The Engineering/ CS/ Aerospace Human Resources Problem

[Reddington777]

these "lucrative and prestigious" careers invariably prove more attractive.

Thank you for your perspective. Seems like people really are the same everywhere.

When selecting my major, I listed Public Administration as my sole choice, and I firmly believe it is a noble discipline.

It absolutely is.

I think there's great value in studying the social sciences as it's social sciences and not STEM that leaders before and now rely on to rule well. Citizens too need to study social sciences with diligence. I'm not qualified to be some academic historian by any means, but you read enough history and you find yourself less likely to be duped by the sociopolitical forces trying to influence you. Had people in my history courses in high school bothered to do more than just pass exams and sleep through class, I can gaurantee you politics in the US wouldn't nearly be as polarized as it is now.

In my blind rage while railing against idiocy here, another aspect I failed to acknowledge is that clearly, the financial sector is still important organ of a powerful nation. The "home front" so to speak includes the health of your adminstrative organs as well as the financial ones, as it's bean counters, economists and bankers that source the funds and monetary resources to fuel the war machine. I don't know if that counts as "social sciences" per se, but as always, they must be kept in balance.

Since social sciences don't promise lucrative returns, few students genuinely immerse themselves in the field—despite the fact that there is one academic master with a political science background among the CCP's top leadership.

The only one of the CCP leadership I knew about before was Wang Huning and it's because he seems to have survived multiple CCP administrations and is the backbone of China's geopolitical strategy. I skimmed some of his writings, namely a critique he wrote of the US some 10? 20? years ago, some of which were very astute and astoundingly accurate. From what I can tell, he was an international politics professor and never touched anything STEM at all. A rare graduate of the social science for sure.

Nevertheless, the smoothing function social sciences provide for societal operations is immense. Whenever I witness STEM students being easily duped by simplistic marketing tactics, or encounter naïve critiques of government policies, I keenly feel a bitterness akin to what you did.

It's ok. The other reason I have no friends is because I only ever encountered these kinds of edge lords in these CS programs. I must say - actual engineering students seem to be the most sensible and easy to get along bunch I've ever encountered. Every other major, in my experience, is filled with people off their rockers (as am I).

The conversation seems to be veering towards ideological disputes, so let's keep things friendly...

Yeah - I'd much appreciate avoiding the "your system sucks and mine doesn't" kind of conversation too.

We can however investigate the pros and cons of authoritarian vs democratic rule as it pertains to how they affect the problem at hand. And the interesting conclusion of that thought exercise on my part is that regardless of whether you are authoritarian or not, the way you go about solving a population's behavioral problems is the same - use messaging and propaganda to affect beliefs and behavior, then using policy to fence in what propaganda could not achieve. The only difference being the last part and, imo, the last part can hardly be noticeable if the first part has done its job.

I do not want to get into the good or bad of propaganda as given the nature of the subjects we talk about on this forum, propaganda should be seen in and of itself as a tool - like any other weapon system. Propaganda isn't always insidious or harmful either - especially in this case. It can be as simple as influencing the way we portray certain professions to give people a different impression. Western countries are fully capable of using said propaganda and it seems that despite the mistrust in MSM in the US, modes of propaganda are alive and well here. Yet, in my eyes, governments have not made any concerted effort to use media, messaging and propaganda to try and mitigate this problem. In fact, this issue was co-opted and hijacked into an immigration problem, and has now firmly overshadowed and obscured this human resource issue (yay again for partisan politics ruining things!).

A funny and interesting aside, when I was a kid, I remember I loved watching this Chinese cartoon show called 蓝猫淘气三千问. It was a show about a cat and a few mice who (at the time when I watched it) went back in time to study dinosaurs for science. The whole show was about various science subjects for little kids. Learned a whole lotta new shit about dinosaurs and planets. In the same time frame on the other side of the pond was .... dinotopia, a fantasy story about humans riding dinosaurs and living in coexistence with them.

 

[publiusr]

China's industrial development has never been solely dictated by blind market forces; it has always been strategically aligned with the nation's overarching development goals.

That should be a non-controversial approach. Industry is where true wealth lies--not to be threatened by day-traders and Stephen Moore types. Here, I remember some folks writing against the treasure fleets. It was their burning and turning inward that was foolish--America's current path from the look of it.

The historical context and practical considerations are far too extensive and complex to delve into here.

China and Russia both suffered horribly in WWII, only to see Axis powers propped up. That leaves a mark I'm sure. I can't blame folks for being angry...seeing former allies turn...that *hurt*.

