I see your point, and I'm worried that you might actually be right. National pride is a big force to be reckoned with in China today because so much of their media is stridently nationalist. However, the Chinese governement's policy currently seems to be to get the Taiwanese the 'soft' way, by offering them incentives to give themselves up and displaying an effective 'one country, two systems' policy in Hong Kong.
National feeling is also strong in Taiwan however, (1 third of their adult population is in the military, at least as a reservist) and this policy could definitely only ever show results over a very long period of time, particularly when China continues to misbehave in Tibet.
Perhaps Beijing will grow tired of waiting and attempt more direct measures. Personally I sincerely hope not, and believe that it is unlikely and growing less so with events such as the military agreements being considered by the US. Only time will tell.
Sadly, this is absolutely true. The KMT were evil totalitarian bastards and stayed that way right up to the 80s before bringing in democratic government. Coincidentally, this happened as the cold war waned and western countries started to realise that they might have been a little more critical about some of their cold war allies.
I take the politically incorrect view that Taiwan and China are two seperate countries. Taiwan has never been ruled by China's communist government, nor China by Taiwan's current administration (who are very different, thankfully, to the Kuomintang who originally set up shop there). Therefore the rest is merely hot air. There is no state of war between China and Taiwan, despite much rattling of sabres, nor any justification for a war beginning - it would cost China a lot more, not only in terms of its international standing, than it would be worth to invade. Thankfully. Therefore China's objections to the arms imports are meaningless, because they do not practically disadvantage China as a nation in any way whatsoever. And if China wants to join the WTO, it had better not object too strenuously to what is in effect an exercise in free trade.
>The only silver lining I can see is that if China starts a manned program, it invigorates others with more peaceful intentions to do the same.
Hmmm... More peaceful intentions, you say? The US attitude the much of the planet can be put in two words: 'exploiting' and 'fighting'. You don't agree? Well, below is a list of countries that the US has bombed since the end of WWII:
China 1946-46 Korea 1950-53 China 1950-53 Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-60 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 Guatemala 1967-69 Cambodia 1969-70 Grenada 1983 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1880s Nicaragua 1980s Panama 1989 Iraq 1991-2000 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999
Q: In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
A: a) 0 b) Zero c) Not one d) None e) A whole number between -1 and +1?
The US, the UK, and other western nations need to get their foreign policies in order fast, because the moral high ground is fast slipping away.
>No, but seriously, China is going to be a major power in the next century. Possibly more major than >the US.
Actually, I don't see any reason why the US won't fall from grace as the world's only superpower sometime next century. After all, in 1900 it looked pretty inconceivable that the British Empire could ever fall, which I always find quite amusing. Nothing lasts forever.
>It could also be just the thing we need to get space exploration back in high-gear -- it's been on the >decline since Apollo.
Personally, I think we should sort out the problems with the planet we've got before we seriously consider expanding into space. And remember, the longer we leave space expansion, the cheaper and easier it will be.
Methanol can more efficiently be used as a fuel in fuel cells than by simply burning it. Yes, they won't be released commercially until 2004 but they've been independently predicted to take over a hefty slice of the market pretty soon.
Methanol can more efficiently and easily be obtained a load of other ways such as from the natural gas that's burned off (read 'gone to waste') at oil rigs everywhere or from domestic and agricultural waste.
Free-floating phytoplankton are also very important, but hey, trees and reefs are pretty. They look much better on placards than something seen through a microscope (as such things are associated in the public consciousness with 'harmful' or perhaps 'evil mad scientists'). Also, for the majority, trees are closer to home. And yes, I like them too.
I do agree that the US constitution makes a difference, but it is not the only factor here. There is also the presence of a democratic voting system and the fact that the law does (just about) apply to the people in power. This is why countries like my own (the UK), which do not have a constitution but do share the other factors have a better human rights record. Although I still think it might be a good idea if the UK did get itself some sort of constitution, because a 'human' right is a much vaguer term to argue over than a 'constitutional' one. And after all, we insisted upon setting up a constitution in each of our colonies when we granted them their independence, so why not do the same at home?
