So, Neoliberalism Is Wrong And Dangerous?

It was kind of hard for me to follow all the details within the YouTube’s video lecture on “Neoliberalism and History, or: How Should We Understand China?” in which professor Michael Puett of Harvard weaves a web of cautions and insights on why Neoliberalism ideal isn’t perfect and could lead to a danger of a breakdown of a society.  In the video, he also admits that people for centuries have been trying to create ideal worlds in which they believe to be natural and perfect and so whatever and whoever that doesn’t fit within such an idealistic world would ultimately be forced into accepting the ideal world or be perished through violence.  Sometimes, people in the pasts were lucky to be flourished at certain periods within such an ideal world they created and believed to be natural, but often they all failed in the end.  The dangerous thing about believing in an ideal world to be natural and perfect, professor Michael Puett points out in the video, is that the people within such a world often fail to see the hidden dangers of such a world they create and live within.  People in such a world would fail to learn the mistakes of other alternate worlds that had gotten created by other people of other cultures in the past and present since they would believe there would be no viable alternatives to their idealistic, perfect world.

Regardless the winding details that professor Michael Puett weaves on the dangers of believing in an ideal world, I think I got the gist of it all as he neatly ties all the knots together in the video near the end of his lecture.  Basically, I think what he says in the video is that China is also creating an alternate ideal world known as Confuciusism, and this Confuciusism is competing against Neoliberalism in another so-called ideal modernity-ism.  So, there are some dangers that hide within a Confuciusism too.  Nonetheless, I think he supports how the current Chinese government is regulating the Chinese economy and the Communist party itself — he talks in regarding of spheres of influences act upon another to regulate and prevent dangers — because the Chinese government is behaving in this very manner by creating spheres of various influences that prevent tycoons and corporations from controlling the market — thus preventing the market controllers to control the population and the government itself within China.

You could argue that the ultimate sphere within China is the Communist party thus the danger of this sphere is being too powerful and no other sphere could provide the check and balance to this Communist party sphere.  Nonetheless, professor Michael Puett admits in the video that all systems (ideal worlds) have mostly failed eventually within history, and so as long the never-ending learning process in constructing a better world is vibrant the flourishing society could be played out as we speak.  Thus, I think — as long the Chinese communist party is self-consciously keeping itself in check to prevent corruptions and so forth and to carry out the right regulations and policies to prevent the market from harming the populous at the same time keeping up with the demands of the Chinese populous — the Chinese government could, in fact, preserving the positive aspects of the Chinese communist party sphere.  Basically, as long the ultimate sphere in China isn’t going down the negative path, the other spheres would be kept in line to do the positive aspects that those spheres are designed to be doing.

In summary, I guess, as long the one entity isn’t believing the world they create is natural, then there is room for self-awareness in which mistakes could be foreseen and corrected.  I guess the one entity could improve one’s entity-self by learning the best aspects of the one entity’s past and other past worlds.  By avoiding the mistakes of the one entity’s past and past worlds, the one entity could avoid from repeating the same mistakes that occurred in the many periodic pasts. So the gist of it all from this lecture is that to be self-aware and to encourage the competition of different spheres of influences so a better future could be created.  Oh, one more thing, the world we create or creating isn’t natural and perfect, but it’s an ongoing work in progress.  It could be morphed into whatever shape as long the shape would provide a prosperous society and a prospect of a better future.  It could be an ongoing morphing shape so the society could continue to be prosperous as long as possible.


Women Still Rule In China’s Last Matriarchy

Check out a minority culture in China in which women rule the household, bringing in the doughs, while men take on the opposite role.  According to Broadly, Mosuo is China’s last matriarchy.

Futuristic Technology: Age Reversal’s Perversions

Yesterday, I’d read an article which mentioned several possible futuristic technologies that might change the world of today.  Unfortunately, I forgot the article’s headline, link, and the author, and so I cannot post the link to this article on this blog post.  I remember one interesting technology in which this article had mentioned is age reversal technology.  I don’t know how science would enable us humans to do this in the future, but the concept is incredibly controversial.

