Hello everyone, welcome to Quark Says. I am Quark. A couple of days ago, 103-year-old Chen-Ning Yang passed away. You might have noticed that when I spoke of his death, I used the most basic narrative style: no long list of titles, no honorifics, and no euphemisms like 'passed away,' 'departed,' or 'journeyed on.' I simply stated that 'so-and-so died.' This essentially represents my attitude towards him, and towards a group of scholars in the science and engineering fields—including Qian Xuesen and Deng Jiaxian—whom the CCP narrative highly praises, extols, and even elevates to god-like status. Next, I will divide this discussion into two parts to explain why I hold this attitude. In the first half, I will attempt to explore the relationship between science and ethics, a scientist's personal conscience, and their research work. In the latter half of the program, at the request of some netizens, I will elaborate on what Chen-Ning Yang did, and then you can decide for yourself whether I should despise him.

I previously posted some of my views on Chen-Ning Yang and others on Twitter and YouTube. Among the voices defending them, a common argument is that science is neutral, and you cannot morally blackmail scientists into being moral paragons. Here, I'll explain a couple of points first, because I often see people misuse the term 'moral blackmail.' However, the issues with Chen-Ning Yang, Qian Xuesen, and others are largely not about morality, but about conscience. Both morality and conscience are fundamental to human society and individual spiritual life, but they have significant differences. The distinction is that morality is associated with specific environments, while conscience is universal. Is that hard to understand? Let me give an example: chastity, for instance, was a moral standard highly valued in the pre-industrial era. In that moral system, if an unmarried woman had sexual relations, it was called 'loss of chastity,' which could be life-threatening, right? But today, is that still an issue? That's why we have the concept of 'old morality,' which shows that morality is easily changeable and can be shaped by education. Conscience, however, is different; it originates from deep within. For example, the act of not raping someone holds true in any era. Even if you've never been educated, you know it's wrong because it violates the other person's free will. Morality and conscience are sometimes consistent, but sometimes they are not so consistent, or even diametrically opposed. For example, according to the Party's unique moral standards, Party spirit is above human nature, organizational discipline is above free will, and collectivism is above individual interests. According to this set of moral standards, if you are a soldier and the Party orders you to shoot students and fellow villagers, you must shoot. This is considered moral and for the greater good; you must suppress your conscience.

Alright, having discussed the differences between the two, let's talk about so-called 'scientific neutrality.' Max Weber, the great figure who wrote 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,' in the first chapter of his work 'Economy and Society,' brilliantly proposed a pair of concepts: instrumental rationality and value rationality. To explain it simply, instrumental rationality is 'how'—how to do it, while value rationality is 'why'—why do it, is doing it right? The former is like an efficient and cold machine; it focuses on what means should be adopted to achieve a given goal, how to complete it with the least cost, fastest speed, and most efficient method. It doesn't care whether the goal itself is good, only whether it's feasible and cost-effective. Value rationality, on the other hand, focuses on whether the action itself conforms to a certain intrinsic value. To give the simplest example, if you were a German officer during the Nazi era and your superiors ordered you to eliminate all Jews, a person with instrumental rationality would immediately start calculating how to do it most efficiently, with the lowest cost—using bullets, explosives, or poison gas. But a person with value rationality would feel tormented, or even refuse to execute such an order because it violates their conscience. If a scientist, fully aware of the potential impact of their actions, still participates in and efficiently completes research on poison gas, and afterwards explains that 'science is neutral, I only care about the speed of gas diffusion and its effect on the human body, don't morally blackmail me,' would you accept this explanation?

I have repeatedly mentioned Hannah Arendt's concept of the 'banality of evil.' All totalitarian state apparatuses have a large number of such executors who believe in technological neutrality and instrumental rationality, thereby abandoning their conscience. This is why the Party, whether the Nazi Party or the Communist Party, spares no effort to promote the 'screw spirit,' because a screw doesn't need a brain; it just needs to complete tasks on time. As for whether the task is evil or criminal, it's irrelevant to you. At the same time, because there are so many screws and everyone is the same, this greatly dissolves and dilutes the guilt of each screw, because you feel, 'I'm just doing my job, what's wrong with that?' This is also why obstetricians and gynecologists in China who participated in the one-child policy are almost 100% rejected when applying for US visas and immigration. And these people often feel quite wronged, thinking, 'I was just following orders, how can you blame me?' But in the eyes of the visa officer, you are an accomplice to genocide because you abandoned your conscience. Having understood the above logic, let's see if Chen-Ning Yang fits the definition.