>(remember, the U.S. has about four times as >much)
What kind of b*ll*cks is that? Personally, I'd say the reverse is true, because of the legacy of old Imperial China, which had more history than anyone.
I think this could be taken too far. Look at the fuel cell - invented before the internal combustion engine, it's only now (not counting the space race) starting to compete.
Probably, the only good prediction which can be made about technological progress is that it's going to accelerate. Until we crash, that is. If we do.
I agree that birth control is very important, but getting sick less and ageing slower do also change who we are as a species. It also should be pointed out that the pill was by no means the first effective means of birth control, and that it does have side effects. But yes, it was a significant advance on previous methods, and helped to promote more liberal attitudes on some important topics, which is a good thing (using here the real meaning of liberal).
Did you also write about this in that gadgets debate?
Improved knowledge on the causes of disease, mass vaccination programs (like the one which wiped out small pox and the one which may currently be doing the same with polio), better surgical techniques, drugs to deal with a million non-bacterial problems, and more... It's not surprising that in the 60s and 70s there was a strong, albeit incorrect, consensus that science had got the better of disease. In another 100 years though, it's just possible that we will have done. Even old age might no longer be a threat. The world's going to change a lot, and we are also going to change - or be changed - with it. But at the same time, although this may seem paradoxical, history will continue to repeat itself.
Improved knowledge of nutrition also helped a lot, although it's interesting that the inhabitants of several 'developed' nations are eating less healthily than they were in the 50s.
I'm looking forward to personal teleporters sometime in the 21st century. Yes, I know they won't work, and if you did you might have strange things like what happened in 'The Fly', or possibly telefragging, but it's nice to dream.
"Genetics" started in the 19th century, with a monk called Gregor Mendel. "Genetic Engineering" and "Genetic Modification" have already begun to shape our world, but arguably they're going to go a lot further yet. Maybe you should have said "advanced genetics". BTW, does anyone think that we are going to move into germline gene therapy any time soon?
Personally, I wouldn't go for any of the local planets - they've been done too much before. Judging by the eskimo nebula, nebulae are the way to go - for a little while at least. I also like the appearence of stuff when it's pouring into a black hole, just before the event horizon.
I agree - with cystic fibrosis, theoretically all it would take would take would be to add these genes to the others which they use in the lysosome inhaler.
How exactly do you think that being able to control engineered genetic systems is going to diminish human genetic diversity? Could I point out that no-one is talking about editing the germline here, but rather of finding ways to control somatic measures better?
NB - the 'germline' is a term describing the genes passed between generations, hence 'germline gene therapy', which is the editing of the genetic code to be passed from a parent to their offspring. Currently, and thankfully, the use of this in humans is taboo in most of the scientific community. 'Somatic' measures by contrast only affect the genes at work elsewhere in an individual, not the ones which will be passed on to their children.
>See my previous post for another problem >(methanol converters can poison the PEM in the >actual fuel cell).
There aren't any other posts under your user info. Could you give me a source on this, as I was not aware that there was a risk of damaging the proton exchange membrane (PEM)?
I was equally unaware that there was a risk of sulphur contaminating the methanol - do you have a source on this too?
The conversion unit required to produce hydrogen from methanol is different to that required to produce them from ethanol. Although I can understand why you would think that CH3OH and C2H5OH would not be that different, ethanol is more stable than methanol and will not break down in the specific manner required as easily.
This may or may not be true for another type of fuel cell which is further back in the pipeline, called the direct methanol fuel cell, which does not have a seperate conversion unit but generates power directly from the methanol itself (potentially more efficient, but also more expensive to build). I only know about this because I did a school project it over a year ago, so I'm sorry if this explanation is incomplete but I'm no expert.
In comparison to the internal combustion engine (ICE), fuel cells are more reliable and durable - less maintenance cost and lower chance of a breakdown.
They are much quieter - less noise pollution (to add to the other kinds).
