Oh, really. How so? :confused:

Richard :munchin

True. In essence, we funded the competition. Likewise with Japan. Ask GM shareholders how that worked out.

While you make a good point about balancing ideas with strategic interests, I note that China seems to do a pretty good job of advancing their interests at minimal cost.

Until we get our own house in order, maybe we should reconsider giving money away.

Your bottom line approach to current affairs and to history lead you to some interesting generalizations.
And during that interval we can count on no other competing powers to step into the geopolitical void.

(Chuckle) Of course they will. But if we follow the present path to its tragic conclusion, the void will suddenly manifest itself and the realignment of geopolitical power will be chaotic - and, I suspect, violent.

Something a bit more orderly might avoid some of the worst consequences.

With respect, I think your unflagging pessimism gets in the way of you using your intellectual skills to get past 'either/or' projections. Problems may be defined from graphs and charts but sometimes they get in the way of developing creative sustainable solutions.

In this country, folks have been crying "the Apocalypse is just around the corner" for centuries. Time and again, history has unfolded in ways to prove their dire "either we do this or the roof will cave in" prognostications inaccurate.

The demographics of this planet are changing. The foci of international power are shifting. In addition to 'getting our own house in order,' the U.S. needs to be mindful of these broader changes to 'the neighborhood' and to manage wisely our relationships with the folks down the block.

My $0.02.

It's true that there has been an ongoing argument (nothing as civil as a discussion!) for centuries between the Malthusians, who argue for limits, and the folks who contend that human ingenuity can and will transcend those limits. I call them Cornucopians - or Cornies if I'm feeling wicked - since they seemingly believe in limitless abundance.

For the past couple hundred years, the cornies have won the bet. I'm tempted to use the most dangerous words in the English language - "This time it's different" - but I'll restrain myself. :D

As you suggest, the foci of power are changing. But power is a zero-sum game, since one group's gain is another's loss. If we help some group gain power, we reduce our own.

Economic strength isn't quite the same. There can be multiple winners. Except - human-kind cannot fully comprehend the exponential function. I hear city leaders in San Antonio talking about a 2.6% growth rate in a favorable manner. What they seem not to realize is that this means we will grow from the present 1.2 million population to 2.4 million in about 28 years. They are hardly alone - the whole world engages in the same behavior.

Let's look at those demographics you mention. Why has this happened? At least in part due to the Green Revolution, circa 1948 or so, courtesy of the U.S. Agriculture Department. It did increase crop yields, just as they expected. And population followed along. So now we have heavy demands on food producing areas around the world. Food is going up in U.S. supermarkets - at least partly due to increased global demand. Notice that we in the U.S. are living a little bit worse due to others having increased economic strength. Please reflect on this for a moment.

There are other issues, among them energy, particularly crude oil. As China and other areas increase demand and supply fails to increase (and it is failing to increase), the price in the U.S. goes up. Increased energy prices act as a drag on the economy. So - once again, as other nations get stronger, we in the U.S. live worse.

And now we're going to save more countries, uplift Africa, and bring more prosperity to the world. We'll deliver them from poverty to affluence - in some ways, a corollary of a certain motto. What will the consequences be?

As they are uplifted - at least partly due to our efforts, our spending - we will decline. That, of course, is the wildly optimistic scenario.

The pessimistic one? An exponential curve tends not to end smoothly. Rather, it breaks sharply from growth to decline - and the decline tends to be catastrophic. A marvelous example is offered by Easter Island, particularly as discussed in Diamond's "Collapse".

So...we weaken ourselves. We make other nations stronger. Still worse, we raise their expectations. Then the growth curve fails - at which point we may experience Hell on Earth.

Are there solutions? Sure. Finding some source of cheap, abundant energy that is rapidly scalable would help a lot. Controlled and fairly rapid population reduction would be another. But the first (abundant energy) has eluded us for decades and shows little promise of coming to fruition, and the later is not politically (or, for that matter, economically, socially, or religiously) viable.

Bottom line, we're doomed. Embrace our destiny. :munchin

one word
 

GROSS! EWW!

YUCK!
3 my bad

Here is another practice with no up side.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/0...est=latestnews

Smoking AIDS meds mixed with rat poison and other neat things.