• WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I mean, in the long run, this should be inevitable. The scientific revolution was a lightning bolt that happened to strike in Europe. And all western countries inherited that head start. But in the long run, we would expect all the world to converge to a similar science, and wealth level. And if China has triple the population of the US, why wouldn’t you expect them to dominate the US in raw scientists output? That should be the default condition.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or, to return to reality for a moment, China has invested in new technologies and education for the prupose of having new technologies and an educated population while the US has long engaged in innovation only if it will make money(while actively stifling new things if it means competition) and in dumbing down its own population so that they’re easier to control. The US exists as a machine to enrich, in the short-term, a handful of people and anything that does not work to that end is seen as a waste. No public infrastructure, no investing in science for advancement’s sake, no education poor people, no nothing.

      The US has failed because of deliberate effort by itself to shoot its own feet and legs before diving head-first into an intellectual wood-chipper. It is 100% voluntary and you cannot hide behind “it must’ve been inevitable!”.

    • liuther9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It is in no way related to population number. I bet there is high correlation with politics