Why China and India Are Now in Line for World Domination
(Last month I was interviewed by Zorana Baković , Correspondent for Asian Affairs for the Slovenian newspaper Delo. The article is behind a paywall, but here is a machine translation.)
29.06.2024., 08:38
Sobota, 29. junij 2024 Neomejen dostop | že od 9,99€
Why China and India Are Now in Line for World Domination
“Why is it China’s turn now?” This was the title of one of Jan Krikke’s essays, which made me pay attention to this Dutch publicist and journalist a few months ago. Krikke has spent most of his life outside of Europe, and he learned about Asia’s importance to the century we live in in Japan. For many years, he was a correspondent for the Dutch news agency from that country, until he moved to Thailand, where he still lives and writes for several prominent weekly newspapers. In his work, he focuses mainly on digital technology.
I asked him for an interview after reading his book Creating a Planetary Culture: European Science, Chinese Art, and Indian Transcendence, which was published last summer.
Why do you think it’s China’s turn now?
It is a combination of cultural, economic and historical factors. China has successfully combined two contradictory ideologies: socialist central planning and capitalist market liberalization. Central planning sets goals for the common good, and market liberalization allows industry and commerce to flourish.
With the reforms of the seventies under Deng Xiaoping, results became more important than ideology. And it shows. Within a single generation, China has become the largest industrial producer in the world.
The second factor is technical and organizational skills. China has traditionally had some quality elements that we usually associate with the Industrial Revolution. One such example is architecture. Chinese builders developed designs such as standardization, prefabrication, and modulation as early as more than 2,000 years ago. These designs did not appear in Europe until the 19th century. And they allowed the Chinese to build giant cities with incredible speed. In the 6th century, the capital city of Daxing spread over hundreds of square kilometers and population of one million, and it was built in a single year.
Jan Krikke
Dutch journalist and publicist. As a correspondent for a number of media outlets reported from Japan. After moving to Hong Kong, he became the editor of the online media outlet Asia 2000. He is the author of several books in which he thematizes relations between the West and the East, analyzes the cultural background of Asian countries, deals with the issues of rivalry between China and India.
In the book Creating a Planetary Culture: European Science, Chinese Art, and Indian Transcendence (2023) he addresses the question of how the various principles characteristic of Europe, India, and China from the 19th century to the present have shaped planetary culture. With When India Eclipses China (2021), he delves into both history and the future. He predicts that the future will be co-shaped by the collision of Chinese Confucianism and Indian Hinduism.
Right now, we’re all focused on artificial intelligence. How do you explain that Asian countries are much less intimidated by its penetration into all spheres?
Concerns about artificial intelligence in the West are probably a reflection of distrust in government and business. Many are concerned about the intentions of big tech companies that control artificial intelligence. Others are afraid of the capabilities that AI has. Science and cyber fiction often portray AI as having evil intentions, such as taking over the world or turning humans into slaves.
AI creates a certain ambivalence. It blurs the line between the real and the artificial. Asians are generally better at accepting ambiguity. This is because they rely on intuition rather than intellect. The Chinese simply perceive AI as a tool. AI doesn’t ask existential questions, and they take it extremely pragmatically. In some districts in China, AI is also a compulsory subject in primary schools. Educators want to pull AI out of the ivory tower.
Do you think the philosophy of yin and yang relies on the same principles as binary computers, or even complex systems that use a binary choice between yes and no? Could this be the reason why the Chinese and other Asians are so easily embracing AI and even leading the way in the current technological revolution in which AI is crucial?
The answer to the first question is — yes. Gottfried Leibniz invented the binary code, but he gave credit to the Chinese who were the first to use it. To get the full picture, however, we need to delve a little deeper into the background of all this.
Before the end of the 17th century, Leibniz published his first work on binary code. He corresponded with the famous Jesuit priest Joachim Bouvet, who was in Beijing. He decided to send him an explanation of the binary code. Father Bouvet, however, replied to Leibniz in this way by sending him a diagram with 64 hexagrams. He explained that the Chinese have been using a binary system for many centuries. Otherwise, they use different characters — instead of 0 and 1, they use broken or whole lines, and the principle was the same. Leibniz was delighted because the hexagrams confirmed his belief that binary code was universally valid. He wrote another work in which he paid tribute to the Chinese as the original inventors of binary code.
Historians have ignored Leibniz’s claims, but in the 1960s, the British sinologist Joseph Needham discussed binary code in his famous study of Chinese science. Needham saw the connection between yin and yang and cybernetics as the first official theory of digital computers.