China's situation is, in some ways, the inverse: there is too many resources in STEM fields, while the social sciences (especially after excluding business and law) face de facto discrimination.

A bit like Teloth, which turned Iranon away....I seem to remember a functionary in China interviewed on CNN I think...who reminded me of the city solon in that Dunsanian tale.

The subject of an Opera house came up--and he sounded a bit like today's WH ballroom critics here. He seemed friendly enough...joking about how the building could be nice without looking like it "came from outer space." Practicality has its place.

I myself look forward to LM-9 launching that 200 ton powersat demonstrator. That will be a great wake-up call.

I will always remember the spectacle of the Olympics there.

That stands out in my mind to this day.

Sad about the recent landslide bridge collapse.

 

[quellish]

Usually its generations that had memory of better times, had those times taken away by some conflict and

Yeah, I remember when members of a certain forum used critical thinking and research in their posts. Now it’s all off topic fever dreams of speculation and mud singing like anywhere else.

Future engineers find that forum and are put off by that stuff - then they start down a different path.

 

[Airbus A340]

This blog post describes the problem quite well.

https://ploum.net/2024-12-23-julius-en.html

 

[shin_getter]

The CCP has incurred substantial policy costs to rein in financial expansion. Under its guidance, China's industrial development has never been solely dictated by blind market forces; it has always been strategically aligned with the nation's overarching development goals.

That should be a non-controversial approach. Industry is where true wealth lies--not to be threatened by day-traders and Stephen Moore types.

Industrial focus is just very communist, the Soviet Union had the same line of thinking.

From a humanist perspective this is wrong. Humans just don't need that much widgets and there is a reason why there has been huge expansion of the services industry when people can choose the consumption. If one looks maslows, stone age physical culture was sufficient while everything else is much more tricky. Only in total conventional war is industry truly paramount.

Industry is also cheap and easy. With a functional culture and open trade, industry can be built well within a generation. On the other hand, a dysfunctional culture of destructive power struggles, non-functional institutions and exploitative elites have no known fix.
------

If the point of the economy is to facilitate consumption, financialization is amazing. The low wage areas can do all the production, and the financialized elites can consume all the production by playing with numbers, its rather amazing.

It is from the perspective that economy is about power that this arrangement is terrifying. However power with humans is in politics and ideas. The control of idea flows, social networks and definition of prestige can be as powerful as anything.

Even something like a nation state is nothing without people believing in it. Regardless how many assets and people a state have laid claim to, it can all dissolve in a puff of smoke if no one believe in it.

We can however investigate the pros and cons of authoritarian vs democratic rule as it pertains to how they affect the problem at hand. And the interesting conclusion of that thought exercise on my part is that regardless of whether you are authoritarian or not, the way you go about solving a population's behavioral problems is the same - use messaging and propaganda to affect beliefs and behavior, then using policy to fence in what propaganda could not achieve. The only difference being the last part and, imo, the last part can hardly be noticeable if the first part has done its job.

Under authoritarian rule, problems are unsolved because there are categories of problems that exists because of the authoritarian's own interests over the rest of the population. There are also categories of problems where the solution is unclear and other categories whose solutions can not be directly implemented by a brute force mechanisms of the state.

In open societies, the ruler induced problems can sometimes be bypassed or have the ruler replaced in a shorter time frame. Problems with no clear solutions gets experimented on by different parts of society, often starting in tiny communities at odds of the greater society (thus could not be implemented as uniform government driven mechanism at start) and grows only after proven success.

I'm been looking at entrepreneurship and why planning committees can't do a similar job. Simply, the knowledge and behaviors necessary for success is not known at the start, and all attempts at identifying them soon becomes obsolete as supply saturates and changed requirements pop up, its anti-inductive. The only real way to know is contact with reality in experimentation, basically anti-planning.

This blog post describes the problem quite well.

https://ploum.net/2024-12-23-julius-en.html

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucracy, there will be two kinds of people:
1. Those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.
2. Those who are devoted to the organization itself.
The Iron Law states that in every case, the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.”

The practical solution to this problem is death sentence of organizations have have decayed far from the functional state. Social climbers that optimize for self promotion and such is universal, and builders that want to do things in all generations have to come up with countermeasures in an arms race, but no countermeasure is perfect, and it is like immune system vs diseases. An organization either fails to grow if no solution have been found for sorting out exploitors, or becomes nonfunctional after its defenses gets figured out and decayed from weakness of initial conceptualization and just plain random events after some time.

