Last year I had dinner with a boss who makes components. Halfway through our conversation, he suddenly asked me very seriously: “Do you think we should shut down our production lines in mainland China?”

I asked him back: “What’s your gross margin in mainland China?” He gave me a number. “Where are your main customers?” He mentioned a few names. “Have you been required to transfer your core technology?” He fell silent for a moment.

“It’s not a question of whether you should shut down,” I said, “it’s whether order is increasing or decreasing in that environment.”

He looked at me, confused: “What do you mean?”

Entropy: The Inevitability of Chaos

In 1944, physicist Erwin Schrödinger published “What Is Life?” This book contains a core concept that I’ve been thinking about for years: Life exists because it can consume “negentropy.”

Entropy is a concept in physics that describes the degree of disorder. The second law of thermodynamics tells us: in a closed system, entropy only increases, never decreases. That is, any system without external energy input will naturally move toward chaos and decay.

Rooms become messy without cleaning. Code rots without maintenance. Relationships drift apart without nurturing. Companies decline without innovation.

This is all entropy increase.

Life—including enterprises—can continue to exist because they constantly consume order (negentropy) from outside to fight internal tendencies toward chaos. You eat food to consume negentropy. You learn new things to consume negentropy. When your company innovates, builds processes, and cultivates talent, it’s all consuming negentropy.

Every business decision is essentially answering one question: Is this decision creating order or manufacturing chaos?

Viewing US-China Competition Through Anti-Entropy History

Applying this framework to geopolitics reveals a very clear picture.

The essence of US-China competition isn’t just economic rivalry or political confrontation. From an anti-entropy historical perspective, it’s two systems engaging in different forms of “entropy reduction engineering”—who can create more order, whose system is more stable, who can attract more external participants to join their network of order.

What characterizes the American system? Institutional transparency, predictable law, mature intellectual property protection mechanisms, clear supply chain division of labor, transparent capital market rules. These elements together constitute a relatively stable “field of order.” I’m not saying it doesn’t have problems—it has many. But on a global comparative basis, it remains a “center of negentropy.”

What about the Chinese system? It’s attempting to establish its own order—its own technical standards, its own payment systems, its own supply chain ecosystem. This ambition is enormous. But in the process of transformation, it simultaneously bears enormous “entropy increase pressure”: high policy uncertainty, frequent regulatory changes, opaque rules for foreign investment entry and exit, adaptation costs from technological blockades.

I’m not making value judgments about which system is “good” or “bad.” I’m making order assessments: Which system is currently creating order, and which system is currently bearing chaos?

Choose Sides Based on Order, Not Politics

Back to that component manufacturer’s question.

My suggestion isn’t “withdraw from China” or “stay in China.” Such binary choices are too crude. My suggestion is to use a more precise framework for judgment:

Core technology—Your key technologies and intellectual property should be placed where institutions are most stable. Currently, this means aligning with US-Japan-Europe systems. Not because they’re “better,” but because their legal protection and institutional predictability are the best insurance for your core assets.

Chinese market—You can participate, but don’t overexpose yourself. Maintain the ability to exit at any time. Don’t put more than a certain percentage of revenue in a single market, especially one where regulations change frequently.

Production layout—Dual-base principle. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Supply chain decentralization isn’t a political slogan; it’s basic risk management. In “The Overlooked Metric of Civilization,” I discussed how risk reduction, like wealth growth, is an indicator of civilizational progress. Enterprise layout follows the same logic.

Capital compliance—Use international capital market rules as your primary reference. Because while international capital market rules are complex, they’re relatively stable and predictable.

Simply put: Approach the side of order, distance yourself from the end of chaos. Not because of political stance, but because order is risk management.

Be a Force of Anti-Entropy

Finally, I want to pull this framework from enterprises back to individuals.

Every decision you make daily—how to choose collaboration partners, how to allocate time, where to invest energy—is essentially answering the same question: Is this creating order or consuming energy?

Some collaborative relationships leave you feeling more directed after each interaction. Some collaborative relationships leave you feeling more confused after each interaction. The former is negentropy, the latter is entropy increase.

Some work modes make you feel more systematic the more you do them. Some work modes make you feel like you’re playing whack-a-mole the more you do them. The former is building order, the latter is consuming order.

Anti-entropy people have one characteristic: wherever they go, things become more stable. Not because they’re particularly capable, but because every choice they make asks: “Does this make things more orderly or more chaotic?”

In this turbulent era, choosing to approach the world of negentropy isn’t just business strategy. It’s a survival posture.

Chaos degrades people. Order helps people live longer. And the ability to choose between chaos and order is your most important judgment in this era.