So what. Who cares? All tech is based on what someone else done before. Go China, if they can produce it better.
That's the thing: They're not. Try reading more.
State intervention in capitalism, I'm up for that. I've got Amazon and Uber taking a ton of money out of my country reliant on my tax funded infrastructure, whilst paying as little wages and tax as they can and leaving me with the rubbish. Nuke them with tax and use it to fund British versions copying their model. Fuck em.
There's already a more concise word for what you're asking for. Benito Mussolini was a die-hard socialist who hated capitalism, but at some point realized socialism doesn't actually work, yet he still hated capitalism. People today who want this "blend" but can't stomach calling themselves fascist generally refer to it as "the third position" but it's the same thing. This is the most precise way to describe China's economy. You may or may not notice that the political compass most people use in academia puts Hitler and Mussolini almost dead-center on that left-right scale, and in that case, left and right only refer to left being economic authoritarianism, right being economic libertarianism. This is one among many reasons why I eschew that scale and you'll rarely see me use the terms "left" or "right in a political context.
On this topic: Ever notice every bad ideology resulting in the deaths of tens of millions (and likely more) started in Europe? Not to mention all four world wars were started by Europeans -- though I kind of doubt you can name all of them. Shit, you're probably only aware of two, and only because it's in the common name of those two.
One advantage of a command economy
Just as in the case of North Korea, Maoist China, the USSR and Cuba, they ceremonially call(ed) themselves communist, but aren't really. Those three are/were socialist. Today's China is fascist. That is not a command economy because people are free to own the means of production on their own terms, but it can behave that way in that the state can either take over or nationalize their business, or install its own board of directors and/or management, exerting control without nationalizing it.
I don't know about GMO, I remember one of the criticisms was Monsanto, weren't they trying to push single germination seed ? Fuck that.
I don't know what you're talking about with this in particular, (if it's biodiversity, then this is a poor way to state it, nor would they be anywhere near the first let alone only) but there's a lot of myth around them pushed by anti-GMO propagandists, usually in an effort to connect the two as if they're one in the same as part of a broader effort to bring down both. Though to be fair to Europeans, a lot of the propaganda today sticks around because of Greenpeace, even though it started in Europe.
The other concern was cross pollination and affect on ecosystem.
It's bunk. Very few Europeans realize this, but crops that humans actually cultivate have been selectively bred over the millennia that they barely resemble their wild counterparts. Nearly all of them can't even survive on their own without constant care. Some of them can't even germinate on their own. We've already been doing this for 30 years now and not one of these doom scenarios have ever shown even a hint at happening in any meaningful capacity. You might have isolated cross-pollination here and there, but they never last beyond a generation or two, and in every case it's been pollinated into an adjacent farm and not into the wild, and again, where somebody has been actively taking care of them. Including one case in Canada where a farmer selectively bred the Monsanto seed from the cross-pollinated crop to remove the non-GM variant, and he was later sued for patent infringement. That is the basis you guys use when you say "Monsanto is suing everybody!" when he's literally the only one who ever got sued over that, and what he did was quite deliberate. That patent, by the way, has long since expired, and the very day that it did so, that seed saw very rapid, widespread adoption.
I don't know what "behind" means, planting or research? I doubt research for my country we are leader in bio tech, old university culture that people want.
Nope, you're actually in a very distant 4th place. Aside from Germany who is a distant third, the rest of Europe is on-par with mostly very poor countries.
https://www.nature.com/nature-...
Anyway, as I already mentioned: Proteomics. Nevermind that you guys are way behind on damn near everything else too. Basically the only thing you have going for you in this regard is CERN, which is now questionable as many (including European) physicists are saying that, at this point, you're not going to gain anything meaningful with a bigger collider. Not to mention that a plurality of the scientists who work there are Americans working for American research institutions, despite that we have half of the population. In terms of astrophysics, James Webb is making a lot of headway, but your rockets were so unreliable that Ariane caused three six-month delays in getting the thing into space. Unfortunately, it was designed, by Americans, around that sad little rocket of yours, and it was too late to change it at that point.
Climates warming, I favour at least trying growing established, tested variants from hotter countries rather than rolling dice on genetics.
This is exactly why I make fun of you guys so much on this topic: You're basically arguing for young earth creationism. That's really how dumb this argument is. The reason is quite simple: (NB: When I say we, I mean everybody but Europeans, and "you" plural, as in Europeans)
When we make gene edits, they're very specific and targeted, we know exactly what amino groups they encode for, and we well understand what the resulting proteins do well before they ever end up in a seed. When plants reproduce naturally however, there are all sorts of mutations and recombinations, by the millions, and we only have a vague idea what they do. But those are somehow "tested variants" to you, because it takes a European to think all things natural are always better.
Food is culturally very important to Europeans, especially the French, that's an old human instinct I trust.
I already know food is your religion -- this isn't news to me at all. That's why you guys are so anti-science when it comes to this topic. So many European researchers have had papers retracted over this because of everything from just plain incompetence to outright scientific misconduct, in a vain effort to "prove" GMO is bad. All because you guys reach the conclusion before you even do any research. This is the most basic fallacy in any scientific effort any person can make, the broader name for it is confirmation bias, and it's all you guys really know here.
As far as Europeans know, every crop you cultivate and harvest has always been the way you see them now, created that way by your holy deity. Selective-selection to get them the way they are now is just a myth created by those Americans.
There maybe a different attitude in fast food America, profit always seem to come first.
It's interesting when you guys say things like this, because McDonald's biggest, most profitable restaurant in the world is in France. The same France that you just said food is so culturally very important to. The irony, by the way, that the father of modern science was himself skeptical of big governments, in stark contrast to today's Europeans, is not lost on me.a
rip