Here, I'll interject that there's a very bad habit on the simplified Chinese internet: when evaluating a person, they like to conflate character with ability and achievement, only accepting a single evaluation. For example, when evaluating Chen-Ning Yang, the most common rebuttal I hear is, 'Elder Yang's achievements are so great, he's a figure recorded in history; you're not qualified to evaluate him.' This is a typical logical fallacy. What do his academic achievements have to do with his character? For example, suppose a famous chef cooks delicious food but also rapes a young girl. Can you say, 'He's a national treasure chef who has won international awards; you're not qualified to criticize him,' just because he cooks well? Obviously not. Conversely, you cannot deny his professional talent just because his character is despicable. The evaluation of a person should always be multi-layered, separating one thing from another. This has always been my attitude. For example, when I previously made a program evaluating Wang Ju, I wouldn't let her history of domestic violence affect my judgment of her professional ability. I said she wasn't a good journalist purely because her professional ability was truly subpar. Back to Chen-Ning Yang, next, let's talk in detail about what kind of person he really was.

In 1922, Chen-Ning Yang was born into a scholarly family in Hefei, Anhui. His father, Yang Wuzhi, studied abroad at Stanford and the University of Chicago on a government scholarship in his early years. He was China's first mathematician to receive a doctorate for research in number theory, and also a teacher to Shiing-Shen Chern and Hua Luogeng. The reason I specifically mention Yang Wuzhi is that Chen-Ning Yang's values were largely influenced by his father. Understanding his father will give you a clear picture of Chen-Ning Yang's fundamental character.

So, what kind of person was Yang Wuzhi? Here are a few things I can say. First, Yang Wuzhi's parents both died when he was young, and he was raised by his uncle. He didn't even know his mother's name. When recalling his mother, only one thing left a deep impression on him: his mother often hugged him and his brother, saying, 'You two must study hard so that you can become officials in the future, then you won't be looked down upon or bullied.' He later often recounted this experience to Chen-Ning Yang and his other children to inspire and urge them to study hard. Second, before studying abroad, Yang Wuzhi worked as a teacher and dormitory supervisor at Anhui Provincial Liya Middle School. Due to his overly strict nature, he clashed with students and resigned in anger, then went abroad to study. Before leaving, he left a photo with his one-year-old son. In the photo, he was still wearing a traditional long gown and mandarin jacket, rather than the popular Western suits or Zhongshan suits of the time. Third, according to Chen-Ning Yang's recollections, there were many English and German books at home, but his father did not encourage him to read them. Instead, he hired someone to teach him Mencius and other traditional Chinese studies. His father would also privately teach Chen-Ning Yang to sing, all patriotic songs from the early Republic of China, such as Shi Geng's 'Chinese Men' and Li Shutong's 'Song of the Motherland.' On a side note, Chen-Ning Yang's childhood friend and neighbor, Deng Jiaxian, was similar; his father taught him the Four Books and Five Classics, loyalty, filial piety, integrity, and righteousness from a young age. Fourth, Chen-Ning Yang showed great mathematical talent from a young age and repeatedly asked his father for help with analytical geometry and calculus. But his father not only refused to teach him but also opposed him studying mathematics as a major, reasoning that mathematics was impractical.

After hearing this, you should have a preliminary understanding of what kind of person Chen-Ning Yang's professor father was. We can describe his underlying values with the following terms: worldly success, utilitarianism, nationalism, and a mind full of grand narratives. It can be said that although he studied abroad in the United States, perhaps because he studied mathematics rather than humanities and social sciences, he was still fundamentally a typical Chinese intellectual of that era, similar to figures like Mao Zedong. This point became even more evident when he later persuaded his son, Chen-Ning Yang, three times to return to mainland China to serve the motherland.

