With Clarity to the Times, with Ideals to the Future—Written to Contemporary Youth on Growth and Hope

Writing this text is not to offer empty chicken soup, nor to shout grand slogans, but simply to have a good talk with today's young people about the era we are experiencing, about the confusions hidden behind anxiety, about what we can do, about the hopes we have overlooked, and about the ideals we dare not easily speak aloud.

1. The confusion of young people is never your fault

I know that your generation, from birth, has lived in a somewhat chaotic, somewhat exhausted, somewhat tense era—open your phone and you see opposing voices, in your ears is the lingering anxiety of involution, before your eyes is the single-plank bridge of middle school exams, college entrance exams, and job hunting, and occasionally you hear people say "the world is getting worse," "ideals are useless," "studying is useless."

Confusion is the norm, and anxiety is normal. Even though you study hard and attend classes every day, you still can't help asking yourself: Why am I working so hard? After getting into university, can I really get a good job? Why are the people around me either desperately involuting or completely lying flat? Why do we seem to have no choice but to squeeze onto a narrow single-plank bridge, trying our best, yet still unable to see the direction of the future?

2. We are in an "era of contraction," where survival precedes ideals

Actually, this confusion is never your fault, but the "factory setting" this era has given you—you were born into an "era of contraction," and this contracting world directly determines every pressure you face.

What is world contraction? Simply put, the era that was once open, cooperative, and worked together to make the pie bigger has slowly passed.

From the 1990s to around 2010, the world was different: global division of labor and cooperation, free flow of talent, everyone believed in "peace and development," and believed that as long as you worked hard, you could have a better future. At that time, there were many opportunities, the upward channel was wide, people didn't need to involute too much to see hope, so young people at that time were full of idealism, believing in freedom, tolerance, love, and peace—just like the young people at Woodstock Music Festival who pursued freedom and beauty.

But later, everything changed. The West began to actively block technology, decouple and break chains; chips, software, equipment—we wanted to cooperate, but others wouldn't let us participate; global economic growth slowed, the pie no longer grew, and major powers began to fight over existing stock, technology, and industrial chains; the former win-win cooperation became today's confrontation and barriers.

So now we talk about "national security education," "industrial security," "chokepoints" all the time, not because we like confrontation, not because we have abandoned ideals, but because we have been forced into a position where we must protect ourselves. Like a person, when others close the door on you or even pick up weapons, the first thing you must do is not continue to talk about gentleness and ideals, but first protect yourself, first survive.

This is the reality that our generation, and your generation, must face: idealism is a luxury of the incremental era, and we are now in an era of stock competition. When survival becomes the primary issue, when external pressure grows, people will automatically turn to security, self-protection, and confrontation—this is not because human hearts have turned bad, but because the survival structure has changed.

And you grew up in such an era. You have not experienced that incremental era of widespread opportunities, openness, and tolerance; you have only experienced the tension and anxiety of stock involution. What you see is middle school tracking, the college entrance exam single-plank bridge, degree devaluation, difficulty finding jobs, international confrontation, technology blockades, and people around you either fanatical or lying flat. So you become confused, anxious, indifferent, even disgusted with learning and giving up ideals—this is all very normal, not your fault.

3. If you don't care about the world, you can't protect your own stability

Many young people ask: Since the world is so bad and we suffer so much, why should we care about the world? We just want to live our own lives steadily—is that wrong?

No, not at all. Who doesn't want to study well, get into university, find a stable job, and live a steady life? Wanting stability is not cowardice; it is the most legitimate human desire. I don't require you to care about politics or international affairs; wanting only to live steadily is completely reasonable and correct.

But I want to tell everyone a truth: If you don't care about the world, the world will still come to your door and directly destroy your "stability." The pressure before you is never just from exams; it is the pressure of the entire era, finally pressing down on you.

Why are middle school and college entrance exams increasingly competitive? Why are good jobs fewer? Why is it harder to support a family, buy a house, and live in the future? Not because you are not working hard enough, but because the world is contracting, confronting, deglobalizing, and fighting over stock. More confrontation means worse economy; worse economy means fewer jobs; fewer jobs means a more crowded single-plank bridge; a more crowded single-plank bridge means it's harder for you to be stable.

