Could AI Destroy China? – 「August 17」

Their economy is crumbling. Money is pouring out of the country. And now this… A small handful of artificial intelligence stocks could have the power to put the nail in China’s coffin. [Income Investing Insider]( Sometimes, colleagues of Income Investing Insider share special offers with us that we think our readers should be made aware of. Below is one such special opportunity that we believe deserves your attention. Paul Gilbert[edit] In "The Philosophy of Nationalism", Paul Gilbert breaks down what he thinks a nation is and his ideas contrast those of both Anderson and Gellner. In the book, Gilbert acknowledges that nations are many things. Gilbert says nations are: Nominalist: Whatever a group of people who consider themselves a nation say a nation is [41] Voluntarist: "Group of people bound by a commonly willed nation" [41] Territorial: Group of people located in the same proximity, or territory [41] Linguistic: People who share the same language.[41] Axiological: Group of people who have the same distinctive values[41] Destination: Group of people who have a common history, and a common mission [41] Challenges[edit] Ethnic identity[edit] Aboriginal groups protesting in Brisbane, Australia In countries that have multiple ethnic groups, ethnic identity, and national identity may be in conflict.[42] These conflicts are usually referred to as ethnonational conflicts. One of the famous ethnonational conflicts is the struggle between the Australian government and aboriginal population in Australia.[43] The Australian government and majority culture-imposed policies and framework that supported the majority, European-based cultural values, and a national language as English. The Aboriginal cultures and languages were not supported by the state and were nearly eradicated by the state during the 20th century. Because of these conflicts, the Aboriginal population identifies less or does not identify with the national identity of being an Australian, but their ethnic identities are salient.[44] Immigration[edit] As immigration increases, many countries face the challenges of constructing national identity and accommodating immigrants.[45] Some countries are more inclusive in terms of encouraging immigrants to develop a sense of belonging to their host country. For example, Canada has the highest permanent immigration rates in the world. The Canadian government encourages immigrants to build a sense of belonging to Canada and has fostered a more inclusive concept of national identity which includes both people born in Canada and immigrants.[46] Some countries are less inclusive. For example, Russia has experienced two major waves of immigration influx, one in the 1990s, and the other one after 1998. Immigrants were perceived negatively by the Russian people and were viewed as "unwelcome and abusive guests". Immigrants were considered outsiders and were excluded from sharing the national identity of belonging to Russia.[47] Globalization[edit] As the world becomes increasingly globalized, international tourism, communication, and business collaboration have increased.[48] People around the world cross national borders more frequently to seek cultural exchange, education, business, and different lifestyles. Globalization promotes common values and experiences, and it also encourages identification with the global community.[49] People may adapt cosmopolitanism and view themselves as global beings, or world citizens.[50] This trend may threaten national identity because globalization undermines the importance of being a citizen of a particular country.[51] Several researchers examined globalization and its impact on national identity and found that as a country becomes more globalized, patriotism declines, which suggests that the increase in globalization is associated with less loyalty and less willingness to fight for one's own country.[48][52][53] However, even a nation like Turkey which occupies an important geographic trade crossroads and international marketplace with a tradition of liberal economic activity with an ingrained entrepreneurial and foreign trade has degrees of ethnocentrism as Turkish consumers may be basically rational buyers by not discriminating against imported products, but they exhibit preferences for local goods that are of equal quality to the imports because buying them assists the nation's economy and domestic employment.[54] Dear Reader, China is in deep trouble. [See China Trouble]( Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all human beings are members of a single community. Its adherents are known as cosmopolitan or cosmopolite. Cosmopolitanism is both prescriptive and aspirational, believing humans can and should be "world citizens" in a "universal community".[1] The idea encompasses different dimensions and avenues of community, such as promoting universal moral standards, establishing global political structures, or developing a platform for mutual cultural expression and tolerance.[1][2] For example, Kwame Anthony Appiah articulates a cosmopolitan community where individuals from varying locations (physical, economic, etc.) enter relationships of mutual respect despite their differing beliefs (religious, political, etc.).[3] By comparison, Immanuel Kant envisioned a cosmopolitan world where armies were abolished and humans were governed under a representative global institution. In all instances, proponents of cosmopolitanism share an emphasis that all humans should form one cohesive and united community. In a looser but related sense, "cosmopolitan" is also used to describe places where people of various ethnic, cultural and/or religious backgrounds live together and interact with each other.[4] Etymology[edit] The word derives from the Ancient Greek: κοσμοπολίτης, or kosmopolitês, formed from "κόσμος", kosmos, i.e. "world", "universe", or "cosmos", and πολίτης, "politês", i.e. "citizen" or "[one] of a city". Contemporary usage defines the term as "citizen of the world".