This experience was quite dramatic. In 1957, Chen-Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee jointly won the Nobel Prize. Both the CCP and Taiwan sent people to lobby them. Yang Wuzhi actively offered to persuade Chen-Ning Yang to return to China and received approval from Zhou Enlai and the United Front Work Department. Yang Wuzhi's lobbying efforts took place three times: in 1957, 1960, and 1962.

The first time, Yang Wuzhi told his son, 'Even if you temporarily cannot return to the mainland for some reason, you absolutely must not go to Taiwan. The current situation is that the mainland will grow stronger day by day, while Taiwan will gradually shrink. This is the future trend.' Does that sound a bit familiar? Of course, besides its obvious utilitarian implications, these words also carried a hint of coercion, meaning, 'If you go to Taiwan, our whole family here will be in trouble, so you should think carefully.' This lobbying attempt was unsuccessful, one direct reason being the Anti-Rightist Movement sweeping across China at the time. Another physicist, Zhang Wenyu, who was dispatched by Zhou Enlai to recruit them, also felt this. According to his recollection, when he first met Yang and Lee at the Nobel Prize ceremony, both were relatively enthusiastic, expressing gratitude for the motherland's concern and saying they were still young and would strive to work for a period before returning to China. However, by 1958, when he went to Geneva again to work on them, Yang and Lee were noticeably less enthusiastic. Clearly, both knew what was happening domestically.

Yang Wuzhi's second and third lobbying attempts were even less confident. Both of these lobbying efforts took place during the Three Years of Great Famine. Although Yang Wuzhi tried his best to gloss over the situation, the truth could not be concealed. Here's a small anecdote: 'One evening, my father was telling me about China, how good China was now. He said that China couldn't even make a needle before, but now it can not only make needles but also build bridges and airplanes, and everything is so good. My mother interjected from the side, saying, "Don't mislead our son. Just a few days ago, I had to queue for four hours to buy a few pieces of tofu, and I only managed to buy a few pieces of inferior tofu. What's so good about that?" After she said this, my father became very angry. My father said, "You are giving Zhenning wrong information!"'

Some might think that Yang Wuzhi might have been so disingenuous because he lived in an ivory tower and didn't know that tens of millions of people had starved to death in the countryside. But the reality was that he was very clear about China's situation. According to Chen-Ning Yang's younger brother, Yang Zhenhan, Yang Wuzhi expressed to him after his second failed lobbying attempt to return to China: 'Your mother told your elder brother the true situation of life in Shanghai. I am very conflicted. Although what she said was true, your mother lacks a broader perspective and cannot look at problems from a long-term view, which prevented me from having the opportunity to present my complete prediction for China's future to your elder brother and persuade him to return.' If Yang Wuzhi's second united front attempt still held some temporary, hopeful illusions, by the third persuasion, he was completely speaking against his conscience and deceiving his son. Because right after his failed persuasion and his outburst of anger at Yang's mother, he confided in his children, saying, 'I am very conflicted now. Things are somewhat out of order in all aspects domestically. How can I possibly persuade Zhenning to come back? Your mother says that if he comes back, he won't be able to do research, won't get a Nobel Prize, and will be subjected to criticism. Your mother is right, but if he stays in the United States, the American government is always hostile to China. We all live in China; how can this continue in the long run?'

Here's another point: in those very years, Yang Wuzhi's alumnus from the University of Chicago, another Nobel laureate in physics, Daniel Chee Tsui, had his father starved to death in a village in Pinglishan, Henan. Years later, during the Cultural Revolution, his mother was persecuted to death for being accused of colluding with foreign countries because her son was in the United States. And Tsung-Dao Lee's close friend, Dr. Wu Ningkun, also a graduate of the University of Chicago, was labeled an ultra-rightist after returning to China and was sent to a labor camp. At that time, he was responsible for clearing the bodies of those who had starved to death in the Qinghe Farm Third Branch Factory due to the Great Famine. Under such circumstances, a father could still shamelessly push his biological son into a fiery pit. As a father myself, I can only describe him with one phrase: Party spirit overshadowed human nature. Looking at Yang Wuzhi's words and deeds, you'll find a very interesting phenomenon: despite being a mathematician with strong logical and mathematical reasoning abilities, his logic was almost zero when viewing real-world problems.