They are clean - as I mentioned elsewhere, they only produce Carbon Dioxide (plus water, which doesn't count), and much less than ICEs do. No sulphur compounds, particulates, carbon monoxide, etc.
They can be more easily used as a power supply for other purposes when required (need a back-up generator? Use your car.)
The only problem currently is the cost of the fuel cells (currently much more than an equally powered ICE), but with the research that is going into minimising this, several major car companies are planning to release models running on fuel cells around 2003.
Actually, methanol fuel cell vehicles count as 'ultra-low' emission vehicles - they only produce Carbon Dioxide and not a great deal of that. As such they are subsidisable. How do you pay for the subsidy? The same way you pay for installation of methanol at filling stations - put a tax on gasoline. Why not? It works for a load of other countries I could mention.
Incidentally, methanol is already available at filling stations in parts of California.
I absolutely agree that how you use the drugs is very important, and have a few more notes to append to this discussion.
The developing world is not the only source of the problem. In some developed countries such as Greece, most antibiotics are still available over the counter which defeats any systematic program of use.
As an aside, systematic programs of use are also defeated by firing missiles at Sudanese medical factories, but don't get me onto American imperialism.
There is no theoretical reason why the viruses should not evolve resistance to this drug, although the structure in question is used by all the viruses of this class. Viruses do after all usually evolve faster than bacteria, which is what makes one prospective alternative to antibiotics, namely bacteriophage viruses, so effective. Sadly there is no equivalent to target viruses.
Overconfidence in existing drugs limited demand in the 60s, 70s and early 80s so now we have to race to catch up. However, various measures are being put in place to limit future drug resistance, such as:
-Making drugs more biodegradable, so they don't stay around in the environment and foster tolerant strains of pathogen. -Inventing new drugs. -Redesigning old drugs to get them around the pathogen's defences.
One big problem is that once genes for resistance are encouraged by inappropriate use of the drugs, tolerance spreads fast, and lies dormant even when the drugs are not used for a long stretch of time.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, and I'm worried that you might actually be right. National pride is a big force to be reckoned with in China today because so much of their media is stridently nationalist. However, the Chinese governement's policy currently seems to be to get the Taiwanese the 'soft' way, by offering them incentives to give themselves up and displaying an effective 'one country, two systems' policy in Hong Kong.
National feeling is also strong in Taiwan however, (1 third of their adult population is in the military, at least as a reservist) and this policy could definitely only ever show results over a very long period of time, particularly when China continues to misbehave in Tibet.
Perhaps Beijing will grow tired of waiting and attempt more direct measures. Personally I sincerely hope not, and believe that it is unlikely and growing less so with events such as the military agreements being considered by the US. Only time will tell.
Sadly, this is absolutely true. The KMT were evil totalitarian bastards and stayed that way right up to the 80s before bringing in democratic government. Coincidentally, this happened as the cold war waned and western countries started to realise that they might have been a little more critical about some of their cold war allies.
I take the politically incorrect view that Taiwan and China are two seperate countries. Taiwan has never been ruled by China's communist government, nor China by Taiwan's current administration (who are very different, thankfully, to the Kuomintang who originally set up shop there). Therefore the rest is merely hot air. There is no state of war between China and Taiwan, despite much rattling of sabres, nor any justification for a war beginning - it would cost China a lot more, not only in terms of its international standing, than it would be worth to invade. Thankfully. Therefore China's objections to the arms imports are meaningless, because they do not practically disadvantage China as a nation in any way whatsoever. And if China wants to join the WTO, it had better not object too strenuously to what is in effect an exercise in free trade.
Good quality chinese food is orgasmic, but you won't get it from your local cheap take-away. Still, many very fine dishes can be made on the cheap.
>The only silver lining I can see is that if China starts a manned program, it invigorates others with more peaceful intentions to do the same.
Hmmm... More peaceful intentions, you say? The US attitude the much of the planet can be put in two words: 'exploiting' and 'fighting'. You don't agree? Well, below is a list of countries that the US has bombed since the end of
WWII:
China 1946-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Guatemala 1967-69
Cambodia 1969-70
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1880s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-2000
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Q: In how many of these instances did a democratic government,
respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
A: a) 0 b) Zero c) Not one d) None e) A whole number between -1 and +1?