[5][6] Definitions[edit] Definitions of cosmopolitanism usually begin with the Greek etymology of "citizen of the world". However, as Appiah points out, "world" in the original sense meant "cosmos" or "universe", not earth or globe as current use assumes.[7] One definition that handles this issue is given in a recent book on political globalization: Cosmopolitanism can be defined as a global politics that, firstly, projects a sociality of common political engagement among all human beings across the globe, and, secondly, suggests that this sociality should be either ethically or organizationally privileged over other forms of sociality.[8] The Chinese term tianxia (all under Heaven), a metonym for empire, has also been re-interpreted in the modern age as a conception of cosmopolitanism, and was used by 1930s modernists as the title of a Shanghai-based, English-language journal of world arts and letters, T'ien Hsia Monthly.[9] Multilingual modern Chinese writers such as Lin Yutang, Wen Yuan-ning also translated cosmopolitanism using the now more common term shijie zhuyi (ideology of world[liness]).[citation needed] Philosophical[edit] Further information: Global justice and Moral universalism Philosophical roots[edit] Diogenes Cosmopolitanism can be traced back to Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412 B.C.), the founder of the Cynic movement in Ancient Greece. It was said that when Diogenes was "Asked where he came from, he answered: 'I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolitês)'".[10] At the time, the broadest basis of social identity among Greeks was either the individual city-state or the culturally and linguistically homogenous Hellenic group. Stoicism, another Greek school of thought that was founded roughly a century later, built upon Diogenes' idea, with many of its thinkers and adherents stressing that each human being "dwells [...] in two communities – the local community of our birth, and the community of human argument and aspiration".[11] A common way to understand Stoic cosmopolitanism is through Hierocles' circle model of identity, which states that individuals should regard themselves as concentric circles: the first one around the self, followed by immediate family, extended family, local group, citizens, countrymen, humanity. Within these circles human beings feel a sense of "affinity" or "endearment" towards others, which the Stoics termed Oikeiôsis. The task of world citizens becomes then to "draw the circles somehow towards the centre, making all human beings more like our fellow city dwellers, and so forth".[11]: 9  Modern cosmopolitan thinkers[edit] In his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Immanuel Kant stages a ius cosmopoliticum (cosmopolitan law/right) as a guiding principle to help global society achieve permanent, enduring peace. Kant's cosmopolitan right stems from an understanding of all human beings as equal members of a universal community. Cosmopolitan right thus works in tandem with international political rights, and the shared, universal right of humanity.[12] Kant's cosmopolitan right is fundamentally bound to the conditions of universal hospitality and the right of resort. Universal hospitality is defined as the right to be welcomed upon arrival in foreign territory, but is contingent on a guest arriving in a peaceful manner. Kant makes the additional claim that all human beings have the basic right of resort: the right to present oneself in a foreign land. The right of resort is derived from Kant's understanding of the Earth's surface as essentially communal, and further emphasizing his claims on equally shared universal rights among all human beings.[13] The philosophical concepts of Emmanuel Levinas, on ethics, and Jacques Derrida, on hospitality, provide a theoretical framework for the relationships between people in their everyday lives and apart from any form of written laws or codes. For Levinas, the foundation of ethics consists in the obligation to respond to the Other. In Being for the Other, he writes that there is no "universal moral law," only the sense of responsibility (goodness, mercy, charity) that the Other, in a state of vulnerability, calls forth[citation needed]. The proximity of the Other is an important part of Levinas's concept: the face of the Other is what compels the response.[citation needed] For Derrida, the foundation of ethics is hospitality, the readiness and the inclination to welcome the Other into one's home. Ethics, he claims, is hospitality. Pure, unconditional hospitality is a desire that underscores the conditional hospitality necessary in our relationships with others. Levinas's and Derrida's theories of ethics and hospitality hold out the possibility of an acceptance of the Other as different but of equal standing. Isolation is not a feasible alternative in the world, therefore, it is important to consider how best to approach these interactions, and to determine what is at stake for ourselves and the others: what conditions of hospitality to impose, and whether or not we have responded to the call of the Other. Further, both theories reveal the importance of considering how best to interact with the Other and others, and what is at stake.[citation needed] Derrida in an interview with Bennington (1997) summarized "cosmopolitanism",[14] There is a tradition of cosmopolitanism, and if we had time we could study this tradition, which comes to us from, on the one hand, Greek thought with the Stoics, who have a concept of the 'citizen of the world'. You also have St. Paul in the Christian tradition, also a certain call for a citizen of the world as, precisely, a brother. St. Paul says that we are all brothers, that is sons of God, so we are not foreigners, we belong to the world as citizens of the world; and it is this tradition that we could follow up until Kant for instance, in whose concept of cosmopolitanism we find the conditions for hospitality. But in the concept of the cosmopolitical in Kant there are a number of conditions: first of all you should, of course, welcome the stranger, the foreigner, to the extent that he is a citizen of another country, that you grant him the right to visit and not to stay, and there are a number of other conditions that I can't summarise here quickly, but this concept of the cosmopolitical which is very novel, very worthy of respect (and I think cosmopolitanism is a very good thing), is a very limited concept. (Derrida cited in Bennington 1997). — Bennington. Politics and Friendship: A Discussion with Jacques Derrida. 