For example, after his first failed attempt to persuade his son to return to China, he left his son and daughter-in-law with a couplet: 'Do not forget filial piety, be grateful for national grace, and shine with red light.' These two sentences are utter nonsense. The first sentence is typical moral blackmail and emotional extortion: 'Do not forget filial piety' constantly implies that his son is ungrateful, transforming family affection into a debt, making him live in guilt and suppressing his independent personality development. The second half is a logically confused conflation of family and state, transferring the internal ethics of filial piety and gratitude to the political regime, demanding unconditional obedience. In today's terms, it's 'Don't forget Mom, thank the country.' But Yang Wuzhi's words and deeds were even worse than this, because even if you truly wanted to thank the country, the Yang father and son should have been grateful to the Republic of China, because both of them were government-sponsored students of the Nationalist government, having signed contracts in black and white before going abroad. Even if they were to serve the motherland, they should have gone to Taiwan. If judged by old moral standards, Yang Wuzhi's behavior would be akin to a literati official at the end of the Ming Dynasty who, upon the Qing army's entry, actively surrendered and then turned around to admonish his son to pledge allegiance to the Qing Dynasty and be grateful to Emperor Shunzhi. The logic behind this, in a nutshell, is: whoever wins is my master. The reason I spent so much ink discussing Yang Wuzhi is that, looking at Chen-Ning Yang's actions throughout his life, he almost entirely inherited his father's values.

The first controversial thing Chen-Ning Yang did was his feud with Tsung-Dao Lee. In 1972, Tsung-Dao Lee returned to China. At that time, Yang Wuzhi was hospitalized in Huadong Hospital. Hearing that Lee was also in Shanghai, he specifically invited him to meet at the hospital. After meeting, he held Tsung-Dao Lee's hand and said, 'I clearly understand the process of your breakup with Zhenning in '62. Zhenning was in the wrong. You are both extraordinary talents, but for the sake of China's next generation of students, please forgive him.' You see, even at this point, he was still muddled and illogical. What does Chen-Ning Yang being in the wrong with Tsung-Dao Lee have to do with China's next generation of students? It's completely unrelated!

So, what exactly did Chen-Ning Yang do to wrong Tsung-Dao Lee? Let's explain in detail below. First, Tsung-Dao Lee was a true physics genius. At 26, he became an assistant professor at Columbia University, and at 29, he became the youngest full professor in Columbia's 200-year history. After studying in the US, since Yang was both his senior from Southwest Associated University and a colleague, the two quickly became close. In 1956, while researching the universally recognized theta-tau puzzle in physics, Tsung-Dao Lee had a bold conjecture: that the parity conservation law might not hold true under weak interactions—this was the core idea of the parity non-conservation that later won the Nobel Prize. Since he had collaborated with Chen-Ning Yang several times before, he brought him in to discuss it again. Yang initially expressed opposition but was quickly convinced by Tsung-Dao Lee after some discussion. Subsequently, Tsung-Dao Lee sought collaboration with another experimental physicist, Chien-Shiung Wu, known as China's Madame Curie, to help experimentally verify the conjecture. Ultimately, Lee and Yang jointly won the Nobel Prize for this achievement. It should be noted that Ms. Chien-Shiung Wu was fully qualified to receive this award, and not awarding it to her was a highly controversial incident in Nobel Prize history.

However, just before the award, Chen-Ning Yang suddenly raised the issue of the order of names in the article, saying he hoped his name would be listed first. This statement surprised Tsung-Dao Lee, because according to international practice, the order of authors in a paper usually follows two principles. First is the contribution principle, where the person with the greater contribution is listed first. If contributions are difficult to compare, then the alphabetical order of surnames is followed. The two had collaborated on more than ten papers, and except for their first collaboration in 1952, Lee had always been listed first. And the core idea and viewpoint of this achievement were proposed by Tsung-Dao Lee; finding Chien-Shiung Wu for experimental verification was also proposed by Lee. Lee played the role of project manager. By any standard, Lee should have been listed first and Yang second. But Chen-Ning Yang had his own twisted logic, saying that he was older than Tsung-Dao Lee, and according to Chinese custom, his name should come first. Anyone with a clear mind can see this was an excuse. You weren't suddenly four years older today; why didn't you bring it up before or after? Yang's true psychology at the time was likely that he had no major academic achievements then; his Yang-Mills gauge theory had not yet been discovered. Winning the Nobel Prize was, of course, the greatest honor, so he had to contend for it, even shamelessly.

