Meng Xiaodong: The Value and Significance of Bottom-Line Thinking Amidst Profound Changes Unseen in a Century
The concept of "limit" in "limit thinking" (极限思维) was originally a mathematical term, later extended to the fields of the humanities and social sciences. It has become a proximal concept to "bottom-line thinking," and the two often appear in tandem. As a cognitive method, the prominent feature of limit thinking is the proactive deduction of major issues to their extreme circumstances. By rooting itself in extremely unfavorable conditions, it aims to perceive the essence of a situation through its phenomena, eliminate interference to judge pros and cons, and elevate one’s perspective to grasp shifting trends. This, in turn, allows for the mobilization of all available resources to make decisions characterized by a "bottoming out" recovery or a "desperate counterattack."
Today, the world has entered a phase where the Great Changes Unseen in a Century [1] are accelerating. Global uncertainty is becoming increasingly apparent. Before frontier science and technology achieve major breakthroughs and release powerful technological dividends, the "stock competition" among nations worldwide will intensify to an unprecedented degree—a situation some domestic scholars refer to as an "Era of Great Contention" (大争之世) [2]. While presiding over the first meeting of the 20th National Security Commission of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must persist in bottom-line thinking and limit thinking, and be prepared to withstand the major test of high winds, choppy waters, and even perilous whitecaps." In this context, the value and practical significance of limit thinking have become increasingly prominent, encompassing but not limited to the following three aspects.
I. Persisting in limit thinking to effectively respond to the "extreme pressure" of external forces
The current global economic recovery is lackluster, geopolitical confrontations are escalating, and global issues such as food supply, energy security, climate change, environmental pollution, and public health follow one after another. The characteristics of an "Era of Great Contention," marked by competition over existing resources (stock competition), are becoming more evident. Against the backdrop of the Great Changes Unseen in a Century, global uncertainty is intensifying, unstable factors are mounting, and the risk of countries facing "extreme pressure" from external forces is growing daily. In recent years, certain global powers have carried out intensive strategic squeezing against their primary strategic rivals, ranging from military adventures like "close-in reconnaissance and military standoffs" to trade wars where one "kills a thousand enemies but loses eight hundred of one's own," to "chokehold" [3] technological wars, and even "heart-killing" [4] psychological warfare. Historically, the New China does not lack successful cases of using limit thinking to proactively break through extreme pressure. For example, in the 1960s, facing extreme pressure from the two superpowers, New China decisively launched the "Third Front Construction" [5] regardless of the economic cost. This built a rear industrial base for a strategic counterattack, unprecedentedly raised the cost of aggression for hypothetical enemies, and achieved the set goal of "preventing war through preparation," allowing New China to cross the dangerous period before its nuclear weapons formed a counter-strike capability.
Persisting in and applying limit thinking to effectively respond to extreme pressure from external forces is primarily manifested in "abandoning illusions and preparing for struggle" in international gaming. Abandoning illusions is the logical starting point of limit thinking; it is mainly manifested in a willingness to look at things from the worst-case scenario and not to engage in wishful thinking that relies on an opponent’s kindness or strategic error. One must be willing to use a stoic gaze to evaluate the scope and degree of destruction of specific risks under extreme conditions, and on this basis, seek the spiritual strength and struggle plans for a "counter-offensive." Preparing for struggle is the logical extension of limit thinking. To prepare for struggle, one must proceed from the results deduced by limit thinking and recognize the necessity, long-term nature, and even the cruelty of struggle. Looking at Chinese history, even a diplomatic reconciliation like the Chanyuan Treaty [6] was built upon a balance of power where the Song Dynasty army was good at defending cities but not field battles, while the Liao army was good at field battles but not sieges. On one hand, we should fix deficiencies through the trials of struggle and enhance our capacity to resist blockades and pressure amidst dynamic development. On the other hand, we must display historical initiative. We must prepare both for tit-for-tat frontal confrontations in specific fields and for forms of struggle where "you fight your way, and I'll fight mine." Under the guidance of "engaging with the orthodox and winning with the extraordinary" [7], we must prepare for both "orthodox" (frontal) and "extraordinary" (asymmetric) struggle, "seeking unity through struggle" while daring to struggle and being good at struggle, thereby securing a favorable international environment for the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.