Even more cruelly: those who only want stability are most likely to be treated as cannon fodder in chaotic times. History repeats itself—farmers who want to farm steadily, students who want to study steadily, ordinary people who want to work steadily have always been the first victims of war, conflict, confrontation, and fanaticism. The more you want to hide, the less you can; the less you want to be involved, the more you will be controlled.

So, we care about the world not to save the world, not to shout empty slogans, but to have the ability not to be driven crazy by the world, so we can protect our own stability. We stay clear-headed, rational, not extreme, not giving up—not to change the world, but to protect our own life and stability when the world is in chaos.

4. The power of ordinary people: not fanatical, not lying flat, is already changing the world

Someone may ask: What can we actually change? We are just ordinary people; facing such a huge era, we can't do anything, right?

Actually, no. You don't need to change the global order with one move, you don't need to save the world; you only need to do one thing—do not join fanaticism, do not choose to lie flat, hold on to reason, kindness, thinking, and passion. That is already changing the world.

The world getting better is never because a group of great people did great things, but because millions of ordinary people refuse to become evil, refuse to become numb. You can start with the smallest, most realistic, most achievable change: change yourself, don't be led astray by the times. Don't be brainwashed by extreme nationalism, don't be kidnapped by hate logic, don't follow the trend of cursing, taking sides, attacking, don't give up on yourself because the world is bad, don't lie flat to the point of losing your own life.

Then, you can try to influence the 10 people around you. When a classmate is led astray by extreme remarks, you softly say, "Let's calm down and look at the facts first"; when a friend says, "Hard work is useless, just lie flat," you say, "I'm struggling too, but I don't want to give up on myself"; when the internet is full of hatred, you don't participate, you post gentle, rational, true things. One clear-headed person can illuminate ten people around them; ten clear-headed people can illuminate a class, a school. This is not empty talk; this is the most real influence.

And your generation has an even more important historical mission—when you grow up, pull the world from "madness" back to "normal." Those currently in power and dominating public opinion are a generation kidnapped by anxiety, confrontation, and nationalism, a generation driven crazy by stock competition. When you are 30-40 years old and become the main force of society, you will naturally detest opposition, hatred, closure, and fanaticism, and you will pull the world back toward gentleness, rationality, openness, and tolerance. This is not fantasy; it is a historical law: the more crazy the previous generation, the more moderate the next; the more torn the previous generation, the more the next longs for unity. You are the generation that will repair the world.

5. What to do now: hold on to 3 small things, don't be "eaten" by the world

At this point, many young people may resonate: We are pressured by immediate pressures, every day is homework, exams, rankings, we can't even take care of our own lives, how can we change ourselves and influence others?

I completely understand. Every day you open your eyes to homework, exams, rankings, middle school exams, college entrance exams, where to study in the future, whether you can get a job—every matter presses before your eyes, urgent. And what happens in the world, where there is conflict, what ideology, which side opposes which—these are too far, too big, too illusory. So you feel: I can't even take care of my own life, why should I care about the world? I just want to live steadily.

I not only understand, I agree with you. But I will say only one key thing: It's okay if you can't take care of the world; but the world will never fail to take care of you. If you don't look at it, it will still affect you—the more opposed the world, the fewer job opportunities; the more closed the world, the narrower the upward channel; the more crazy the world, the more crowded your single-plank bridge; the more unreasonable the world, the harder it is for ordinary people to be stable.

So, we don't need to save the world; we just need not to be eaten by the world. Not eaten by extreme emotions, not eaten by hate brainwashing, not eaten by despair and lying flat, not eaten by blind fanaticism. What you should do now is not care about international situations, but hold on to three small things: First, study well, not to outcompete others, but to have choices in the future; Second, stay clear-headed, don't be easily led, incited, or used; Third, keep a little tenderness and hope in your heart, don't be forced into indifference by pressure.

6. Studying is useful, but not everyone needs to be a top student

Speaking of studying well, many young people have a confusion: Now degrees are increasingly devalued, many undergraduates don't understand academics, don't love academics, but don't want to go to vocational schools; many people dislike learning, feel studying is useless, and can't find a job even after studying. Why is this? Should we still study?