1997. A further state of cosmopolitanism occurred after the Second World War. As a reaction to the Holocaust and other atrocities, the concept of crimes against humanity became a generally accepted category in international law. This clearly shows the appearance and acceptance of a notion of individual responsibility that is considered to exist toward all of humankind.[15] Philosophical cosmopolitans are moral universalists: they believe that all humans, and not merely compatriots or fellow-citizens, come under the same moral standards. The boundaries between nations, states, cultures or societies are therefore morally irrelevant. A widely cited example of a contemporary cosmopolitan is Kwame Anthony Appiah.[16] Some philosophers and scholars argue that the objective and subjective conditions arising in today's unique historical moment, an emerging planetary phase of civilization, creates a latent potential for the emergence of a cosmopolitan identity as global citizens and possible formation of a global citizens movement.[17] These emerging objective and subjective conditions in the planetary phase include improved and affordable telecommunications; space travel and the first images of our fragile planet floating in the vastness of space; the emergence of global warming and other ecological threats to our collective existence; new global institutions such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, or International Criminal Court; the rise of transnational corporations and integration of markets often termed economic globalization; the emergence of global NGOs and transnational social movements, such as the World Social Forum; and so on. Globalization, a more common term, typically refers more narrowly to the economic and trade relations and misses the broader cultural, social, political, environmental, demographic, values and knowledge transitions taking place.[citation needed] Their economy is crumbling. Money is pouring out of the country. And now [this…]( A small handful of artificial intelligence stocks could have the power to put the nail in China’s coffin. [Click here to find out why these three AI stocks may be bad news for China, but could be big news for your wallet!]( Sincerely, [Sean Brodrick] Sean Brodrick, Editor Weiss Ratings Contemporary cosmopolitan thinkers[edit] This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (February 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) A number of contemporary theorists propose, directly and indirectly, various ways of becoming or being a cosmopolitan individual. Thich Nhat Hanh discusses what he calls "Interbeing" as a way of living one's life in relation to others; "Interbeing" might easily be compared to cosmopolitanism. Nhat Hanh's philosophical beliefs are grounded in the precepts of Buddhist teachings, which involve compassion and understanding to protect and live in harmony with all people, animals, plants, and minerals.[18]: 88  He further describes what he calls "Mindfulness Training of the Order of Interbeing" as being aware of sufferings created by, but not limited to, the following causes: fanaticism and intolerances that disrupt compassion and living in harmony with others; indoctrination of narrow-minded beliefs; imposition of views; anger; and miscommunication.[18]: 89–95  Understanding and compassion for others seems to be achieved by the understanding of others' suffering and the root causes of suffering. Therefore, to be responsible is to recognize and understand suffering, which then leads to compassion. It is through this process that others can be recognized as people. Other theorists, philosophers, and activists contend that recognizing suffering is necessary to end violence. In Scared Sacred, Velcrow Ripper takes a journey to different sites of great suffering that ultimately leads him toward developing compassion.[19] In "The Planet", Paul Gilroy explores how the construction and naturalization of race and the hierarchies produced by difference shape the hatred of others. It is the deconstruction of these ideologies that can lead to the compassion and humanization of others. Thus individual responsibility is being aware of what Judith Butler calls the precariousness of life in self and other; being a cosmopolitan seems to be, above all, a social, ethical enterprise. In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Kwame Anthony Appiah notes how social ethics seem to operate: Whatever obligation one might have to another, especially a foreign other, that obligation does not supersede the obligations one has to those people most familiar to them. However, as Judith Butler questions, "at what cost do I establish the familiar as the criterion" for valuing others?[20] If one values the familiar more than the foreign, what are the consequences? Paul Gilroy offers a possible alternative to this emphasis on familiarity arguing that "methodical cultivation of a degree of estrangement from one's own culture and history ... might qualify as essential to a cosmopolitan commitment."[21]: 67  This estrangement entails a "process of exposure to otherness" in order to foster "the irreducible value of diversity within sameness."[21]: 67  Estrangement, therefore, could lead to de-emphasising the familiar in ethics by integrating otherness. For Gilroy, being cosmopolitan seems to involve both a social, ethical enterprise and a cultural enterprise. In "The Planet", Gilroy describes the cases of Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie;[21]: 80–81  each seems to exemplify what might be considered Gilroy's figure of the cosmopolitan. Both Hurndall and Corrie removed themselves (geographically) from their home cultures, presumably both physically and mentally estranging themselves from their own cultures and histories. Hurndall and Corrie were both killed in 2003 (in separate incidents). Gilroy's model of estrangement might actually undermine itself through its examples; this might be construed as a failure of Gilroy's theory to address the practical difficulties of estranging oneself from the familiar.