Naive rhetorical question: is there any chance that China could change to be a force of good in the world?
It's deeply unsettling that the most populated nation on Earth is ruled by one of the most corrupt governments on Earth, and that its culture is deeply xenophobic, irreverent of the environment, and any living organism other than their own.
As China becomes more powerful, is there anything other nations can do to make this transition more positive for everyone? I don't mean economically, but on an existential level.
I am trying to take this comment at face value. Do you really think other governments are that much better in terms of values you described? There are differences and not small ones between major nation states, but, well, factors listed are not unique not China.
Ah, the inevitable whataboutism whenever China is discussed.
Other countries are not the topic here. But I'll engage: other countries and governments have similar issues, but the combination of factors I mentioned are unique to China.
I personally find that line of defense amusing. In order to discuss trend, one should be able to establish a baseline. In this case, other countries ( and respective factors mentioned by parent including corruption ) must be compared in order to draw a conclusion as to whether that statement is even true. Otherwise, it is just a claim.
Still, I am not here to defend China. Tell me how China is that much more unique than say.. Russia ( which one could argue has similar problems with factors listed )?
> In this case, other countries ( and respective factors mentioned by parent including corruption ) must be compared in order to draw a conclusion as to whether that statement is even true.
I disagree. Mentioning other countries is only relevant as a comparison, but the statement itself is standalone as far as determining whether it's true or not. Sure, we can argue about the degrees of corruption, and some of the subjective claims in my statement such as "deeply" and "any", but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that these issues are _not_ true.
> Tell me how China is that much more unique than say.. Russia
Like I said, the combination of these factors is unique to China. By comparison, Russia is not experiencing the economic growth that China has seen in recent decades, and is not set to become the next biggest superpower. Its culture is also far less xenophobic, and there's more regard for the environment and human life.
Again, we can argue about the subjectiveness of "more" or "less" here, link to articles and studies that "prove" each side, but since the topic isn't about Russia, mentioning other countries simply muddles the discussion. This is a common tactic used by Chinese apologists, and is hardly ever productive, but serves their goal of taking the focus away from China, and minimizing the issues that should be discussed.
<<I disagree. Mentioning other countries is only relevant as a comparison, but the statement itself is standalone as far as determining whether it's true or not. Sure, we can argue about the degrees of corruption, and some of the subjective claims in my statement such as "deeply" and "any", but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that these issues are _not_ true.
Hah. Good counter. Even with Xi, who effectively rose to power on very public anti-corruption measures, it is virtually impossible to point to any country that has no corruption. I am certain corruption exists. Some habits die hard. And I base it more on my understanding of human nature than anything else.
<< Like I said, the combination of these factors is unique to China.
I accept the ascendancy to 1st world power status as the differentiating factor, which would make it unique enough. With regards to xenophobia and 'regard for human life', I am pretty sure I could point to counters ( including Ukraine, Chechnya, Russian famine, or xenophobia embedded in nationalism[1].. ).
<< This is a common tactic used by Chinese apologists
I agree that whataboutism is a thing and it is being used by troll farms across the globe. I still think that it is difficult to discuss anything without understanding how that something compares to other comparable things. If anything, I posit that not discussing the entirety of the issue including context is a disservice to the reader.
***
Thank you for this conversation. This is basically why I come to HN.
Sure. Marxism doesn't compel their current behavior, and neither does any sane nationalism - however a shame culture (as China is) and nationalism can make for a volatile mix, as we've seen of late. But the CCP won't change it's current mix of stripes any time soon. Vietnam has gone through similar spasms, back and forth. They're assuming an existential threat from democracies that just isn't there. Internal division (which is a feature) prevents it, even if an elite class wanted an all out war of conquest, which they don't.
They will experiment with their society; they might find a useful course. But I vote with Walter Kerr, that no society can be both very well ordered and very creative/innovative. Which really limits China on its current course even if they somehow avoid all the traps that human leaders' unconscious selfishness has set for them.
How Not to Write a Play by former New York Times Drama Critic Walter Kerr came out in 1955 and is the best history of innovation I've ever read. It make it quite clear that periods of true innovation are quite rare, don't happen everywhere, and require disordered societies (to tolerate a writer who isn't going to pander to the prejudices and powers of the day, whatever they are.) Highly recommended.