The US, the UK, and other western nations need to get their foreign policies in order fast, because the moral high ground is fast slipping away.
>No, but seriously, China is going to be a major power in the next century. Possibly more major than >the US.
Actually, I don't see any reason why the US won't fall from grace as the world's only superpower sometime next century. After all, in 1900 it looked pretty inconceivable that the British Empire could ever fall, which I always find quite amusing. Nothing lasts forever.
>It could also be just the thing we need to get space exploration back in high-gear -- it's been on the >decline since Apollo.
Personally, I think we should sort out the problems with the planet we've got before we seriously consider expanding into space. And remember, the longer we leave space expansion, the cheaper and easier it will be.
A couple of points...
Methanol can more efficiently be used as a fuel in fuel cells than by simply burning it. Yes, they won't be released commercially until 2004 but they've been independently predicted to take over a hefty slice of the market pretty soon.
Methanol can more efficiently and easily be obtained a load of other ways such as from the natural gas that's burned off (read 'gone to waste') at oil rigs everywhere or from domestic and agricultural waste.
Free-floating phytoplankton are also very important, but hey, trees and reefs are pretty. They look much better on placards than something seen through a microscope (as such things are associated in the public consciousness with 'harmful' or perhaps 'evil mad scientists'). Also, for the majority, trees are closer to home. And yes, I like them too.
I do agree that the US constitution makes a difference, but it is not the only factor here. There is also the presence of a democratic voting system and the fact that the law does (just about) apply to the people in power. This is why countries like my own (the UK), which do not have a constitution but do share the other factors have a better human rights record. Although I still think it might be a good idea if the UK did get itself some sort of constitution, because a 'human' right is a much vaguer term to argue over than a 'constitutional' one. And after all, we insisted upon setting up a constitution in each of our colonies when we granted them their independence, so why not do the same at home?
>(remember, the U.S. has about four times as >much)
What kind of b*ll*cks is that? Personally, I'd say the reverse is true, because of the legacy of old Imperial China, which had more history than anyone.
I think this could be taken too far. Look at the fuel cell - invented before the internal combustion engine, it's only now (not counting the space race) starting to compete.
Probably, the only good prediction which can be made about technological progress is that it's going to accelerate. Until we crash, that is. If we do.
I agree that birth control is very important, but getting sick less and ageing slower do also change who we are as a species. It also should be pointed out that the pill was by no means the first effective means of birth control, and that it does have side effects. But yes, it was a significant advance on previous methods, and helped to promote more liberal attitudes on some important topics, which is a good thing (using here the real meaning of liberal).
Did you also write about this in that gadgets debate?
Yes, but that's only the start.
Improved knowledge on the causes of disease, mass vaccination programs (like the one which wiped out small pox and the one which may currently be doing the same with polio), better surgical techniques, drugs to deal with a million non-bacterial problems, and more... It's not surprising that in the 60s and 70s there was a strong, albeit incorrect, consensus that science had got the better of disease. In another 100 years though, it's just possible that we will have done. Even old age might no longer be a threat. The world's going to change a lot, and we are also going to change - or be changed - with it. But at the same time, although this may seem paradoxical, history will continue to repeat itself.
Improved knowledge of nutrition also helped a lot, although it's interesting that the inhabitants of several 'developed' nations are eating less healthily than they were in the 50s.
I'm looking forward to personal teleporters sometime in the 21st century. Yes, I know they won't work, and if you did you might have strange things like what happened in 'The Fly', or possibly telefragging, but it's nice to dream.
"Genetics" started in the 19th century, with a monk called Gregor Mendel. "Genetic Engineering" and "Genetic Modification" have already begun to shape our world, but arguably they're going to go a lot further yet. Maybe you should have said "advanced genetics". BTW, does anyone think that we are going to move into germline gene therapy any time soon?