First, I want to tell everyone: It's not that education is useless; it's that current "learning" often equals forced drilling, exam-taking, sitting on a cold bench, suppressing nature. Some are good with hands, some with socializing, some with crafts, some with art, sports, practical operation—just not good at sitting down to memorize and take exams. If you force everyone into the same track, of course they will resent it. What everyone resents is not "acquiring ability," but being forced, being unified, being judged by a single standard.

Moreover, many undergraduates are trapped in a "high not, low not" dilemma—they neither understand nor love academics, yet look down on vocational schools and can't let go of their status, finally becoming the "degree sandwich layer." For academics, no interest, no ability, can't sit on a cold bench; for white-collar jobs, few positions, competitive, low wages; for technical, skilled, practical work, they feel it "loses face for a university student." This is not the students' fault; it's that the whole society treats "undergraduate" as a class dividing line, rather than "a place to cultivate academic talent."

But I want to tell everyone: The future society does not need everyone to be a top student. A healthy industrial structure is: a small portion do research, innovation, AI, design, responsible for incremental source innovation; a portion do management, operations, coordination; most do skilled, practical, service work, responsible for turning technology into efficiency, wealth, and employment. For example, equipment maintenance, circuit repair, nursing, elderly care, cooking, design, AI trainer... These jobs don't need college entrance exam top scorers, but need skills, training, reliable people. Society is not run by a bunch of PhDs; it is supported by a large number of skilled ordinary people.

So, those who dislike learning can avoid academics, but cannot lack skills. Skills are the true inclusive increment. The truly good education of the future is not to produce top students, but to divert and match—those who like reading take the academic route; those who like hands-on take the skills route; those who like art take the creative route; those who like dealing with people take the service and operations route. Everyone walks a path that suits them, and they won't resent learning, nor fall into the "sandwich layer" dilemma.

7. Break vocational education discrimination: make skilled jobs "good jobs"

Speaking of the skills route, we must mention a sensitive topic: discrimination against vocational education. Many people think going to a vocational school means "poor grades" and "no future," and parents instinctively fear: if a child goes to a vocational school, they will "become lower class." Why is this? Are vocational school targeted training and enrollment useful? How to solve the problem of poor student sources?

Actually, the root of vocational education discrimination is only one: skilled workers are not valuable, blue-collar workers have no dignity, and the upward channel is welded shut. For the same hard work, a white-collar office job sounds more respectable; technical jobs have low wages, unstable security, narrow promotion; society assumes that only those with poor grades go to vocational schools. This forms a vicious cycle: low status → good students don't go → weak student sources → weak teaching → poor employment → even lower status. This is not an education problem; it is a distribution problem + industrial structure problem.

So, are vocational school targeted training and school-enterprise cooperation useful? Useful, but only half. They can give students matching positions, let schools know what to teach, let enterprises have people to use, but cannot solve low wages, long overtime, poor security, social contempt, and narrow upward channels. So targeted training can make vocational schools "have jobs," but cannot make them "have status," and students and parents will still discriminate.

What truly breaks discrimination is not moral propaganda, not forcing students to vocational schools, but a real cycle: First, make "skilled jobs" good jobs—manufacturing and technical jobs' salaries reach or exceed ordinary undergraduates, social security, housing fund, regulated overtime, complete promotion channels, senior technicians' income comparable to mid-level white-collar. Once income rises, discrimination immediately halves. Second, open up upward channels: technical levels linked to titles, household registration, subsidies, senior technicians can transfer to management, training, R&D, give skilled talent social honor and positive media image. With upward channels, parents dare to let their children go. Third, diversion is not "eliminating poor students," but "two-way choice"—not that only poor students go to vocational schools, but that those who like hands-on, practical, technical work actively go, just like in Germany and Switzerland, where skilled workers have high income and respect, and top students are willing to go. Fourth, the state uses tax leverage to force enterprises to participate—AI improves efficiency → enterprise profits rise → taxes increase → the state forces enterprises to allocate funds for vocational education → enterprises targeted training, subsidies, positions → skilled job treatment is raised. Enterprises earn efficiency money, so they must bear the cost of cultivating people; this is a sustainable closed loop. Fifth, vocational schools do only one thing: closely follow modern industry, teach truly useful skills, such as intelligent equipment maintenance, industrial robots, AI-assisted production, digital quality inspection, etc. What is taught is valuable, so students are valuable.

