> 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?
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.
It better be! I think it is wrong to root for “downfall”, even if it makes sense to diversify your risk.
Oh indeed. There's unbounded ways to weight the different aspects of freedom that get combined into indices like this.
As for the current drop in the US being temporary… well, we can all hope.
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.
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
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!
Meng took the job because she thinks the U.S. has turned away from a commitment to decarbonize its economy.
The Trump administration’s immigration policiesIf 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.
If your work is not valued, if its more difficult to get grants etc.
That's not to "whatabout" it, but I do find it interesting how blind we are to our own delusions.
I don't think there are many "make the world better but actually I mean make myself more money" types are left here on the forum, if they are, they're a lot more silent today than they were around 2012-2014.
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?)