Zilong

Spring 2012

2012-02-05T21:37:00.000-05:00

Hu Shi once said, "Expression is the best means to appropriate impressions." Very true. Writing helps us to think clearly, to be articulate and logical, to engage in dialectics and self-critique, and to be diligent. So, I shall write.

In Spring 2012, I will climb the Mt. Everest of human intellectual achievements in the past 200 years. The previous semesters have upgraded my intellectual firepower to the level where I feel confident taking on the two giants: Marx and Darwin.

There is probably not a third person who has made a comparable impact on the trajectory of human history since the 1800. Marx and Darwin not only revolutionized their own fields and influenced their contemporaries, they also fundamentally changed the way everyone thinks about and engages with the world, even till today. Amazingly, all the groundbreaking new thinking came out of two individuals born and died at around the same time. Marx was nine years younger than Darwin, and died one year after Darwin. Marx published "The Communist Manifesto" at the age of 30, and "Das Kapital" at around 50. Darwin published "Voyage of the Beagle" at 30, and "The Origin of Species" at 50.

What happened in those two brains? What did they go through in life that led to their revolutionary thinking? Why were they able to see what others couldn't? How do I compare to them? These are the questions that fascinates me.

Climbing the highest mountain would give me courage and inspiration to create my own mountains. It might be time to construct my own system, using what I've learned from Marx and Darwin. I will further develop my framework of "Trinity of E", or reject it if it is not helpful. No matter what, getting started is half of the work.

Friending Your Mind

2011-12-29T19:28:00.003-05:00

If your mind has its own Facebook account, what will it be like? What’s the profile picture? What “Activities and Interests” does it have? I have friended my mind, and here is what I have learned so far.

1. My mind creates thoughts, and the awareness of thoughts comes a bit later. There is a nanosecond of time different between when a thought occurs and when my awareness captures it. Many thoughts are not captured by awareness at all. Thoughts and awareness are independent from each other, and they are both a part of the mind.

2. The relationship between thoughts and awareness is like the relationship between a horse and its rider. Thoughts are like a horse, a crazy one. It likes to run wildly and does not always follow the rider’s instructions. Awareness is the rider. He tries to guide the horse on a certain direction, but does not always succeed. Sometimes, the rider falls asleep on the horseback and is carried to some wonderland by the crazy horse. We dream and daydream. But with some practice, the rider and the horse could develop a very good partnership.

3. I can never lay claim to my thoughts because those thoughts come and go. They are products of my mind. I might dream of the most wonderful idea, only to forget it the next day. To use another analogy, my mind is a house. In that house, my thoughts are the travelling guests and my awareness is the host. Some of the guests are geniuses, and their presence in the house brings fame and wealth. But guests are guests, they will leave. And we should be reminded that the glory belongs to the traveling guests, not to the house itself. That’s why we should not be attached to “our ideas”, let alone the glitter of them.

4. The mind has strong habits, just as each house has its uniqueness. The habits of the mind influence the production of our thoughts, just as a unique house attracts a certain type of guests. Some habits of the mind are carried over from our past lives; some are formed in this life. Luckily, the host can change the design of the house, just as we can consciously reform the habits of our mind.

5. The host of the house can not force guests to come, nor can it force guests to stay. The only thing the host (awareness) can do is to make the house welcoming and comfortable, so that more genius guests will come and stay. This means that we should consciously improve the health of our mind so that more wonderful thoughts would occur. What’s more, just as geniuses attract geniuses, if you have a welcoming house and a critical mass of geniuses living in it, more geniuses will gravitate toward the house. Soon your mind will be full of wonderful thoughts, and it just gets better.

6. How do we improve the health of the mind? We go to fitness clubs and gyms, but how often do we attend to the well-being of our mind? We feed organic food to our body, but how do we feed our mind? The lack of attention to our spiritual well-being is a serious problem in the modern society.

To keep the mind healthy, we should feed it healthy intellectual food --- don’t watch too much TV, don’t waste time on Facebook, etc. We should let the mind rest so that the crazy horse could catch a breath. We should exercise the muscle of the mind and even challenge its extreme by deep contemplation and serious thinking. We should liberate the mind from its old habits by meditation and self-critique.

7. If we are especially lucky in the sense that we seem to have a profound and sharp mind, we should be reminded that this is a gift, not an entitlement. We have a powerful mind maybe because in previous life, we have proved ourselves to be trustworthy, so in this life, we are endowed with more capacity to do good.

However, it would be a great violation of this trust if we develop any sense of superiority. We are only the keeper of this endowment in life, not its owner. We should avoid self-importance and self-righteousness. Remember the “Manifest Destiny”?

So, I tell myself that if I appear to be twice more capable than the average, then I should work three times harder and be four times more self-critical. This is the only way to be fair and to maximize my gifts for the benefit of all, which is the only way for me to be happy.

8. There is no difference between selfishness and altruism because no matter which principles we adopt, we will arrive at the same conclusion. This is what it means: the only way for me to be happy is to make others happy; the only way to make others happy is to be happy myself. There is no difference between your happiness and mine. This is compassion. It might be a result of natural selection, but I am grateful that compassion is selected by Nature.

The same is true for enlightenment. I have realized that I cannot achieve full enlightenment without helping others to achieve theirs. So is the relationship between material and spiritual world: without attending to the spiritual world, we can not manage the material world; understanding the material world will strengthen our understanding of spiritual world.

9. In the first 20 years of my life, I have achieved some internal clarity. I have come to term with my mind and self. For the next 20 years, I will achieve some external clarity. I will understand how the world works and make my contribution. The internal wellness is my source of peace and creativity. The external achievements will give me a bigger platform to benefit more beings.

Let the universe be my temple, and the humanity my meditation.

10. The above realizations give me both urgency and calm. It’s urgent because I understand the challenge of the tasks. I can not afford to waste a second. I also feel calm because I know it’s going to be a life long journey, and I should pace myself. Even if I don’t accomplish my tasks in this incarnation, I will come back again to continue my work. This balance of urgency and calm propels me forward.

Finally, all the above are just guests in my house at this moment. They might decide to leave the next moment. I might change my mind any second --- Or, the mind might change me.

Realization in the Shower

2011-12-18T17:09:00.003-05:00

I realized something a while ago in the shower.

As I stood in the shower, my mind was doing its own thing, coming up with all kinds of random thoughts. “Oh, I shouldn’t have made that comment in the class today. That was very embarrassing.” Or, “I still need to finish the paper, but I am behind the schedule.” I was either regretting over the past, or worrying about the future. This muddled state of mind went on and on, until I suddenly found myself done with showering. I didn’t even pay any attention to the shower because my mind was preoccupied with random thoughts, none of which I could recall clearly. So, I not only wasted the chance to enjoy the shower, but also wasted ten minutes of mental activity because I can’t remember what was in my head. What a bad deal!

Then I realized how much of our life is wasted in this state of mind: on the bus, in the class, while walking, before falling asleep… We are not able to enjoy the moment because our minds are somewhere else; and afterward we can’t even recall what our minds were doing.

So, ever since then, every time I shower, I concentrate my mind and speak to my body. “Dear head, you enable me to think, to see, to hear, to smell, to taste, to speak. You represent me in front of the world, and you’ve done such a good job.” “Dear legs, I am grateful that you’ve brought me all over the world, and you never complain.” “Dear stomach, I am sorry that I sometimes eat too much. I was favoring the pleasure of my mouth over your health. I won’t do that anymore.” “Dear body parts, I am lucky to have all of you here --- Imagine if some components are missing!”

As I speak to my body and pat it on the back, my body feels happy, and that makes me happy, too. My German host family once told me that if you talk to your flowers everyday, your flowers will grow better. So, I asked my body, “You have done so much for me. What can I do for you”? My body thought for a while and said, “Feed me healthy food. Give me fresh air. Let me go exercise. Let me have enough rest. Don’t punish me for emotion’s fault. Don’t twist me to fit other people’s judgment. Love me as you love yourself.”

I will take my body’s advice seriously. Because we will be together all the way till the end.

Two Ideas on New Economic Thinking

2011-12-15T23:59:00.000-05:00

I believe we live in a time of exciting new economic thinking. I would make two suggestions regarding moving forward.

The first suggestion has to do with the Earth’s biosphere. In the time of Adam Smith, or even of Marx and Keynes, the natural environment is taken as an infinite given. Mankind can take as much resources as we want from the nature, and dump as much trash back as we please. Air (atmosphere, ozone, etc.), water (rivers, oceans, glaciers, etc.) and many other public goods are both free and boundless. “Sustainability” wasn’t even in the vocabulary.

However, as we enter the 21^st century, for the first time in human history, we as an entire species have hit the limit of our biosphere. The era “Anthropocene” has arrived. Human activities have become the dominant force in shaping the nature. Economic activities today are overdrafting our future. The biosphere is not longer an externality to be brushed off. It has become an integral part of our economic calculation and wellbeing. The new economic theory must account for the human interaction with nature, and demonstrate how we can live within our ecological means.

One key component of such new economic thinking should include the accounting of what I call “GDD” --- Gross Domestic Damage. We should calculate the environmental and institutional cost of our economic activities. For example, the cost of a coal-fired power plant is not just its construction and operational cost; it should include the rising health care cost due to pollution, the cost of policing protests from local residents, the cost of restoring destroyed landscape due to coal mining, the cost of carbon, and the hidden cost of crowding out investment in new energy industry. In today’s GDP accounting, however, these costs would in fact increase GDP through higher health care bill, insurance bill, police expenditure, etc. This needs to be remedied.

My second suggestion on moving forward has to do with the notion of reflexivity. Simply stated, I believe that economic theory is both the cause and the effect of economic reality, therefore the theory could never catch up with the reality. A more elaborate explanation of reflexivity in economics would go like this: a theory comes from studying the reality. Once the theory is produced and popularized, it has an impact on the real world and changes how the world functions, to a greater or lesser degree. So as soon as a theory is adopted, it is out of date because the world has changed thanks to the adoption of exactly that theory.

The reflexive phenomenon is especially relevant to economics because our economy has evolved so much over the past three hundred years, often due to the arrival of new ideas and theories. It would help illustrate this point if we compare economics to physics. The discovery of gravity doesn’t change the gravity; no matter how we transform our physical world, it still follows the same physical laws. However, in economics, the invention and acceptance of a theory have a deep and unpredictable impact on how the economy works, through policy making and even personal choices. So, even the best theory would still be one step behind the reality because it couldn’t account for the impact of itself. Marx is, again, probably the best case in point. His economic theory has had profound impact on the trajectory of historical events, which he himself couldn’t possibly take into account as a part of his theory. Much disproof of Marx’s theory is actually a result of taking Marx seriously and modifying how capitalism works. In a sense, the success of Marx’s theory has defeated itself: thanks to Marx, the capitalists saw the crises coming, so they scrambled to change their behavior and saves themselves, thus disproved Marx.

What a dilemma for the economists! But such a dilemma has only been the exclusive privilege of a handful of great thinkers, who have truly contributed to the progress in economic thought. Let’s hope more future economists would join this troubled club.

The above is a part of my paper for a class "History of Economic Thought" with Professor Moseley at Mount Holyoke College. Highly recommended!! Below is the entire paper.

Has Economics Progressed?

Introduction

Has economics progressed? That is the question. Throughout the entire semester, as we delve into one theory after another, we have been asking ourselves: has there been progress in economic thoughts? What do we mean by “progress”? As the semester comes to an end, we have only more questions --- and this is a good thing.

Interestingly, most professional economists don’t know the answer, either. One respected economist even said that progress in economics “is a bit like how the Supreme Court defines pornography. You will recognize it if you ever see it.[1]” No wonder that there has been little progress in economics.

Many people have raised different criteria and given various answers to this ultimate question. In this paper, I will explain how Blaug and Moseley evaluate progress in economics, and follow it up by my own ideas.