Just imagine if this technology is possible, the implications that could come out of this technology would let loose chaos into our world.  We have been wired into our DNA that as we are growing older, we’re going to die old.  Each new year or birthday is one more year old for us.  No matter if we’re poor or rich, everyone of us has always been subjected to the master of death.  Once death arrives, we have to let go everything that has made who we are while kicking.

If age reversal technology is possible, it means a grandmother who’s 90 year old could become 15 year old again.  Nonetheless, she would still go on living with her 60 year old daughter, 65 year old son, and whatnot.  Does this mean the meaning of from cradle to grave has to be redefined?  The whole fabric of society would be turning upside-down, because we would not be able to tell the differences between our grandmother and our teenage daughters and sons.  Rules and laws that govern the morals of relationship among family members and friends would morph into things of an alien culture.  What if a grandmother wants to become a two year old again?  Will a granddaughter would step up to breastfeed her grandmother?  See how twisted things will be?

In my gut, I don’t think age reversal technology will be possible, but the ancient people could never have imagined what we had already accomplished with our space rockets.  For better or worse, I think our cultures will morph into one big weird alien culture as our cultures grow with time.  Some futuristic technologies such as age reversal, as they come into being, will make us question our moral values and ethics.


The Goal Is To Not Have Civilization Clash But To Have Civilization Struggle

Since ancient time, most parts of the world (whatever form a country has taken to govern the population) have had to contend with the central (very top level) all the way down to the local (very bottom level) governments.  In the ancient world, some parts of the world were experienced democracy, but most parts of the world were experienced hierarchy sorts of governance.  To further breaking down the atom, some ancient parts of the world were experienced class struggles much more than most parts of the ancient world.  With the look into the past and until now, the contemporary governance images of our world, we can safely assume that even though the central government of a country does hold a lot of power, but usually the local governments are more creative in supporting the local population.

Whether a country’s governmental system is democracy or communism or whatever, a country has had to deal with a strong central government and the uncooperative local governments.  Breaking down the atom at the level of inner working details between the central and the local governments can be complicated, and so I’m not going to even try in this blog post.  Nonetheless, in a layman conception, we can safely assume that if the central government is too weak, the local governments can be divided throughout the country, and the whole country can be on the verge of civil war or worse.  If the local governments are too weak, certain local populations will feel as if the local governments are corrupted and not serving the local populations’ interests, because the central government has always been controlled by larger group of interests and opinionated power driven politicians.  I think the balance must be met in a scale of strong central government and productive local governments.  Nonetheless, you cannot have a weak central government, because a country with weak central government may become so divisive to a point of splitting a country into warlordism (i.e., local governments are at war).

We cannot run away from corruptions no matter what form of governance system is taking on by a country, because corruption is inherently built into human nature.  Thus, we cannot use the argument of strong central government will lead to more corruption.  Instead, we must look at how to relax some unhelpful regulations and how to build up some helpful regulations to a balance that can regulate and weed out corruptions effectively.  Trial and error approach is the approach that a progressive country should take.  Once a country thinks it’s already too developed, it is probably already too corrupted and growth stagnated.  Ongoing reform must always be at the forefront of the conversation and practice for a governmental system to stay in synch with the populations’ demands.

Anyhow, we have seen from the ancient world till now that the struggle of creating the right balance for the central government and the local governments to work as a whole country is real.  Thus we can argue that if we are going to make the struggle for this balancing act to be even more complicated, we are going to face a much tougher time in making it right.  This means some parts of the contemporary world that are trying to merge government systems together without any consideration for local populations’ cultures will have a harder time in creating a right balance in governance.  Instead of creating the right balance for governance, these multiple governance mixed parts of the world may eventually experience wars and chaos, because the differences of native, local cultures are too different to reconcile (e.g., class, economy, ideal, belief, tradition, etc…) .