The problem of poor student sources is essentially "bad money drives out good money." As long as two things are done, student sources will immediately reverse: First, skilled job wages > ordinary undergraduate, good students will naturally come; Second, vocational school exits are transparent, employment rates and starting salaries publicly ranked, parents vote with their feet. No moral propaganda is needed; the market economy will automatically correct the student source structure.

8. The ultimate model of future education: overpass-style system, refuse one choice for life

Some young people may ask: Can we let vocational schools and undergraduates both have opportunities to take PGT, PGR, and allow transfers? Of course, and this is the most ideal, fair, and anti-involution ultimate model of future education—the overpass-style education system.

What is an overpass-style education system? Simply put, vocational schools, undergraduates, PGT, PGR are all interconnected, allowing repeated transfers, not one choice for life, but life can have multiple trials and errors. After junior high school graduation, you can go to a vocational school or a regular high school; after vocational school graduation, you can take an undergraduate exam, or take PGT (applied master's), or even transfer to PGR (research master's/doctorate); after undergraduate graduation, you can go academic PGR, or transfer to applied PGT, and if it really doesn't suit you, you can go back to supplement skills and enter training. After working for a few years and finding it unsuitable, white-collar workers tired of it can go back to learn skills, technical workers tired of it can go back to study research, want to change careers, can enter PGT anytime to supplement new skills.

In this way, all pain points can be solved: eliminate vocational education discrimination, because vocational schools are not a dead end, just one starting point; solve the "sandwich layer" of "not loving academics but not daring to go to vocational schools," those who don't like studying can first go to vocational schools to learn skills, and later if they want to improve their degrees, there is still a way; solve degree devaluation, everyone no longer desperately involutes for a "life-saving diploma," but chooses routes according to interest, ability, and rhythm; at the same time, it can truly form an incremental closed loop in the AI era—those who want to do research go to PGR, those who want to do applications go to PGT, those who want practical skills go to vocational schools, all can connect to industry, AI, and high-paying jobs.

9. Education welfare: a "light of hope" that changes destiny more than poverty subsidies

Many people now have a question: Is doing education welfare better than poverty subsidies? The answer is very clear: For long-term destiny change, breaking involution, and forming an incremental closed loop, education welfare > direct cash poverty subsidies, and much better.

Poverty subsidies are "life-saving," solving immediate survival problems, keeping people from starving or freezing, a bottom-line guarantee; education welfare, skills training, fair opportunities are "destiny-changing," solving future survival problems, so people no longer stay poor for generations, no longer squeeze onto the single-plank bridge. Giving a fish is not as good as teaching to fish; education is fishing. For a country to truly escape involution, confrontation, and nationalist fanaticism, it must rely on education, not relief.

Moreover, education is the only thing that can break "class inheritance." What young people suffer most now is unfair starting points—those from good families have smooth paths, those from poor families can't catch up no matter how hard they try. Only education welfare can level the gap a bit: free quality education, fair exams, skills training, psychology, vision, resource support; education is the only relatively fair upward channel for ordinary people.

More importantly, education exactly connects to the "incremental closed loop" we have been talking about: AI improves efficiency → enterprises increase income → taxes increase → invest in education → new industries and jobs → greater increment. Without education, AI improving efficiency will only lead to machines replacing people → more unemployment → more involution → more extreme → worse world; with education, it can become AI replacing repetitive labor → people do higher-value work → society as a whole becomes richer.

Of course, this is not to say poverty subsidies are useless. Subsidies are the bottom line, education is the upper limit—if a person is starving, first give food; when full, then teach skills. A healthy social structure is minimum living guarantee as the base + education as the ascent. But if asked which is more important for changing the world, which is more important for young people's future, which can truly avoid hatred, extremism, and lying flat, the answer must be: education welfare > poverty subsidies. Relief is warmth, education is hope; hope is the most precious thing of an era.

10. The internet is not exploitation; AI is the "incremental engine" against contraction

At this point, many young people may think of a question: Some say the internet is not a real industry, it completely exploits people—is this true?