Before I start, I would like to take one step back: why are we asking this question? Why are we obsessed with progress? Indeed, Confucius and many other great minds worshiped the past and called on us to return to the good old days. The word “progress” doesn’t exist in the Chinese vocabulary until two centuries ago. Is the notion of “progress” itself a product of the West and of modernity? Can we have a better life without progress? Since when has progress become a virtue and a must? We will keep these questions in mind as we go on.

Blaug

Blaug is very aware of the elephant in the room --- progress in economic theory, which is evident in the title of the Introduction to his book. Blaug indicates that he uses modern economic theory as the standard of judgment. He warns the reader of two kinds of common mistakes: being too critical of the older writers, and ancestor worship. He further raises the distinction of absolutism and relativism. Blaug himself is an absolutist, and thinks that “relativists are always likely to ignore considerations of internal coherence and explanatory scope and to fix attention solely on congruence with the historical and political environment.[2]” By implication, Blaug gives more weight to the “internal coherence and explanatory scope” as he evaluates economic theories.

A few paragraphs later, Blaug rhetorically asks, “would anyone seriously deny that in the matter of techniques and analytical construct there has been progress in economics?[3]” In essence, Blaug is suggesting another criterion to “progress”, namely the analytical methods. Indeed, the absence of graphs in Marx and Keynes has created more difficulties in understanding their theories.

Blaug notices that there have been dramatic shifts of the focus of economics. For example, neoclassical deals mostly with microeconomics until Keynes brought macro back into the picture. Blaug suggests that the reasons for such shifts are changes in dominant political attitudes and modes of reasoning, value judgments and biases, and even psychological factors. Blaug draws a line between a theory’s political bias and its logical validity. He claims that the validity of a theory is independent of its initial bias. In other word, biases only influence the questions we ask, but would not distort the validity of the answers we give. This is what Schumpeter called the “vision”.[4] Such prejudices might even assist the scientific analysis in some cases, just as Marx was more aware of the ills of capitalism, like business cycles.

Toward the end of his Introduction, Blaug gives a definitive “Yes” to the question of progress in economic thought. His evidences of progress include: improved analytical tools, increasing volume of empirical data, exposition of past biases, and better understanding of the workings of the economic system.[5] However, the rest of Blaug’s book sounds less confident about progress in economic theory.

Blaug also raises the question of whether or not economics is a “science”. “After 1870, economics came to be regarded as a science that analyzed human behavior as a relationship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.[6]” If economics is a science, then falsifiability should be its key feature. However, economists find it hard to agree on the criteria for falsifying a hypothesis. Nor do they find it easy to agree on the “fundamental character of a theory.[7]”

In the last chapter, “A Methodological Postscript”, Blaug deals extensively with the falsifiability and “science-ness” of economics. Blaug points out that economists have always tried to “produce accurate and interesting predictions that were, in principle at least, capable of being empirically falsified.[8]” With regard to the classical economics, Blaug argues that “no real effort was made to test classical doctrines against the body of statistical material[9]”, and that most contradictions to the theory were attributed to the strength of “counteracting tendencies[10]”. Some key variables, like the rate of technological change, were treated as exogenous factors. Blaug concludes that classical economists, including Marx, acknowledged the importance of falsifiability, but just could not bring themselves “to face up to the requirements of his canon.[11]”

When it comes to the neo-classical economists, Blaug says that their greater rigor in model construction was achieved by limiting the scope of the analysis. Another key flaw of neoclassical economics is its “timelessness”. The model treats the economy as a static system, but attempts to predict events in real world. One of the most obvious assumptions of such kind is the constancy of the relative weight of labor and capital in the aggregate production function. Blaug calls neoclassical economics “empty models” and wonder why economists haven’t yet abandon them[12].

However, says Blaug, the falsifiability criterion has its limitations in economics. It might be too strict of a criterion for economics. Friedman famously argued that predictive accuracy should be the sole criterion of validity --- no matter what unrealistic assumptions people make. (This position, if carried to the extreme, sounds to me like an endorsement of witchcraft: witchcraft often has quite strong predictive power, but is based on the assumption that there are witches.) Blaug contends that Friedman’s edict (Test Implications, Not Assumption) is not very helpful due to various level of interpretation of falsifiability. Also, if a theory is refuted by evidence, economics usually falls short to provide an alternative. So, at best, Friedman’s position proves that economic theories have failed both the assumption test and the prediction test. Furthermore, economics events are influenced by so many non-economic factors, making it hard to test the theory itself.

Turning his attention to value judgment, Blaug explains that the significance or relevance of a theory remains to be discussed even if its validity has been proved. Blaug brings back the distinction between normative and positive economics, which he has touched upon in the Introduction. He agrees that economics is value-loaded, and that “a disinterested social science has never existed, and for logical reason, cannot exist.[13]” For example, the discussion of efficient allocation of resources is based on the value judgment of what is “efficient”.

Finally, Blaug asks why we should bother with the history of economic theory. He asserts that “bad theory is still better than no theory at all and, for the most part, critics of orthodoxy had no alternative construction to offer.[14]” That is, except for Marxist critics. Blaug acknowledges that much of the received doctrine is merely metaphysics and should not be mistaken for science, and that economists are prone to claim possession of the truth while what they’ve really got is value judgment. He even says that “modern economics provides an abundance of empty theories parading as scientific predictions or policy recommendations carrying concealed value premises.” (Remember Blaug’s confidence in modern economics and in the progress of economics in his Introduction?) Blaug believes that studying the history of economics is the best antidote and would introduce more methodological humility.

Moseley

Moseley is much more consistent than Blaug on the criteria of progress in economic thought. Moseley’s two criteria are logical consistency and empirical explanatory power. Moseley’s answer to the “progress” question would probably be “yes and no”: some thinkers have certainly made progress over their predecessors, but there has been serious retrogression and stagnation, especially in the mainstream modern economics.

Marx is the most prominent example of real progress in economic theory. Marx has the most rigorous logical structure among the economists we’ve studied. The scope of his analysis is unparalleled. He is the only one who has developed a full theory of profit, and has explained and successfully predicted the falling rate of profit. He has explained the exploitive nature of capitalist mode of production and has demonstrated surplus-value, which is at the heart of profit creation. He has deduced capitalism’s endogenous drive for technological advancement, and has highlighted the struggle over the length of the working day. What’s more, the predictive and explanatory power of Marx’s theory has been confirmed by reality.

Compared with Marx, the neoclassical and modern theories would often look like miserable retrogression in the history of economic thought. The most obvious and serious defect of modern economics is the absence of a theory of profit --- the soul of capitalism. For another example, in one of his article, Moseley points out the glaring flaws of marginal productivity theory and the mainstream economists’ unwillingness to give it up. “Little or no ‘further development’ of marginal productivity theory has taken place in 45 years, and marginal productivity remains in a ‘state of limbo’ and continues to ‘await further development’.[15]” It would indeed be a progress if the mainstream economists give up their unjustified beliefs, go back in time and revisit Marx.

Such intellectual progress is usually made impossible by non-economic forces, as Moseley explains. Most economists today are ignorant or misinformed about Marx because of the political prejudice and professional bias --- some truths are too subversive to be accepted in an academic circle in a capitalist society.

My Thoughts

To answer the question of “progress”, I will first ask “why progress”. To a modern person, “progress worship” is just too natural to be noticed. “Progress” has become an equivalent of “living a better life”. However, this belief is questionable because in human history, many groups have enjoyed happy and static way of life. Some would even say that it is shameful that modern society requires constant expansion to achieve balance --- a treadmill to hell. But, for the purpose of this paper, if progress in economic theory could lead to a better-run society and a happier life, then I agree that progress is indeed desirable.

I will also make a distinction between “progress in economics” and “economic progress”. The former deals with economic theory and the study of economics; the latter refers to the material improvement in human society. There could be economic progress without progress in economics, and vice versa.

Under the above conditions, I will further define my criteria for progress. On this point, I fully agree with Moseley’s suggestion that the criteria should be logical validity (both assumptions and inferences) and empirical validity (both explanatory and predictive power). Logical consistency is the minimum requirement of any theory. The fact that “logical validity” is still a stated goal of economics reflects the dismal state of this discipline. Empirical validity is the reason why anyone should pay any attention to the economists. If the economists don’t deliver any helpful results (either explaining or predicting), then as a costumer, I want my money back. Why should the society pay a high consulting fee to those economists who don’t deliver any financial or intellectual benefits?

With my two criteria in mind, I think the prize of progress should go to Marx. I largely agree with Moseley’s defense of Marx’s economic theory, as stated in the section above. Reading Marx’s Capital, I enter into his magnificent logical construction, marvel at his perceptive assumptions and solid inferences, and shiver at the subversive implications of his theory of surplus-value and of profit. The empirical validity of Marx’s theory finds its proof in the current worldwide economic crisis and Occupy movements. The high unemployment in the developed world reminds me of Marx’s demonstration of technological unemployment; the squeezed middle class echoes Marx’s theory of the relative impoverishment of workers.

It is sobering that the prize of progress in economic theory would require travel back in time for more than a century. It seems that the intellectual development of economics is by no means linear or progressive. I would also like to note that the validity of a theory does not directly correlates with its acceptance by the society or its ruling class. As Marx has pointed out, “the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class.” Validity doesn’t rule; the rule class does.

I would also like to look at some items on Blaug’s list of “progress”. Blaug insists that improvements in analytical tools should qualify as progress in economic theory. However, tools are not theory, just as a can-opener is not food. A good can-opener might as well open a can of worms. At best, progress in analytical tools is progress in math. Indeed, most of what we call progress in economics in the past few decades is merely more and more complicated math and computer modeling.

Blaug also put “accumulation of empirical data” and “exposition of past biases” in the category of progress. I would say that the accumulation of empirical data is merely a result of passing time, or of statistics and accounting, not of economic theory. Regarding the exposition of past biases, I hope soon enough the bias against Marx would be “past”.

Blaug claims that “bad theory is better than no theory at all”, a point questioned by many of my classmates. I think there is a difference between “weak theory” and “false theory”, both of which are “bad theory”. Weak theory is not harmful, while false theory can be very destructive. Many authors and articles have spoken eloquently to the damaging effects of modern economic theory and its wide indoctrination (embodied in Mankiw’s textbooks). I think mainstream economics should adopt more scientific skepticism and modesty if they want to qualify their discipline as a real science.

Moving Forward

Still, I believe we live in a time of exciting new economic thinking. I would make two suggestions regarding moving forward.

[1] James K. Galbraith, Professor of Economics, University of Texas Austin, at 2011 INET Bretton Woods Conference, http://ineteconomics.org/blog/playground/bretton-woods-past-and-present-2-progress-economics

[2] Blaug, 2

[3] Ibid., 3

[4] Ibid., 5

[5] Ibid., 7

[6] Ibid., 4

[7] Ibid., 6

[8] Ibid., 689

[9] Ibid., 690

[10] Ibid., 691

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 694

[13] Ibid., 699

[14] Ibid., 700

[15] Moseley, “A Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of the Price of Capital”, 2010

Reflection on the Ego

2011-11-19T23:07:00.001-05:00

Who am I? Am I my ego? Deprived of ego, am I still me? Here I would like to do a simple reflection on this vast topic. To clarify, I am using the word "ego" in its conventional sense. Here "ego" simply means "a sense of self, an image of self".

When you mentally withdraw yourself from the world and start to observe people around you, you will find that most people are the slave of their ego, and not much else. Their motto of life is, "I have ego, therefore I am". And at first glance, this seems to make sense because "I am who I am because I have a sense of self". But, let's take a closer look.

We work tirelessly to please our ego. We buy stuff because those stuff in return buy us respect (or jealousy) from others. We say things because our speech in return says something about us. (How often do you notice people saying things just for the sake of having their voices heard?) When we don't recognize our true nature, we tend to fill in the vacuum of ego by things outside of us. We can't feel our own existence unless we define ourselves by accessories, pinning ourselves down in this fluctuating world by things like cars, jewelries, or even boy/girl friends.