Humans are not robots, thus native, local cultures can never be eradicated.  With emotions and free thoughts, human nature tends to form local cultures that represent the local peoples.  Although there are exceptions such as for greater good, mostly people tend to think in local culture and local flavors.  For an example, the majority peoples would think what is best for the family first, then the rest would come after naturally.  Breaking down the atom even more, besides the exceptions to the rule such as the greater good of parents, each human tends to think selfishly, and so each of us tends to thrive on individuality.  So, even in the smallest unit of humanity, we are going to see the struggle of balance between the central and local centers.  Within each of us, we want the central center of a family to be strong and prosperous, but we also want the local center that speaks individuality to be strong and prosperous.  Thus, we must seek out the right balance of the centers.

I think human cultures are there to make us human, thus to destroy cultures with force will yield chaos.  Human cultures should be changed from within and not to be forced and shaped by the external demands unless the local population demands to be shaped by the external factors.  If the border of a country isn’t clearly drawn on the map or clearly dictated to the population, I think the balance of the central and the local centers are going to be a lot more complicated… may destroy a civilization and create extremisms such as genocide.

Of course, one can argue that humans should work together, thus all borders should be crossed.  I think this argument is somewhat flaw.  Of course, humans should work together, but all borders should not be crossed.  Instead of having all borders to be eliminated, we should focus on having some borders to be compromised in truces and agreements!  This means we should focus on civilization struggle and do away with civilization clash.  Civilization struggle is where each nation tries to defend its own border and make compromises for advancing the local populations’ interests.  Civilization clash is where each nation tries to eradicate its enemies at all cost (i.e., genocidal behavior).

In short, I think the central government should be strong and stay slim in a way that allow local governments to breathe and govern with local distinct flavors — all in all, to allow a nation to be strong to a point that a nation’s culture should not be eradicated (i.e., border should be clear on the map and in world economy).  The goal is to not have civilization clash but to have civilization struggle.  We cannot do away with the struggle part, because to be human is to struggle!  Nonetheless, we should do away with the clash part, because it’s a genocidal behavior.

Each of us human is unique and precious, thus genocide is the opposite of humanity as it tends to try to eradicate the unique, precious parts of humanity.  In my opinion, struggle is to reform and to stay in synch with time; to become more progressive.  Clash is to be genocidal, and we should do away with genocidal behaviors at all cost.  Say no to all forms of genocide!  Say yes to reform struggles!  This means we should say no to the genocide of cultures also!  Each culture is different and unique and may provide different insight into humanity, and we should not allow a genocide to wipe out a culture.  The world is much more colorful when we have the struggles of cultures.  The world is much more evil and sad and genocidal when we have the clashes of cultures!

Bookworm: “The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System” By James Rickards

The main stream and alternative media alike had been buzzing about the $400 billion natural gas deal between Russia and China.  These media described that this huge natural gas deal between these two huge countries could eventually undermine the dollar reserve currency status.  Whether this will be true or not for some time to come, nobody will know!  Nonetheless, one could tell that China and Russia are diversifying their dollar reserves into something else such as this $400 billion natural gas deal.  These two huge countries are hedging against the dollar, thus either these two huge countries will trade with each other in other currencies other than dollar or spending their dollar reserves to materialize their dollar reserves into something more tangible such as the $400 billion natural gas deal.

With all the talks of the dollar is losing reserving status either gradually or slowly reaching a tipping point where an avalanche of events will drive the demise of the dollar reserve status at a breakneck speed, I’m getting more interested in being more informed about this whole shebang.  It was no surprised when I got a whiff of the new book “The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System” written by James Rickards, I was eager to purchase this very book on Amazon Kindle Store.  Yes, I purchased this book in dollar!  Anyhow, I’m going to read this book now, but by the time I finish this book I might be able to write a blog post or two about my reading of this book.  It will not be a review of sort, but it will be more of what I think I’ve learned by reading this book.