A good fortune for one man, means less for some

[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."

[Firn]

It is a very important question, and one which is difficult to answer. The availability of resources is a complicated topic, with increased demand and price and better technology making sources available which would remain untapped. For example the Swiss were able to greatly increase their food production during WWII with the "Anbauschlacht", by using far more of the relative poor or difficult areas, supporting agriculture with capital and working power and by switching from milk to basic products like grain. During WWII the the German (or Japanese) lack of natural fuel could not be overcome by a belated effort to produce the in-efficient synthetic fuel. The worldwide dominant market economy does not pose such barriers to single countries but the basic forces of available and potential supply, demand, pricing, costs and technology are still there.

[MikeF]

A preview to my forthcoming contribution to Foreign Policy Magazine next month, 17. True or false: Americans are safer today than when Obama took office.

True, but this is a false choice. Worrying about being safe is simply fear and insecurity. It is time to stop pondering safety and security and start dreaming about living again. When my daughter goes to sleep at night, I don’t ask her what she fears most. I ask her to imagine what she will be doing in twenty years. Will she be the first woman to land on Mars? Will she travel deep into the heart of the Congo researching some undiscovered plant that will provide a cure for cancer? Will she write the next great American novel? This is the type of thinking that we desperately need. These are the type of questions that we must ask our children. It is time for us to overcome the fear and the hurt and the pain from 9/11 and move on with life.

[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.

[jcustis]

We are campaigning against AIDS on the African continent. How does increasing the lifespan of a state's or continent's population serve our national interests, assuming that the benefits of longevity only serve to increase the competition for resources across the long run.

[Surferbeetle]

Jon,

Reading music...Fuel by Lars Ulrich and the boys

My riposte to the argument advanced by the good Reverend Malthus is that the human animal occupies a very small portion of the 510 million square kilometers, or so, of the Earth and our time as a species has been astonishingly brief as compared to the estimated 4.5 billion years or so our world has been around. As a result, there is much that we as a species do not know of and this further is compounded by the fact that we truly understand very little of what we claim to 'know'.

The cell cycle, or growth patterns (lag, exponential growth, stationary, and endogenous phases), F/M Ratios, the S-Curve, ecological succession, etc are all concepts to think about when describing natural systems but I would also advocate reading Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Consider balancing the concepts of human/economic specialization and market segmentation against the mind boogling biological specialization present in our world as partially described in the epic Bergy's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology...then head on over to descriptions of the other biological kingdoms and take a look at the diversity and specialization on display with respect to the utilization of resources.

'Brief' local shortages, surely, 'sustained' system-wide shortages, surely not...humans are way too adaptable...when we ran out of caves, we built....

Ask yourself, who is it that definitively knows where the brain-pan currently resides that will help our species to leap today's perceived hurdles? Perhaps that answer should guide our actions in the world...

[Firn]

We are campaigning against AIDS on the African continent. How does increasing the lifespan of a state's or continent's population serve our national interests, assuming that the benefits of longevity only serve to increase the competition for resources across the long run.

Taking it to the extreme the world might be at the first glance whith such a view be better off without the North Americans and European although I think this is currently a to big issue to tackle for the national interests of others.

In general I do think that education and the resulting decline in fertility of others is good news, although it is hard to estimate how exactly it effects the use of ressources. It is an aera which would be worth of personal study, as I know little of it. I just want to add that it is certainly a complex field, with technology, productivity and efficency playing also a big part.

[motorfirebox]

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?

That's true ultimately, but it isn't necessarily true at 6bn people, or 10bn people, or 50bn people. Maybe it's only true at 100bn or a trillion. I doubt the limit is that high, but that's my point--we don't know. More efficient use of resources equals, essentially, more resources, and globally our current efficiency is pretty low.

We are campaigning against AIDS on the African continent. How does increasing the lifespan of a state's or continent's population serve our national interests, assuming that the benefits of longevity only serve to increase the competition for resources across the long run.

It makes us feel better about ourselves, allowing us more latitude to expand without being held back by remorse.

[Stan]

We are campaigning against AIDS on the African continent. How does increasing the lifespan of a state's or continent's population serve our national interests, assuming that the benefits of longevity only serve to increase the competition for resources across the long run.

Back in the early 80's at Edgewood Area -- where rats were still being used -- an E-4 dressed in whites (as I was leaving for Zaire) told me we were looking for a new frontier where the FDA dare not tread. Their lifespan was already significantly less than even the local CDC imagined and the line of volunteers for non-approved FDA drugs was bordering on 500 meters from the building each morning. It did serve our national interests and I presume had little to do with their longevity.