China is and will never be done. They survived the revolution of Mao, the starvation crisis of 60's, and the financial problems of the 80's and 90's. Sooner or later they end up searching a solution for the problems. We should not say "they will not last this decade". It is extreme. Keep in mind that despite they are not a democracy at least the National People's Congress is responsible. This is why they always survived from all the problems: Because their philosophy is being courageous in hard times and the principles points of Confucianism and Taoism. These doctrines are centuries years old they still remain.
Xi Jinping has something that no Western leader does: Rectitude. — javi2541997

I think you are misinterpreting some of what I'm trying to say. It isn't about the END OF CHINA but more about the END OF THE CURRENT WAY CHINA DOES THINGS. Or in other words China will some time in the future need some kind of paradigm shift in order to properly adjust to the way things are done in the modern world. This isn't all that shocking when you think about it since both the US as well as other countries will likely need a kind of paradigm shift in order to operate effectively in the modern world as well as things become more complicated in the future.

How dramatic the shift will be is up to debate, but my guess is that almost all countries/ societies/ cultures/etc. need about one or more paradigm shifts every hundred years or so in order to be as competitive as other countries or perhaps even more if something unusual is happening such as in Germany before and after WWII when they became fascist and then became a non-fascist state.

My guess is that when only a handful of people control things, the country is ruled through plutocracy and/or cronyism, and the people in power waste a lot of the nations resources in order to remain in power it is about time for a new paradigm shift to happen since it is all but a given that the old systems isn't working anymore. While it is possible for the people that are ruling using a corrupt system can hold on to power for some time, it is likely they do so at risk of having a revolution or civil war break out if too many people become too disillusioned at the way things are being done.

This is why they always survived from all the problems: Because their philosophy is being courageous in hard times and the principles points of Confucianism and Taoism. These doctrines are centuries years old they still remain.
Xi Jinping has something that no Western leader does: Rectitude. — javi2541997

Rectitude? Following the principles of Confucianism and Taoism? I disagree with your assessment of Xi Jinping and those following him.

Maybe I have be a bit "brainwashed" by western media, but I kind of find it hard to imagine Xi Jinping as a kind of nice/benevolent leader when he is constantly making threats at any and all countries who are not willing to any and all things he wants them to do. It is one thing to bully your own people around, it is another when you think it is "ok" to bully people who are not citizens of your own country.

Seriously, many people probably experience varying degrees of derangement in the final hour(s). If death isn't swift, there may be successive organ failure and a rapid build-up of toxic substances which amplify the dying process. So yes, it could be pretty unpleasant for a while. But then it is over and the curtain of silent oblivion descends forever.

Rather than focusing on stretching out life, even life without end, an actual attainable goal is to live life in the knowledge that life is short. Make the most of living while one can.

Old age can be a burden, true enough, but I know people (like myself) who are very much engaged in doing what makes life meaningful and interesting to them. One can and should prepare to die with as much serenity as possible, but not dwell on it. — Bitter Crank

I know it may sound like a stupid position to have but I believe that extending peoples lives serves a larger purpose than merely giving the people the luxury of living longer.

The system that we have now where children spend close to twenty to twenty five years growing up and trying to lean enough that they can be productive for about just another twenty five to thirty years which at that point they are in such decline that they are less useful then they where when they were younger.

It is not exactly a one to one ratio. but for every year of growing up/learning one can only spend about one year of said investment to be able to work and try to better the community around them. This cost is just something we have come to be something we expect to have to deal with in the modern world but it is also something that can be said to be costly and wasteful and it requires those that DO WORK to often have to work in unsatisfactory conditions because they have to do more work for those that are unable to be productive.

A large part of my argument is that "IF" we were able to extend peoples lives it is likely that either many or most of these people could work longer, work conditions might improve, and society might be able to improve due to the extra idea/input from these people that are contributing to society instead of them just wasting away in nursing homes in their later years.

There is an old saying I heard once "Youth is wasted on the young". While this is more or less true today, does it have to be in the near future?

Death is the cause, IMO, rather than the effect of aging, regardless of how long the organism lasts. The difference in species longevity it seems is primarily a function of the degree to which biological aging (e.g. cellular senescence) lags behind chronological age. I've speculated for decades that a "fundamental cure for cancer" might be derived from discovering the exact (genetic) mechanisms in cells which switch on or off senescence and thereby allow for tissue / organ specific control of aging. CRISPR might be a plausible technique for such an intervention. TBD.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/655900 — 180 Proof

I will have to read/review this thread in the upcoming days in order to have a better idea of what it was all about. And again sorry for being late in replying to you post.

I apologize that I'm late in replying. My mom had to go to the hospital yesterday so I kind of got a bit distracted from getting back to this thread.

Stem cells? I think they're immortal. Cancer cells are too.