This statement is very common and very inflammatory, but the logic is biased. The internet itself is not exploitation; it is a tool; but an internet that "only harvests, does not create increment, does not enter a virtuous cycle" is exploitation. In the past decade or so, much of the internet indeed did not make products or build factories, only made platforms, took commissions, monetized traffic, squeezed physical stores while earning monopoly money; efficiency improved, but profits all went into capital's pockets, not feeding back into society, not creating new industries, so everyone feels that physical industry makes things, while the internet grabs business, divides the pie, and cuts leeks. This feeling is completely reasonable, not prejudice.

But are the internet and AI really not real industries? Of course they are. The essence of a real industry is not "whether there are factories," but "whether it improves total social efficiency and creates real value." Farmers farming is a real industry, workers making cars is a real industry, doctors treating patients is a real industry, teachers teaching is a real industry, using the internet to reduce transaction costs, connect information, and improve matching efficiency is also a real industry. The real difference is only two: First, do you make the pie bigger, or only grab the pie; Second, do you enter an incremental closed loop, or only harvest without giving back. Making the pie bigger and entering the loop is not exploitation; only grabbing the pie and harvesting without giving back is exploitation.

And the AI applications we are doing now are exactly the key to "turning the internet into a real industry." Previously the internet connected people, earned information gaps, and made platform monopolies; now in the AI era, it directly improves production efficiency, creates new supply, and liberates manpower. For example, AI helps factories optimize scheduling, costs drop, things become cheaper; AI helps agriculture with precise irrigation, more grain, less waste; AI helps education with individualized teaching, education becomes fairer; AI helps doctors with assisted diagnosis, medical resources become more inclusive. These are solid real industry values, not idle spinning, not speculation, not cutting leeks. We do AI to turn the internet from "harvesting type" to "creating type."

The real exploitation is not the internet, not technology, but a system where efficiency improves but dividends are not distributed downward—enterprises earn more but don't raise wages; taxes increase but don't invest in education; technology replaces jobs but no transition training; wealth concentrates upward, young people's single-plank bridge becomes more crowded. Technology is innocent; distribution is guilty.

11. AI does not create unemployment; it restructures employment and makes dividends inclusive

Talking about AI and technology, some young people may ask: Doing AI applications, is it embracing and changing the world? How can things that improve efficiency and production capacity benefit more people instead of causing unemployment?

I can tell everyone very confidently: You doing AI applications is essentially fighting world contraction, using efficiency to benefit more people—you are not creating unemployment, but restructuring employment and distributing production capacity dividends to ordinary people. World contraction is the superposition of globalization retreat, stock gaming, intensified confrontation, and disappearance of efficiency dividends, and AI is the core engine against contraction; it can reopen increment, reduce costs, make technology inclusive, restructure global division of labor, let small and micro enterprises and ordinary people afford "super tools," and break big enterprise monopolies.

Many people worry AI will cause unemployment, but this is a misunderstanding. AI's impact on employment is "structural restructuring," not "total elimination"—AI replaces repetitive, mechanical, low-value tasks, not entire positions; at the same time, AI directly creates new professions such as AI trainers, prompt engineers, AI ethicists, intelligent system maintainers, each new profession can drive 300,000-500,000 jobs; in the future, human-machine collaboration will become mainstream, doctor + AI diagnosis, designer + AI drawing, programmer + AI coding, humans do creative, decision-making, emotional work, AI does execution, repetitive work, efficiency doubles, value higher.

The key to making AI efficiency benefit more people has three core paths, which you can fully implement when doing AI applications in the future: First, make AI a "tool," not a "replacer," empower ordinary people, not replace them—make low-code/no-code AI tools, so people who can't program can use AI to solve problems; make industry vertical AI assistants, so frontline employees improve efficiency, income, and work more easily. Second, "distribute" efficiency dividends, let ordinary people share AI benefits—at the enterprise level, AI cost reduction and efficiency gains, part for wage increases, part for training, part for creating new jobs; at the product level, make inclusive AI services, low-price/free for small and micro enterprises, individuals, and disadvantaged groups. Third, promote "skill upgrading + employment transition," let people keep up with AI, not be eliminated—when doing AI applications, simultaneously do "AI skills training," help users and employees learn to use AI, from "replaced" to "AI user."

12. The ideal social model: AI-driven incremental closed loop

Here, we can return to the "incremental closed loop" we have been talking about, which is also the most ideal social model in my mind: AI improves efficiency → enterprises increase income → taxes increase → invest in education (general education + vocational education dual track, PGR/PGT diversion) → cultivate people matching new industries → new industries expand → more employment → society richer → greater increment. As long as this loop turns, the world will not contract, young people will not only have a single-plank bridge, and nationalism, hatred, and lying flat will automatically recede.

