A good fortune for one man, means less for some

[jcustis]

Some of you may know the lyrics, and so to you the angle of this post is pretty evident.

I rarely dabble much in this specific corner of the SWC, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for the following question. We've recently spent time discussing the responsibility to protect, and have previously discussed advancing national interests through the strengthening of democratic principles abroad (being mindful of course to avoid hubris along the way).

We've also talked about shared prosperity, and the principles that when a state, tribe, or even a culture enjoy increased prosperity, we all stand to benefit and some of the factors that cause small wars recede. Is this general premise true though, across the long term, and where is the tipping point?

If we work to increase prosperity around the world, how can we do it in a fashion that does not increase the demand for resources to such a degree that conflict ensues? Whether it's water, arable land, oil, or access to minerals and metals, as tribes and states prosper, consumption increases and the realist in me tells me that conflict is inevitable. In logical terms, it seems counter-productive to try to reduce the number of have-nots in the world.

[Bill Moore]

You're exactly right, the rise of the rest has created a huge demand on finite resources. China's market alone uses over half of the world's cement. The growing middle classes and their higher expectations for a Middle Class life (cars, T.V., houses, and so forth) will continue to expand until it can no longer be supported. To maintain stability at home states will have to secure access to needed materials, and that is where the clashes may very well be the future.

We can always hope that science and technology can stay one step ahead of the problem, but even in our country it is politically incorrect to invest in green energy technology, talk about water conservation, or even change the light bulbs we use. China and India don't want to hear our recommendations, since we built our economy through huge expenditures of energy.

Everyone focuses on oil, and while important, but I suspect there will be other resources that ultimately result in conflict such as territorial fights over fishing rights, etc.

[Dayuhan]

Increased prosperity will always mean increased demand for resources, not much anyone can do about that. Certainly there's potential for conflict there, but trying to prevent or avoid increased prosperity for others is certain to provoke conflict.

The rise of the rest is not our doing, and it's not likely that anything we do will affect it much. We can manage our responses as it goes, and as the impacts become clear, but it will happen no matter what we say and do.

[MikeF]

Well done Jon, and I would submit that we HAVE to start dabbling in this area. Think of it as bottom-up intel collection dissemination. In order for your specific thoughts/lessons learned not to get filtered/misinterpreted, then you have to make an hypothesis on what they mean at the macro level.

[AmericanPride]

Earth is a closed ecosystem. There is only so much oil, land, food, salt water, fresh water, cement, iron, and so on. Additionally, there are imbalances in access and distribution. Capitalism has an insatiable desire for "prosperity", which translates into wealth accumulation; in other words, unlimited, perpetual resource consumption. Ultimately, somebody somewhere will be left without a chair. When political and economic systems are designed to preserve the privileges of the "prosperous", what options are there other than violence?

[MikeF]

China's Rich Consider Leaving Growing Nation
by Frank Langfitt
NPR

Yang says Chinese like U.S. real estate because they can own it in total and they can pass homes onto their children. In China, the government controls the land. People can own houses, but they can only lease the land underneath.

"We buy the house [and] we can only use it for 70 years," he says. "In America or some other country, we can get the land forever. My clients always want to buy something forever, right."

Yang says most Chinese who apply for investment immigration are legitimate, but he says 5 to 10 percent want to move money they got through corruption.

"These people want to put money outside of China. Washing, we call it washing money," he says. "So I have some clients come to my company [and say] 'I have money. I don't have any documents.' I say no, this is illegal."

[Dayuhan]

Capitalism has an insatiable desire for "prosperity", which translates into wealth accumulation

Human beings have an insatiable desire for more stuff; this is not a function of capitalism.

There is an absolute contradiction between the desire to alleviate poverty and the desire to reduce pressure on the resource base. There is no "solution" or "answer" to that contradiction, certainly none that the US can persuade or compel others to adopt. It's one of those things we can only manage as we go along, to the extent that we can, as one nation among many.