He was also the husband of the person who wrote "Please Don't Eat the Daisies."
My guess is that the best-of-both-worlds society, and therefore the most likely society of the far future will be both Yin and Yang at the same time: having a large disordered creative enclave within a much larger well-ordered society that is isolated from the creatives (free speech within the enclave, only.)
First, democracies are an existential threat, just not in the way you're thinking. If western democracy is obviously more functional than Chinese authoritarianism, that's an existential threat, not to China, but to the CCP. Also to Putin, which is why he's so insane about not allowing culturally-adjacent Ukraine to have a successful democratic government.
Second, someone here on HN (too lazy to try to dig up who) said that Xi has the usual dictator-for-life's problem - people succeed by having Xi's approval, not by being better at their jobs than Xi is at his. This means that Xi hears more and more what he wants to hear, and less and less actual truth. The result is big decisions get made that don't - can't work, because they are not based on reality.
Good first point, although the CCP is very full of their progress, and don't believe democracy has anything going for them by comparison for a moment, right now.
Good second point, too; he's definitely far removed from the masses now. So he isn't likely to be the change.
Innovation by democracies - eminently disorganized societies for better and worse - could indeed be an existential threat to China's system (not the people) if China loves "harmony" just a little too much. (Harmony being their term, and not an entirely bad one.)
Iran looks like its becoming a good test of the first point, although the Soviet Union was as well. Such systems can last decades, but no doubt, not forever without serious reform.
Even authoritarian regimes have to think about civil unrest. The people under them still have some power: they have the power to revolt. Dictators are terrified of this possibility. And a protest is a way of signaling "hey, the temperature is rising buddy".
A democracy by comparison functions as a gradual release valve: smaller amounts of unrest can affect smaller changes, without overthrowing the entire system.
The feedback loop is slightly more complex. Dictators are also afraid of betrayal. And rising temperature creates opportunities for underlings to decide betrayal is profitable.
AIUI, and i'm no expert, it would have to be absolutely massive. When someone put up a banner and burned some tires in Beijing the other day the CCP was blocking the word "beijing" itself on social media for a time. Their level of control is unrivaled.
Is that evidence of awesome control or lack of it? Seems like blocking a word like Beijing because of a single event is over-blocking on a staggering scale; it communicates absolute terror of the populace that results in astonishingly over the top decisions.
You really have to define successful. Get Xi to change a single policy? Get someone else to take over as Chairman of the CCP and Secretary General of the Politburo? Put a democracy in place?
Those are all different goals. Similarly, and as an analog, concerning Russia some people talk about Russia pulling out of Ukraine, some people talk about a coup deposing Putin and some people talk about new, real, elections.
Also, "revolt" doesn't have to mean "completely overthrowing the government". Social unrest can eg. make for a less-cohesive society, harder-to-govern citizens, less-effective economy, etc. These things are valuable to those in charge; a leader would have to be really dumb to not factor them in at all in their calculations. So it's all about tradeoffs: what it would take to appease people vs what would be the social costs if you don't. Finally- protests signal to fellow citizens too, not just the people in charge. They can be contagious.
All of which is just to say their impact is never zero, even if it's small
I think we are arguing over semantics here[1]: colloquial elected vs appointed.
define - assign a job or role to (someone).
elect - choose (someone) to hold public office or some other position by voting
I chuckle at the very notion that any power circle would allow election of a power to a position as influential as HoL without some sort of quiet approval vote taking place by 'appropriate decision makers'[2].
You say it is not elected. I am saying it is elected by a very small group of people.
It is not semantics. The House of Lords is not elected - there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”. It is not “elected by a very small group of people” - it is explicitly appointed, with terrible appointees frequently being rewarded for personally closeness to the prime minister. Several of the positions are literally hereditary.
Oh, it is absolutely semantics. Allow me to elaborate.
<<there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”.
We might be approaching an interesting philosophical territory here. North Korea had elections[4]. There is a voting process. Kim Jong Un won 100% of the votes. Has an election, philosophically speaking, taken place? Is Kim the elected representative of the masses? Is the existence of a voting process truly a prerequisite for an election to take place?