Digital computing combines Leibniz’s binary code and Boolean algebra of classes, which was laid out by George Boole in the 19th century. In digital computers, data is sorted or collected into unrelated Boolean classes. For example: if apples are class x and oranges are class y, together they make up class xy. An algorithm that uses Boolean operators such as if and then determines which statement is true or false. If the statement made is false, it is moved on to the next group of data. A textbook example of cybernetics and its early use is the autopilot used in airplanes. This autopilot uses binary logic and Boolean operators such as if, then, or, etc., to guide the aircraft from point A to point B. If strong crosswinds divert the aircraft from its path, the autopilot triggers a heading correction. The autopilot holds the aircraft within the parameters of the flight plan through a continuous sequence of “yes-no”, “if-then” until it drops the aircraft to its destination.
The sixty-four hexagrams used by the Yi-jing (Book of Changes) can be compared to Boolean classes. These represent pure yin and pure yang, and the 62 unrelated levels of yin and yang content in things, conditions, or processes. Yi-jing’s advice regarding an important decision can be sought by randomly selecting a hexagram. Some hexagrams help us, others don’t. Therefore, we continue to select hexagrams until we clear our doubts and come to a certain conclusion. Yi-jing assumes that we already know the answer, and the cryptic text of the hexagram should unlock our subconscious. Transpersonal psychologist Marysol Sterling called Yi-jing a psychological computer.
So Autopilot and Yi-jing were based on a similar logic…
… A cyber system is like an autopilot. He uses binary Boolean logic to bring the plane to its destination, and Yi-jing uses the binary of yin and yang, i.e. the hexagram, to dispel doubts and lead us to a decision. Otherwise, the Yi-jing is also the basis for Confucius’ Doctrine of the Middle. Like the autopilot in cybernetics, the Confucian middle way finds the ideal path between extremes by reconciling contradictions. Let me illustrate this a little bit with some Confucianism: don’t be conservative or progressive, be both. Don’t be traditional or modern, be both. Don’t be an idealist or a realist, be both.
We also have a middle ground with Aristotle, don’t we?
Yes. However, with Confucius, this became the foundation of Chinese civilization. And it still is. Given the world that is in conflict today, the middle ground could be used to solve some problems. We must achieve reconciliation between East and West, North and South, rich and poor, people and nature, freedom and responsibility.
In the essay Artificial Intelligence Won’t Save Us, Cybernetics Will Save Us, you quote Chinese economist Lu Qiyuan, who says that if America wants to avoid a crisis, it should ensure that a new wave of economic growth rises on the wings of artificial intelligence. Do you think it will?
Lu Qiyuan’s biggest concern is the size of the U.S. debt, which stands at $34,000 billion, the largest debt in all of history. The fact that the government has allowed the debt to inflate to this level is a reminder that there are structural problems at stake. Interest payments on debt are now the largest item in the U.S. state budget. Like many other macroeconomists, Lu Qiyuan is convinced that America does not have a single painless option to solve the debt. Facing debt could be postponed in part by printing money, but this would lead to long periods of inflation and a significant decline in living standards for most people. At the same time, it would also have a huge global impact, because the world still relies on the dollar system.
AI could mitigate the impact of the U.S. debt crisis if it created a boom in productivity. It could make workers ten times more productive in some areas. However, this would also lead to higher unemployment, which would be an additional burden on the government. In addition, we would not address other problems such as extreme concentration of wealth, political polarization, and social alienation. For this reason, Li Qiyuan also emphasizes the necessity of political reform.
You also wrote that India will surpass China. How do you explain this?
We are just moving from the third to the fourth industrial revolution. The U.S. dominated Industry 3.0 (as the Third Industrial Revolution is called in cyber parlance), with the help of information and communication technology and the Internet. Industry 4.0 (the fourth industrial revolution) revolves around AI, robotics, the Internet of Things, sensor technology, and many other technologies. Industry 4.0 will lead everything to hyper-automation — from agriculture and industrial production to logistics and services. China is likely to lead the way.
The logical outcome of Industry 4.0 is the end of a large amount of work. Most jobs that can be condensed into mathematical form will simply disappear. AI will gradually diminish the value of professional knowledge. The only work that will remain will be one that requires human compassion. But the signs of a new era in which professions will disappear are already visible. Chinese factories produce electric vehicles without the presence of people in the factory halls. Governments may introduce a basic income as a way of adapting to the post-work era. AI pioneer Sam Altman of the OpenAI Research Lab has predicted that AI could generate enough wealth to be able to pay an income to all adult citizens. And he’s probably right, but it can’t be done easily.