I think Bittercrank may have been onto something regarding the ability of a mortal population to adapt to changing conditions? — Tate

The fact that cancer cells, certain stem cells, etc. are immortal isn't really all that important since it is already a given that single cell organism (such as bacteria) have the means to be able to be able to divide/grow indefinitely without having to deal with the issues of aging, or at least it being a real problem for them. Just as I said before "if" they didn't, they would cease to exist. Many single cell organism have evolved to the point were they have incredible means to deal with various environment hazards such as radiation, vacuum, etc. One strain discovered has been called the "Conan" bacteria.

Deinococcus radiodurans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

Extremophile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

I'm feeling the effects of Hayflick's Limit. — Bitter Crank

I suggest you either drink more coffee and/or perhaps pop some nicotine gum into your mouth to help you feel more alive. While the process of getting older isn't all that fun, I can tell you that it is nowhere near as bad as the actual process of dying is.

The closest you can get to it without actually being dead is imagine your deep in an underground cave by yourself and you get stuck and can't move. Then while waiting/hoping that someone comes to help you your flashlight goes out. Perhaps for the first minute or two (but likely in much shorter of a time) you are able to keep some of your cool, but then you feel like you are having trouble breathing and your mind start rapidly racing with thoughts of both how to try to escape and what will become of you if you are unable to free yourself. When you are really in a situation where you might die you often A)Unable to move/feel like you are paralyzed B) Unable to see and/or hear what is going on around you C)Feel like you are trapped in your own mind without being able to do anything about your condition.

I'm not saying that it is a given that everyone goes through such experiences when they are close to death, I'm just trying to point out it isn't quiet as peaceful as some people lead you to believe. Also it is worth noting that while you are pronounced "dead" soon after your heart stops beating, the human brain can survive for somewhere around 20-30 minutes once oxygen is no longer being supplied to it. And though it maybe isn't a given that one is conscience all that time, it is very likely isn't exactly a pleasant experience if one is conscience while lingering around in this world just before they pass into the next.

There's a jellyfish that's considered to be biologically immortal because it occasionally reverts to a younger stage and starts over. For the rest of us, it's Hayflick's limit. — Tate

Ok, here is a question that would be interesting for someone to provide an answer to:

If Hayflick's limit is true (or even maybe true) for regular cells in large complex organisms (such as humans), why do the crown cells (to be honest I don't know if they are crown cells, but for some reason I want to call them that) or whatever cells involved creating the used in animal reproduction ARE NOT effected by Hayflick's limit and/or anything else that involves cellular aging. In one of my previous posts in this thread I pointed out that it is a given that ALL ANIMALS require a process in which the cells involved in reproduction have to go through a process where the DNA is somehow either fix and/or anti-aged in some way that allows the cells in the animals offspring to be more or less "brand new" just as it is with any and all animals that are born healthy/without defect.

Without the means to create an IMMORTAL line of cells, a species would quickly die off and become extinct. If I could remember what and/or where I read about this process I would post it here but for the life of me, I can't recall what it is called.

Christianity has an explanation: Original sin which God punished by issuing a death sentence to Adam & Eve and their descendants viz. us. :snicker: That kinda squares with the fact that we put extreme criminals (those who've committed heinous crimes) to death.

What doesn't add up is our nociceptive system - why does it exist if not to prevent/avoid crossing the river Styx? Clearly, it isn't working all that well, oui mes amies?

Too, the whole thing reminds me of villainous masterminds killing all his/her subordinate henchman after a certain objective (more life i.e. offspring) is achieved. Jibes with the theory of evolution I'd say. — Agent Smith

I think I more or less agree with your statement if it is about that the Abrahamic religions provide an unsatisfactory answer as too why we have to die, however I'm also coming from a standpoint of that all conventional answers as to WHY we have to die (instead of trying to extend life) is pretty moot.

Also I'm kind of assuming that all religious doctrine that claims that the first men such as Adam and his immediate descendants lived longer than modern humans 9because of their closer connection to God perhaps?) isn't true since there does not exist any knowledge at the present to support such claims.

Of course if there was information on how or why such humans lived longer was available we should/would take it into consideration. This is a thread focusing on the science ramifications of man trying to extend his life, not the theological ramifications of extending human life.

I can't see the connection, but anyway. The "argument" above is almost the same with the classic "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"! :smile: Mine, if you can call it an "argument" too, is not hypothetical. It's factual. — Alkis Piskas

The only reason you believe death is inevitable is because all of your life you have seen anything that lives eventually dies. Before the invention of the airplane an other technology, people had only seen bird an other animals fly but never human beings so it was easy for them to assume that human being would never fly since they never had before.

When you (or anyone else) base their opinion only on how things are now and/or what is generally assumed by the public at large (while ignoring other possibilities), then they are making an appeal to authority/appeal to antiquity fallacy. If you don't understand this kind of fallacy I suggest you read up on it . While I can lead a horse to water I can't make them (or in this case you) drink

Appeal to tradition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Also as a rule of thumb in philosophy, if you can make a quick answer to any complex issue in less than a minute without hardly thinking at all it is highly likely your position will be based on one or more fallacies. Also when your position isn't really based on any real information (ie. is merely a sentence that states your opinion) it is again likely just based on a fallacy. Only when you get to the point where you can state "this is what I currently know, but my viewpoint can change based on new information presented to me" do you stop making logical fallacies in philosophy since any and all human knowledge is subject to change depending on new information being made available to us.