We are attached to our belongings. However, even our most precious belongings --- a healthy body --- will sooner or later decay. Then why be attached to objects at the expense of our health? People donate money to have their names carved on walls. We try our best to leave marks (good or bad) on the world so that we know we have lived. We forget to enjoy living because we worry so much about being forgotten after we die.

We are attached to our thoughts. In capitalism, our thoughts are called "intellectual property". We try so hard to coin new terms so that our names would be associated with the term. We get furious when other people use "my term" without paying tribute to me in the footnote.

However, what else is more elusive than thoughts? Thoughts come and go. They come from nowhere, and go to nowhere. If I change my mind or forget a thought, do I lose my property?

When other people criticize our ideas, we feel that they are criticizing us because we identify too strongly with our thoughts. I would gladly join anyone in criticizing "my thoughts" because that is the best way to improve, and thoughts are merely the echo of my past. By the time "my thoughts" become known by others, I have already moved on, and "my thoughts" are no longer my thoughts.

We always look outward for things that differentiates us from the rest of the world. And over the years, we build a portfolio of things or characteristics that make up the image of self, just like bird building a nest. The only difference is that our nest is an illusion of self, an imagined image of who we are.

Our self perception is so dependent upon other people's perception of us. We see ourselves through other people's eyes and facial expressions. We are the mirror that reflects other people's mirror. We feel good or bad about ourselves through this third-hand information. We put our own happiness and self worth at the mercy of other people, as if other people are wiser judges than we are. Are we that suspicious of ourselves? What's more, we would never know what other people really think of us. We are only guessing, and a life-long series of guesses constitutes the ego.

But who am I without my ego? Is there anything left that makes me "me"? I don't know yet, but I can identify one candidate. Let's call him "the intellect". And I will end with a little story of Self, Intellect and Ego.

The "Master Self" had two apprentices: Intellect and Ego. Intellect was good at thinking and worked hard, while Ego was only good at flattering Master Self and did nothing else. Over the years, Intellect produced wonderful thinking, and brought fame and wealth to Master Self. Master Self didn't like Intellect because Intellect made him tired. Intellect also didn't like wealth and fame because they distracted him from his work. But Ego was a sweet heart, always making Master Self feel good. So, Master Self gave all the fame and wealth to Ego. Ego thrived on the fruit of Intellect's labor, and kept expanding his influence, while Intellect was left in the cold and lonely corner, without any recognition or further mentorship. This unfair distribution kept happening. One day, Intellect left Master Self quietly. Master Self had only Ego as his apprentice. Seeing no more wealth and fame and having no ability of his own, Ego also left, and Master Self was broke.

What I Study & What I Do

2011-09-25T11:22:00.000-04:00

Here's my current articulation of two important questions:

What I Study

Physical: "Trinity of E" --- Energy, Economy, Ecology
Metaphysical: History and Philosophy

What I Do

Field: Creating Sustainable Future for Communities, Corporations and Countries (the Three Cs); New Energy Industry
Role: Communications, Management, Investing

For my academic study, I divide my learning into "physical" and "metaphysical" branches --- walking with two legs. The metaphysical branch sharpens the faculty; the physical branch gives me a playground to test and practice my philosophy. The "Trinity of E" is inspired by my advisor Michael Klare. Energy serves the Economy, and the Economy should serve the Nature.

For my future career, I break down the question into two --- what field do I want to be in, and what role do I want to play in that field. I want to be in the sustainability field, or the new energy industry in particular. In this field, my role will be communications, management, investing.

The field of sustainability is vast and fast-growing, but it is also fragmented and disorganized. We need an equivalent of Adam Smith or Darwin to clear up the field and make it an organic whole, providing a new lens to understand the world. This shall be one of my goals.

Finally, I will quote a motto of our Guy's in Hampshire's Outdoor Program: "Planning is essential, but plans are useless." I plan to change my plan at any minute, and I shall be most happy to find flaws in my previous plans.

The “Real World” Is Not So Real

2011-08-16T17:25:00.000-04:00

We hear it often that we should be realistic and focus on the “real world”. But we rarely think about how real the “real world” actually is.

When asked what the “real world” means, most people will say: “well, the real world is the material world”. But I would say that materials make up at most 1% of the “real world”. The remaining 99% belongs to emotions and illusions, which are far from real. Materials are nothing more than the molecules they are made of; only when they are blended with human emotions do they become a part of the so-called “real world”.

The “real world” refers to money and fame. However, money is merely the digits in your bank account, and fame is no more than other people’s illusion and our own self-deception. Money and fame are as real as our own emotion. Politics is another big part of the “real world”, but I can hardly think of anything more unreal than politics.

So we can see that the “real world” is not very real in the end. But it does have a real impact on our lives because we are slave to our own illusions. The ability to see through our own illusions is the first step toward true liberation.

Trinity of E: Energy, Economy, Ecology

2011-08-07T10:59:00.004-04:00

Trinity of E. This is my framework of analyzing the material world. I got the idea from Professor Michael Klare's "energy, environment and economy". Here are ten points to help organize my current thinking on "Trinity of E: Energy, Economy, Ecology."

1. Watershed event in the history of the Earth --- we are entering "Anthropocene", where human activities are the main force in shaping the Earth. For the past thousands of years of human civilization, we are not dramatically different from other species in our ability to shape the earth. Ants build huge towers and bees build palaces as well. But since the invention of steam engine, our creative and destructive power have grown exponentially. Now we can dam rivers, remove mountains, drill into the sea bed, and change the composition of atmosphere. Our power has surpass our wisdom, and our ambition has hit the limit of biosphere. Can our heart and brain catch up with our arms and legs?

2. For the past two hundred years, resources and environment have been a big externality to our economy; they are not a part of our consideration. There's no limit to how many trees you can cut or how much poison you throw into the river because the size of our economy is modest relative to the environment. The environment can tolerate our activity. But this time is different. Our economy has become so large that in comparison, the Earth looks quite inadequate. For the first time in human history, we have to seriously face the environmental consequences of our own making. (In the past, we also need to face the environmental challenges, but those challenges are natural instead of man-made.)

3. The irony of success. The western nations have successfully converted the rest of the world to the western way of life (or the longing for it). Capitalism and consumerism have prevailed against all cultures and religions. But this success is the root of many of the West's headaches: increasing resource consumption (food, water, land, energy), a crowded and deteriorating habitat, rising competition in industries and exports, a decreasing sense of superiority, etc.

4. Capital is king in modern society. Finance and investment drives the economy, and the economic foundation determines the superstructure. Banks and corporations own the production factors and determine the direction of a nation. (China is an exception to this rule where government still dominates and has different premises, which could be a very good thing.) To have any real impact, we need to be able to think like an investor and a banker. Profit motive is the key driver in our current history, with other contributing factors like "clash of civilization". To turn our economy green, we have to show investors that "green" is the new gold.

5. The money circulating in the world today is the liability of the society. The society has to stand ready to surrender their labor and resources to meet the demand of money. The more money there is, the more our labor and resources are enslaved by the money printing machine. Now the Fed is considering QE3.

6. The energy and resource constraint has been used to support the "Limit to Growth" theory. Yes, there is certainly a limit to the current growth model, but at the end of the day, human can never stop growing --- the day mankind stop growing is the day we die. We just need to figure out other growth models that does not kill the environment. We can do it; and if we can't, we will perish.

7. Globalization is not a product of benevolence; it does not originate from curiosity of other peoples or cultures. Instead, it is a product of conquest and control. A great proportion of globalization is driven by the thirst of energy and resources. This expansion could also be turned into a good thing when managed wisely.

8. Noah's Ark. When Noah was building the ark, his neighbors were all laughing at the crazy old man, wasting time on building a big ship on dry land. Even before the huge flood, the neighbors were still indulging in their self-righteousness. The current climate change politics mirrors the ancient story of Noah's Ark. There are many enlightened people trying to build an ark for humanity, but there are many more ignorant and selfish people mocking such effort.

The nature has been very tolerant and patient for us because it has sent us so many warnings in the past several years: fire, flood, earthquake, tsunami, all on a small, regional scale. The nature expects us to learn from these modest warnings and wake up. But we dismissed it. So, the nature is left with no choice but to throw down a global environmental crisis. I think we will see it soon. Actually, the sooner, the better, because mankind needs a loud wake-up call. A Chinese saying goes: man cries only when he sees his coffin. We will see ours soon. And that, too, can be a good thing.

9. China will play a key role in building a sustainable future. For one thing: it is suicidal for China to continue business-as-usual, so it must change. The current Chinese narrative is: the West has wreck the environment for its growth, so why couldn't we do it? Instead, I think China should have the courage to say this: "China recognizes that what's at stake is not just the GDP of one nation; it is the survival and wellbeing of the whole humanity. China is willing to bear the pain of transition, China will not repeat the mistakes of others, and China has the wisdom to manage its growth in a sustainable way." China is at an advantaged position because the Chinese government is still in control of key resources and industries; Chinese politics is much less influenced by corporate interests; Chinese government has a different set of motives other than making a profit. In the case of our historic energy transition, we might need a wise and powerful central government.

10. The word "sustainability" is too wishy-washy to capture the severity and urgency of our challenge. The word "sustainability" makes it appear as if "sustainable or not" is a choice we can make. No, there is no choice. "Unsustainable" means "death". Our species is in risk of becoming fossils (fuel) ourselves, and future civilizations might burn our remains to power their growth. We are not fighting for "sustainability" per se --- we are fighting for survival. There will be blood.

China Needs New Economic Thinking

2011-07-19T15:08:00.003-04:00

After talking to economics students, professors, consultant, investors, and people working in the finance industry in China, the general consensus is that the Chinese society and the government is paying little attention to economic thinking in China, let alone "new" economic thinking. Currently, Chinese society is collectively obsessed with making money, and has little patience for "thinkings" which doesn't materialize in six months. Also, to get rich in the short run, people find that they don't really need much new economic thinking. This is a very particular historical stage for the nation.

Economics students report that they do not learn much in college. They go to classes and take tests to get the degree. They also spend time on taking extra exams for various diplomas and certificates that enable their entry into accounting and finance. One economics professor told me: "teaching is teaching, real world is real world. When you teach, you don't need to worry about economic thinking." Some professors make more money by recommending stocks on TV shows than their university salary.

The economics and finance department in Chinese universities is being dominate by professors educated in American universities. There are very few Chinese-educated economics professors in the leading Chinese universities right now. Good universities in China all teach economics and finance using English textbooks. Which textbook they choose depends on what the teacher himself used when he was in school in the U.S. There isn't much presence of the division among different school of thoughts because thoughts are not important for people's career.

Also, in order to be promoted in top Chinese universities, the economics professors are required to publish articles in English language journals. Publication on Chinese journals doesn't count as much because of the low credibility. This situation is also created by the fact that many universities care a great deal about their international ranking, which looks at publications on globally recognized journals.

Another interesting point is that several people (students and professors) mentioned to me that they feel that the Chinese language is unsuitable or even inadequate in dealing with modern economics. My own experience confirm their feeling to a certain degree. The whole modern economics is built upon western system of thoughts and is thought out and developed in the English language. As a result, many notions and logic in economics couldn't find satisfying counter-part in Chinese. When an English textbook or article is translated into Chinese, I usually find it confusing and inaccurate.

One other thing to notice: economic thinking can not be separated from the political reality, and this is especially true for China, where the government (namely, the Party) still plays the most important role. If the business runs the government in the US, then in China, the government runs the business. If the government exists to serve the needs of the market in the US by providing regulations, public goods etc., then in China, the market exists to serve the needs of the government by strengthening state control and delivering political legitimacy. The government can use executive orders to stop retailers from raising prices; the government can ask the statistics department to "come up with" the exact data that it wants. The state owned companies has been consolidating control over national industries. All these signs tell us that we can't simply apply market economy model to China's situation. Chinese economy is a unique hybrid of past and present, of Confucian central control and modern economics. The situation also tells us that any economic model is only useful to a certain degree --- and a less degree in China than in the US.

