Ben Goertzel on the future of science in China
Serial entrepreneur and AI expert Ben Goertzel reflects on the future of science in China, and the comparative fortunes of China and the U.S.:
Hugo [de Garis, an Australian-born AI researcher who's worked in Europe, Japan, the U.S., and is now teaching at Wuhan University] is convinced that China is the country of the future and America is already obsolete. He foresees a coming century of reverse brain drain, where China recruits smart scientists and engineers from Western nations....
It might happen—I don’t rule it out. Of course, unlike Hugo, I think some sort of technological Singularity is very likely by mid-century and maybe sooner—but let’s ignore that for the moment ... talking just in conventional political/cultural terms, it’s not obvious to me that he’s right.
No doubt China has very many very smart and ambitious and hardworking people... but the cultural differences w/ the West are profound and I don’t think any of us understands what they mean in terms of the future of science and engineering.
One observation I like to make is as follows. People talk about the knowledge economy ... where manual work has long been outsourced to 3rd world countries, leaving 1st world countries increasingly consumed w/ knowledge work.
And more and more so, the US becomes a pragmatic knowledge integration economy—specialized knowledge like programming and science gets farmed out to 3rd world countries, but the task of integrating together various pieces of knowledge for practical purposes is still done in America. Even in Novamente, which is a damn international company, we do programming and science and project management overseas, but the figuring-out of what programming and science needs to be done to serve business goals, is largely done in the US. Because the US is where our customer companies are—even if their work is largely done overseas, the high-level staff defining their vision are mostly here. The matching-up of technology and business, where Novamente is concerned, occurs mainly within the arena of US culture. (We do have overseas customers, but they are either run by Americans or following business models that closely copy American ones.)
The next step, I think, is the creativity economy. Even integrative knowledge will become commoditized. Creation of new ideas will be the LAST thing to get commoditized. But this is exactly where America excels. No nation on Earth fosters creativity as well as the USA. And for this reason, I’m not so sure that America’s period of dramatic success is over. The more science and technology accelerate, the more critical creativity becomes—and, lame as American culture and institutions are, they seem better than most alternatives at fostering wide-ranging creativity. (The only cultures I’ve known that seemed maybe more creativity-friendly were Australia, New Zealand and Hungary. But those are small places, population-wise.)
There is loads of creativity in China, for instance, on a personal level. Very creative people. But I’m not sure the culture fosters creativity in the way that US culture does. Oriental culture seems to favor obedience a lot more than US culture, and creativity is often not compatible with obedience.... The US is probably the most anarchic major developed country—which has its downsides, especially for those below the poverty line in the US—but, it seems that anarchy and creativity are inextricably entwined.
If China evolves a culture of creativity, then Hugo will be proved right and this will become the Chinese century ... and maybe the Singularity will get launched in China (hey, maybe it will get launched there anyway via Hugo’s and my collaboration!!!)..... But that’s a big “if”, I suppose. Yet one feature of Chinese history is its tendency toward sudden, radical changes of one sort or another. Time will tell.
Serial entrepreneur and AI expert Ben Goertzel reflects on the future of science in China, and the comparative fortunes of China and the U.S.:
Comments
Re: Ben Goertzel on the future of science in China
A couple of things to add:
1 Population projections until 2050 (UN Population Division, World Population Prospects - The 2006 Revision, medium variant, http://esa.un.org/unpp/):
PR of China
Year Population (thousands)
2005 1 312 979
2010 1 351 512
2015 1 388 600
2020 1 421 260
2025 1 445 782
2030 1 458 421
2035 1 458 292
2040 1 448 355
2045 1 431 448
2050 1 408 846
USA
Year Population (thousands)
2005 299 846
2010 314 692
2015 329 010
2020 342 547
2025 354 930
2030 366 187
2035 376 492
2040 385 868
2045 394 426
2050 402 415
Longer projections reduce PR of China's population and increase the States' one. It seems that the population gap will be lower in the medium-long term.
2 Attractiveness to migrants, who arguably are closer to entrepreneturship and innovation generation:
Attractiveness of the US increases - will bring more innovation
http://sciencex2.org/en/node/18729
Political Structure and Culture of Creativity?
To what extend does the political system of a society influence the potential growth of a culture of creativity?