Cultures that have good way of killing organizations and recycling the parts is more successful than those that conceive of perfect immortal organizations controlling all things forever.

 

[publiusr]

Industrial focus is just very communist, the Soviet Union had the same line of thinking.

From a humanist perspective this is wrong. Humans just don't need that much widgets and there is a reason why there has been huge expansion of the services industry when people can choose the consumption.

Oh, I agree.

I watch Shark Tank--and the more noble things just never get money. Widgets get the money.

Ironically the "backward" 1950's had products that made more sense:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2M3_m9Nna9/?hl=en


--and lasted.

Also horrible:

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7507682125248859422

View: https://www.tiktok.com/@accurateautoinc/video/7507682125248859422


The problem is businessmen--not engineers.

I think the good of Space Force is that it may see engineers through tough times. I think engineers do deserve protection from market-forces---but that in no way makes me a Marxist.

Here's why:

In the 1950's, labor was healthy--a dialog between consumers and businesses.

You provide actual durable goods---and I give you money. That's capitalism.

What we have now is what Doctorow calls enshittification. The consumer is dominated---told what he can have---told what he can fix---everything is a "system" to keep charging folks---and we put up with it. Both Greens and Executives are in this Hitler Stalin pact of wanting us to "be happy--own nothing."

I won't stand for it.

Look here:
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2...xpensive-cars-leading-to-emissions-inequality
Well excuse me for keeping my old beater. In California, they'd make me take it off the road. Again---what I cannot stand about libertarians is the same thing that keeps me angry at Greens---"humans are a problem."

In the 1950's, progress was not a dirty word---and people had more agency than they do now.
News programs keep us in bubbles. Both the tea party and Occupy HATED bank bail outs.

So....why are we all fighting then?

We are being played. I can't help what Epstein did to whom. We went from Jack Anderson to celebrity news cycles.. Woodward and Bernstein I couldn't stand---because they foisted this whole "-Gate" cycle on us.

In the past, we never knew about JFK and Marilyn--Or Ike and his driver. We talked issues.

That's gone now---and we the poorer for it.

I think what makes me angriest is how College Football has had so much more money behind it than scholars bowls. I was hoping Covid would have flipped that.

I once spoke to a Green---he sounded a be like the two in the mud talking politics in 'Holy Grail.

In terms of not having much--being close to nature--and in the muck...'It's called Alabama--it ain't that great."

I stayed poor, even working two jobs. I never could afford a 4 year. Military didn't want me. But if I had been some non-literate jock who could run a 4.4 40'

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think top Chinese leadership is still kinda cronyism (not that US politics isn't either) and not necessarily all ran by engineers and scientists. What I will say is that Chinese leadership isn't burdened by ideology. You don't see Chinese leadership doing something for the sake of abiding to some out of touch ideology - like putting Jesus back in the classroom or banning abortion or parttake in any race/gender politics unless it starts to amount to fomenting insurrection.

Except for the whole One Child policy, intended to reduce the population of China by half because Mao got suckered by a Malthusian idiot.

(Public Administration, which in China aligns more closely with political science).

For what it's worth, the US does call it Policy and Public Administration for a master's degree.

China and Russia both suffered horribly in WWII, only to see Axis powers propped up. That leaves a mark I'm sure. I can't blame folks for being angry...seeing former allies turn...that *hurt*.

Had the Communists not insisted on exporting revolution it may have turned out nicer. The US still has the Communist party outlawed, for example.

 

[shin_getter]

Aerospace looks like a bad career if you want excitement and meaning, you can to work on modifying wing with tubes and spend decade(s) certifying. Working for the military is about advanced powerpoint and buzzword generation for the non-serious customer. The only part that can be exciting it rocketry, and the united states have produced results here as there are some capable leaders that actually want results.

In all cases, aerospace just don't impact people's lives that much, relative to the kind of things computers is promising. The fabric of society can flip multiple times in a lifetime, from the web to phones to who knows what next, and each impacts everyone in society.

As for CS, the united states is leading in this field and the money can be good, and things are moving at a reasonable pace. Consider the production of software products in Europe as a comparison.

From a democracy perspective, a entire anti-software interest group have been raised out of the ground with the "tech bro" narrative. Lower tier white collar jobs like translation, art, journalism is now facing significant employment declines and further impact is possible with software maturity in many fields. A few more sectors getting nuked and its the return of ludditism and plans for the butlerian jihad. People have seen the future of STEM and it is a horror.