It is at first surprising to think about how China is able to develop so rapidly without much real economic thinking. But the reality is that China's per capita GDP still ranks behind Albania and Ecuador, so China's economic growth up to this point is largely picking the low hanging fruit --- it is more precisely a "coming-back-to-normal" instead of real development. China is exploiting its own labor force, social well-being and environment to increase the GDP. Now the low hanging fruit is gone, and in order for China to go forward, it definitely needs new economic thinking.

Why I Love Hampshire

2011-07-08T14:29:00.002-04:00

There is no unconditional love, so here I wish to explain why I love Hampshire College.

I love Hampshire because it is imperfect. An imperfect school makes a perfect place for critical thinking. Hampshire College is never a finished product, it is a constant experiment and improvement. The students are not just service receivers, we are the creators and we take this responsibility eagerly and seriously.

I love Hampshire for its paradoxes, and let me name a few. Hampshire has the tradition of breaking the traditions; Hampshire is in the business of thinking out of the box. Therefore, Hampshire has an inherent restlessness in its gene. It has to keep reinventing itself and to engage in painful self-reflection and self-criticism.

Another paradox is that the best Hampshire students are the most critical of the school, and they are often the ones who take the most off-campus classes. This is a sign of Hampshire success, just as the parents are successful when the child leaves home and recognizes the parents' mistakes. But the child only loves the parents more.

A third paradox: Hampshire was very unique in 1970s, but less so now because other schools has borrowed Hampshire's idea. This is exactly what Hampshire set out to achieve --- to unsettle the rigid higher education. But Hampshire's success has led to the loss of its comparative advantages, so Hampshire has to find a new edge to be the pioneer in the next round of progress. The appointment of Jonathan Lash as Hampshire's new president is a decisive step.

I love Hampshire because it is doing the society a great favor by being the "venture capitalist" in education. Amherst College is like a successful pension fund, investing in only those blue chip stocks with low risk and sure returns. And Amherst students would probably still be successful without Amherst --- they will be admitted to other Ivy Leagues, or their daddy will figure something out. In contrast, Hampshire is the venture capitalist who welcomes unconventional students, giving them a chance to discover and express themselves, and in many situations, to have a second life. Also, there's no other place like Hampshire. Hampshire shows the world that there is more than one definition of success --- all roads lead to Rome. But more importantly, Hampshire makes you realize that probably Rome is not where you really want to go.

I love Hampshire because I am pushed to work extra hard. First, we must have a command of the orthodoxy; then we have to critique it; finally we have to create something new and better. Another way to look at it: Hampshire students have to take care of spiritual and material worlds at the same time --- being successful is not enough; we have to do good.

Of course, Hampshire is full of its own shortcomings. My biggest objection is people's showing up late for appointments. Also, critical thinking might turn into self-righteousness. Sometimes, I am quite disturbed by the situation in the College, but soon to realize that this disturbance is an invaluable education.

To conclude, I will tell a story. At the age of eighteen, I meet a girl. She is unique, creative, energetic and sometimes crazy. She is sincere, unpretentious, not totally mature, and she loves nature. I decide to spend my four precious year with her. She makes me laugh, and makes me angry. Sometimes we fight and try to break up. Eventually, I get to know a lot about her, and through her, I have learned even more about myself. We are growing together, and this mutual growth will never end.

I love her, and I think you know her name.

Money Dominance

2011-07-06T10:58:00.003-04:00

Living in New York makes me realize the dominance of money. I don't mean a fancy car or big house, but human dignity and access to fresh air. Here are some other thoughts on how money is transforming the society.

1. Money and knowledge

We all know that knowledge is power, but we also start to realize that knowledge is getting more and more expensive. In order to have meaningful impact in the world, we need to understand the system. However, the system has become so complex that it takes at least a master degree to comprehend it. But given the rising cost of education, if your parents are not rich, you will be hundred of thousands of dollars in debt when you get your degree. In other word, by the time you have the knowledge, you have lost your freedom; by the time you have the power to chance the system for better, you are already subject to the system. To pay off your student loan, you probably have to take the highest paying job you can get, which means you are more likely to work for Goldman Sachs instead of Securities and Exchange Commission, and more like to work for BP and not for EPA.

Sometimes, I have to marvel at the design of the system: by the time you understand how the prison works, you are already a prisoner yourself. This is achieved simply by raising the cost of education.

2. Money and Human Capital

The reward structure of our society is very biased. With the same intelligence and work ethic, you can get much richer in finance industry than anywhere else. That's why so many of our smartest students are going into finance. It would be less unfortunate if these smart young people are creating social value as they make themselves rich, but more often than not, the finance industry is just making the rich richer at the cost of making the poor poorer. This widening wealth gap is still a smaller cost compared to the opportunity cost of losing our best young people to the unproductive industry. These young people could have been brilliant engineers who invent new energy storage system, or artists who produce breathtaking pieces. The society is suffering a huge human capital lost due to the biased reward structure.

Why is there such a bias? The answer might be specialization. A car mechanics specializes in fixing cars. The finance industry specializes in dealing with money, a commodity that happen to be the medium of exchange. When a car mechanics practices his expertise, he creates value for other people by fixing their car. But when the finance industry practice their expertise, they creates more chaos than they create value, but they are rewarded handsomely for the chaos they created.

3. Money and Government

The government is broke. It has no money and too much debt, but it still has to pay the bill for Wall Street's mess. What's the consequences?

First, the government has to roll back its social service, especially education and health care, which further worsens the position of the middle class and the poor.

Second, the government will lose its best people to the private sector. There has already been a brain drain in New York, where judges leave court to go back to private employers because the government can't compete with the private sector to pay the lawyers. How can you expect someone with a annual salary of $50,000 to regulate the financial innovation coming out of someone whose salary is seven digits?

Third, there will be increasing moral hazard between the financial industry and the government. On one hand, the politicians are funded by Wall Street and big corporations. On the other hand, the powerful private companies are too big to fail, so they are certain that the government will bail them out if they mess up. So why not take on more risk?

Our government might soon become a government of the money, by the money and for the money.

4. Money and Globalization

Locke in his Second Treatise said, "Thus, in the beginning, all the world was America, and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money was anywhere known. Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbors, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions. "

Money never sleeps. Once money is born, it will expand till its own demise. Globalization is exactly propelled by the logic of money. It transform the whole world and make all societies a subject of its own logic. China and India, formerly isolated, are now embracing the money logic more eagerly than anyone else.

China's Red Song --- a spiritual vacuum

2011-06-30T09:56:00.002-04:00

China is singing red songs again. Why? Because there is a huge cultural and spiritual vacuum, and we have nothing better to offer to the Chinese people. China needs real role models and an enlightened direction; China is calling for a 21st century Confucius.

The situation in today's China is quite similar to the situation more than two thousand five hundred years ago in Confucius' time. The old cultural system is destroyed, society is chaotic and immoral. A chaotic time produces great leaders and philosophers. The same has to happen in today's China, which will be a great contribution to the whole world.

Yellow Fortune: China’s Contribution to Humanity in the 21st Century

2011-06-05T21:45:00.000-04:00

Yellow Fortune

China’s Contribution to Humanity in the 21^st Century

Over the past decade, “China rising” has been one of the (if not the) hottest phrases in the world media. For thirty years, Chinese economy has experienced double-digit growth in GDP measure; Chinese society has undergone the largest modernization and urbanization process in human history; Chinese people have led the world’s largest poverty-and-illiteracy-reduction effort. The transformation has been so dramatic and so profound that it has left most of us in shock --- our understanding of China lags way behind China’s development. There’s nothing in the recorded human history that can provide a model for understanding today’s China and for predicting its potential. As a result, China’s development has attracted attention, admiration, as well as suspicion, hostility.

The dominant Western narrative about China’s rise has been one of the two: China is going to fail sooner or later; or China is a threat that must be contained or eliminated. Many people believe that China is going to fail because almost all other communist states have failed. They say that China is a threat because China is different from the West and is a challenge to the established world system. These suspicion and fear resemble the “Yellow Peril” narrative. Westerners might still compare today’s China to the Mongolian army that swept across Eurasia, or Mao’s Red Guard or the overwhelming image of “Blue Ants”.

If we use these distorted lenses to see today’s China, then we are out-of-date by decades, if no by centuries. In this essay, I will attempt to provide a 21^st century perspective to understand China and to predict its future. This is the “Yellow Fortune”: China will make tremendous contribution to humanity in the next one to two hundred years.

How to understand today’s China

In order to predict China’s future, we first need to identify China’s unique characteristics today. As we try to understand China, the first difficulty we encounter is that there’s nothing that we can compare China to. True, that both China and the United States are geographically huge and geopolitically powerful, but the two countries have totally different history and culture. True, that both China and India have over one billion population and enjoy exponential economic growth, but the two countries have the opposite political system and industrial base. True, that today’s China has inherited the core values from the ancient Chinese dynasties, but today’s China is undertaking innovations that are totally unthinkable for the old empire. Can we then see China as a nation-state? Not really, because China has 56 official ethnicities and numerous unofficial cultural and linguistic groups; because Xinjiang, Inner-Mongolia and Tibet, three of the largest provinces in China, are “autonomous region” for ethnic minorities. Can we then see China as a civilization? Not completely, because China does possess most of the qualities of a modern state, and Han-Chinese nationalism has been repeatedly utilized to unit the country.

So, today’s China is something else. It is not America, not India, not merely a nation state or a civilization, not even comparable to its old self. We must see China as it is. We should not use a Western vocabulary and value system to interpret and evaluate today’s China. We shouldn’t fit China into existing models because China is a model on its own, based on more than two thousands years of written history and one fifth of the current global population.

After discussing how we should not view China, I would like to suggest a way to understand China. China is a civilization-state, a full overlap of a continuing civilization and a modern state. Today’s China is also the reincarnation of the ancient Chinese civilization in the body of a youth. For two thousand years, Chinese civilization has gone through a full cycle of birth, growth and decay. The ancient Chinese society has remained static for thousands of years, staying comfortably in the dynastic cycles. Such comfort and close-mindedness have led to the fall of the civilization. The deadly blow came in early 20^th century, and the old empire was defeated by the emerging industrial nations from the West, as well as Japan, China’s former student. Most cultures or nations would have perished under such destruction and humiliation. However, the resilience gene in the Chinese culture and the thousand-year inertia have helped China to go through its painful nirvana in less than half a century: the Qing Dynasty collapsed in 1911; the nation went through colonization, separation, foreign invasion and civil war. And 38 years layer, in 1949, the new People’s Republic of China has stood up among the nations in the world.

Therefore, today’s China has the character of both a teenager and an ancient soul. The People’s Republic is only sixty-two years old, so China is displaying all the traits of a youth: energetic, restless, adventurous, insecure about its own identity and future, sensitive to other people’s opinion, strong self-awareness and dignity, fragile self-esteem, etc. By looking at China’s diplomatic reactions to foreign governments and media, we often see a typical teenager attitude. At the same time, today’s China is the direct continuation of the longest civilization on the surface of the earth, so China displays the mentality of an old man with unparallel wisdom and knowledge. The long history of China has given the nation strong confidence in its future and potential. Thousands of years of accumulation of wisdom provides inspiration to any challenge China is facing today. China sees the cyclical side of the history, and is not concerned with immediate gain or loss. China is the only civilization that has been at both the top and the bottom of global hierarchy, and therefore, China understands the life on both ends.

This double-personality has left many observers confused; it has also confused China itself. Sometimes, China is torn between the eager teenager and the wise old man. To put it another way: during the day, China is the youth who is busy with building high-speed railways and develop new industries. At night, when people return to dinner table with the whole family, traditional culture becomes the strongest bond. Often, China is so busy with its economic development that only at night or in dreams does the wise old man surface to the ground, and wander in the sub-consciousness of all Chinese people.

To grasp the reality of today’s China, the first step is to recognize that China is a unique civilization-state, and China’s personality is the combination of a teenager and an old man. With this notion in mind, it becomes much easier to understand China’s seemingly contradictory behaviors and values.