To put it more subtly, who do you think voted in NK ( apart from the 100% that is )? Whose vote truly did put Kim in? Who was the true electorate? Now ask yourself the same question when it comes to HoL. Who has the power to make that decision ( to elect/to choose/to appoint/to crown -- whatever verb you want to throw in there )? Who has the power to actually vote here? Is it one person? Is it more than one? Do they have to agree? Using your framework, the power to influence this event is the actual election. The vote, as it were, if it truly is a prerequisite, happens behind the eyes.
<< It is not “elected by a very small group of people”
I would encourage you to visit some of the links in my previous post:
"Members of the House of Lords are appointed by the King on the advice of the prime minister."
Note that this is not me making this stuff up, it is British gov website saying just that[1]. Now, I understand that it is upsetting, because you are ( possibly I am only guessing for dramatic effect ) not the one doing the electing or voting, but understand that even that appointment is, in fact, an election. It would not happen if someone sufficiently powerful would consider it sufficiently beneficial to throw a wrench in the cog.
Now, do you know why it is rarely worth the effort? It is because HoL has now 758 members. You are saying some are hereditary and that is true, but even that number was lowered after 1999[3] to 92 ( how many would you wager are encouraged one way or another to participate or not participate for that matter? )
<<with terrible appointees frequently being rewarded for personally closeness
This is exactly my point! The election happens. You just personally do not like the factors that influence that election process.
<<there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”
I am simplifying, but when King says "It shall be so" on advice of the prime minister ( he effectively votes with PM's 'advice'; naturally, by advising, so does the PM ) that is the election. I think you are trying to attach structure that has been sold to most people as a voting process, but it is clearly at odds with simple political reality.
It might help if we look at the etymology of election and selection(appointment).
Elect:
Borrowed from Latin ēlēctus, past participle of ēligō (“to pick out, choose, elect”), from ē- (“out”) + legō (“to pick out, pick, gather, collect, etc.”);
Select:
Etymology. From Latin sēlēctus, perfect passive participle of sēligō (“choose out, select”), from sē- (“without; apart”) + legō (“gather, select”).
As you can see from the stem, they are effectively the same word. Now, a lot of people have been convinced they are different ( you mentioned votes as a differentiating factor ), but they are, in fact, the same process.
You could, naturally, to an extent, reasonably argue that selection is not the same as appointment, but if you you look at etymology of appointment you will see the following using your favorite search engine:
'The etymological sense is "to come to a point" (about some matter), therefore "agree, settle.'
Would you not agree that the agreement or settlement would automatically necessitate at least two parties to agree ( and therefore vote their opinions ) on a given decision?
I'm not American, but it isn't only America that has this distrust/hate.
China's government isn't compatible with (what we think) western democracy. Just this week a video was released (Manchester I think?) of China's Embassy guards trying to drag protestors inside the embassy while exerting violence (which they have no mandate to do) and if not for a British cop, the protestor would faced a worse fate.
There is documented instances of Chinese 'police stations' in various capital cities that exert pressure/violence in these cities at the whim of the ccp.
Industrial espionage is reported and just about expected from the Chinese companies/ccp here in Europe.
Pressure on politicians, public institutions, professors, etc for saying something that is sensitive to the ccp/Xi.
And these are just in our European soil (among many other things). If we go on about how China deals with Tibet/Taiwan, muslims, zero covid, etc etc, it is just a style of government that is in direct opposition with what we expect, and the fact they try to make us bend the knee of them, makes a lot of people not like any kind of Chinese influence in their turf.
It's simply that the vast majority of HN is from Western countries. The population here is diverse in plenty of other ways, but not that way.
Most people here don't have the backgrounds to have experienced any of these things first hand or to have the kinds of relationships that would inevitably bring complexity and nuance to their views. So we get a lot of cartoonish geopolitical flamewars, which the internet can produce endless amounts of, and which internet comments are obviously a terrible genre for discussing.
No need for this seemingly disingenuous and childish attempt at baiting people here by feigning ignorance.
It is hardly bizarre, unless you aim to convince the crowd here that, say, the Uygur situation in China is a complete fabrication. If that is your belief you might as well argue it, instead of going on this roundabout way of avoiding being downvoted.
Educated westerners are trained to be sensitive to how countries treat their own citizens. So countries that have imperial ambitions and treat their minority citizens (political and ethnic) like shit, do tend to trigger a negative visceral reaction from them.