II. Persisting in limit thinking to actively respond to the "limit challenges" of natural disasters
China is a country with a vast territory, a massive population, a large economic volume, and significant natural variations; it is also a country that has suffered heavily from various natural disasters. The vast historical records are filled with accounts of various natural disasters and efforts to mitigate and resist them. It can be said that floods and droughts in summer, ice and snow disasters in winter, various forms of plagues, and earthquakes along seismic belts have always been classic challenges haunting social and economic development. Modern society, built on an industrial foundation, is characterized by high vulnerability and strong interdependence. This determines that under extreme conditions, a single natural disaster may trigger secondary disasters, causing incalculable chain reactions.
Persisting in limit thinking to actively respond to the limit challenges of natural disasters is mainly manifested in a willingness to look at things from the worst-case scenario and use "redundancy" to hedge against uncertainty. Comrade Mao Zedong once said: "In any work, we must think and deploy from the worst-case possibility." Looking from the worst-case scenario requires combining local historical records with relevant scientific achievements to systematically master the frequency and triggering conditions of various natural disasters. It requires accurately judging various secondary disasters induced by natural disasters under extreme conditions and comprehensively assessing the scope and loss of disasters under such conditions. Under the guidance of limit thinking, and with an attitude of responsibility toward the people and history, we must continuously improve the disaster prevention system and enhance emergency rescue capabilities to "meet all changes by remaining unchanged" (以不变应万变). The key is to proactively raise the design and construction standards of disaster mitigation and prevention facilities, using redundancy in design to hedge against potential extreme disasters. Simultaneously, strict institutional design should be used to consolidate the disaster prevention and relief responsibility system across relevant departments, using immediate reward and punishment mechanisms to maintain the redundancy and quality of disaster mitigation hardware. This serves to control the diffusion risk of specific natural disasters, effectively prevent the occurrence and spread of secondary disasters, and eliminate the transformation of "natural disasters" into "man-made calamities."
III. Persisting in limit thinking to proactively alleviate the "limit escalation" of social contradictions
Under the Great Changes Unseen in a Century, the constant shifts in politics, economy, technology, and culture inevitably lead to the wax and wane of power between different groups and sudden changes in the pattern of interest distribution. All countries generally undergo a period of frequent social contradictions. Whether a country can control the "limit escalation" of domestic contradictions has become a top priority in social governance for all nations amidst these great changes. A country's domestic contradictions are often affected by the global environment, giving some domestic social contradictions an international and complex character. On one hand, "Black Swan" events possess great randomness and contingency; under current human technical conditions and knowledge reserves, it is impossible to achieve precise prediction and highly efficient intervention. Once some long-existing social contradictions are magnified by accidental "Black Swan" events, they may continue to escalate, bringing unexpected chain reactions. On the other hand, "Gray Rhino" events are both the eruption of specific long-standing abuses from quantitative to qualitative change and the result of long-term selective ignorance driven by a "fluke" mentality. If some structural social contradictions remain unresolved for a long time, they may evolve into "Gray Rhino" events under external stimulation, the outbreak of which will have a sustained and strong jarring effect on society.
Persisting in limit thinking to proactively alleviate the limit escalation of social contradictions under external forces is mainly manifested in actively clearing the "stock" of social contradictions and resolving structural contradictions through "incremental" innovation. "Clearing stock" refers to predicting the probability and potential impact of the limit escalation of current primary social contradictions based on the rational deduction of limit thinking, then prioritizing them across four dimensions: importance, severity, slowness, and urgency. Under existing constraints, focus should be placed on resolving social contradictions that are prone to escalation and have far-reaching impacts, eliminating potential social contradiction "ignition points" to the greatest extent possible. This provides a stable strategic rear for the increasingly fierce national competition under the Great Changes Unseen in a Century. "Opening up increments" involves releasing new productive forces through technological breakthroughs and the optimization of relations of production. By using the rapid development of productive forces in specific fields to drive overall social development, we can enhance the resilience of social development, improve the efficiency of social governance, and systematically solve original structural contradictions. This fundamentally eliminates the hidden dangers of "Gray Rhino" events and provides a strong guarantee for the construction of Chinese-path modernization.