To further analyze today’s China, we should discuss how the people is being divided. The “race-gender-class” trinity does not apply to China’s situation, and I would propose that we use the “rural-urban dichotomy” to study the Chinese society. China’s rural-urban divide has its root in recent economic history, and I call it the “colonization with Chinese characteristics”. Most Western countries accomplished their accumulation of original capital by colonization and slavery. One western country’s rise is done at the cost of the misery of many colonies and of the life of the colonized millions. When it comes to China’s development after World War II, there was no possibility to colonize or to exploit other less-fortunate countries. China has to find the first bucket of gold within its own border, hence the “colonization” of the rural population by the urban, the colonization of agriculture by industry. China has to “colonize” itself and squeeze the surplus value out of the farmers for further modernization of the nation. The rural population in China has become the second class citizen in their own country: they are tied to their land, have poorer schools and hospitals, enjoy less benefit of the social safety net, have less access to material and political resources. The Chinese farmers provide endless cheap labor for urban centers, for manufacturing and for construction projects. They build the national highways, international airport, skyscrapers and subways; they sleep in slums in the cities and they send most of their income back to the countryside where their parents live and their children go to school.

Chinese economic miracle is based on the internal extraction of its own people’s labor, by depriving the farmers of their fair share of the profit and using that profit to jumpstart strategic industries and urban centers. This strategy is essentially a form of colonization, creating a second class citizen --- the “others” among “us”. The second class citizens work more and get less, which explains China’s fast capital accumulation. This strategy has been extremely successful economically, but not very satisfactory ethically and socially. This “internal colonization” has created a lot of tension and instability after thirty years in practice.

As a derivative of this rural-urban divide, there is another way to put China’s socio-economic diversity into perspective: developed bloc vs. developing bloc. The developed bloc includes major urban centers like Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, etc, while the rest of the country constitutes the developing bloc. Any “average number” in China makes no sense because the different between Shanghai and an inland province is greater than the different between Germany and Romania. Therefore, when we compare China to the rest of the world, we should distinguish between the developed and the developing regions in China.

The two blocs in China create the effect of “1+1 > 2” because the two blocs form organic interaction, complement each other and generate dynamic growth. For example, the rural, developing bloc in China provides labor and land; the developed bloc provides education, capital, innovation and opportunities for the rest of the country.

Above is just a brief sketch of China’s complex and contradictory characteristics. These unique qualities form the basis of our prediction on China’s future.

China’s future contribution to humanity: a few prophecies

I am fully convinced that China will make enormous contribution to humanity in 21^st century. This confidence does not come from nationalist fever; it comes from careful reflection and observation on China, Europe and the United States.

Prophecy 1: Chinese culture will provide a new philosophy for the 21^st century and will lead humanity into greater wellbeing, characterized by harmony between human and nature, and between nation and nation.

Chinese culture is the product of the longest civilization in the world today; it is the result of thousands of years of trial-and-error, distillation, and integration; it is sustainable, renewable and resilient; it values harmony, tolerance, coexistence, and unity; it is a distinct philosophy that is different from the West; it has a much larger historical “sample size” and thus provides a more accurate picture of the nature of human and society.

By 2050, the number of Chinese food chain restaurants will surpass McDonald’s and KFC combined, bringing healthy and authentic Chinese food to all communities; Chinese tea house will be more popular than Starbucks or alcohol-consuming bars, promoting a green and calm beverage consumption; Chinese medicine will be covered by all insurance plan, and the traditional herbal medicine will revolutionize the notion of health and medicine. I am confident of this prediction because of the 1.3 billion Chinese on the mainland, as well as the millions of Chinese around the world --- they are the best ambassadors for the culture and constitute largest market for the products. With an increasing mobility of Chinese people worldwide, they will take with them the best of the Chinese culture.

(I am fully aware that the very word of “China” rings alarm in many people’s mind. They will think of the spread of Chinese culture as an invasion or cultural genocide. There’s probably no easy way to convince the suspicious by words; China will have to prove to the world by its behavior that it aims to promote exchange and harmony, not expansion or take-over.)

Chinese culture is not just a nice addition to the diversity of the world; more importantly, it provides a whole new paradigm for mankind to live in harmony with the earth, with other nations, cultures, and people. Over the past several centuries, the Western philosophy has led the exponential development of human capacity. From the Industrial Revolution to the American Dream, there is an underlying belief that human is chosen by God to rule the lives on earth, and individuals are the center of social relations. This individualistic, human-centric, and exclusive worldview has unlocked astonishing amount of energy and passion; it has brought our civilization to its peak of material creation and consumption. At the same time, it has created problems that itself can not solve: environmental degradation, materialism, global inequality, etc. Chinese culture will solve the problems that the Western culture has created, creating harmony between human and nature, between economic growth and social wellbeing, etc. Chinese culture will not subvert or destroy the western system; instead, East and West will complement each other, just as acupuncture works well with antibiotics. Also, China must avoid a cultural superiority: the stronger China gets, the more self-critical it should be. The core of Chinese culture is harmony and self-critique, not hierarchy or self-righteousness.

Looking at the current image of Chinese culture in the world, we find that it is still lingering at the stage of fortune cookies and Jackie Chen films. This is probably the biggest waste of human intellectual treasure. The reason for this lack of awareness of Chinese culture is that China itself is still recovering from the confidence-crisis that has been haunting the nation for more than a century. In late nineteenth century, accompanying the defeat of the Chinese empire came the loss of cultural confidence which was so essential for China’s psychological wellbeing at that time. The past century has been a century of reflection and rejection of traditional Chinese culture because of China’s economic and military humiliation. Now, with the rise of China’s hard power, there has been a revival of passion for ancient Chinese classics; Confucius Institute is also spreading across the globe. China should recover the confidence in its own culture, but be very careful not to be arrogant. This is a fine balance to maintain, just like the interaction of Yin and Yang.

Prophecy 2: China’s political innovation will provide an alternative model for the developing nations or authoritarian governments around the world, enabling a smooth transition toward greater openness and freedom.

Since the end of World War II, the world has been told that the only successful form of government must be democratic, with multiple parties, regular elections and direct voting by all citizens. Such form of democracy has been pitched as a part of the “universal value”. This “universal value”, together with the neo-liberal economic theories, is then forced upon many developing nations, sometimes as a condition for aids (or loans) from foreign governments or international institute. However, we could hardly find even one successful case of such implanted democracy. From Southeast Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa, such introduced democracy has often led to greater political instability. Uneducated voters usually vote along tribal, racial, regional or linguistic lines, worsening the social division. For many developing countries, such “direct election” has turned into tribal conflicts, linguistic nationalism, election corruption, and puppet government.

Chinese government rejects the paradigm of “democracy vs. dictatorship”, and adopts the paradigm of “good governance vs. bad governance”. The purpose of an government is to deliver good governance and social services. In many pseudo-democracies, people are told to vote for the sake of voting, as if voting will solve all problems in the society. However, voting is not an aim in itself; it is just one among many ways of decision making. For the past half century, the world has the illusion that voting is the only path toward freedom and prosperity. Now with China’s political experiment, we see that there are other ways for society to make collective decision without the messy voting, and that there is more than one definition of democracy.

Here I would like to point out some key elements in China’s political innovation that might be useful for other nations. Chinese politics is not ideological; it is highly pragmatic. “With Chinese characteristics” has become the best catch-phrase to avoid those meaningless ideological quibbles. Deng Xiaoping famously said, “Black cat or white cat, it is a good cat as long as it catches mice.” China also has a strong and active government. Such a government can make and execute long term, strategic plans for the nation, and protect the country from encroachment of outside interest groups. The recent rare earth battle is a good example where Chinese government uses its executive power to protect strategic resources from unreasonable exploitation and foreign control. Imagine if the rare earth is located in an African country: a weak (or puppet) government will be very glad to (or be forced to) sell off the national resources to foreign companies, and the politicians get their kickbacks. Chinese politics also favors gradual reform, not shock therapy, as a Chinese leader summarized, “crossing the river by feeling the stone.” Chinese politics gives foremost attention to improving the livelihood of the people: food, jobs, education, health care, etc. --- eating comes before voting. All these characteristics arise from traditional Chinese culture and from China status as a developing country. Instead of a top-down installation of western democracy, China has chosen a path of bottom-up economic development and gradual social reform. This model will provide great inspiration for developing nations around the world.

Prophecy 3: China’s economic innovation will provide a new economic model and contribute to a new round of global prosperity.

For the past half-century, the neo-liberal economic thinking has dominated the international development circle, and created the illusion that in order for a nation to develop, the only solution is to privatize all industries, to limit the role of the state and to open up the whole economy and finance. There hasn’t been one success story among countries that adopted such a recipe. Privatization has given the multi-national corporations the best chance to gobble up a country’s strategic industries. Lack of necessary economic protection has exposed the vulnerable domestic companies to the fierce competition from outside; and global financial giants and hedge funds have cause great economic turmoil. Such drama has occurred repeatedly over the past few decades in South America, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, etc, usually under the arrangement of the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. The neo-liberal policy has often been used as the cover for new imperial expansion of a group of powerful nations and corporations. These “global elites” have gained control of the essential resources of the world like food, water, land, minerals, energy, etc.

China has come under vigorous attack of neo-liberalism many times during the past thirty years, but has successfully resisted the outside pressure. Instead, China has figured out a “mixed economy” where the “invisible hand” of the market and the “visible hand” of the state coexist and work well together. The state plays an active role in developing core industries domestically, and supports their global endeavors. As a result, Chinese economy is able to grow with strong government support, and the domestic industries have gained the precious time to gear up for the coming global competition.

As China continues its economic success and political stability, more and more developing nations will have the confidence to part with neo-liberal thinking, to design their own development blueprint, to take back their core industries from foreign companies and to contain the imperial expansion of multi-national corporations.

I am confident for the future potential of Chinese economy for another reason: the human capital. China has one fifth of the world’s population, and the general education level of the nation is rising very fast. Still, most of the people in China today are being used as cheap labor; a person is being regarded as a pair of hand that works and a mouth to feed, instead of a creative entity. I would argue that the current labor market in China has only activated 10% of the nation’s intellectual capacity. Imagine the 1.3 billion Chinese people engaging eagerly in entrepreneurial enterprise and creative activities, what great energy we will see! Such human capital shift will certainly bring another round of innovation and prosperity to the world.

Prophecy 4: China will be a very different type of great power --- different from other great powers, and different from China’s own past. It is inevitable that China will become the biggest economy in the world sooner or later because Chinese population is four times that of the United States. With its growing economic radiation, China will have stronger military and wider geopolitical influence, hence the status of a “superpower” --- but not the mentality and behavior of a “superpower”. I am certain that China will not become another America. For one thing, the world doesn’t have room for another America, either resource-wise, or psychologically or militarily. More importantly, Chinese culture will not allow China to become another America; nor will it be in China’s best interest to behave like the Big Brother of everyone else.

China will be a great power that is self-contained, instead of expansionary. Expansion is not in China’s cultural gene. Even when China was at the peak of its global influence in Tang Dynasty, China did not send out preachers or try to tell other countries what to do. China is happy with sharing, not converting. China will not force its own values upon other nations because China knows all too well the frustration of being preached at. Nor would China claim any superiority in its culture and model because each country has their own “best solution”. One of the oldest and most famous Chinese idioms says “harmony, with diversity”; another says “to seek common ground, and to accept divergence.”

China will be a great power that respects its neighbors. Good neighborhood is very important for the stability and wellbeing of a nation. China will not extract psychological superiority by making others feeling inferior. Instead, China will gain from equal exchange and harmonious coexistence. To achieve mutual understanding with its neighbors, China should award scholarships for student exchanges between China and neighboring countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Korea, etc. For each Vietnamese student in China, Chinese government should sponsor at least one Chinese student to go to Vietnam, studying the language, culture and politics. This way, we can make sure that the exchange is two-way, and that China is sensitive to Vietnam’s needs. China should learn from America’s mistake that “everyone speaks English, but Americans speak only English”.

