~ 5 min read
I will preface by saying that this essay is comprised of my own observations.
All oranges are my own or whatever people say before making some controversial claims and don't want to get fired if their employer sees it.
Canada and West have lots of talent but not lots of scale
China has lots of scale but not that much innovation talentI recently visited China, my country of birth. During my time there, I spoke with many friends working in ai startups and tech. Through these conversations, I noticed significant differences between how the East and West approach innovation in the technology sector. Keep in mind this is a very small sample size and reflective of the civilization as a whole. However, I observed several approaches that could potentially strengthen Canada's innovation ecosystem and economic growth if implemented thoughtfully with a Canadian touch (eh).
Before I discuss these differences, I want to give a rough history overview of China because I believe that gives significant context as to why people behave the way they do. Chinese civilization has been around for more than 5,000 years but the labors of our ancestors could not be reaped by subsequent generations. China has been destroyed over and over again, nothing seemed to stick. From the devastating Opium Wars of the 19th century, to the brutal Japanese invasion during World War II that claimed millions of lives, to the tumultuous Cultural Revolution - China has endured numerous conflicts and internal struggles that have repeatedly disrupted progress. These historical wounds remain in collective memory, yet they also serve as mental models and spiritual guidance to the people of China that they can do amazing things despite adversity.
To continue on this point that China is a startup, only recently have the efforts seem to have compounded and deliver on tangible results. With recent breakthroughs in AI such as Deepseek and Qwen combined with innovation in the robotics and drone sector with companies like DJI, I started to ask myself what was at the root of this innovation?
When you compare GDP per capita numbers of China($12,614) versus Canada($55,522) or USA($82,769), you can see the massive gap, a multiple of 5-8. It also doesn't make sense when you visit and observe the architectural masterpieces and public transportation that is cheap, clean, and consistency on time. To contrast this, in the city where I live - Ottawa, Canada, public transportation is a nightmare and driving seems to be the only means of viable transportation. I think you can attribute this to a few things, China's population is ~36 larger, and you can make the plausible argument that China simply has a substantial larger labour pool to fill these roles. Okay - fair enough. I believe this also forces China to attempt wild things in hopes of bridging the gap. This is like a startup trying to compete with Google, not in a gazillion years will they be able to catch up and compete by traditional means. Therefore they must adopt and innovate on drastically abnormal and frankly insane strategies. On a larger scale, this analogy can be applied to China and the West.
Another large difference I've observed is in the education system. I remember when I went to see family, I couldn't see my nephew until 9pm every weekday. The reason was because he was at school until then. When I start to think my computer science courses are a grind, I reflect that my 14-year-old nephew has to go to school for 12 hours a day, learning 8 different subjects. I think I have it a lot easier in comparison.
However, my friend argued that come post-secondary, the edge Chinese students received from grinding 12 hours for all of elementary school and high school wasn't that substantial. Most of the time, western post-secondary school students drove innovation better than their Chinese counterparts. You can see startups created by university students go on to raise millions and achieve meaningful levels of success, combined with the popularity of accelerator programs whose sole purpose is to help founders achieve their goals.
The mental model Chinese students have is that they go to school to become contributing members of society. They usually put aside their personal pursuits in order to please family or society. In the west, I've observed a striking juxtaposition - students have the freedom to pursue education aligned with their individual passions and interests, often regardless of the direct societal impact. This emphasis on personal fulfillment rather than collective contribution creates a different innovation landscape with its own strengths and weaknesses.
A weakness of this collectivism mindset, in my opinion, is that it can inhibit innovation, creativity, and discourage entrepreneurship. I couldn't find an exact stat for this, but you can observe the culture of top western institutions like Stanford, which are known for producing tech founders. On the flip side, a flaw I've observed with individualism is the lack of urgency. With individualism, you can see students pursuing some arguably impractical degrees (perhaps I'm biased due to my STEM background), as well as the traditional flaws of individualism such as general selfishness and a reduced sense of obligation to contribute to society or attempt to solve society's biggest problems. However, I believe this phenomenon isn't exclusive to countries. I'll give another startup analogy because I love startups. Imagine China was a startup and Canada was like a bloated big tech company. In China's case, you cannot afford to have employees that are concerned with anything less than the mission of the company. Every action, every all nighter is in hopes that the startup does well. This collectivism mindset is very real, I've observed this in my personal experiences working at startups as well as anecdotes to my friends. Contrasted to a big tech company, imagine you are working some internal tool to help test and automate internal tools, your existence honestly probably doesn't matter to the organization. I argue that this then leads to individualism because caring is 2 way street. If the organization doesn't value your contribution significantly, you're more likely to prioritize your own interests, work-life balance, and personal development over organizational goals. Individualism
If you believe that students are the main drivers of innovation, these contrasting approaches create different innovation ecosystems. The collectivist approach can mobilize resources and talent toward national priorities with remarkable efficiency, producing concentrated progress in strategic sectors. Meanwhile, the individualist approach tends to generate more diverse and unexpected innovations, often creating entirely new markets rather than optimizing existing ones.
0-1, a term coined by renowned founder, venture capitalist Peter Thiel. The notion describes:
creating something new and original, rather than just improving on what already exists.
Like many, I believe that this is where the West's edge exist. Building something from nothing and creative requires thinking outside the box, something individualism is much more suited to do rather than collectivism. To spark innovation, you need people that are quite frankly not normal. You can see that the West have pioneered transformers, transistors, automobiles, trains, and planes, just to name a few.
On the flip, China's collectivist mindset allows them excel 1-100. Once a mvp is created that is proved to work, they are quick to copy and improve at. Something recent was Deepseek R1 that came out of a small AI lab in Guangzhou. I'm sure you guys have heard on it news but its essentially comparable if not better than ChatGPTs O1 at a fraction of the cost. China's strength in automation and mass production is evident in how they've revolutionized manufacturing processes, turning innovative concepts into scalable realities at unprecedented speeds and costs.
Basically, Canada and the west would be better with more automation and scale to extend the ideas of homegrown geniuses and China can do better with more innovation talent. Encouraging those that think about the box and not be quantized 100% based off test-taking abilities.