On a side note, Yang's most proud achievement, the Yang-Mills gauge theory, his relationship with Mills was the same as his relationship with Tsung-Dao Lee in parity non-conservation, just reversed. He proposed the core idea and viewpoint, and Mills was the collaborator. Today, whenever Yang-Mills is mentioned within China, they say Mills was just Yang's assistant. By this standard, in the Nobel-winning parity non-conservation, Yang could also be considered Lee's assistant.

Lee did not agree to this request for authorship order, so the paper we see today still lists Lee first, then Yang. But at the Nobel Prize ceremony, Yang again requested to receive the award before Lee. Since winning an award is a happy occasion, Lee didn't want to cause a scene and reluctantly agreed. Thus, we see the situation where Yang appeared first to receive the award and speak first. This is also why mainland China always mentions 'Chen-Ning Yang, Tsung-Dao Lee' when referring to this Nobel Prize.

But even at this point, the two had not truly broken up. The fuse for their breakup occurred five years later. A journalist wrote an article introducing how Yang and Lee solved the parity non-conservation problem. When it was sent to both for review, Lee raised no objections. But Chen-Ning Yang stated that there were some 'painful parts' in the article and demanded that wherever the Nobel Prize and other places where both their names were mentioned, his name should be placed first. If Lee's name had to be placed first, it must be explicitly noted that it was due to alphabetical order convention. Tsung-Dao Lee was very disappointed after learning about this and proactively told Chen-Ning Yang that he would no longer collaborate. Yang also became emotional and cried, saying he very much hoped to continue collaborating, but Lee still refused. Subsequently, Tsung-Dao Lee submitted his resignation to the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, where they both worked. Upon hearing this, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 'father of the atomic bomb,' famously said, 'Tsung-Dao Lee should no longer do high-energy physics, and Chen-Ning Yang should see a psychiatrist.'

If the above incident reflects Chen-Ning Yang's utilitarian values, similar to his father's, then the following incident can only be described as beyond words.

First, in 1971, on the eve of Nixon's visit to China, Chen-Ning Yang concluded his visit to China and, upon returning to the United States, gave several lectures at the New York University School of Continuing Education titled 'My Impressions of the People's Republic of China,' sharing his observations. In the opening part, he said with deep emotion, 'I found that today's China has completely changed and is entirely different from the China I knew 26 years ago. The most important point, and the most pride-worthy for Chinese people, is their spirit.' Next, he first expressed highly positive evaluations of the ongoing Cultural Revolution, praising the great achievements of China's education system during the Cultural Revolution, such as the principle of combining education with productive labor (this should refer to the 'Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside' movement), emphasizing that education should serve the people's lives and connect theory with practice. He even suggested that the United States should also learn from China's education and enrollment systems. Secondly, he believed that the Cultural Revolution promoted an attack on bureaucracy and the old administrative system, which contributed to the revival of social spirit and mass participation, and was worthy of affirmation.

Most outrageously, he openly endorsed and vouched for several of the CCP's most criticized evil policies. What did these include? One was the infamous acupuncture anesthesia, which was widely promoted. On this point, the famous writer Zheng Yuanjie, author of 'The King of Fairy Tales,' once had the opportunity to experience and record it; interested friends can read about his feelings. Yang's statement was that he personally witnessed a female patient undergoing acupuncture anesthesia who was conscious and felt no pain during her laparotomy, and he also stated that theoretical research on acupuncture anesthesia might be a major topic. Secondly, he highly praised the family planning policy, which was essentially forced abortion, that the CCP had begun to implement. He stated that female nurses told him they could perform abortions on pregnant women over six months with a 100% safety rate. Yang expressed surprise at this so-called efficient abortion technique, saying that in some areas of medicine, today's China is clearly more advanced than other countries, and abortion methods are one of them. Thirdly, he vigorously praised the 'Learn from Dazhai in Agriculture' campaign, which the CCP promoted at the time and was later proven to be fraudulent. He claimed that Dazhai's crop yields were far higher than other regions, which enabled China to achieve complete self-sufficiency in grain and had already begun exporting grain. He said that neither in rural nor urban areas was there a shortage of rice and flour, and vegetables and fruits were abundant and cheap. The meals for Shanghai workers were even better than those in American student cafeterias, and everyone said it was all thanks to the correct leadership of Mao Zedong Thought. Here, I'll add a bit: Yang's mention of China's grain self-sufficiency and exports was actually a response to external doubts, specifically that during the Three Years of Great Famine, the CCP was simultaneously importing grain from Canada and the United States or accepting food aid, while also gratuitously donating grain to countries like Albania. This sparked much criticism in the West, especially in the United States, and China at the time firmly denied that a famine was occurring. Yang's statement amounted to endorsing CCP propaganda. Fourth, he defended Mao Zedong's personality cult and the Little Red Book, including the cruel collectivist persecution, claiming that the Little Red Book was a spontaneous expression of the Chinese people's love for their leader, and the sacrifices of workers and peasants stemmed from China's millennia-old cultural tradition. In short, the people were all voluntary and happy.