China will be a great power that is defined not by race or nationality, but by culture. This quality arises from China’s long history of integration and multi-ethnicity. Today’s Chinese people are the mix of thousands of years of national and tribal integration. China will gradually decrease the Han-Chinese nationalism, and increase the cultural bond, eventually eliminating nationality as a barrier of entry into Chinese culture. The bottom line is that if you can read and write in Chinese, you are a part of the family. The Chinese character (the written language) has been the bond in Chinese history. No matter where you live, which dynasty you are from, or which dialect you speak, you can always read and write in the same character that has been used for two thousand years. I believe that the Chinese character will continue to play the bonding role for the Chinese communities around the world.

Some final words

China will contribute to the world its culture, its new political and economic thinking, and its different philosophy of a great power. China will consider such contributions its fortune and honor, but not its leverage against the world.

When I make such predictions, I am not just fantasizing. I am actually writing a guideline for my own future. I am confident about my prophecies because I myself will be the one of those who make these prophecies come true.

Today’s China is far, far away from my description. China has a long, long way to go. It’s going to be a hard and bumpy road. It might take a week to overthrow an old regime, but it takes generations of hard work and sacrifice to build a better system. I have no excuse not to partake in this great construction.

Meditating between two worlds

2011-06-04T13:36:00.003-04:00

New York City is a wild place. It is so diverse, and so segregated. People in one part of the town could spend their whole life without stepping outside their neighborhood. When we drove by Harlem, everyone is black; now I am living in Flushing, everyone is Asian, mostly Chinese.

I go to work in Manhattan, and come back to eat and sleep in Flushing. It feels as if I am in the United States in the morning, and I am back in Shanghai at night. The contrast between the two worlds are quite sobering, and confusing at the same time. In Manhattan, I hear people complain about the unpunctual cross-continental airlines. In Flushing, I listen to neighbors talking about their two-year experience of pizza delivery. People's life can be that different. I guess, only in NYC could I feel such strong contrast.

Meditation doesn't need to happen in a quiet temple. For me, meditation happens anywhere, at any time. The universe is my temple, and I meditate freely in this fascinating world. Meditation is a higher state of awareness, awakening. And I can't think of a better place than NYC for real-world meditation.

Back from Freedom Ride

2011-05-21T19:34:00.002-04:00

I just came back from the 11-day 2011 Student Freedom Ride. It was indeed a life-changing experience. It has just planted the seed in me, and I will use the rest of my time to nurture it. I am deeply grateful for all your support. Although I am still in the process of rumination and reflection, I would like to share with you my learning and experience here, and I would love your critique and feedback.

You will find five essays and a few videos from me here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/2011/tag/zilong-wang/

Please feel free to explore the website which is full of interesting, original contents created by the Student Riders all along the Ride.

Here’s my interview with NPR’s “Tell Me More” program, summarizing the Ride:

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136358410/students-finish-tracing-freedom-ride-routes

I will keep writing and updating, sharing and exchanging with you on my blog:

http://wangzilong8848.blogspot.com/

By the way, among the 40 students on the bus, there is another (former) Hampshire student. Her name is Carla Orendorff.

Here are some of my recommended posts:

What's Your Passion, Freedom Rider?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/2011/2011/05/16/jayanni-video-2/

Why are your getting on the bus?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/2011/2011/05/08/carla-video-2/

Injustice Has Evolved. Have We?

2011-05-15T23:48:00.000-04:00

Fifty years ago, injustice are very visible in this country. We saw our neighbours and friends suffering from discrimination; we could identify the Ku Klux Klan by their funny costume. The racial discrimination was so violent and outrageous that people had no choice but to stand up for their dignity. Fifty years later, injustice has evolved: it becomes invisible and harder to fight than ever before.

Injustice have become invisible because our society is getting more complex. Today's "bad guys" could achieve their self-interests without stepping outside of their office, and without spilling one drop of blood. They could be as friendly as you could imagine, but they steal your money, abuse your tax money, cause worldwide economic damage, control your food supply, pollute your environment, and make you believe that you can't live without them. This is more than "white-collar crime", this is the global injustice in its 21st century incarnation.

Fifty years ago, Americans could go on the street and protest; they could clearly identify the evil and propose solution: desegregate schools, buses and lunch counters, for example. Today, it becomes very hard to even identify the evil, let alone fighting it. For example, the 2008 Financial Crisis has caused trillions of dollars of damage, and has destroyed the livelihood of millions of family around the world. But even today, not many people fully understand the cause of the crisis, and we couldn't effectively identify the criminals or provide solutions. BP Oil Spill is another example. How can we protest BP's crime against nature? Should we go demonstrate in the middle of the gulf, or in Washington, or on Wall Street, or in front of the multiple international headquarters of BP?

Due to the complexity of our system and the invisibility of the criminals, it has become harder and harder to identify the problems, locate the bad guys, and improve the situation. The only way to understand the system is to study it, and usually it would require a college degree to be even literate in the political and financial circle. Sometimes, it takes more than one PhDs to fully understand why the system is broken.

However, by the time our young students get their multiple degrees, they are usually hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. In order to pay off the student loans, they couldn't afford to fight against the system. They have to join the system and take the highest paying job from Wall Street or from multinational corporations. It seems like that our education system is designed to make sure that by the time a student understands the system, she/he could no longer afford to challenge the system. The commercialization of education system has surrendered a generation of youth into the hand of the powerful moneys. By the time student have gained the knowledge, they have lost the freedom.

Today's social inequality is more severe than ever before, but it might take an economic and politics double PhD to understand the system and to provide useful advice. Injustice is hiding in fancy offices and underneath expensive suit and tie. Street protests are no longer effective enough to bring positive change. Is the fight against injustice getting harder? Should today's youth be depressed because we are facing formidable enemies?

No, not at all. Injustice has evolved over the past fifty years, so has the fight against injustice. Today's youth is standing on the shoulder of previous generations. We have more powerful tools like the Internet. We face less physical hardship or violence. We are indeed facing unheard-of challenges and evil, but each generation is facing a similar situation. Each generation of youth has to solve new problems and come up with new ideas. We are no more and no less empowered than anyone else. We will use our wisdom and will to identify the problems and provide solutions. Aim high!

We Could Be the Devil, And We Already Are

2011-05-15T18:08:00.000-04:00

As we travel through the southern states in America, we are greeted with the famous southern hospitality. We are almost surprised by the warm welcome in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, etc. At the same time of being thankful to people's niceness, I can't help thinking: how could these people be the same mob that had ruthlessly beaten the Freedom Riders and burned buses in 1961, not to mention the lynchings and the whole institution of racial crime? In the end, the Southerners are also people who love their family and care about their children. How could this love be translated into cruelty and hatred to some other people?

To answer this question, let us fast forward our clock by 50 years. Now we all think of ourselves as pretty nice people, but this is what our grandchildren will ask us in the year 2061: "Grandpa, how could you have damaged our earth so badly fifty years ago, and leave me with no choice and no future? How could you have allowed your government to kill so many people in countries far far away in name of democracy? Don't you know that every time you fill the gas tank of your SUV, you are overdrafting our energy future, and fueling your car with the blood of thousands of soldiers and millions of innocent people in the Middle East?" In fifty years, our grandchildren will look at our life and society in 2011 with shock and disgust: shocked by our consumerism and indifference to the environment, disgusted by our self-righteousness and inaction. Our grandchildren will ask, "Grandpa, how come you did nothing to help despite the repeated warnings from so many people?"

Faced with our grandchildren's questions, what will be our answer? Will we regret, will we be shamed? Are we going to be the devil that we are condemning now? Are we already the devil that we are trying to fight?

A Global View on Civic Engagement

2011-05-11T00:19:00.001-04:00

As one of the few international students on the Ride, "representing" the rest of the world's 6 billion people, I feel obliged to provide a non-American view on global civic engagement.

The United States pays a lot of attention to diversity, which is commendable. However, the American definition of "diversity" also reflects the typical "American singularity". Race, gender, class --- these are historically specific categories created in a unique context, and might not apply to the rest of the world. For example, racial discourse in America is largely focused on the discrimination of black Americans by whites, but it will be highly misleading to use this black-and-white lens to interpret Africa's tribal conflicts, India's linguistic nationalism, Russia's regional warfare, or China's ethnic tension.

Over the past few decades, through America's global dominance, the American view of social justice and civic engagement is projected to (or even forced upon) many parts of the world. However, each country has its own unique situation when it comes to civil rights, social justice, and civic engagement. In many parts of the world, "civil rights" is not even in people's vocabulary. We should be very aware that the American style civil rights are extremely historically specific; it has its root in Christianity, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the French Revolution, the Atlantic slave trade, the American Civil War, the 1960 Civil Rights Movement, among other contributing factors. When we examine the peculiarity of American definition of civil rights, we would be confused to reflect upon how American government would want to impose this peculiar standard to the rest of the world, even through war and assassination. Isn't it the greatest violation of human rights to deprive other people of their sovereignty and self-determination? Isn't it the greatest conceit to assume that all countries should be (and would like to be) just like America? Isn't it the greatest hypocrisy to say that my expensive wars can bring you peace and freedom? Doesn't it remind you of "Manifest Destiny" and the "White Man's Burden"? --- we know how that turned out.

I am not saying that the rest of the world cannot learn from America's experience. Quite the contrary, I believe America's struggles are great lessons for many countries who are about to embark on a similar journey. There is a great deal to be learned from both the success and mistakes of the America Civil Rights Movement. We should study this history carefully, and with great respect. That's also why I am getting on the bus.

Also, we should strive to find common ground among different nations, religions and cultures. We might disagree on what is a good government, but we all believe that corruption is counter-productive. We might disagree on the notion of "afterlife", but we all agree that we want to live in peace in this life. We might disagree on what is justice, but we should all be invested in reducing the obvious discrimination. We might have different opinions, but we should all know that we might be wrong. Underneath the differences, we can always find similarities. And these similarities can serve as the beginning of our harmony.

After looking at the past and present, I would like to turn to the future. According the the latest United Nation projection, by the year 2100, there will be 10 billion people on earth, half of which living in Asia; a third in Africa. This world population distribution has tremendous relevance on global civil discourse as the world's attention and power get more equally distributed. The United States population is around 5% of the world, and we could expect that America's problem will less likely be the world's most important problem. Instead, the Arab and muslin population will increase, and their specific issues will be given more attention by the leaders around the world. India's population is also expanding very rapidly, and Africa will continue to see strong increase as well. The center of gravity of the world media will shift from West to East, and Asia's and Africa's social issues will become the most relevant.

These historical shifts are already happening, but most of us are unaware, uninformed (or worse, misinformed), and unprepared. Our decisions and votes will have global repercussion, but we are not educated enough to make informed judgements on events that are happening thousands of miles away, in a foreign language. Most people aren't even accustomed to using international standards like kilometers and centigrade. If we are going to face the future problems in the world with our old habits and assumptions, we will certainly be frightened by the unfamiliarity. Then we will turn to nationalism, xenophobia and scapegoating for the last bit of self-deception.

So, how should we prepare for the looming shift in our global agenda, not merely in social justice? We can never be fully prepared, but learning a foreign language is not a bad idea. Go study abroad, make friends with people from other countries and religion, read international news, and cultivate an open mind and compassionate heart. This might be a good beginning.

Divided, Until Aliens Attack

2011-05-10T00:24:00.001-04:00

Today, the Freedom Riders had a discussion on racial division. I have long had the suspicion that mankind would constantly draw lines among themselves until aliens attack the earth; only after the ET arrives would we then realize that we the people in this world are indeed all humans, and we are not that different from each other.

But the aliens aren't attacking. So do we have other ways to get rid of the endless division and opposition among ourselves? I do not have an answer to this question, but I would like to reflect upon the root of the divisions.

It almost seems that the tribal-style division is a part of our deepest animal instinct; even chimpanzees are divided into groups and launch warfares against each other. Humans divide themselves into groups for food, security, warfare, economic interests, control over resources --- for survival. This survival game is then turned into group division based on skin color, nationality, geographic location, language, economic class, social status, etc. Various institutions are formed to perpetuate the structure and culture of a group: churches, monuments, schools, courts, political establishment, etc.

