Ok, as a non-american and non-chinese, I notice that these last few years very very often Americans say or imply that China is aggressive towards other countries, that China is at a war through technologies with the US and that it will be very bad for the US if China builds advanced AI first. Can anyone explain to me why this is the case?
American culture/philosophy/ideology is heavily influenced by Christianity and the Enlightenment (which is heavily influenced by Christianity). For example, in their independence declaration, it is said
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
Note those capital ‘Rights’ enforced by the capital ‘Creator’. This line is so common in the culture that pretty much every American has it memorized by the age of ten. And the thing is, China doesn’t have this ‘Creator’ to make ‘Rights’ unalienable. No, China is an atheist, communist, god-hating country.
This is what Americans mean when they say China has incompatible cultural values. This is even what atheist philosophers in America mean. They believe in unalienable rights, the CCP believe in the mandate of heaven. Of course, despite the existence of rights being self-evident in the American memetic programming, there is still much debate about what those rights are. However, American debates on rights skip over the practical enforcement and ask only whether people would be better off if omnipotent gods enforced particular rules. Usually the gods pass the job of enforcement to America.
In effect, Americans believe they have the mandate of heaven while not believing they believe that, while China is consciously aware of this, and believes they will eventually gain it back. You’ll see China say, “we will someday take Taiwan back, through military force is necessary,” while America says, “but you can’t do that! They have rights!”
I think the fear is that if China grows more powerful than America, America would see unalienable rights suddenly being alienated. It would force the West to rethink several centuries of Enlightenment culture and philosophy, and perhaps several millennia of Christianity.
When it comes to Americans saying China is aggressive, they say that because they legitimately believe they are right simpliciter, deus vult. They do have a history of pretty pure intentions—wanting to be a good ally or police on the international stage, not just out of their own self-interest—and they recognize China is acting primarily out of self-interest. Yes, China says they want win-win cooperation, but America is virtuous enough to settle for lose-win! I think this comes from self-sacrifice being the primary tenet of Christianity, with no comparable idea in Confucianism. So Americans excuse their aggression with, “well we are in the right, and the proof is we’re not doing it out of self-interest,” while China’s excuse, “well it was in our self—interest,” is an admittance of guilt. They are only proving that they don’t care about other countries (for some reason America finds it hard to believe China at their words, “we prefer win-win cooperation”) and so it would be very bad for other countries if China grew in power.
I suspect the downvotes are because the answer to philip_b’s question doesn’t require analysis of Christianity vs Confucianism. It’s much simpler than that. The worry is about malign behavior like Volt Typhoon and cyberwarfare more generally, not competing metaphysics of rights.
Note those capital ‘Rights’ enforced by the capital ‘Creator’.
18th century English conventionally capitalized all Nouns. That was dying out by the later part of the century, but you would still have expected it in any relatively formal document.
Also, “alienate” didn’t mean to them what you seem to think it means. It actually doesn’t mean that even now.
As for the broader point, yes, the US thinks like that a lot of the time. It’s not particularly unusual.
Also, “alienate” didn’t mean to them what you seem to think it means. It actually doesn’t mean that even now.
Generally it is good to then specify what you seem to think it and I mean, because I’m sitting here thinking, “why would you believe those are different?”
Ok, as a non-american and non-chinese, I notice that these last few years very very often Americans say or imply that China is aggressive towards other countries, that China is at a war through technologies with the US and that it will be very bad for the US if China builds advanced AI first. Can anyone explain to me why this is the case?
American culture/philosophy/ideology is heavily influenced by Christianity and the Enlightenment (which is heavily influenced by Christianity). For example, in their independence declaration, it is said
Note those capital ‘Rights’ enforced by the capital ‘Creator’. This line is so common in the culture that pretty much every American has it memorized by the age of ten. And the thing is, China doesn’t have this ‘Creator’ to make ‘Rights’ unalienable. No, China is an atheist, communist, god-hating country.
This is what Americans mean when they say China has incompatible cultural values. This is even what atheist philosophers in America mean. They believe in unalienable rights, the CCP believe in the mandate of heaven. Of course, despite the existence of rights being self-evident in the American memetic programming, there is still much debate about what those rights are. However, American debates on rights skip over the practical enforcement and ask only whether people would be better off if omnipotent gods enforced particular rules. Usually the gods pass the job of enforcement to America.
In effect, Americans believe they have the mandate of heaven while not believing they believe that, while China is consciously aware of this, and believes they will eventually gain it back. You’ll see China say, “we will someday take Taiwan back, through military force is necessary,” while America says, “but you can’t do that! They have rights!”
I think the fear is that if China grows more powerful than America, America would see unalienable rights suddenly being alienated. It would force the West to rethink several centuries of Enlightenment culture and philosophy, and perhaps several millennia of Christianity.
When it comes to Americans saying China is aggressive, they say that because they legitimately believe they are right simpliciter, deus vult. They do have a history of pretty pure intentions—wanting to be a good ally or police on the international stage, not just out of their own self-interest—and they recognize China is acting primarily out of self-interest. Yes, China says they want win-win cooperation, but America is virtuous enough to settle for lose-win! I think this comes from self-sacrifice being the primary tenet of Christianity, with no comparable idea in Confucianism. So Americans excuse their aggression with, “well we are in the right, and the proof is we’re not doing it out of self-interest,” while China’s excuse, “well it was in our self—interest,” is an admittance of guilt. They are only proving that they don’t care about other countries (for some reason America finds it hard to believe China at their words, “we prefer win-win cooperation”) and so it would be very bad for other countries if China grew in power.
EDIT: Those who disagree, why?
I suspect the downvotes are because the answer to philip_b’s question doesn’t require analysis of Christianity vs Confucianism. It’s much simpler than that. The worry is about malign behavior like Volt Typhoon and cyberwarfare more generally, not competing metaphysics of rights.
18th century English conventionally capitalized all Nouns. That was dying out by the later part of the century, but you would still have expected it in any relatively formal document.
Also, “alienate” didn’t mean to them what you seem to think it means. It actually doesn’t mean that even now.
As for the broader point, yes, the US thinks like that a lot of the time. It’s not particularly unusual.
Generally it is good to then specify what you seem to think it and I mean, because I’m sitting here thinking, “why would you believe those are different?”