> anyone tell me why people in the US distrust or outright hate China
1) It's not a democracy. Since WWII the US has gotten along with democracies and fought with autocracies. See Western Europe and the USSR. (Only applies to major powers)
2) The government is very willing to use their power to impact other countries. For example, forcing movie makers to adopt specific points of view to sell to Chinese citizens. They are the only non-US, non-EU country with much control over the US market, and all the EU seems to want to use that power for is GDPR popups and forcing Tesla/Apple to use industry standard chargers.
3) HN esp. is fairly capitalistic. China has no problem having the needs of the state override rule of law. So doing business in China is always a double-edged sword.
4) They commit industrial espionage on a governmental scale, which annoys people who make a living off IP.
5) They for a long time were, and still might be, the most likely country to start WWIII over Taiwan.
6) They are the most recent great power to come close to fighting the US. Look at the freedom of the sea flights over islands China builds and claims to own in the South China Sea.
I do not want to be too mean, because I know you are trying to help the parent ( and overall you deliver commonly repeated points ), but for the sake of context:
<<1) It's not a democracy. Since WWII the US has gotten along with democracies and fought with autocracies. See Western Europe and the USSR. (Only applies to major powers)
Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others being clear counter-examples to such democracies.
<< 2) The government is very willing to use their power to impact other countries. For example, forcing movie makers to adopt specific points of view to sell to Chinese citizens. They are the only non-US, non-EU country with much control over the US market, and all the EU seems to want to use that power for is GDPR popups and forcing Tesla/Apple to use industry standard chargers.
EU has made several attempts at establishing an actual army to back up its economic strength with some actual muscle, but those efforts were defeated each time. It is not a given that EU would behave the same way US and China does if it wielded more 'direct' power.
3-6
I have some problems with those ( including rant on casting living off of IP as anything other than rent seeking) , but nothing that would add more context to this conversation.
>> Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others being clear counter-examples to such democracies
I thought I was pretty clear. At best, those are regional powers. And clearly fell into the "subordinate dictator" mindset. When Iraq stopped being a proxy-war launching pad with USSR backed Iran, it quickly was removed from even being a major regional power.
Saudi Arabia has far more than regional economic power, but that fits more into "the royal family is a rich family" in the US than "Saudi Arabia as a country is powerful".
>> EU has made several attempts at establishing an actual army to back up its economic strength with some actual muscle
That point was about EU economic power. China has clearly influenced many economic activities. Look at the removal of Taiwan's flag in the new Top Gun or the way John Cena apologized in Chinese as examples of the movie industry being pushed around.
I could go further than movies easily. It's just that they are a really visible example by design. They are not the biggest worry.
The EU could pass laws that really mess with the US, but they don't seem to.
>> including rant on casting living off of IP as anything other than rent seeking
I actually cannot tell read whether you are opposed to or supportive of the framing that living off IP is rent seeking. I can tell you are strongly on one side, but the exact wording doesn't parse for me.
<<I thought I was pretty clear. At best, those are regional powers. And clearly fell into the "subordinate dictator" mindset. When Iraq stopped being a proxy-war launching pad with USSR backed Iran, it quickly was removed from even being a major regional power.
I accept the argument. I missed the "major power" part. SA is definitely a regional power. Sorry for the sloppy reading on my part.
<<That point was about EU economic power. China has clearly influenced many economic activities. Look at the removal of Taiwan's flag in the new Top Gun or the way John Cena apologized in Chinese as examples of the movie industry being pushed around.
Yes, but China does it ( not completely unlike US ) with the implied threats of a power that has an army at its disposal. If I were to compare the situation to anything it would be to of a local mafia soldier coming over for payment of protection money. He is not threatening you. He merely discusses economic impact that lack of protection would bring, but the owner knows full well that the conversation has more than one level. To its credit ( and supporting your point ), I am not aware of China overtly flaunting its military power.
<<The EU could pass laws that really mess with the US, but they don't seem to.
Globalism does cut both ways. My argument is that EU does not do it not because it is noble or right, but because it effectively cannot at this time. At certain point, economic arguments have to be supported by something.