In order to form a unified group identity and to increase group cohesiveness, we then create "the others" to show the contrast. "The others" are portrayed as inferior in order to show that we are superior; "the others" are unethical and backward so that we appear to be moral and civilized; "the others" are a threat to our society so that we need to unit within our group and fight against "the others"... And in many situations, we form divisions to satisfy our ego: we are different and we are much better. Division and discrimination have become an important part of many people's ego and psychological well-being.

So before the aliens attack the earth (and force us to see the truth that all of us on earth are equal humans), should we do? We should be aware of where our divisions come from, keep the conflicts in control, and find common ground to increase mutual benefits. We should get the ego out of the way of our reason, and realize that we would even increase our self-interests by loving, not hating others.

If humans do not reduce their divisions and enmity against each other, they will probably destroy themselves before any ET makes its way earth.

Meditation 1 on Freedom Ride

2011-05-08T15:43:00.000-04:00

At the end of the first 24 hours of the 2011 Freedom Ride, I would like to do some reflection on my learning.

It has been extremely inspiring to exchange ideas with both generations of Freedom Riders. At the same time, learning about the original Freedom Ride has been a humbling experience: compared to the original 1961 Freedom Riders, we students haven't yet contribute anything comparable to their courage and wisdom. We, the 40 students, have been very fortunate: nice hotel, delicious food, wireless bus, with press and media (instead of violent mobs) waiting for us at our bus stops. It is exactly because of the sacrifice of the 1961 Freedom Riders that we are able to enjoy the peace and liberty today. We are grateful, and we realize how much responsibility we are carrying as the youth of the new century.

Actually, I believe that we the students have mostly been at the receiving end of society's care and resources: college education, generous scholarships, attention from family and community, even people serving us in hotel, restaurants, and buses, etc. Now is the time that we start to put the energy back into the society, to repay the debt we owe to countless people and institutions, and to make the system better by our collective actions.

Today, we also initiated the discussion on "freedom and justice", key words of our Ride and activism. Before we jump right into the debate on freedom and justice, I would like to take a step back and reflect upon the meaning of these two words.

We are almost biologically conditioned to love words like "freedom" and "justice". These words makes us feel so good; they go right into our guts, and sometimes bypass our scrutiny. I wonder: what do we mean by freedom? When we join each other in the cause for freedom, do we have a good understanding of what we want to achieve? What comes after? The same question would be valid for "justice" and all other big words that we use (or abuse, from time to time).

I believe that one of the greatest injustice is to assume that there is such a definition of justice that fits everyone and every nation; and, it is one of the worst mockery of freedom to impose our own definition of freedom upon other people and groups. If we are too self-righteous about our own understanding of freedom of justice, then we risk turning these words into tyranny and hypocrisy. We have to be especially conscious and cautious about joining the parade of "freedom or justice", and to think twice before we preach our believes to others. This awareness might be the beginning of true freedom and justice: free from prejudices and arrogance, just from the perspective of others.

China should invest in new energy technologies worldwide with its $3 trillion reserves

2011-04-16T22:10:00.004-04:00

In a funny article from The Economist, it says that China's $3 trillion foreign reserve can do the following:

"China could buy all of the outstanding sovereign debt of Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Greece, solving the euro area’s debt crisis in a trice. And it would still have almost half of its reserves left over."

Or the following:

"China could gobble up Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Google for less than $1 trillion. It could also follow the lead of those sheikhs and oligarchs who like to buy English football clubs. According to Forbes magazine, the 50 most valuable sports franchises around the world were worth only $50.4 billion last year, less than 2% of China’s reserves. "

The article also mentioned that China's entire foreign reserves can by "about 88% of this year’s global oil supply". This shopping item really attracted my attention: 60 years worth of Chinese accumulation of wealth is only equivalent to 10 months of global oil supply!

Surely China is not going to buy any of the above-mentioned fantasy items. Instead, I would propose that China does the following: to invest a substantial proportion of its foreign reserves to fund all kinds of new energy projects around the world. Energy storage (battery), electric cars, smart grid, new generation nuclear technology (thorium), energy conservation, bio-fuels... The possibility is endless, and the world is not in lack of ideas. There are so many wonderful entrepreneurs and brilliant projects, but not enough support from government and investors. The risk is usually too high for most private investors, and the U.S. government is not taking advantage of America's dynamic innovation machine. China's $3 trillion foreign reserves could meet the gap.

China has been America's generous lender for years. Why not become the global venture capitalist? Instead of earning pitiful return on U.S treasuries, China should have the vision and courage to invest its money in the future of world energy. China should set up a venture capital fund, go find the most promising ideas in the new energy industry, fund them, nurture them, and believe in them. The projects could come from anywhere and anyone, as long as it has the potential. Even if 90% of the projects fail, as long as we have a few technological breakthroughs, we will revolutionize our energy future and solve many of our most urgent problems like foreign oil reliance, pollution, and economic recession.

In this way, China's huge foreign reserves would not be blamed to cause global imbalance; instead, it is doing the whole world a service by investing in the future at a time when nobody want to take on the risk. If we combines the capital from China and the innovation from around the world, we will have a much better chance to find solutions to our common challenges!

Busy and Happy

2011-04-15T11:48:00.003-04:00

These days, most of us are so busy that we don't even have time to think about why we are busy. I want to take a little break and sort through my busyness.

Everyday, as soon as we open our eyes in the morning, we are in debt: there are homework and deadlines, and there are preparation for summer.There are always things to do, one after another. Read New York Times, reply to emails, and prepare for interviews. Our daily routine has so dominated our lives that we don't even have time to sit down and ponder over the purpose of all these.

Pondering won't necessarily render realization. We might still be very confused after all those pondering. But it's better than living a mindless life.

There are so many wonderful people around us, and I will be very glad to spend the whole weekend with anyone of them, listening to their stories, going into their world. But the calendar reminds us of the six deadlines before the end of next week, and we have to say, "it's such a joy to spend time with you, but I need to go back to my work".

It's always nice to see people hanging out on the lawn, playing music and Hula-hoop. At least someone is enjoying life. Can I afford such luxury? What am I missing? What am I doing? What's worth what? It's so easy to fall into such self-pitying state of mind.

I need to remind myself of the choice that I have made. To sacrifice is to gain. We can't have the best of everything. I am optimizing my time and utility, and I am very happy with it. I am not just paddling in a little lake; I am going to sail across the oceans and around the globe. It is then natural that I will spend more time building my ship and learning about the voyage. This is the choice, and I embrace the pains and gains.

I am glad to have conquered procrastination. I don't waste time because the stakes are too high. The opportunity cost shows me the bottom-line. If I have sacrificed rock climbing, how could I then waste time on facebook? I could have been playing flute, so there's no reason to stare into the flashing screen with a blank mind.

One of the most beneficial thing I have learned to do is to close my computer as often as I could, and as soon as I am done using it. Once I close the lid of my computer, I open up endless possibilities. I can read a book, play music, go talk to people, go running or swimming, or just close my eyes, take a deep breath and relax. Computer sucks me into this little black box; it hurts my eyes, and restrain my thinking.

Always remember: I am the master of my life, not my scheduler, not my computer, not anything else. I need to be aware of what I am doing. Make the choice, and then make the most out of it. Never waste time, but leave enough room for self-reflection. My schedule is busy, but my life is happy.

Strength and Weakness, 2 in 1

2011-04-04T22:28:00.002-04:00

While reading Paul Kennedy’s book, what struck me most is the cyclical characteristics of the rise and fall of great powers. There seems to be a chronic disease that all major powers are bound to catch: what makes you is what breaks you. A certain quality would turn out to be both the strength and the weakness of a nation.

When Strength Becomes Weakness

The ancient Chinese empire became a great power largely thanks to the Confucian culture. It taught people to value learning, to respect knowledge (and hence to respect the elderly), and to use their talent to serve the state. These qualities enabled China to become the most sophisticated and prosperous society in the globe for a long time. But, as Kennedy points out in the first Chapter of his book, the same Confucian culture also planted the seed of the empire’s eventual decline. For example, the backward-looking characteristic of the national leaders is derived from the respect for the past and ancestor worship. The value of learning placed on particular fields of knowledge crowded out innovation in commerce and technology. The prosperity and the Central Kingdom mentality also made the empire conceited and self-righteous. Confucianism, it seems, has exhausted its momentum after two millennia, and has become the obstacle of any further progress in the Chinese society.

Fast forward to today’s United States, we also see a similar phenomenon: those qualities that once made America great are causing today’s decline. Democracy is getting messier and is tied up in bipartisan struggles. Property rights, land ownership, and state autonomy make it hard for the federal government to carry out any major infrastructure projects like high-speed rail or wind turbine installation. Even free speech is being used to protect the unlimited corporate donation to political candidates. Some of America’s most distinct greatness seems to stand in the way of the future of this country. It makes people wonder if these past greatness could shine once again and solve the problems of its own making.

When Weakness Becomes Strength

Japan is probably the best example of how one’s weakness could turn into strength. Japan has extremely limited natural resources. It heavily relies on imports for almost all commodities that are vital to Japanese economy. As a result, Japan has developed a deep sense of crisis and alarm. This vigilance and restlessness have made Japan the expert in energy saving and resources management. Among all industrial nations, Japan has the highest energy efficiency, and it separates trash into eight categories for recycling. Japan also developed “urban mining”, extracting precious materials out of waste electronics and other urban garbage. In turn, Japan is exporting its recycling technologies and hybrid cars, and leading the world in energy saving efforts.

China’s authoritarian government is another example of weakness turning into strength. Chinese government has been constantly criticized by the West for its heavy-handed rule and lack of respect for human rights. But recently, many western countries have been quite jealous of the fact that Chinese government can build a high-speed rail across anybody’s backyard. Chinese citizens do not enjoy as many rights as Americans do, but this lack of right has turned into one of the biggest bonuses that history has given the Chinese government: the government can afford to push forward unpopular construction projects and social programs that are indeed necessary for the long term wellbeing of the nation.

So what is the logic behind this alternation of strength and weakness in exactly the same quality? There’s an old Chinese saying: “a proud army is bound to lose”. And we can also say that a winning army is bound to be proud. Success leads to pride, and pride leads to defeat. Defeat will prepare you for another success. An English saying goes like this: “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. And observing today’s America, we can also say that too much liberty takes away people’s vigilance. Too much prosperity undermines a nation’s work ethic. And this loss of vigilance and work ethic will in turn destroy the liberty and prosperity. It seems that history is quite fair: no nation could stay at the top forever; no single quality could propel a society for a long time. And, no one will really learn this lesson from history.

Little Meditation on Human Nature

2011-02-28T21:39:00.001-05:00

Human Playing God

Human always attempt to play god --- to change the rule of nature, and to re-write the supreme laws of human minds. Reprogramming nature and the human brain is also a constant fascination for science fictions and prophecies. I see such efforts as extremely dangerous, which might result in the destruction of human race before they produce any meaningful advances.

We live in a very complex and delicate equilibrium that has been reached by millions of years of adaptation and adjustments. If we suddenly change a single factor of our environment, it might trigger a domino-like transformation of other factors (which are all interconnected and interdependent), hence threaten our own survival because we can’t adapt as fast as we are changing our surroundings. For example, recently Malaysia released thousands of mutant mosquitoes to fight Dengue. However, the consequences of such attempts have not been studies thoroughly or are not even predictable. Back home is the United States, genetically modified crops are approved by federal agencies. The triumph of science in the recent centuries has boosted our confidence in understanding and managing the environment. Some of us assume that we have turned from guests of nature to the master of nature, and that we are authorized to make any change as we see fit. But recent climate change and the intensifying natural disasters around the world have shown how little we actually know about the world we live in.