The question is, what would people do if they didn’t have to work anymore to make a living. Most people derive their identity from their work or profession. Work has a social dimension. The first question people most often ask when they meet someone is “what do you do?” or “what do you do?” Our profession or profession defines our social status and determines the purpose and meaning of our achievements.
When most of the work is gone, people will look for other ways to accomplish themselves.
The realization that you will no longer work is something completely different from four weeks of annual leave. For some, it will be perfectly acceptable if they spend most of their time cultivating the garden or playing golf. Otherwise, many individuals will be looking for meaning or a certain direction. They will search within themselves and purify their consciousness. And this is where India enters the story. India has the deepest reservoir of psychological-spiritual knowledge. When people seek to expand their consciousness, they typically turn to Indian traditions. India is the homeland of yoga and other consciousness-raising exercises.
Indian spiritual teacher Sadhguru celebrates the development of AI and the end of the work. He says that people will finally have time to focus on consciousness so that they can live a more meaningful life. In the post-work era, people will only compete for the jobs that remain, and for the kind of jobs that require human compassion, such as caring for the sick, the elderly, or children. India may never catch up with China as the factory of the world. According to a British study, India’s economy could overtake China’s only in 2080. But until then, we may no longer be using gross domestic product as a measure. By then, India may already be a spiritual superpower. China will introduce us to Industry 4.0, and India will lead us out of Industry 4.0.
But what will happen to Europe? Do you agree with Heidegger, who once stated for Der Spiegel that European philosophy is not equipped for technological change and that it has reached its end point with Nietzsche’s nihilism?
Heidegger argued that since the Enlightenment, European philosophy has focused on a rational and scientific understanding of the world. Science and technology have become a way of understanding all the frames of the world. Everything was seen as a resource to be exploited. This blurred other ways of experiencing and relating to the world. Heidegger felt that European philosophy did not have the tools to critically examine this framework, because it is deeply rooted in this way of rational thinking. She can’t observe herself objectively. That is why he also mentioned cybernetics as a way out. Cybernetics is not encumbered by ideology, religion, metaphysics, or eras. It’s a different way of looking at the world, reconciling people, technology, and nature.
But what makes Europe different from the rest of the world is the historical divide between spirit and matter. This goes all the way from Plato and Aristotle to early Christian dualism, all the way to Descartes and Newtonian physics. According to Galileo, matter became an object of science, and spirit was the domain of the church. This division had its flaws, but it created a scientific revolution. Imagine what the world would be like if electricity hadn’t been invented.
But with the Chinese, this distinction between spirit and matter was resolved differently, wasn’t it?
The Chinese also realized this difference, but the concept of Tao led them to another way of accepting it. The Tao has its roots in animism, which saw nature as an inseparable whole. The Tao can be seen as a sophisticated form of animism. It maintains the idea that everything is interconnected, but identifies the fundamental mechanism of the nature of yin-yang. Spirit is yang, matter is yin, and both participate in Tao.
And this explains why the Chinese feel so comfortable in modern technology. A robot is not human but it still partakes in the Tao. To give an example: Chinese engineers collaborated with a Buddhist temple near Beijing to develop a robot monk endowed with artificial intelligence. The robot assists Buddhist monks in disseminating Buddhist teaching. It can interact with worshippers.
Otherwise, we have already had cases where humans have established emotional bonds with robots. The Japanese company Sony has created Aibo, a toy, robotic dog that responds to the owner’s commands. It recognizes different family members and responds to physical interaction. Aibo became part of the family, and people became emotionally attached to him. When the robot died, the owners took it to a Buddhist temple to perform a funeral ceremony for it.
I’m more interested in the philosophical underpinnings that give China or India an advantage in the new era. Which of these two civilizations do you think is more willing to carry out a technological revolution?
China is far ahead of India in terms of overall economic development, infrastructure development and industrial capacity. China’s gross domestic product is four times that of India, China’s industry is vertically integrated.
This country produces everything that is needed for Industry 4.0. China is likely to set standards for both AI and robotics, in the same way that the U.S. has set standards for information and communications technology.
India, on the other hand, is heavily dependent on Chinese electrical and electronics equipment, as well as Chinese industrial machinery. China is a global leader in most technologies for Industry 2.0, while the power of
India more in software. Logically, this would mean that India and China are natural partners. China produces most of the hardware for Industry 4.0, while India is able to supply Industry 4.0 with software.