<<I can tell you are strongly on one side,
No worries. It is not relevant here and I am sure this topic will pop up on HN soon enough though:)
Sorry for the tone in "I thought I was pretty clear". That entire sentence should have been omitted.
<< China does it ( not completely unlike US ) with the implied threats of a power that has an army at its disposal.
The military is really relevant when pressuring the US, especially US companies. They use access to 1.2 billion customers as the threat. The EU uses access to 0.4 billion customers with a larger total economy as a carrot (although I have no idea if Brexit will result in the order flipping).
I mean, look at how Google has a special Chinese version. Now imagine a smaller company that was told to access the Chinese market they needed to make that version worldwide.
<< I am not aware of China overtly flaunting its military power.
I mean, they built artificial islands in the South China Sea (in international waters) and put military bases on them and use them to extend the claims of their international waters. The US ignores that and sails ships/flies planes close to them to point out they refuse to recognize them. I'm not sure if non-superpowers are willing to do the same and risk a war.
<< No worries
I'm not too concerned, but you should know that your phrasing was ambiguous. If you care about an issue, and I cannot tell which side you're on even when you're trying to tell me, I thought you should know.
I think this is probably bait but in case you're genuinely asking. First off "China" in this context means "the CCP", not the Chinese people, not the Chinese culture.
The negative sentiment is because they're actively doing a bunch of really fucked up stuff on an unrivaled scale, and because there is no internal system to keep it's dictator in check, a dictator who is explicitly eager to export his particular brand of control. Just off top.
- no free speech/human rights
- committing genocide
- huge poverty problem
- extreme xenophobia
- explicit imperialist goals
- constant lies and propaganda, zero transparency"
Like I'm sorry but the consul general of the chinese embassy beating a protester who'd been pulled off the street onto embassy ground in retaliation for their anti-Xi speech is not a good look. That happened in Britain like, a few days back.
And before anyone starts with some "but muh USA does bad things too" it's not even close to the same scale. The USA does tons of garbage but I'm absolutely not going to get disappeared for holding up a "fuck joe biden" sign. One of our political parties is now founded on that idea.
> First off "China" in this context means "the CCP", not the Chinese people, not the Chinese culture.
At the risk of sounding xenophobic myself, I'd like to push back on this often mentioned excuse whenever "China" is criticized.
I really think there are major issues with Chinese culture, which of course implies its people. Whether this comes from decades of brainwashing by their government, lack of education, or something else, I can't say, but we must be able to criticize "wrong" actions by people, without dumping it all on the government (which has issues of its own, and is likely responsible for most issues the country is currently facing), or fearing to be labeled xenophobic.
Are there good people in China? Absolutely. But there's a widespread culture of xenophobia, abuse of the environment, and disregard for animal, plant and human life that just shouldn't go unnoticed. China is an enormous country, so I can't say whether this comes from a majority or not, but it absolutely exists in many places.
I do concede the possibility that I've been brainwashed myself by western media, so I'm open to counterpoints to anything I've said.
AIUI, not having first hand knowledge of the culture myself there are aspects of chinese culture ("cha bu duo" comes to mind) that are probably harmful to global society. However I think it's a lot more difficult to level criticism at those aspects for a few reasons. Chief among which being that modern much of modern chinese culture is some fiction/caricature of Han values created by the CCP as a tool. China is quite an ethnically and culturally diverse place, I think a lot of what we understand as "chinese culture" is a lot more top-down than you might imagine. I also think that culturally the US/west has some incredibly bad norms too (hypercapitalism type beat), and it's only because we have a more open/balanced form of government that those cultural flaws aren't as evident, which is why I focus more on the government and less on the culture/people.
Again, all of this with a grain of salt, I just read about this stuff and watch youtube videos.
We've been told that "Western" norms-- particularly individual rights, democracy, and market economics-- are sacred and superior. Not only are they expected to win, they must win at any cost.
Before 1991, we had the USSR as the strawman counterexample. We could point at them and say "well, they got people into space, became a superpower in 40 years... but the people had to wait eight years for a car." Clearly it's the lack of Western Style Freedom (tm).
China has proven that you can deliver both politically (they're clearly a significant global power) and economically (rapidly rising standards of living and enough exports to become the world's factory). It starts to ask the question: are our holy values an end in and of themselves, or just a means to deliver economic and social development?