Jerry Sheehan
Manager for Government Program Development @ Calit2/UCSD
phone: 858.336.2622
yahoo: calit2s
skype: zenchaos
twitter: www.twitter.com/zenchaos
Orientalism
The polar claims by de Garis and Pinker, of China’s either inevitable rise or decline, both reflect the legacy of late 19th century European imaginings of the despotism and grandeur of a mysterious Oriental culture, stretching from Iran to Japan. As Edward Said once put it, “Orientalism was ultimately a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar (Europe, West, "us") and the strange (the Orient, the East, "them").” Pinker draws on the stereotype of Oriental Despotism, based on colonial narratives of Asian backwardness and Western exceptionalism (see http://sciencex2.org/en/node/24137) as a result of repressive or enlightened politics. At the other pole, de Garis taps into the question of whether China, arguably one of the most technologically advanced civilizations in the premodern world, might someday regain its past glory. This is an offshoot of the moot Joseph Needham Question of why China did not have a “Scientific Revolution.”
I always find it difficult to assess claims that are based more on ideology and stereotypes rather than fact and careful analysis. I am sure that Ben Goertzel learned a lot during his “2.5 weeks in the Orient.” But his rather uninformed ruminations are hardly a basis for discussion. Statements such as “Oriental culture seems to favor obedience a lot more than US culture, and creativity is often not compatible with obedience.... “ are confusing because I have no idea what part of some imagined Oriental culture favors obedience. Is he perhaps referring to 18th century writings of literati men who discussed the ideal of how a virtuous woman should behave? Other statements are equally perplexing, such as,”Yet one feature of Chinese history is its tendency toward sudden, radical changes of one sort or another.” What exactly his he referring to in Chinese history? Is he referring to a golden period in Chinese science and technology from around the 10th through 12th centuries when the imperial government paid particularly close attention and poured resources into a number of technical arts ranging from astronomy to medicine? Or is he referring to sudden political changes? Which ones and how do they constitute a “feature” of Chinese history? Moreover, what in the world would this have to do with contemporary science and technology in China?
Let’s please raise the bar of informed discussion.
On Race, Culture and Innovative Potential
It is difficult to invite comparisons between cultures, especially when trying to frame the discussion around 'who is better at'. I think there is value in asking why certain cultures manage to innovate, and thrive and some stagnate and die through the course of history. Jared Diamond does a pretty good job of this in books Guns, Germs and Steel, and Collapse. I can't recall the finer points of his findings, but I recall that populations that can support large cities where the elites from various disciplines can discuss and exchange ideas (typically in universities) were the main drivers of learnings and advancements in technology. My personal opinion is that in todays age this goes doubly now. Unless some massive disruptive breakthroughs happen, most of the low hanging fruit has already been hit during the 20th century, and without serious organizational structures, like government for long term non-profit R&D or corporations for profit driven R&D, would stop.
While a centralized, or top-down system is necessary to advance science these days, I do agree that it is the people themselves who get it done. Can a culture that restricts certain liberties, and frowns on dissent develop (and retain!) the scientific elite? How could disruptive technology flourish there? These are great questions, and since I have never been to a Chinese university, I am not the person to ask.
But overall a very interesting topic!
"Oriental culture seems to favor obedience a lot more than ..."
Regarding "Oriental culture seems to favor obedience a lot more than US culture, and creativity is often not compatible with obedience," let me say that my direct supervisor in New York City (and his team-mates) when I worked there in 1993 were not of the obedient type, although they were Chinese.
Later, in 1995 I met a Chinese-American engineer in Washington DC. His business card was bilingual, English and Chinese. A remarkable fellow, who didn't have any qualms saying me when I was wrong. Wasn't of the obedient type.
Later I met a Chinese married couple in Spain in the 2000s, when I tried to learn Mandarin Chinese, and weren't of the obedient type neither - and they were innovative and industrious, true entrepreneurs.
So my experience doesn't let me say things as Mr Goertzel said.
J M
Can we Make This a Data Driven or Higher Concept Conv?
I wanted to respond back to the various questions that have been posed in this thread to see if we can find a way to have a more data driven conversation? The assertions that one culture is more "innovative" then the next seem difficult to prove and always subject to competitive pressures and cultural bias.
How would we objectively measure "science innovation"?
1) Is it best to look at the total number of academic publications or their co-citation. Would we need to normalize for population size?
2) Would it make sense to look at the impact of science on industrial development and products? How can you measure markets in both centrally and decentralized economies?
Education is the key
The issue of how countries educate their children is central to this discussion.
There is an excellent talk by Sir Ken Robinson on TED which explores this.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
So much of education in China and other places is done by intense rote learning that often creativity and imagination is suppressed. Whilst this system excels in providing at the technical aspects of science, whether it stimulates the creativity and imagination required to ask the questions that drive the future direction of science remains to be seen. You can see this in the range of answers that Americans students will submit to an open question as compared to students from other countries. Countries which value creativity within their education systems are the places to watch.