Personally, I wouldn't go for any of the local planets - they've been done too much before. Judging by the eskimo nebula, nebulae are the way to go - for a little while at least. I also like the appearence of stuff when it's pouring into a black hole, just before the event horizon.
What is 'The Diamond Age'?
I agree - with cystic fibrosis, theoretically all it would take would take would be to add these genes to the others which they use in the lysosome inhaler.
How exactly do you think that being able to control engineered genetic systems is going to diminish human genetic diversity? Could I point out that no-one is talking about editing the germline here, but rather of finding ways to control somatic measures better?
NB - the 'germline' is a term describing the genes passed between generations, hence 'germline gene therapy', which is the editing of the genetic code to be passed from a parent to their offspring. Currently, and thankfully, the use of this in humans is taboo in most of the scientific community. 'Somatic' measures by contrast only affect the genes at work elsewhere in an individual, not the ones which will be passed on to their children.
>See my previous post for another problem
>(methanol converters can poison the PEM in the >actual fuel cell).
There aren't any other posts under your user info. Could you give me a source on this, as I was not aware that there was a risk of damaging the proton exchange membrane (PEM)?
I was equally unaware that there was a risk of sulphur contaminating the methanol - do you have a source on this too?
The conversion unit required to produce hydrogen from methanol is different to that required to produce them from ethanol. Although I can understand why you would think that CH3OH and C2H5OH would not be that different, ethanol is more stable than methanol and will not break down in the specific manner required as easily.
This may or may not be true for another type of fuel cell which is further back in the pipeline, called the direct methanol fuel cell, which does not have a seperate conversion unit but generates power directly from the methanol itself (potentially more efficient, but also more expensive to build). I only know about this because I did a school project it over a year ago, so I'm sorry if this explanation is incomplete but I'm no expert.
You're absolutely right, and there's more too.
In comparison to the internal combustion engine (ICE), fuel cells are more reliable and durable - less maintenance cost and lower chance of a breakdown.
They are much quieter - less noise pollution (to add to the other kinds).
They are clean - as I mentioned elsewhere, they only produce Carbon Dioxide (plus water, which doesn't count), and much less than ICEs do. No sulphur compounds, particulates, carbon monoxide, etc.
They can be more easily used as a power supply for other purposes when required (need a back-up generator? Use your car.)
The only problem currently is the cost of the fuel cells (currently much more than an equally powered ICE), but with the research that is going into minimising this, several major car companies are planning to release models running on fuel cells around 2003.
All in all, it sounds pretty good to me.
Actually, methanol fuel cell vehicles count as 'ultra-low' emission vehicles - they only produce Carbon Dioxide and not a great deal of that. As such they are subsidisable. How do you pay for the subsidy? The same way you pay for installation of methanol at filling stations - put a tax on gasoline. Why not? It works for a load of other countries I could mention.
Incidentally, methanol is already available at filling stations in parts of California.
Actually, it won't.
Ducks are a large reservoir too.
I absolutely agree that how you use the drugs is very important, and have a few more notes to append to this discussion.
The developing world is not the only source of the problem. In some developed countries such as Greece, most antibiotics are still available over the counter which defeats any systematic program of use.
As an aside, systematic programs of use are also defeated by firing missiles at Sudanese medical factories, but don't get me onto American imperialism.
There is no theoretical reason why the viruses should not evolve resistance to this drug, although the structure in question is used by all the viruses of this class. Viruses do after all usually evolve faster than bacteria, which is what makes one prospective alternative to antibiotics, namely bacteriophage viruses, so effective. Sadly there is no equivalent to target viruses.
Overconfidence in existing drugs limited demand in the 60s, 70s and early 80s so now we have to race to catch up. However, various measures are being put in place to limit future drug resistance, such as:
-Making drugs more biodegradable, so they don't stay around in the environment and foster tolerant strains of pathogen.
-Inventing new drugs.
-Redesigning old drugs to get them around the pathogen's defences.
One big problem is that once genes for resistance are encouraged by inappropriate use of the drugs, tolerance spreads fast, and lies dormant even when the drugs are not used for a long stretch of time.