But what separates these countries is their very different worldviews. For most people in India, religion and life are inseparable. Democracy and Western ideology are not an organic part of India. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The American futurist Larry Taub, in his book The Spiritual Imperative, wrote that India’s pervasive religiosity explains why social and communist revolutions never engulfed India. Communism was secular, materialistic, and atheistic. Taub argued that India cannot function if it is not guided by religion. He pointed out that Mahatma Gandhi was deeply influenced by Hinduism. The Bharatiya Janata Party is a mixture of nationalism and religion.
For the Chinese, this is much more reminiscent of the European Enlightenment?
The Chinese are ambivalent about religion. Most Chinese today would probably be attracted to secular humanism. The Chinese live in the here and now with all their might. Their worldview is aesthetic rather than transcendental. The American historian George Rowley put it this way: “The Chinese way of relating to life was not primarily defined through religion, nor through philosophy or science, but through art.” The aesthetic worldview has its roots in the system of yin and yang. Reconciliation between opposites is an art — not a science.
So we have come to the point where we started — why is it China’s turn now — or, to put it a little differently: what can Europe do to prevent its decline in all respects?
A period of self-observation could be useful for Europe. He now assumes that the world sees Europe in the same way that Europe sees itself. But the Global South sees Europe more and more as hypocritical. She notices that she shares lessons with others, but for herself she is sure that she is irreproachable. Europeans assume that they are well informed because they have freedom of the press. What they don’t notice is that the power of the press is measured not by how a particular news item is reported, but by what is not written about at all.
Let’s look at an example. Last summer, people in the capital Niger protested in support of a coup d’état against the Francophile president. They carried banners that read: “Down with France” and “Long live Putin.” For many Europeans, this was completely incomprehensible, because they know very little about how much the Soviet Union supported the decolonization of this country. Nor do they know much about the legacy left behind by French exploitation. Thirty percent of their electricity is derived from Niger’s uranium, and after a century of French rule, 85 percent of Niger’s population still has no electricity. What is the power of a media outlet that doesn’t report on it at all?
And so, if you’re part of neo-colonial exploitation, and at the same time you’re teaching other countries about human rights and free trade, you’re showing a considerable lack of self-awareness, hypocrisy, and then both. In doing so, you are far from the view of the rest of the world. One African leader recently said: “The West is preaching to us. China gives us airports.”
And Europe is not aware of this? Maybe it’s because she’s burdened with her own problems?
Europe has multifaceted problems — political, economic, financial, social and geopolitical. All these problems are interconnected, and it is difficult to solve one if not all of them are solved. The problem is that most governments in Europe today are dominated by Atlanticists. Even the Social Democrats, as well as the Greens, have become Atlanticists. The Atlantic Alliance is the only way for the West to maintain its global dominance and, above all, control of the global financial system. His main project is to expand NATO at any cost. But the price is huge.
Europe has cut itself off from Russia’s natural resources and left the Russian market to China. The American macroeconomist Luke Gromen put it this way: “Europe is ruled by a political class that does not always have in its heart what would be best for Europe.” As long as the Atlanticists control the levers of power, there is not much Europe can do. When they disappear one day, however, Europe should look a little into its soul. It should overcome the Eurocentric view of the world and rethink society. She should be less obsessed with rights and freedom, and focus more on reciprocity and understanding of others.
How can AI help us with this?
Artificial intelligence can be a catalyst for the re-reflection of society. AI could even force us to do so. A century ago, machines and power tools saved us from most of the manual labor. In the years to come, AI will save us from most of the mental work. Europe should be prepared for the economic, social and psychological implications of all this.
AI and its sister, the science of cybernetics, should be a compulsory subject in schools. Children should understand how AI works and what the potential implications are for society. Preparing for the impact of AI and appropriating a cybernetic view of life, however, could also foster a sense of humanity’s shared destiny.
Komentar
Marko Golob 29.6.24 | Vikend08:11 branje
Zorana, great post. Many things could be added in this picture of the future world, e.g. demographics, but this does not diminish the value of the contribution. The work won’t end so quickly either. We in the industry notice that the more we robotize and automate, the more we lack workers. This part: “Europe is ruled by a political class that does not always have what is best for Europe at heart. As long as the Atlanticists control the levers of power, Europe cannot do much.” is a real gem. Is it the editor, in this psychosis did he miss the general self-censorship or is it a harbinger of changes?
ODGOVORI
Zakaj sta zdaj za prevlado na svetu na vrsti Kitajska in Indija
29.06.2024., 08:38