Throughout the entire speech, he almost completely avoided all the disasters and anti-human atrocities brought about by the CCP's various political movements. If you didn't know the speaker's identity, you might think this was a press release from the CCP's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The second incident was on July 18, 1973, when Chen-Ning Yang was received by Mao Zedong and had a conversation with this vocational school graduate, who reportedly scored 0 in junior high math, discussing contemporary physics. The People's Daily published the full transcript. I'll read a few lines of the conversation from this meeting. After sitting down, Mao asked Yang, 'Matter is infinitely divisible. If matter is divided to a stage where it becomes indivisible, what will scientists do ten thousand years from now?' Then Mao sought philosophical basis for his dialectical thought from classical Chinese philosophy, saying, 'Ancient texts say, "If you take half of a foot-long stick every day, it will never be exhausted." Does this mean matter is divisible?' He then rambled about dialectics, saying, 'Gongsun Long said, "A white horse is not a horse." There are white horses, black horses, big horses, small horses, and tall Japanese horses, African zebras, but you can't see *that* horse. Or, for example, there are men and women. A man is a person, but also not a person, or a woman can be a person, but are you a woman? So you can't see *that* person.'

What was Chen-Ning Yang's attitude towards this middle-school level rambling? Yang said with an admiring tone, 'Chairman, you see very far, you see the future of society. It is very important that you mention scientific experiments together with class struggle and production struggle.' A little later, Yang also expressed, 'I really like Chairman Mao's poems. I used to think classical Chinese poetry was good and liked it a lot, but always felt it was too pessimistic. The Chairman's poems are very good, especially with many explanations. My two favorite lines are: "With great aspirations, we've made many sacrifices; we dare to change the sun and moon for a new sky." The first time I returned to China and then went back to the United States to give a speech, over a thousand people listened. At the end, I said these two lines best represent the spirit of New China.' Speaking of his father-in-law, Du Yuming, Yang added, 'He said there was no hope for the Kuomintang and Communist armies fighting. Now he has strong confidence in New China, stronger than my father.' Before leaving, Yang also expressed his respect: 'Chairman Mao, I see slogans everywhere in China wishing you a long life. I also want to wish Chairman Mao a long life.'

Reading through the entire piece, I only see two words in Yang: flattery. Especially considering that his teachers Rao Yutai, Ye Qisun, Wu Youxun, and friends Zhao Jiuzhang, Yao Tongbin were successively persecuted to death, and his close friends Deng Jiaxian, Qian Sanqiang, and Wang Ganchang all suffered cruel persecution to varying degrees, such an attitude is truly despicable.

After Mao Zedong's death in 1976, Chen-Ning Yang delivered a speech titled 'A Giant in Human History' at a Mao Zedong memorial service in New York. I will put the link to the speech in the comments section later. It can be very certain that this article came from the CCP's propaganda department, because that kind of eulogizing, constantly mentioning 'Chairman Mao,' and skillfully quoting Mao Zedong's poems and articles—that sycophantic writing style could only be produced by a regime's official writer accustomed to writing Party jargon for years. Chen-Ning Yang, even if he had the intention, did not have the ability.