The ambition can be seen in the deepmind's mission statement that sums it up: "solve intelligence, and then use that to solve everything else." Why study anything else if you can build a super AI that does everything? This idea have gained enough traction that money and talent have been throwing themselves at it.

Ironically the "backward" 1950's had products that made more sense:

Powerful kitchen appliances freed up a lot of time which led of feminism and two job families, which piled money into zero sum competition for housing in "good" locations and a whole host of other issues.

A planner probably actually don't want tech in people's lives because the chain reaction is too complicated to know beforehand.

In the 1950's, labor was healthy--a dialog between consumers and businesses.

You provide actual durable goods---and I give you money. That's capitalism.

What we have now is what Doctorow calls enshittification. The consumer is dominated---told what he can have---told what he can fix---everything is a "system" to keep charging folks---and we put up with it.

Durable goods is not a match for fast fashion. Even today you can make stuff work for a long time, there are still quite a bit of 20 year Toyotas you can buy, however there is a group of buyers that don't keep old cars that buy the BMWs and Tesla with massive depreciation. Durability is there if you are willing to spend the effort, it is just that most consumers don't have time horizons that long. (or more correctly, society is now so wealthy that people with "awful" spending habits can still afford stuff now)

Enshittification can only capture the market when there is a near monopoly. Stuff like social media with network effects is best a enshittification because scale advantages.

We are being played. I can't help what Epstein did to whom. We went from Jack Anderson to celebrity news cycles.. Woodward and Bernstein I couldn't stand---because they foisted this whole "-Gate" cycle on us.

In the past, we never knew about JFK and Marilyn--Or Ike and his driver. We talked issues.

I think what makes me angriest is how College Football has had so much more money behind it than scholars bowls. I was hoping Covid would have flipped that.

The people silly enough to spend money on media or read the ads is what those things cater too.

It is not like people don't discuss issues, like we do here. It is just that the masses that was invisible when media was expensive and cater to cognitive elites.

 

[martinbayer]

Except for the whole One Child policy, intended to reduce the population of China by half because Mao got suckered by a Malthusian idiot.
For what it's worth, the US does call it Policy and Public Administration for a master's degree.
Had the Communists not insisted on exporting revolution it may have turned out nicer. The US still has the Communist party outlawed, for example.

As a post WWII/Cold War German Baby Boomer I don't see any problem for the capitalist Western economy, so please elaborate?

 

[shin_getter]

I think top Chinese leadership is still kinda cronyism (not that US politics isn't either) and not necessarily all ran by engineers and scientists. What I will say is that Chinese leadership isn't burdened by ideology. You don't see Chinese leadership doing something for the sake of abiding to some out of touch ideology - like putting Jesus back in the classroom or banning abortion or parttake in any race/gender politics unless it starts to amount to fomenting insurrection.

The leadership perhaps don't believe in anything other than stealing money and centralized power optimizing nationalist imperialism.

A state now spreading might-is-right ideology won't get bogged down by petty moral issues since it doesn't actually believe in much morality.

...never burdened by what amounts to ideological delusion and complete inability to defer to expertise. These people can and often did compromise, but they didn't compromise their overarching goal.

It's why I think this human resource problem is so so dire - great power competition isn't simply a matter of arms, economics or diplomacy. It's a competition of the very organization of two societies and the people within. Before nations are conquered, they lost on the home front decades before they lost on the field.

The current Chinese leader have greater delusion with regard for the basic functioning of the state and does not defer to expertise. This can be seen in mismanagement in events like covid and the economy in general that appears to replicate a Japanese style post housing bubble (one that people can see from a solar system away) stagnation before the nation got wealth. If you ask the people on the street instead of nationalist-power displays, conditions have actually gotten worst.

----

There is the idea that societies is just a thing that you can use simple power and agency to transform. There is another perspective that societies are ecosystems and feedback-systems upon feedback systems, and the great man theory of history is missing a lot. Time delay between growth of national and society level system means that "great leaders" that harvest the power of functional structure generally aren't the ones having anything to do with its creation.

The application of power to achieve social goals is very hard as an metric you set will be gamed, people will lie and cheat and subvert best made plans at all levels. Balance of power equilibrium systems are more robust, but it also limits the ability of any individual to exert force.

 

[martinbayer]

Aerospace looks like a bad career if you want excitement and meaning, you can to work on modifying wing with tubes and spend decade(s) certifying. Working for the military is about advanced powerpoint and buzzword generation for the non-serious customer. The only part that can be exciting it rocketry, and the united states have produced results here as there are some capable leaders that actually want results.

