sent home with a blood nose. World domination is not part of their national psyche, as this NSS states for US (nice of them to admit it at last). I think the Chinese fear of chaos is so great that it would paralyse them. Also, they know perfectly well that if they want something, they can buy it for 1% of the cost of going to war to get it. Chinese were merchants long before they were militarists. The puerile stance of the Australian government, that China is a military threat to this country and we must spend half a trillion protecting ourselves against them is ridiculous beyond words. They're realists, they know we will sell them anything they want dirt cheap and that they could not sustain military action this far from their bases.
I agree.
Nonetheless, surely your biocognitive model also applies in China too? China's meteoric rise has put in place growth for decades to come even if their next leadership are fools, at some point for the Chinese leadership taking 'effective World hegemony' will be like plucking sweets from a baby.
Will they do that? Who could possibly know without a crystal ball or Tardis to hand.
But unless they start on an updated version of the Mongol Empire's 'Population readjustment policies', it is hard to imagine they could be WORSE than the transatlantic empire anyway.
The biocognitive model says that we have this strong biological urge but it is NOT an absolute, such as needing to breathe, eat, drink etc. We can turn it off and delay it if we choose, but training for such measures (it's called civilisation) must start young. I think the Chinese mostly do that whereas a very significant and influential part of the US population are trained to believe they can do what they like and the rest of the world can get fugged. Just this year, Trump has said he wants Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, Gaza and now most of Venezuela, and nobody says anything. If my kids said "I want that," they were told "No, you can't have that, you have to wait your turn, be satisfied with your things and learn to share..." Read that NSS from this point of view: they are saying "We can do what we like and you have to fall into line or we'll smash you." That is not compatible with the survival of the planet.
There are, of course, people in China with that attitude to dominate, but their 'communist' (Ie civil society-based govt) system perhaps dissuades or weeds them out - considerably more than the "Christian" Western systems do, anyway.
Whether that would change - Denmark's famous 'Jander's Law" (Where citizens are frowned upon for thinking they are "better" than anyone else, for both good and ill), has also greatly weakened in recent decades, due to 'modern' influences (Such as western corporate media fx) - if China become completely dominant is another question, for another generation. Every solution becomes the next problem to navigate.
https://www.afr.com/world/asia/china-is-run-by-engineers-and-the-us-by-too-many-lawyers-20250818-p5mnoq
An interesting perspective of the cultural differences between two contrasting powers. China has had a long tradition of elevating the very best minds to top administrative positions. Us administrators are also capable, but dominated by racketeers who either buy power or who are for sale.
China's values might now be less alien to to us those being lived out by the strategic partner that we 'had to have'.
I agree with Niall. China will continue to get its way through commerce rather than military force
I generally think the same. I'm not disagreeing with Niall, just probing for his thoughts on major developments.
BTW, the UK also used be run by the 'Wisest and trained', in the form of the civil service, trained in schools and colleges devoted to that task (China has the great advantage that has not devolved into a Class system and can take the best from all of society). The UK's system was undermined by Murdochian media promoting braindead reactionaryism through airwaves and print. Now fleaweight morons like Liz Truss and BloJo can fire senior civil servants at a whim if they oppose their BS policies, based upon HIGHLY rigged 'election' results. And the quality of the bureaucracy has devolved as well, by all accounts.
TBH, given a choice right now, I'd put Russia China and Iran in charge of a UN body that oversees global development and disarmament, dissolve NATO, and force western corporate media (At a minimum) to turn into cooperatives.
Thing is, power attracts the corrupt, and any concentration of power has the same result.