Please don't Godwin already-flameprone threads. That's trolling, whether you intended to or not.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18546130 and marked it off-topic.

> Please don't Godwin already-flameprone threads. That's trolling, whether you intended to or not.

If you weren't aware: Godwin has repealed "Godwin's law":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/...:

> If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

Or any other regime.

My comment was not hyperbolic, as WWII is pretty much the perfect real-world example of the political ramifications of scientific and technological advancement. Far from "benefit[ing] all of mankind even if the benefits are initially felt closer to where they're conducted," if the Nazi's had invented the atom bomb before the allies, mankind would have suffered more than it has.

Do you equate the Chinese to nazis? Because that's insane and totally fear-mongering, especially if you think China is evil but other countries would use scientific research for only rainbows and puppies.

Everything is not black and white. There is a spectrum and let us not pretend that China is close to most democratic countries on this scale.

> let us not pretend that China is close to most democratic countries on this scale.

Why not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

Read your own link and see how it disappears as time progresses. You can't say the same for China.

https://qz.com/906142/a-chinese-medical-study-is-being-retra...

They are conducting ethical cleansing right now.

As bad as the US is in many different ways, China is immeasurably worse. A future dominated by a hegemonic China would be a dark world. Little steps like these are helping to contribute to that possibility in 50-100 years.

If current trends prevail, it's inevitable. When all else is equal, won't the largest countries dominate?

Great powers historically have not usually been the largest countries population-wise. That would seem to indicate that there's no reason we should expect the inevitability of all else becoming equal.

> Do you equate the Chinese to nazis?

No, I emphatically do not. That's the most false and inflammatory misreading of my comment possible. The Chinese people are not villains, full stop.

The point I was making is that political regimes matter when it comes to the desire for progress in science and technology, and the idea that it doesn't is naive. I'm glad the Nazis and the Soviets were technically and scientifically behind the Allies and the West, and I think the world would be better off they had stayed even further behind -- even if that meant that humanity as a whole has its scientific and technical progress retarded for the want of their contributions.

Remember when Bush said Saddam aided "al Qaeda-like organizations"?

People just heard al Qaeda.

Just to provide some historical context, our space program that ultimately put a man on the moon was largely driven by Nazi science. In particular, Wernher von Braun was a key figure in the design and development of the Nazi's V-2 ICBM, receiving accolades and rewards directly from Hitler himself for his successes. After WW2 he, along with hundreds of other Nazi scientists and engineers, were secretly recruited (see: operation paperclip [1]) to the US where he worked on ballistic missiles before eventually moving onto NASA where he served as the chief architect of the Saturn V that brought us to the moon.

Braun was primarily interested in space travel, but it does lead to a good satirical quote, "I aim at the stars, but sometimes I hit London."

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Exactly my point. Science wasn't neutral in WWII, and it's not neutral now. If von Braun hadn't been part of their regime, they may not have had V-weapons. If Hitler hadn't been such an anti-Semite, Jewish scientists may not have fled Europe en masse and instead helped the Nazi's develop the atom bomb.

Back then, if people celebrated and supported Nazi science in the name of an idealistic concept of politically-neutral human scientific advancement, Europe and maybe even America may be subjugated under a Nazi flag.

Everyone who cares about liberal political institutions should hope that authoritarian regimes are scientifically and technologically backwards, and work to keep it that way.

There is a yin and yang to nearly everything in reality. Without this great evil, it's entirely possible humanity might have remained completely stagnant, or even have begun to regress. Stick 1000 people in a utopia where they have everything they need to subsist and endless digital entertainment. You've now set those people on the path to idiocracy. By contrast, put 1000 people in an oppressive environment where the only path to survival is ingenuity and you've laid the groundwork for creating the great thinkers, and creators, of tomorrow.

The Nazis were a large part of the reason that our technological development accelerated like nothing before, or since. We went from having never even put a man in orbit to putting a man on the moon in less than a decade - which remains what I think is by far the greatest achievement in the history of our species. A great evil created resulted in the most unimaginable good.

The times since then remained dominated by yang. We've had relative peace, prosperity, and our greatest threat was literally just a threat. And so now we are in an era where after decades of technological devolution we struggle to even fly a rocket by the moon, unable to come even close to replicating what we achieved with seeming ease some 50 years ago.

So you think cutting off limbs of live humans — referred to as “logs” by the Japanese — is science?

You could have just said: “what do the Nazis have to do with Chinese academics conducting research at universities?”

> So you think cutting off limbs of live humans — referred to as “logs” by the Japanese — is science?

No true scotsman? .

The Americans certainly thought so. And you should check out the length of this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... .

How do you define science?

> You could have just said: “what do the Nazis have to do with Chinese academics conducting research at universities?”

I could if that's what I wanted to say.

Science doesn't have morals. You hypothesise, you experiment, you observe, you document. That's why we have ethics courses.

Only one of those links was about Muslims. One was about the terrible conditions in labor camps that even Han Chinese are sent to, and another was about the jailing of human rights and defense lawyers for doing their jobs.

I don't care what nationality advances science, but I do want unabashedly authoritarian regimes to be at a technical and scientific disadvantage to ones that at least pay lip service to human rights.

Lip service indeed. We imprison our own at 4x the rate they do, and spend all our surplus capital on bombs and guns while they build trains and bridges. 2 of the past 3 Presidents had less votes than their opponent.

But hey, we've got lip service!

Not that there aren't problems in China. But people should check their biases and learn some history before advancing radical hot takes.

> 3 links about the USA, UK or Russia being really bad to Muslims

and which one of these states is officially atheist and requires the same to become a govt official?

realize oversimplification is a problem, but false equivalence also runs both ways.

there is likely room in the middle, which perhaps is what you are saying..

The US state is officially atheist, yet somehow requires people to be non-atheist to become a govt official. There has been only one avowed atheist in Congress in recent memory, and several more who felt necessary to lie about being non-atheist.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/atheists-in-congre...

Several US states are in fact officially theist and requires the same to become a govt official (despite apparently violating the US Constitution.)

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2009/12/15/which-states-...

China is officially communist, officially a republic. Actually neither.

As far as atheism goes, the government propaganda under Xi has been including a lot of Taoist imagery and references lately, from what I understand.

What I'm saying is that they're people and demonization serves nobody. I'm also saying that the demonization I've seen lately from the tech industry correlates negatively with actual knowledge of the country.