In all cases, aerospace just don't impact people's lives that much, relative to the kind of things computers is promising. The fabric of society can flip multiple times in a lifetime, from the web to phones to who knows what next, and each impacts everyone in society.

As for CS, the united states is leading in this field and the money can be good, and things are moving at a reasonable pace. Consider the production of software products in Europe as a comparison.

From a democracy perspective, a entire anti-software interest group have been raised out of the ground with the "tech bro" narrative. Lower tier white collar jobs like translation, art, journalism is now facing significant employment declines and further impact is possible with software maturity in many fields. A few more sectors getting nuked and its the return of ludditism and plans for the butlerian jihad. People have seen the future of STEM and it is a horror.

The ambition can be seen in the deepmind's mission statement that sums it up: "solve intelligence, and then use that to solve everything else." Why study anything else if you can build a super AI that does everything? This idea have gained enough traction that money and talent have been throwing themselves at it.


Powerful kitchen appliances freed up a lot of time which led of feminism and two job families, which piled money into zero sum competition for housing in "good" locations and a whole host of other issues.

A planner probably actually don't want tech in people's lives because the chain reaction is too complicated to know beforehand.




Durable goods is not a match for fast fashion. Even today you can make stuff work for a long time, there are still quite a bit of 20 year Toyotas you can buy, however there is a group of buyers that don't keep old cars that buy the BMWs and Tesla with massive depreciation. Durability is there if you are willing to spend the effort, it is just that most consumers don't have time horizons that long. (or more correctly, society is now so wealthy that people with "awful" spending habits can still afford stuff now)

Enshittification can only capture the market when there is a near monopoly. Stuff like social media with network effects is best a enshittification because scale advantages.




The people silly enough to spend money on media or read the ads is what those things cater too.

It is not like people don't discuss issues, like we do here. It is just that the masses that was invisible when media was expensive and cater to cognitive elites.

Well, hello there shin getter, have you ever considered a career in podcasting fear mongering?

 

[publiusr]

At least my state is getting better steel.
https://www.al.com/news/2025/11/ger...labama-as-it-makes-61-million-investment.html
Very thankful. Hey SpaceX!

 

[SspewixzzZ]

The topic seems to be sliding back into a debate that will never reach a conclusion. Let's stay friendly...

That's also why I don't want to engage on the subject of authoritarianism or electoral democracy. We come from different countries, traditions, professions, and even eras, and all grand political ideologies undergo subtle shifts at the individual level — such shifts are rooted in the most concrete personal experiences and are difficult to reverse.

I belong to the generation born after the turn of the millennium — the first generation in China to broadly enjoy modern urban life collectively. Yancheng, a second-tier city in China, has undergone tremendous changes since I was born. When I was an infant, only the main roads were paved with asphalt; the suburbs were still filled with reed marshes taller than a person and endless wheat fields (at that time there was a chilling saying in Jiangsu: “If you want to kill someone, come to Yancheng.”) By the time I started preschool we had desktop computers running on dial-up internet; in elementary school I encountered the first generation of Nokia mobile phones. During my middle and high school years (then still in what used to be the suburbs), the era of large-scale infrastructure development brought 24/7 electricity and continuous running tap water to the area. Now, as a university student, generative artificial intelligence has been integrated into almost every lit screen.

It may be hard for foreigners to understand Chinese people's attitude toward political leaders, but this is the reality we have experienced. In just over 70 years, we have gained lives that do not have to worry about basic survival and can be decent and dignified — military power is perhaps the most visible manifestation of that. No ideology can be detached from people's real lives and be sustained purely by frantic propaganda.
Therefore, we DO NOT need to reach a consensus on political point - and friendliness is a universal language.

Returning to the question of talent: I believe that STEM and engineering deserve such an important status. Engineering thinking is not merely job-oriented; it is a practical and powerful mindset. Even though my maths is weak, I still tried reading Qian Xuesen’s Engineering Cybernetics and gained a lot from it. Even in the social sciences, quantitative and mathematical thinking is the foundation for reaching correct conclusions.

After all, engineering is the only kind of “magic” that truly exists in reality — the only way to create the things people need. It serves huge projects such as the military and aerospace, but also cars, computer mice, even the clothes you wear and the hamburgers you eat. Social sciences, by contrast, are often subordinate to and serve the realities created by STEM and engineering.

 

[SspewixzzZ]

From an outside (western) perspective, that self-perception could sound odd if you take that definition as the base. Just a friendly feedback.