The third thing Chen-Ning Yang was criticized for was his interview with Southern Metropolis Daily after returning to China in 2011. The article's title was very direct: 'Chen-Ning Yang Claims China Model Superior to West.' To summarize, in this interview, he expressed several viewpoints. First, he believed that there is no relationship between democracy and scientific development, and the most important contribution to China's current situation is due to the Chinese Communist Party. Here, he said, 'Can there be scientific development under an authoritarian system? I said that the Soviet Union was very authoritarian, but its technological development was very successful in some areas.' The reporter then asked me, 'Is one-party rule detrimental to scientific development?' At this point, I knew he was from Apple Daily. 'If China were to abandon one-party rule now, I believe it would be detrimental to scientific development.' In addition, he also said that in the latter half of the 21st century, China would become the world's number one superpower. The two most important things in the 20th century with the longest-term impact on human history were: first, humanity's use of technology to greatly increase productivity, and second, the rise of the Chinese nation. This tone is basically no different from that of Wang Yi and his ilk. Furthermore, Yang had also been forced to acknowledge the existence of the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the June Fourth Massacre on some occasions in the 1990s. But these tragedies, including the deaths of tens of millions of people, became 'inevitable costs' on the path to national rejuvenation in his mouth, exactly the same as his father's views. It is foreseeable that if Yang had returned to China earlier, his performance in various movements would have been no different from Qian Xuesen's; there would likely be one more person to argue for 'proletarian gold.'

Among the voices defending Chen-Ning Yang, there is an argument that many scientists are politically indifferent or even politically idiotic, so they should not be overly criticized. But I want to say that this view at least does not apply to Chen-Ning Yang, because he was not at all indifferent, nor was he idiotic; he simply held these values. Some people will surely say, 'Even so, he was just talking, he didn't actually do anything bad.' OK, next, let's see what he actually did.

In 1986, Chen-Ning Yang promoted the establishment of a theoretical physics research laboratory at the Shiing-Shen Chern Institute of Mathematics at Nankai University. In 1997, he further promoted the establishment of the Tsinghua University Institute for Advanced Study, serving as its honorary director. According to Shi Yigong, he was Tsinghua's 'stabilizing force,' helping Tsinghua attract a large number of masters who would otherwise not have returned, including Turing Award winner Andrew Yao and cryptographer Wang Xiaoyun. Yao's joining elevated Tsinghua to a top international level in theoretical computer science, quantum computing, and other fields. Wang Xiaoyun, on the other hand, cracked core encryption algorithms widely used in highly sensitive systems of the US government, finance, and defense. According to official statements, their research achievements directly ensured national defense security and were key to ensuring China's advantage in future information warfare and protecting military confidential communications.

In addition, Yang also repeatedly appealed to the central government between 1997 and 2005, strongly advocating that China should accelerate the development of free-electron laser technology. This technology can be directly applied to the research and manufacturing of high-energy laser weapons, precision guidance, new types of radar, and new military materials. Yang's strong advocacy provided China with an early advantage in occupying this military technology high ground. Furthermore, the electron-positron collider, in whose decision-making Yang participated, drove the research and development and manufacturing of China's high-tech equipment and precision instruments, greatly enhancing the CCP's capabilities in military radar, electronic countermeasures, and technology.

All of the above, if you look at it from a nationalist, grand narrative perspective, you might applaud. But if you put yourself in another's shoes, what was he doing? He was helping the most evil totalitarian regime in history, one that directly threatens the world and enslaves its own people, prepare for war. What is the difference between this and Heisenberg and Weizsäcker helping Hitler develop nuclear weapons during World War II? If you think Chen-Ning Yang did the right thing, remember that in the eyes of Nazis, Heisenbergs were heroes, and Einstein was the traitor who betrayed the country.

Finally, I want to say a few words to those who believe that although the CCP has problems, Yang was, after all, contributing to the country and the people, helping China's scientific and technological progress, and cultivating a large number of top talents, which is also beneficial to us. First, when freedom is extremely scarce, nationalism becomes a cheap substitute for emotion and meaning, and loyalty to the regime is disguised as love for the people. Second, when the state is unjust, patriotism becomes a fig leaf for all anti-human behaviors. Third, if a machine is designed for the purpose of slaughter, then more talent, higher efficiency, and greater durability will not increase well-being, but will be a disaster for everyone, including the operators of this machine.