> I was really searching for a position that would let me do my work, which is to translate the fundamental science into industry impact. I’ve been entrusted with a very high position in my home country, but at the same time, I’m seriously concerned that, if I were asked by the [U.S.] Department of War to perform certain tasks, I probably won’t be able to do it. Things like [making better batteries for] drones, or humanoids for war fighting. Maybe they already have their own expertise. But I just don’t want to risk it.
> I also think it’s important that I maintain my reputation as someone who’s always building things, not destroying things. So, I decided it’s probably better for somebody else to [direct the DOE hub].
Really inspiring and hearth-warming to see a scientist to consider the full impact of their work, in such a direct way, and then not only thinking these things, but also acting on them to ensure she feels right with what she does. We really need more of these types of people in the world :)
This a nice qoute and all but China has a civil-Military program that allows their government to annex any necessary technology for their military but also puts strict building practices on civil made projects.
What makes anyone think that China as government won't do exactly what she fears, which is putting this battery technology inside drones, or humanoids for war fighting? The difference here is China won't ask.
nor will anyone else, the point isn't about weather generic use batteries will be used for military usage, or that someone who licence the technology builds military focused versions
the point is they themselves didn't want to _explicitly_ design components for specific forms of military usage
and they no longer feel safe to not be pressured by the US to do so
but that isn't even the main reason for moving mentioned in the article which are (in order they appear in): reduced funding, moving away from electrification, immigration policies and then the previous point
-----
as a side note your comment did sound a bit like you think Singapore is China, in the unlikely case you did idk. mix it up with Honkon: it isn't China in any form it was
Singapore and China hold strong economic ties. Furthermore if the Chinese government asks one of its citizens to do something the citizen must keep in mind where the rest of their family lives. There are countless articles of how the CCP will do things like fire an aunt or uncle, or deny a sister or brother access to college for not complying with their wishes.
Do you think Singapore as an independent country is strong enough to keep the Chinese government out?
And so they chose Singapore, that bastion of human rights?
More seriously, it will be interesting to track this person for a few years to see whether they thrive in Singapore. Good luck to her and hope she makes a difference.
Moving, especially internationally, is disruptive. Even in bad times, you need to look to where things are going, not where they are in the moment. The USA is dropping on various freedom indices; if you move for this reason, you must ask if will it drop further, will it stabilise, or will it recover? And the same for the destinations you consider.
Great chart! Thanks. I used it to compare a couple of other places too.
Yeah I don't see the gap between the US and Singapore closing in the next 5, 10, or 50 years. The current drop in the US is temporary. The lower score for Singapore is structural.
EDIT: but these are "just" stats, and do not speak to any person's personal position, like Meng's.
her reason wasn't some my tech shouldn't be bad people high moral ground but that she felt she can't do here work on here previous job anymore and the next job happened to be in Singapore, and the reasoning in order was also
- reduced funding / many projects getting side lined
- US moving away from decarbonization
- immigration policies discrimination against Chinese born people (even if they have left Chinese citizenship behind/are US citizens)
- and here not wanting to be put in a position where she is pressured to work directly on batteries for weapon systems like drones (!= general use systems being used in a military context)
so she chose Singapore because someone in Singapore presented here with a good job offer where she doesn't have to worry about this things
i.e. this isn't about the US being "evil" and Singapore being better, but about the US no longer being as good a place for civilian use battery production scientist
What was the last country Singapore waged war against, and when was that? AFAIK, I don't think Singapore has threatened the sovereignty of a single state after the inception of the country.
Probably it isn't a perfect country, probably no country is.
If decarbonization, immigration, and human rights are the drivers, there are better countries to pick than Singapore, including Japan, many in Europe, Costa Rica, New Zealand, etc.
On the other hand, Meng is probably right in picking Singapore from a self-interested position because that's where she studied (so has ties) and she believes it gives her a better stage for her research. Notably, she did not choose to go to China, which is where she grew up. So it is noteworthy that she has concluded better opportunities in Singapore.
When you think of the outlook of the USA, where for example the secretary of health and human services is a crusader against vaccination, do you feel like it’s a country that’s rising to meet the challenges of the future? Because to me it feels like we are in the beginning of a fall of civilization!
I don’t have the perspective to really say I know what’s going on, but I trust the scientist knows her business and her industry well enough to make a call for herself.
Do you have anything specific to show she’s making the wrong decision?
> If they are mapping that to "reduction in green energy" or "reversal of green energy adoption" I think they are very wrong indeed.
Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
> Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
"caused by economic factors" is precisely why I think the conclusion is wrong. The US, if nothing else, structurally prioritizes profit, even if it it does dumb, short-sighted things at times.
That's an ironic comment to see on hackernews, a forum most closely associated with silicon valley. Where creating attention traps and gambling apps while claiming to "make the world better" is accepted with a straight face.
That's not to "whatabout" it, but I do find it interesting how blind we are to our own delusions.
> “I’ve always been an internationalist,” says Meng, who became a Singapore citizen in 2004, “and I think that…”
Choices and decisions. And what of the scientific community in the US who don’t have ties abroad? Who don’t choose to leave the country?
If the government isn’t funding research, and a university position is not open, then you have to turn to industry. And if that doesn’t turn up, then you’re the most overqualified… librarian?
I’m thinking about the more diffused pattern of students with the aptitude and disposition for science going into industry. Is this the environment which drives more manufacturing in the US?
Is this the vision the administration is chasing? (If you look past the racism and corruption, and presume there is an economic outcome the president and all of the republican congress appears to support him for?)
> I also think it’s important that I maintain my reputation as someone who’s always building things, not destroying things. So, I decided it’s probably better for somebody else to [direct the DOE hub].
Really inspiring and hearth-warming to see a scientist to consider the full impact of their work, in such a direct way, and then not only thinking these things, but also acting on them to ensure she feels right with what she does. We really need more of these types of people in the world :)
What makes anyone think that China as government won't do exactly what she fears, which is putting this battery technology inside drones, or humanoids for war fighting? The difference here is China won't ask.
the point is they themselves didn't want to _explicitly_ design components for specific forms of military usage
and they no longer feel safe to not be pressured by the US to do so
but that isn't even the main reason for moving mentioned in the article which are (in order they appear in): reduced funding, moving away from electrification, immigration policies and then the previous point
-----
as a side note your comment did sound a bit like you think Singapore is China, in the unlikely case you did idk. mix it up with Honkon: it isn't China in any form it was
Do you think Singapore as an independent country is strong enough to keep the Chinese government out?
Insinuating anything else is really hard to see as anything other than racism.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-index-vdem?t...
Yeah I don't see the gap between the US and Singapore closing in the next 5, 10, or 50 years. The current drop in the US is temporary. The lower score for Singapore is structural.
EDIT: but these are "just" stats, and do not speak to any person's personal position, like Meng's.
but reading the article helps
her reason wasn't some my tech shouldn't be bad people high moral ground but that she felt she can't do here work on here previous job anymore and the next job happened to be in Singapore, and the reasoning in order was also
- reduced funding / many projects getting side lined
- US moving away from decarbonization
- immigration policies discrimination against Chinese born people (even if they have left Chinese citizenship behind/are US citizens)
- and here not wanting to be put in a position where she is pressured to work directly on batteries for weapon systems like drones (!= general use systems being used in a military context)
so she chose Singapore because someone in Singapore presented here with a good job offer where she doesn't have to worry about this things
i.e. this isn't about the US being "evil" and Singapore being better, but about the US no longer being as good a place for civilian use battery production scientist
Probably it isn't a perfect country, probably no country is.
On the other hand, Meng is probably right in picking Singapore from a self-interested position because that's where she studied (so has ties) and she believes it gives her a better stage for her research. Notably, she did not choose to go to China, which is where she grew up. So it is noteworthy that she has concluded better opportunities in Singapore.
I don’t have the perspective to really say I know what’s going on, but I trust the scientist knows her business and her industry well enough to make a call for herself.
Do you have anything specific to show she’s making the wrong decision?
That's a bit dramatic!
If they are mapping that to "reduction in green energy" or "reversal of green energy adoption" I think they are very wrong indeed.
Because there is a global trend towards green energy use, caused by economic factors. It's bound to be more expressive outside the US, because of politics.
"caused by economic factors" is precisely why I think the conclusion is wrong. The US, if nothing else, structurally prioritizes profit, even if it it does dumb, short-sighted things at times.
That's not to "whatabout" it, but I do find it interesting how blind we are to our own delusions.
Choices and decisions. And what of the scientific community in the US who don’t have ties abroad? Who don’t choose to leave the country?
If the government isn’t funding research, and a university position is not open, then you have to turn to industry. And if that doesn’t turn up, then you’re the most overqualified… librarian?
I’m thinking about the more diffused pattern of students with the aptitude and disposition for science going into industry. Is this the environment which drives more manufacturing in the US?
Is this the vision the administration is chasing? (If you look past the racism and corruption, and presume there is an economic outcome the president and all of the republican congress appears to support him for?)