That is the difference (and for sure, not all Chinese think so, it's just something I think.)

Edit: I think this might be due to the AI translation failing to convey the meaning. My English has indeed been neglected for a long time, which forces me to rely on these tools to write very long replies.

 

[shin_getter]

The topic seems to be sliding back into a debate that will never reach a conclusion. Let's stay friendly...

Certain fields of study can never advance because a (adverse) conclusion is not allowed. Got it.

I belong to the generation born after the turn of the millennium — the first generation in China to broadly enjoy modern urban life collectively. Yancheng, a second-tier city in China, has undergone tremendous changes since I was born.

Dramatic economic growth within a lifetime is common amongst the Asian "Tiger economies" and the model is well understood. In any case, it is not trivial in replicating what was done, but to innovate beyond the known takes more.

The fact that it can be replicated so many times really do suggest industry as not that difficult given state capacity.

Returning to the question of talent: I believe that STEM and engineering deserve such an important status. Engineering thinking is not merely job-oriented; it is a practical and powerful mindset. Even though my maths is weak, I still tried reading Qian Xuesen’s Engineering Cybernetics and gained a lot from it. Even in the social sciences, quantitative and mathematical thinking is the foundation for reaching correct conclusions.

After all, engineering is the only kind of “magic” that truly exists in reality — the only way to create the things people need. It serves huge projects such as the military and aerospace, but also cars, computer mice, even the clothes you wear and the hamburgers you eat. Social sciences, by contrast, are often subordinate to and serve the realities created by STEM and engineering.

Social reality is conflict on top of conflict, intelligent agents all trying to break all controls.

In engineering, a functioning system based on observation of fixed external reality stays functional. In social systems, working system only last until countermeasures gets thought up and organized.

In engineering, laws are taken as truth, to be applied and not thought too deeply about. It is in sciences that the sausage making process gets exposed and in philosophy the alternative methods that the mind can get trapped, explored.

The unreflective application of rules have nothing against, say, religious fundamentalism.
https://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Jihad-Connection-Extremism-Education/dp/0691145172
The greatest advantage of engineering is that its products are constrained and concrete, thus easy to understand. It is very difficult to understand how a society become high trust, low corruption, highly cooperative and safe even though it is product of a lot of human effort.

 

[F-2]

Certain fields of study can never advance because a (adverse) conclusion is not allowed. Got it.


Dramatic economic growth within a lifetime is common amongst the Asian "Tiger economies" and the model is well understood. In any case, it is not trivial in replicating what was done, but to innovate beyond the known takes more.

The fact that it can be replicated so many times really do suggest industry as not that difficult given state capacity.

Social reality is conflict on top of conflict, intelligent agents all trying to break all controls.

In engineering, a functioning system based on observation of fixed external reality stays functional. In social systems, working system only last until countermeasures gets thought up and organized.

In engineering, laws are taken as truth, to be applied and not thought too deeply about. It is in sciences that the sausage making process gets exposed and in philosophy the alternative methods that the mind can get trapped, explored.

The unreflective application of rules have nothing against, say, religious fundamentalism.
https://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Jihad-Connection-Extremism-Education/dp/0691145172
The greatest advantage of engineering is that its products are constrained and concrete, thus easy to understand. It is very difficult to understand how a society become high trust, low corruption, highly cooperative and safe even though it is product of a lot of human effort.

I’ve been playing with posting that paper for a while now. It’s pretty interesting that engineers across cultures seem to be associated with the “need for cognitive closure” which is basically a need for clear cut very un ambiguous solutions to problems.

 

[Reddington777]

The current Chinese leader have greater delusion with regard for the basic functioning of the state and does not defer to expertise.

While I've got my own sociopolitical misgivings about China (which are far out of scope of this forum), I don't think it's useful to take one or two examples to then dismiss an administration as "delusional". From the standpoint of an American, I'd urge and argue that it is far more advisable to look at the cumulative and overall results of your pacing threat rather than counting it's mistakes, extrapolating from those mistakes, or outright believing their system is just going to collapse one day or something.

If we must talk about how political thinking affects this problem, let it strictly be regarding the philosophy and specific implementations of such thinking to the current problem at hand - not discussing whose regime is morally right or wrong / delusional or not/ humane or not.

As it pertains to the problem at hand...

I'm been looking at entrepreneurship and why planning committees can't do a similar job. Simply, the knowledge and behaviors necessary for success is not known at the start, and all attempts at identifying them soon becomes obsolete as supply saturates and changed requirements pop up, its anti-inductive. The only real way to know is contact with reality in experimentation, basically anti-planning.