13. High salaries for top talent: not waste, but buying "safety seeds" for the future

Some young people may have a very simple question: Some positions have annual packages of 2 million, such as chip R&D; actually they can't use it all, but high salaries are needed to attract these people and form technical barriers. Is this somewhat unreasonable? Does it crowd out profits that could be used for charity?

This question has the soul of the Woodstock generation—gentle, idealistic, with a bit of questioning of capital, and very simple and kind. First, I can directly answer everyone: Yes, some job salaries are indeed too high, and indeed crowd out profits that should be inclusive, but the problem is not "high salary" itself, but "the source of high salary."

There are two kinds of high salaries: One is high salary that creates increment, reasonable and necessary—truly doing innovation, technology, raising efficiency, making the pie bigger, making society as a whole richer; high salary rewards "value created extra," this kind of high salary does not crowd out charity or education funds, because the pie is bigger, everyone can share more. The other is distribution-type high salary, which indeed crowds out inclusive space—monopoly, harvesting, commissions, cutting leeks, using rules, information gaps, capital advantages to grab stock; high salary comes from "others taking less," not "creating more"; this kind of high salary is what we need to be wary of.

And top talent in chip R&D with 2 million, 5 million, their high salaries belong to the first kind—high salary that creates increment. Everyone feels their salary is too high to use up; actually that's right, very few people spend 5 million a year on living; most high-tech positions getting high salaries is essentially "money → status symbol → bidding to compete for scarce talent," not because he "needs" so much, but because the industry is grabbing people and has to bid.

But why must society accept such high salaries? Because top technical talent is the true source of increment; chips, AI, algorithms, materials, biomedicine—these are not piled up by physical labor, but by a very small number of people breaking through critical points, driving the entire industry to take off. One top architect may be worth 1,000 ordinary engineers. More importantly, technical barriers are a country's lifeline—without high salaries, you can't keep people; these talents will go to the US, overseas, and we will be choked by technology, the entire industry strangled, employment collapses, taxes decrease, education has even less money. So high salaries seem to be "distributed to individuals," but essentially the country is buying industrial security, buying future increment. Moreover, the global talent market is a bidding system; the US, Europe, Taiwan, South Korea are all grabbing; if we don't offer 2 million, 3 million, people will be taken away immediately; this is not welfare, it is an arms race.

So does this crowd out money for charity, education, and inclusion? In the short term, yes; in the long term, not at all. In the short term, profits are used for high salaries, money available for public welfare, subsidies, vocational education decreases; but in the long term, top talent hold technology → industry becomes strong → tax base explodes → the state has big money to invest in education, vocational education, infrastructure, welfare → ordinary people benefit a hundred times more than "paying engineers a little less." For example, TSMC, Intel, Nvidia have extremely exaggerated high salaries, but the industrial chains, taxes, and employment they drive support millions of ordinary families. High salary is a seed, not consumption.

The real problem is not "high salary too high," but only high salary at the top, not inclusive at the bottom—top R&D 2 million, 5 million, but frontline technicians, teachers, nurses, grassroots positions have very low income; enterprises are only willing to spend on "barriers," not on "inclusion"; profits concentrate upward, not flowing into the incremental closed loop we talked about. This is the most uncomfortable part: technology dividends are taken by a few, but do not feed back into education, skills, and disadvantaged groups.

So, the most perfect, ideal, and realistic structure is: keep top high salaries, retain talent, build technical barriers, ensure national and industrial security; but enterprises must be forced to return part of profits into the incremental closed loop—AI/chips improve efficiency → enterprises make huge profits → part to top talent (incentivize innovation) → part taxes/investment into education, vocational education, skills training → create a large number of decent, high-paying applied positions (PGT) → ordinary people can also share technology dividends. Top high salaries can exist, but cannot be only top high salaries.

14. From survival security, back to idealism

At this point, many young people may have a deeper confusion: Ensuring national and industrial security completely lacks the feeling of idealism and liberalism; why are we heading this way?