In Brave New World, we see a future where people are conditioned to be a part of certain castes and perform certain functions from the very beginning of their life. But this totalitarian conditioning does not take into account the mutation of human mind and genes. What if someone from the lower caste start to develop independent consciousness, and infect other lower-caste members with such intelligence? What could the outnumbered Alphas do?

However, warnings against such dangerous god-playing attempts are useless because the temptation to become the Supreme Being is too strong for the ambitious to resist. Or, in the case of genetically modified crops, the drive to make money is too powerful, and our regulation bodies are too weak and underfunded to even understand what those big corporations are doing. Since we are talking about prophecy, I will predict the following: I think sooner or later, human activities and scientific advancements will cause such drastic and unpredictable change to our surroundings that our own survival will be the cost. We will be the modern Icarus who is flying too close to the sun with a pair of wing made of wax and feather. Our attempt in becoming God will result in the downfall of our civilization. It seems like that there is a pre-installed, self-destructive program inside of human nature to prevent us from becoming the master of the world.

The Gravity of Human Nature

Kant once said, “Nothing entirely straight can be fashioned from the crooked wood of which human kind is made”. Looking at all the prophecies we have encountered so far, I find a good way to test the strength of any prediction: to ask ourselves whether or not the future world is based on the same human nature that we possess today. In our seemingly random history, the only thing we can hold on to is the universal, unchanging human nature. People are as crooked two thousand years ago as they are today; they are equally full of hope and love; they are no less cruel or selfish. Human nature is the gravity, and history is the pendulum, swinging back and forth between better and worse. No matter how far we go on either direction, the gravity of human nature always pulls us back to the point where the pendulum is nearest to earth. Once we reach that point, we are ready for another swing. A good system can hold up the pendulum for a longer time in the better direction, but eventually the arm gets sore and the pendulum falls. Similarly, the most repressive regime could only push the pendulum the other way for a limited duration, then the power will be exhausted and gravity will prevail. Human nature, like gravity, is neither good nor bad; it is like the Yin-Yang: in the darkest age, we feel the strongest force of love and hope, while in the best moments, we experience the most evil urge. Therefore, the best systems are always built upon the defects of human nature. Only when we have prepared for the worst can we then hope for the best.

People might say, “we are human, therefore we have this-and-that quality”. I think the truth is the other way around: we have this-and-that quality, therefore we are human. If we are anything other than what we are, then our species wouldn’t even be able to survive long enough to develop such intelligence with which we are now observing ourselves. Before we become smart enough to make sense of “who we are”, we have to survive first. And the millions of years of survival have predetermined who we are. So it is no surprise that we will discover our human nature as it is today, and it is not a long shot to predict that thousands of years later, the same human nature will still linger in every one of us --- if our species could make it that far.

关于中国未来的一些思索

2011-02-05T17:10:00.001-05:00

一位好朋友的邮件，让我有机会分享一些想法，希望和各位战友们交流。这些想法都是未经整理论证的个人意见，最需要你们的指正和质疑！

关于中国和美国的差距到底在哪里？

凡是关心中国和世界未来发展的人都在思索这个问题，没有确切答案。我也在迫切的寻找，不过“只缘身在此山中”，不一定看得明白，这里交流交流我目前的想法。

首先，与其说“差距”，不如说是“差异”。因为很多中美之间的不同之处，在不同情况下会有不同的效果。比如中国的中央集权，在兴修水利、高速铁路、核电站建设等方面，效率就很高，这是美国人非常羡慕的。有利就有弊，利弊相生，在不同的大环境下，中美政治制度会发挥不同的优势。

我觉得中国和美国差异最重要在于人的思想。的确，经济，军事，基础设施等等，中国离美国有五十年到一百年的距离。不过在历史长河中来看，一百年微乎其微，三代人的功夫而已。但是一个民族的文化和思想是更长久、更重要的。

美国的创新精神、开拓进取、自由独立、平等公正、天高任鸟飞，在自由和平等最大化的舞台上，八仙过海，各显神通，很多的这种精神特质在不少好莱坞电影中表现得很突出。这是美国竞争力的来源，也是美国梦吸引全球精英的因素。美国的大学校园内，这种精神得到了最充分得体现和锻炼。再比如当下的美国经济，虽然相对萧条，但是国际上最有创造力和生长动力的企业还是美国的：Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple。。。不过中国这样的企业也越来越多，比如阿里巴巴，百度，比亚迪等等。

我对中国的状况有个比喻：千年古老中华帝国，在二十世纪初期寿终正寝了，也可以说是被一群外国的黄毛小伙子给揍趴下的。不过帝国虽亡，文明不灭。在短短的几十年内，在一代伟人带领下，凤凰涅磐，浴火重生。于是，中华文明抛弃了帝国的躯壳，又重新作为一个（多）民族国家，投胎到二十世纪的中叶，像是刚出生的婴儿，十分脆弱，充满生命，但是同时又有着千年古老文明的灵魂。这个灵魂时隐时现，挥之不去，也千万不能“去”。有时，这个古老文明是最强大的粘合剂，有时，却是最大的包袱。

所以21世纪的中国，既是一个青少年，又是一个千年老人。如果不把握好中国的这个特质，那很多问题就会看不清楚。

中国就像是青少年：自尊心很敏感，对外界的评论很在意。一方面，很想得到外界的认可，另一方面，对自己到底有多少斤两，又不是很自信。中国这种青春期反应，在国民心理中很普遍：看看中国取得的成就，就觉得中国很了不起，前途无量，世界第一。但是看看自己跟成年人们（发达国家）的差距，又自惭形秽，觉得自己哪里都不如人。这是中国缺乏平和心态的体现，容易走极端：不是自卑，就是自负。要缓解这种心态，还需要很多时间。不以物喜，不以己悲。和谐社会，就是要淡定。

中国同时又是一个千年文明的转世投胎。在白天忙的时候（经济建设），感觉不是很明显。就像我们所有人，大部分时间都不知道自己上辈子是什么人。但是晚上，夜深人静，或是睡梦当中，古老文明的呼唤却又极其强烈。日常生活中，虽然越来越西化、国际化，但是，许多生活中的点滴，仍然是几千年来的文化基因。时不时地，会有一种蓦然回首、似曾相识的感觉。

中国的这种二重性，深深的影响我们这一代人。一方面，我们是新时代的先锋，同时，我们又是传统文明的继承人。

中文是我的母语，这是最让我庆幸的一件事之一。因为会说中文，我就拿到了一把能打开千年宝库的钥匙。没有哪个民族、哪个文明、哪个语言，能像中国这样的，保存两千多年的历史与文化。人其实不怎么聪明，翻来覆去，犯的都是同样的错误，说的都是同样的俏皮话，得到的都是同样的感悟。中国几千年的积累与思索，基本上把人类哲学思想所能涉及到的问题都讨论过了。中国几千年的战争和和平，把人与人、国与国之间的关系也演绎得淋漓尽致了。如果把中国的历史、哲学学好了，那就能从容了。

我为什么对中国的未来充满信心？

关于对中国的未来，是应该悲观还是乐观，我觉得应该实事求是，冷静分析，总体乐观。中国悲观了好几百年，被外国欺凌冷落得够久的了，风水轮流转，好歹也该让这片土地上的人乐观乐观了吧？

借用数学语言，我对中国的乐观，不是来自于中国目前的绝对值，而是来自于delta --- 变化、趋势。中国虽然存在很多问题，但是在一天天的变好。美国虽然很牛，但是在一天天的走下坡路。

我在美国，观察美国政治，真的是觉得老美实在是无力回天。但是瘦死的骆驼比马大，中国要是想和美国分庭抗礼，既没必要，也没可能。

而中国，虽然问题重重，许多问题看似看难以逾越，但是总体方向非常明朗。问题总是存在的。中国几千年来，哪一年清静太平了？有问题，就要解决问题，不要自己吓唬自己！

我对中国的未来充满信心的另外一个原因，就是海外华人以及留学生的力量。中国的高等教育问题很大，所以许多优秀学生选择出国，这在我看来，是最好的“曲线救国”、“留得青山在”的国家战略。因为这些学生，在国外接受教育和锻炼，既避免了国内全面洗脑的命运、保存了创造力的火种，同时又对中国更加了解、更加客观、更加关注。

只有海外华人，才能最深切的体会到中国和平发展的意义和重要性。十年前，中国人的国际地位还是相对较低，多多少少让人抬不起头来。但是随着中国崛起，华人的地位有了显著的提升。再也没有人敢小瞧中国，虽然猜忌、恐惧还是难免。

我离中国越远，心越近。相信和我有同样想法的人不在少数。即使那些选择不回国的人，内心里还是愿意回国的。只不过国内污染太严重、教育太畸形、人身权利与自由的保障太缺乏。这些都是无法回避的事实。许多人也因此而悲观。

我清楚地认识这些事实，但是我的结论却不同。我请大家换一个角度看：假如中国把环境、教育、人权等问题解决了，那海外华人回国的热潮将会使中国最大的财富。海外华人是中国最庞大的隐性财富，知识、技术、资本、思想。。。只要国内条件转好，大家都是愿意回来的！

我觉得政府已经认识到这一点，并开始采取措施，像“千人计划”等等。但是对海外华人，最重要的不是金钱，而是安全、自由和机遇。

什么是国家？什么是中国人？自由，是谁的自由？等等

关于这些问题，我觉得很有价值讨论。的确，这是非常根本、非常重要的问题。这些形而上的问题不解决，中国的未来就很模糊。国家崛起到底是为了什么？一些藏人、新疆人，他们又怎么看待中国崛起？中国的崛起能给少数民族、农民工、农民等带来多大好处？中国的崛起，给中国周边国家带来的心理、经济、政治压力，又如何能得到调和？作为每个个人，最终的追求是什么？难道一定要让中国的GDP 超过美国，我们活得才有滋味吗？我们可以选择“不当中国人”吗？

这些问题，一方面是最根本的问题，另一方面，又是最没用的问题。人类自从文明诞生之日，就在以这些问题自寻烦恼。好几千年过去了，那么多聪明的大脑，那么多鲜活的生命，都没换来任何答复。所以，我也不指望我们在短短几十年内就能解决。

这些哲学问题虽然没有答案，但是我们却生活在现实世界中。不管我们怎么看待我们自己，外国人总是把我们看作是中国人。无论我自己多么的信奉“众生平等”，社会中的等级、歧视、差别，又是非常现实的。

哲学家可以让自己达到心理平衡，时不时地精神自慰一下。但是普通民众不会去考虑哪些哲学问题。大部分人关心的是物价，房价，工作，养老等等。经济基础不解决，哪里来的上层建筑？

但是，与此同时，如果没有很好的理论指导和哲学信念，那所有的物质积累很可能会与终极追求背道而驰。所以我觉得中国即需要工程师，也需要哲学家、理论家。如果学者们能找到答案，或是推动人们的思考，那也是中国的大幸。但是，不少读书人，填饱了肚子，读了几本书，就开始酸溜溜的说三道四，满腹牢骚。他们既不给社会创造价值，又不能解决人们的心灵需要。很多人本来好好的，就是读书读废了：学进去了，没能学出来。吃了别的冒牌学者的残羹剩饭，自己营养不良了。这也是我们要预防的。

中国近代，有不少关于中国国民性的讨论。关于“中国人是奴才”的言论，我相信：奴才使自己成为奴才，上帝是自己成为上帝。如果自己觉得自己是奴才，那就没救了。上世纪的一些穷酸秀才，对中国国民性很悲观，似乎一国人民是一成不变的。而打开手机，就发现今年已经是2011 年了。即使是在二十世纪，中国也是“江山代有才人出”。毛泽东，邓小平，周恩来。“数风流人物，还看今朝”。能有这样的气魄，哪里是奴才？二十一世纪，中国照样会有奴才，也照样会有英雄豪杰。这是每个人自己的选择。

燕雀安知鸿鹄之志？那些想做奴隶的人，就让他们做奴隶吧。佛度有缘人。那些想成为21世纪英雄豪杰的中国人，会让那些奴才们大跌眼镜，同时拯救他们于迷茫。