Exploration and planning are not mutually exclusive. Despite having democratic political systems, most companies, programs and departments are still ran in a top down way - especially as it pertains to accomplishing objectives. It's moreso a matter of whether a top down power structure allows room for exploration and market forces to shape how certain technologies develop. I'd argue that until pretty recently, top down power structures were likely to get blindsided by rapidly developing problems but because there's so much data and technology at the fingertips now, you have far less blind spots. This allows top down power structures to leverage their greater speeds of execution to allocate "space", human and financial resources to accomplish something rather than waiting for the market to finally turn some much needed technology into something mature - 5 years too late. To add to this, a well managed top down power structure functions much more efficiently than a bottom up one. You have less people in places of power, you have greater ability to cut out non-performers and consequently, you have less people with an ability to obstruct important things from happening. Afterall, we are all sitting on our asses waiting for turd-brick congressmen to sort their shit out before technologists can actually make real things happen.

I think the answer here was never absolute.

Even in a top down system like China's, they've left enough political, financial and human space around industry that allows industry to explore and compete. The government plans big ticket items, long term programs and initiatives for areas where the market hasn't caught up but needs rapid competition in.

Similarly, a bottom up system like the US has seen the opposite - a move to reign in industry, to give government greater top down authority, and to push industry towards things that needs to happen but not yet supported by market forces (chips, rare earths etc).

This is why I think we in the western world - whether in this thread, this forum, or beyond - need to start to set aside some of our preconceptions of the pitfalls of top down power structures as it pertains to technological advancement. The world today is very very different from the cold war era and that one is even further removed from the age of enlightnment when these ideas were born. The technology and the tools that we have to mediate the problems of both systems might well lend itself to applying top down power structures when appropriate.

As it pertains to the human resource problem and the broader economy in general, "Laisseze-faire" is good for "growing the cow for a rainy day", but when push comes to shove, when that rainy day comes, the cow needs to be butchered or at least lose some weight to serve it's original purpose. We've been to laissez-faire about managing human resources in this country. At a certain point being laisseze-faire isn't gaining you more organizational, economic, or scientific benefit anymore. It's just creating more shitty uber drivers, tiktok influencers and services that bloat and pollute organizations. The cows you raised are now fat, lazy, self entitled, somehow have the right to life liberty and happiness and have unionized to avoid becoming hamburgers. There ought to be a point where the government starts applying it's own forces to cut out what isn't needed (like shitty uber drivers and tiktok influencers) and push the populace towards more productive enterprises. When push comes to shove (and with a pacing threat on the horizon who out populates and out produces you, push has indeed come to shove), you need to kill the cows you've raised, not letting it continue to grow.

I hate this analogy because I've heard this analogy being repeated ... at certain places and by certain people, but it is sort of like raising a kid. You guide, raise, and manage your kids so that one day they can be happy, and independent, but when times are hard, when your kid is acting up and doing things far from their best interest, it's time to get serious with them. The only difference here is that your kid never really grows up and you have to keep doing that for them.

 

[shin_getter]

I'd argue that until pretty recently, top down power structures were likely to get blindsided by rapidly developing problems but because there's so much data and technology at the fingertips now, you have far less blind spots. This allows top down power structures to leverage their greater speeds of execution to allocate "space", human and financial resources to accomplish something rather than waiting for the market to finally turn some much needed technology into something mature - 5 years too late.

The problem isn't communications, the problem is problematic people. One stuck person in the bureaucracy can stop momentum for effective adaption, and bureaucracy itself tends to attract people that like stability and comfort over risk and change.

Now, sometimes large organizations can be agile and we see it in world beating performance, but it usually is reliant on a especially talented, motivated and energetic leader with a larger social fabric that the leader could use. This sort of thing generally do not get maintained over generations as succession and recruitment doesn't work reliably, and it is even more difficult to encode the essence of success in rules when things are moving so fast in the modern era.

The stock market itself have noticed this and it shows up in the "founder effect."
https://www.qapital.co/blog/the-founder-premium/I very much suspect the same sort of thing works for other organizations like the state apparatus for example.

To add to this, a well managed top down power structure functions much more efficiently than a bottom up one. You have less people in places of power, you have greater ability to cut out non-performers and consequently, you have less people with an ability to obstruct important things from happening. Afterall, we are all sitting on our asses waiting for turd-brick congressmen to sort their shit out before technologists can actually make real things happen.