[21] The Venus Project, an international, multidisciplinary educational organization created by Jacque Fresco, works to spread cosmopolitan ideas by transcending artificial boundaries currently separating people and emphasizing an understanding of our interdependence with nature and each other.[citation needed] Some forms of cosmopolitanism also fail to address the potential for economic colonization by powerful countries over less powerful ones.[citation needed] Frantz Fanon, in The Wretched of the Earth, observes that when nations achieved independence from European colonizers, frequently there was no system in place to secure their economic future, and they became "manager[s] for Western enterprise...in practise set[ting] up its country as the brothel of Europe."[22]: 154  When "third world" nations are drawn into economic partnerships with global capital, ostensibly to improve their national quality of life, often the only ones benefitting from this partnership are well-placed individuals and not the nation itself. Further, Mahmood Mamdani in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim suggests that the imposition of Western cultural norms, democracy and Christianity to name only two, has historically resulted in nationalist violence;[23] however, Appiah has implied that democracy is a pre-requisite for cosmopolitan intervention in developing nations.[24]: 169 [25] Cosmopolitanism, in these instances, appears to be a new form of colonization: the powerful exploit the weak and the weak eventually fight back.[citation needed] Much of the political thinking of the last two centuries has taken nationalism and the framework of the sovereign nation-state for granted. With the advance of globalization and the increased facility of travel and communication, some thinkers consider that the political system based on the nation-state has become obsolete and that it is time to design a better and more efficient alternative. Jesús Mosterín analyzes how the world political system should be organized in order to maximize individual freedom and individual opportunity. Rejecting as muddled the metaphysical notion of free will, he focuses on political freedom, the absence of coercion or interference by others in personal decisions. Because of the tendencies to violence and aggression that lurk in human nature, some constraint on freedom is necessary for peaceful and fruitful social interaction.[26] Especially, there is no rational ground for curtailing the cultural freedoms (of language, religion and customs) in the name of the nation, the church, or the party. From this point of view, the Internet provides a much more attractive model than the nation-state. Neither is there any just reason for restraining the free circulation of people, ideas, or goods. Mosterín thinks that the nation-state is incompatible with the full development of freedom, whose blossoming requires the reorganization of the world political system along cosmopolitan lines. He proposes a world without sovereign nation-states, territorially organized in small autonomous but not-sovereign cantonal polities, complemented by strong world organizations.[27] He emphasizes the difference between international institutions, led by representatives of the national governments, and world or universal institutions, with clearly defined aims served by directors selected by their personal qualifications, independently of any national bias or proportion. Criticizing the abstract nature of most versions of cosmopolitanism, Charles Blattberg has argued that any viable cosmopolitanism must be "rooted," by which he means based upon a "global patriotism."[28] More general philosophical reviews of cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism are also available. Carol Nicholson compares John Searle's opposition to multiculturalism with Charles Taylor's celebration of it. She uses Richard Rorty as a triangulation point in that he remains neutral about multiculturalism, but his philosophical analysis of truth and practice can be deployed to argue against Searle and in favor of Taylor.[29] At a conference on "Philosophy in a Multicultural Context", Rasmus Winther excavated the philosophical assumptions and practices connected with cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism. He develops Bruno Latour's conception of the philosopher as public diplomat.[30] [--------------] [Income Investing Insider]( We’re reaching out to you because you showed an interest in the Financial industry by subscribing to our email list through one of our sign-up forms. [Privacy Policy]( | [Terms & Conditions]( 11780 US Highway 1, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408-3080 Would you like to [edit your e-mail notification preferences or unsubscribe]( from our mailing list? Copyright © 2023 Weiss Ratings. All rights reserved. This offer is brought to you by Income Investing Insider. 221 W 9th St # Wilmington, DE 19801. If you would like to unsubscribe from receiving offers brought to you by Income Investing Insider [click here](. Email sent by Finance and Investing Traffic, LLC, owner and operator of Income Investing Insider (III) Do you have any questions or concerns? Our support team is always here to help you out! Feel free to [connect with us](mailto:support@incomeinvestinginsider.com) anytime you need assistance. If you have any security-related questions, please don’t hesitate to email us at abuse@incomeinvestinginsider.com. Make sure you’re always in the know about the latest updates and trends in finance and investing by [adding us to your email whitelist](. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2023 by Income Investing Insider[.]( [Unsubscribe]( [Income Investing Insider](