For some time now, a growing number of Chinese students—with “well-crafted” rather than “well-filled” heads, as Michel de Montaigne would say—have been attending the academic communities of Cambridge and Oxford. I mentor some of them on behalf of my university. Below, I share their perception of how things work in China. The central element that captures attention is the ongoing strategic shift, known as “New Forces of Productivity for Quality.” This explicit state mandate for high efficiency and green growth is driving a far-reaching trend: digital-real integration. It’s not simply about developing consumer software applications, but about integrating digital intelligence into heavy industry to drastically reduce resource waste. In traditional factories, artificial intelligence is increasingly used not to replace humans, but to calculate the energy required for each unit of production and to reduce the carbon footprint. In this sense, the concept of “holistic health,” which considers the human being as a whole (body, mind, and spirit) and in its relationship with the environment, serves as a philosophical software for economic hardware, confirming that this transition is not merely a push toward technological supremacy, but an evolutionary imperative.
This shift is deeply intertwined with the innovation of social thinking, particularly regarding work culture. From the perspective of China’s younger generations, a silent revolution is underway in their country. The reaction against overwork is a rejection of senseless competition. Young professionals seek human-centred productivity. There is a grassroots demand for mental and physical sustainability that is forcing even traditional tech giants to seriously embrace sustainability and ethical impact beyond mere profits, steering investors and consumers toward companies focused on climate, human rights, and fair practices. Thus, the toxic separation between work and nature is rejected, and the focus is on experimenting with the Gross Ecosystem Product, which seeks to institutionalise ecological value within the traditional parameters of GDP. This is another concrete example of how the Chinese system is attempting to operationalise a nature-centred philosophy.
Finally, deeply rooted in Chinese cultural heritage is the reference to Laozi, the founding philosopher of Taoism, who extols the traditional Chinese medical concept of “Zhi Wei Bing,” or caring for health before disease manifests. This ancient wisdom of preventive maintenance for complex systems aligns with modern innovation theory practised in China.
The Chinese philosophy of governance favours adaptive policy development driven by localised experimentation, particularly in frontier sectors such as autonomous vehicles and biotechnology, rather than rigid top-down control. China’s “New National System” of innovation is not intended to be a return to a planned economy, but rather a sophisticated framework for public-private risk sharing. This new model creates a division of labour between the state and the market. In strategic sectors such as robotaxis, biotechnology, and renewable energy, the country assumes the role of risk absorber, building the heaviest infrastructure (smart roads, charging networks, instruments and laboratory equipment) and shouldering the initial sunk costs that private sectors might find prohibitive.