Vetocracy is a fairly recent development that is against the original principles of 19th century democracy. The study of this field is still unclear, I can point to one thinker on the problem though:

https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/people-ideas-machines-xiii-the-origins
Congressmen? Could they sort though the complex mess that is modern agencies? The structure is self protective and defends against simplification and freedom.
----------
It should also be noted that the direct power system is very dangerous as large scale implementation can happen before proven success. Decentralized systems that rely on growth signal is far safer, as failures naturally have no impact.

To use Chinese history, there is the great leap forward plan for rapid industrialization that ...oh just kills double digit millions of people.

I am also reminded of gall's law

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system.

Centralized power don't naturally start small, and if they wanted to do that they could just give up power.

Now some leaders are smart enough to know the principles above and implement as such, but most political leaders are only experts at infighting and selection systems have not really improved over time.

Even in a top down system like China's, they've left enough political, financial and human space around industry that allows industry to explore and compete. The government plans big ticket items, long term programs and initiatives for areas where the market hasn't caught up but needs rapid competition in.

I specified the current Chinese leader, which isn't quite the same as the past few. Power is centralized with term limits gone, freedoms curtailed and national-imperialist ideology pushed. This increases the medium term threat but probably reduces the long term one.

It is pretty damned short sighted to push for good old national expansionism when the horizon is showing multiplanetary robot empires, just waiting for the first faction to crack the few remaining steps, no point risking national position for an small island that'd give no returns whatsoever after it is likely flattened in any conflict.

Similarly, a bottom up system like the US has seen the opposite - a move to reign in industry, to give government greater top down authority, and to push industry towards things that needs to happen but not yet supported by market forces (chips, rare earths etc).

Authority likely have a greater impeding force than anything else. Without all the regulatory issues, stuff like rare earth or nuclear energy wouldn't be stuck.

As for chips, the market is moving big dollar amounts without the government as soon as it becomes a known thing.

The technology and the tools that we have to mediate the problems of both systems might well lend itself to applying top down power structures when appropriate.

It is hard to support government power when the leadership problem is unsolved and seems to be getting worst. There'd be more support if leadership is fixed and that is a whole huge problem in itself.

At a certain point being laisseze-faire isn't gaining you more organizational, economic, or scientific benefit anymore. It's just creating more shitty uber drivers, tiktok influencers and services that bloat and pollute organizations.

The thing is that, it is worst in china
https://www.beijingscroll.com/p/inside-chinas-748-million-ride-hailing
I mean, tiktok is also china.

Maybe centralization can fix the issues, but it certainly is a unproven thing.

 

[Nicknick]

I grew up in Germany, and at least at the time the political system was *NOT* constantly being manipulated in favor of a few people.

Times have changed since them. The Bundestagswahl (national election for the next parliament) in Berlin had to be repeated there because manipulations have been proven. Now there are also clear indications, that also in the state elections for Sachsen have been irregularities (The Green party suddenly made a big jump up by the end of the vote counting), but the courts which has to prove it simply refuse to make a decision and obviously will retard it until the next regular elections take place.

Please note, that all irregularities (there have been much more proven cases, like for NRW, Bremen etc.) have been against the biggest opposition party, which is clearly a sign of political will behind it.

 

[SspewixzzZ]

That's also why I don't want to engage on the subject of authoritarianism or electoral democracy. We come from different countries, traditions, professions, and even eras, and all grand political ideologies undergo subtle shifts at the individual level — such shifts are rooted in the most concrete personal experiences and are difficult to reverse.

Certain fields of study can never advance because a (adverse) conclusion is not allowed. Got it.

It’s not that I dislike your conclusion so I don’t want to reply, but this kind of conclusion is just too hard to change. So whatever I say doesn’t really matter -- or maybe it can be changed, but that would take a serious, long paper—something that goes beyond what’s suitable for this forum, and also more than I can do as an ordinary college student.

Well. I want to end my discussion about political issues by quoting a Chinese scholar.

“A way of seeing the world is, at its core, a matter of taste. And a grown-up’s taste is very hard to change.”

Let’s stay friendly... and seek common ground while respecting our differences

 

[Arjen]

Without all the regulatory issues, stuff like rare earth or nuclear energy wouldn't be stuck.

Rare earth mining, like outsourcing manufacturing, is where the absence of government regulation has caused single-supplier issues.

 

[Nicknick]

At least my state is getting better steel.
https://www.al.com/news/2025/11/ger...labama-as-it-makes-61-million-investment.html
Very thankful. Hey SpaceX!

The exodus is in full swing....