This is a very profound question, and the most painful, most silent truth of the entire era. Why has the atmosphere that was once open, idealistic, liberal, globalized, believing in "love and peace" disappeared? Why do we now talk about national security, industrial security, chokepoints, barriers, competition all the time?

The answer is simple: It's not that we actively want to become like this; it's that the idealism of globalization was shattered by reality. From the 1990s to around 2010, the world really resembled what we yearned for: free trade, global division of labor, talent flow, cultural exchange, belief in win-win cooperation, feeling that "peace and development" was natural. At that time, everyone made the pie bigger together, no need to grab, no need to involute, no need to confront, people naturally became open, tolerant, idealistic.

But later, the West began to actively blockade, decouple, choke; it's not that we don't want to cooperate, but others won't let us live in globalization; increment is gone, the world enters stock competition, major powers begin to grab territory, technology, industrial chains; the premise of liberalism is "everyone follows the rules," but reality is "the strong change rules at will." The premise of idealism is that the world is safe, open, fair; once others close the door on you, choke you, sanction you, you are left with only two paths: surrender, forever at the bottom; autonomy, pursue security, build barriers. We move toward "national/industrial security," not because we like confrontation, but because we are forced into a position where we must protect ourselves.

Everyone must understand that liberalism and idealism are essentially luxuries of the incremental era. Only when the pie is growing bigger do people have the confidence to talk about openness, tolerance, gentleness, and caring for others; once in the stock era, growth slows, jobs decrease, channels narrow, the future uncertain, people automatically turn to security, self-protection, barriers, nationalism, confrontation. This is not because human hearts have turned bad, but because the survival structure has changed.

Your generation was born in the contraction era, has not experienced the incremental era, only experienced stock involution, so you have not seen a world of widespread opportunities, openness, and tolerance, nor seen young people full of ideals, believing the world will get better. You are not naturally indifferent, extreme, or lying flat; the era pushed you here.

But I want to tell everyone: We can still return to idealism, we can still return to that gentle, open, free era, but we must first cross the "security" hurdle. The historical law is very cruel: survival → security → development → prosperity → openness → idealism. Without survival and security, liberalism is a castle in the air. Now we emphasize chip autonomy, industrial security, technological autonomy, not abandoning ideals, but first taking back the initiative of "survival," then we are qualified to talk about gentleness, openness, ideals, liberalism.

Our true inner vision is never to stay in confrontation, contraction, tension, but: first do technology, industry, security well, not be choked; then make the pie bigger again, let AI improve efficiency, increment appear; then distribute wealth through education, diversion, overpass inclusively, so young people don't involute, have hope; finally, society returns to openness, tolerance, gentleness, idealism, liberalism.

The mission of our generation is to go from "survival security" back to "idealism."

Epilogue: May you go to the times with clarity, to the future with ideals

Finally, I want to leave the most wanted words to every young person who is confused, working hard, and holding on.

You live in a somewhat chaotic, somewhat exhausted, somewhat crazy era; many people are brainwashed, many choose to give up, many fall into confusion, many are forced to involute. But you don't have to be like them.

The way we change the world is not shouting slogans, not going to extremes, not lying flat, but: keep thinking, not be swept along; keep kind, not join hatred; keep working hard, not give up on yourself; keep gentle, not become indifferent.

You don't need to change the world immediately, you don't need to become heroes, you don't even need to care about distant international situations. You only need to do: don't let this era of hatred turn you into a hateful person; don't let this era of anxiety turn you into a person who gives up; don't let this single-plank bridge turn you into a biased, indifferent, desperate person.

You can dislike studying, but you must have a skill; you can avoid academics, but you must have the ability to survive; you can want to live steadily, but you must have the clarity not to be driven crazy by the world.

We move toward security and barriers to survive; but we remember ideals and freedom in our hearts to know where the future is going.

The future of the world is not decided by today's fanatics, nor by today's lying-flat people, but by you—clear-headed, gentle, unwilling to give up young people.

As long as you keep that little light in your heart, as long as we together push that incremental closed loop to turn, as long as we first stand firm, then rush toward ideals, the future world will definitely slowly light up.

You are the generation that will repair the world; you are the hope of returning to idealism.

May every one of us go to the times with clarity, to the future with ideals; protect ourselves, and illuminate the world.

(Note: Some content in the document may be generated by AI)