Western hostile forces and a small number of "ideological traitors" in our country use the network, and relying on computers, mobile phones and other such information terminals, maliciously attack our Party, blacken the leaders who founded the New China, vilify our heroes, and arouse mistaken thinking trends of historical nihilism, with the ultimate goal of using "universal values" to mislead us, using "constitutional democracy" to throw us into turmoil, use "colour revolutions" to overthrow us, use negative public opinion and rumours to oppose us, and use "de-partification and depoliticization of the military" to upset us.
Just reminds me a lot of the discussions you have had on here with many members.
muy_thaiguy wrote:Meant more alone this paragraph than anything.
Western hostile forces and a small number of "ideological traitors" in our country use the network, and relying on computers, mobile phones and other such information terminals, maliciously attack our Party, blacken the leaders who founded the New China, vilify our heroes, and arouse mistaken thinking trends of historical nihilism, with the ultimate goal of using "universal values" to mislead us, using "constitutional democracy" to throw us into turmoil, use "colour revolutions" to overthrow us, use negative public opinion and rumours to oppose us, and use "de-partification and depoliticization of the military" to upset us.
Just reminds me a lot of the discussions you have had on here with many members.
I would be fascinated to see which of my posts you think bears even that slightest resemblance to that paragraph.
mrswdk wrote:How would US-style democracy, UK-style democracy or German-style democracy be conducive to China's continued growth and development?
Do you believe that economic growth ought to be China's foremost priority?
Yes. Aside from the fact that China still has something like 80-100 million people living in absolute poverty, its current level of economic development makes it overly dependent on exporting to other countries, vulnerable to external shocks. In order to successfully move from being a manufacturing economy to being a more self-sufficient, consumption-drive one, it needs to grow and get richer, and migrant workers working in factories for a couple of hundred dollars a month don't tend to do much shopping.
Allowing growth to slow to a crawl would rob hundreds of millions of people of the future prosperity they were looking forward to, as well as leaving China locked into its status as a middle income, manufacturing economy. China has more issues than just its economy, but its not going to be able to tackle them properly until it develops further.
notyou2 wrote:They should set their minds to pollution control measures instead of building 57 story buildings in 19 days.
They are. For several years already China has become the world's foremost investor in renewable energy, recycling, etc. If you read european economic news, you can read every month how 'green' european businesses are venturing into China because of the enormous contracts offered in the country.
notyou2 wrote:Their pollution control measures seem faulty
Not especially, it's mostly just an unfinished project. It is much more time and money consuming to restore nature and build up a round economy, than it is to destroy nature and build a linear economy.
notyou2 wrote:Their pollution control measures seem faulty
Not especially, it's mostly just an unfinished project. It is much more time and money consuming to restore nature and build up a round economy, than it is to destroy nature and build a linear economy.
Are you trying to say that the change from coal plants to solar isn't instantaneous? Total fucking bullshit. Obviously you never played Sim City.
notyou2 wrote:Their pollution control measures seem faulty
Not especially, it's mostly just an unfinished project. It is much more time and money consuming to restore nature and build up a round economy, than it is to destroy nature and build a linear economy.
Are you trying to say that the change from coal plants to solar isn't instantaneous? Total fucking bullshit. Obviously you never played Sim City.
Actually I have played Sim City, not Sim City 2 though, heard too many bad things about it.
And I'm not merely talking about solar pannels or most other renewable energies. You need to rebuild your buildings to improve the insulation, you need to build a cultural mindset towards seperating your garbage for recycling, you need to re-design your products, you need to re-design your production lines, you need to build up a working environmental inspection organization, you need to actively clean what is already sullied, you need to build up the necessary legislation, etc. Many western european nations have been doing this for 10-20 years now and are still not where they should be. China still has a long way to go, but it's a good thing they are at least trying to change. The US should take notes on this.
Lol china (and india and the US, hell anyone with more than 200 mill people) will never have a clean energy system, there are simply too many people. We just have to hope dearly that we* are wrong with our climate science
* we being those who are concerned about carbon emissions.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:Lol china (and india) will never have a clean energy system, there are simply too many people. We just have to hope dearly that we* are wrong with our climate science
* we being those who are concerned about carbon emissions.
You got a point. Personally I think it's only a matter of time before mass starvations occur in that part of the world. Food prices are projected to rise on the long term and there is very little that can change that.
Lootifer wrote:Energy intensity seems to drop off around 25-30 kWh/day/per capita.
That would imply China still need to double their electricity generation (India need something absurd like 5 times current generation capability).
Building the infrastructure is not really the problem for China. It's the resources. Large portions of their energy plans rely on nuclear energy. Unfortunately uranium, though far from depleted, might not make it to the required annual production. Peak production remains speculative, but a negative scenario could prove eonomic and social disaster.
I was not referring to capacity (infrastructure), I was referring to energy consumption. You make one example of uranium limitations, but even if that doesn't constrain them, then coal will, or gas, or steel/silicon for wind/solar, or carbon emissions, or whatever.
The ongoing energy requirements for India and China, if they continue to work towards first world quality of life standards, are insane. 100% batshit, unsustainable, mind boggling insane.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:Lol china (and india and the US, hell anyone with more than 200 mill people) will never have a clean energy system, there are simply too many people. We just have to hope dearly that we* are wrong with our climate science
* we being those who are concerned about carbon emissions.
Why would having more people make it more difficult to develop a clean energy system?
Numbers game really. Clean energy is a finite resource, and there is too many people in the world to supply them all. We can probably supply them all, but its gonna take a lot of not-so-clean tech to get us there.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:Numbers game really. Clean energy is a finite resource, and there is too many people in the world to supply them all. We can probably supply them all, but its gonna take a lot of not-so-clean tech to get us there.
Wind, tidal flows and the sun are finite resources?
And in any case:
there is too many people in the world to supply them all. We can probably supply them all
Lootifer wrote:Numbers game really. Clean energy is a finite resource, and there is too many people in the world to supply them all. We can probably supply them all, but its gonna take a lot of not-so-clean tech to get us there.
Wind, tidal flows and the sun are finite resources?
And in any case:
there is too many people in the world to supply them all. We can probably supply them all
Lootifer wrote:Numbers game really. Clean energy is a finite resource, and there is too many people in the world to supply them all. We can probably supply them all, but its gonna take a lot of not-so-clean tech to get us there.
Wind, tidal flows and the sun are finite resources?
There's not many places with enough reliable sunshine to make solar farms practical. Similary, while tides might be a worldwide phenomenon, there's only a few places where the local tidal drop is large enough to exploit. Furthermore, most of these places are also very important areas for commercially-exploited fish stocks, so it's entirely possible that tidal energy is just substituting one form of environmental damage for another.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