We can't possibly consider that alternative, so we've got to smear every step of progress they make. "But the Falun Gong!" "But the Uiguyhrs!" "But Tibet!" In the end, the results stand for themselves. I suppose the real challenge is the next generation or two-- meeting and lapping Western economic performance, with a population of 1.4 billion, in a period where a lot of the easy natural resources are claimed, may well be a challenge, for any system.
>China has proven that you can deliver both politically (they're clearly a significant global power) and economically (rapidly rising standards of living and enough exports to become the world's factory).
And how's that doing under Xi Jinping, specifically, especially after he started his Zero COVID policies of putting cities of tens of millions under continuous lockdown?
>China has proven that you can deliver both politically (they're clearly a significant global power) and economically
What China proved that is that an authoritarian regime can smother economic progress for decades, and then can stop making those mistakes for a period. China's per-capita GDP is still only about 1/3 of Korea's and 1/4 of Japan's, and that difference is largely due to past failures by its governing elite. The question is whether China's system will be able to optimize for similar mistake-free periods in the future or if it will experience similar failure modes.
Democracy and individual rights are, to an extent, the frosting wrapped around the real focus-- private property rights and private enterprise.
The last 75 years of foreign policy show that it's easier to coexist with the West as a tyranny that won't be an impediment to business, than a democracy that comes to any other conclusions. But at the same time, they'll never say outright "we couped/invaded to make a world safe for Coca-Cola/United Fruit/Disney" when they can make some blather about democracy or rights.
There was this book called The Communist Manifesto. The government of China doesn't look very much like the book. So, not communist.
But China is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party. So yes, communist, at least by their own declaration.
(You see this same thing in the US, where the Republicans and Democrats get the other side shoving in their face every statement made by every nutcase who manages to win a primary.)
I would say that the problem comes from them being a one-party dictatorship, with the explicit intention of never giving that up. That doesn't lead to a government that is accountable to the people; it's a government that is trying very hard to avoid being accountable to the people.
I would also say that Xi is making them more genuinely communist than they were 15 years ago.
> But China is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party. So yes, communist, at least by their own declaration.
Actually, no. The CCP is communist only by name. From the Chinese constitution[1]:
> The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.
The second part of this sentence is arguably false, but they define themselves as strictly socialist.
In the same document, we see:
> Citizens' lawful private property is inviolable.
> The State, in accordance with law, protects the rights of citizens to private property and to its inheritance.
So the abolition of private property, one of the core tenets of communism, doesn't exist in China.
Economically, modern China is built on a capitalistic system, where private companies compete on an open stock market.
The only traces of communism in China is an autocratic government, and some limited benefits for citizens like free basic healthcare and primary education.
Bear in mind, I'm not an expert in politics, nor in Chinese related matters, but if we're looking for a label to use to define their system, communist wouldn't be one of them.
When they put that private property declaration in there, they still had a one-child policy, which they ended for practical, not ideological reasons. That is a more potent instantiation of communism than economic policy or property rights.
Propaganda is strong and useful idiots are numerous on both sides of the wall.
Sitong being amplified hard by western PRC watchers and media, booted out of mainland with nothing better to do but fill column inches to wishcast crack in Xi's power leading up to Party Congress. The expected hopium before Xi did a full sweep stack of the PSC with loyalist. In reality a small group (~10,000 last I checked) mostly of HK activists + dissident diaspora + few mainlanders coordinating by voiceofcn, a shitposting cope haven, where memes get more eyeballs than protest. Also see Xi getting disappeared/couped fake news, "courtly" drama over Hu Jintao in the last 30 days. CCP internal dynamics being opaque + western media/experts being booted out of country + 100s of millions funding to antiPRC propaganda + too much game of thrones and house of cards (mildly serious) is making the entire ecosystem of manufacturing consent around PRC increasingly irrational, which gets filtered down to online spaces, including HN. "Once you hate someone, everything they do is offensive."
It's deeply unsettling that the most populated nation on Earth is ruled by one of the most corrupt governments on Earth, and that its culture is deeply xenophobic, irreverent of the environment, and any living organism other than their own.
As China becomes more powerful, is there anything other nations can do to make this transition more positive for everyone? I don't mean economically, but on an existential level.