If you do not understand why this is I suggest you read up on the Doctrine of Anekantavada

Anekantavada/Doctrine of No-One Sidedness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

Well, you can evade taxes! :smile:

OK, joking aside, I really don't see what are you trying to find out or establish in your topic ... — Alkis Piskas

I only ask that read some of the stuff I just posted (as well as some of what others posted), think abut what we are trying to say, and then post back with what your thoughts are on it the subjects that are brought up.

Thanks

Biological immortality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

One of the things I was hoping somebody would bring up is the fact that ANY AND ALL LIFE (complex or not) REQUIRES a means/process to create a line of IMMORTAL CELLS that ARE NOT EFFECTED BY THE AGING PROCESS and/or any and all other means that would damage the DNA in our cells.

How do I know this, just the fact that when a child is born THEIR DNA is (more or less) not NOT EFFECTED BY THE TIME THAT HAS PASSED while their parents spent growing up and becoming old enough to have offspring. Because of this it is a given that there is a line cells used in the process of both creating us when we are just babies and then used again in creating both sperm and eggs cells of our offspring. These line of cells, no matter how long they are used over and over again, DO NOT AND CAN NOT BE EFFECTED BY the AGING PROCESS.

If any species didn't have these line of cells to counter -effect the aging process, they would immediately die out in a generation or too. Because of this I think it is safe to say that all organic beings have some means to create a similar kind of redundancy I talked about in my post to 180 Proof about information redundancy created in IT systems, however the information that is protected is DNA information instead of electronic information.

I don't know "If" knowledge of such cells and their process helps us in any way in prolonging human life, but it shows that least in lives of cells there is a way to keep a certain line of cells as more or less IMMORTAL in at least in a way that we can pass mostly unaltered DNA from one generation to another.

dclements In a word, entropy 'kills' all complex organisms eventually. And lacking a well-understood theory of the cell (and, therefore, e.g. the human body as a whole system), at best we're only taking shots in the phenomenological dark treating symptoms and not the underlying problems which result in death. That said, here's an old post where I speculate (wantonly) on the topic:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/384334 — 180 Proof

I will try to read up on this more, but I think the problem with "entropy" isn't an issue that is just something that affects organic systems but it is something that EFFECTS ALL systems, organic or not.

For example in IT there is the constant problem with even if failure rate with the electronic devices used in computer system is a lot better than it was decades ago, there is still the constant issue of what to do and how to handle such issues such as when a hard drive fails. If you have a home computer and the hard drive stops working you have either the option of replacing the hard drive or buying an entirely new computer, however there is still the issue of how to deal with the potential loss of data that was stored on it. In something like a corporate/business setting it is unacceptable for one to lose their data because of such issues so they have to do things like back up their information, use redundant hard drives (multiple hard drives that have copies of the same information if one goes down), and/or redundant computers in which if one fails another can come online which will handle the work required from the downed computer.

While it is a given that such redundancy is easier to implement through electronics then with organic systems (or at least complex organic systems such as human beings), it at least shows the potential for human beings to be able to at least partially overcome some of the problems with entropy that you talked about.

A line of research currently being looked at is HeLa Cells.

From Wiki:
HeLa is an immortal cell line used in scientific research. It is the oldest and most commonly used human cell line. The line is derived from cervical cancer cells taken on February 8, 1951,[named after Henrietta Lacks, a 31-year-old African-American mother of five, who died of cancer on October 4, 1951. The cell line was found to be remarkably durable and prolific, which allows it to be used extensively in scientific study.

The cells from Lacks's cancerous cervical tumor were taken without her knowledge or consent, which was common practice in the United States at the time. Cell biologist George Otto Gey found that they could be kept alive, and developed a cell line. Previously, cells cultured from other human cells would only survive for a few days. Cells from Lacks's tumor behaved differently.

The (horrible imo) Elon Musk is making some progress with neuralink.
CRISPR tech is very interesting.
The most interesting claim coming from the scientists involved in current transhuman technologies is that the first person to live to between 135 and 175 years is alive today but many such scientific claims in the past have proved unfounded. — universeness

I have heard about both the supposedly immortal cancer cells that continually grow and are used in medical research and about CRISPR. To be honest, I don't know much about them other than that they exist and may help in solving certain health issues and/or may help provide insights into how to extend human life.

I wish technology is not able to solve the nature of passing away. Death is one of the purest conditions of humankind. If we develop worthy plans and projects is precisely for this reason because our time on the earth is limited. When a person passes away, it flourishes a different concept about him: the one you had when this person was alive and the one you have now when is dead. — javi2541997

Again like Alkis Piskas's post, this is just an appeal to authority/antiquity. While there may be issues if the human population getting too big, for the purposes of this thread I'm not bothering to address such an issue because it is an entirely different subject on it's own.

Are you asking Why life is life?
Because life includes death by definition (implicitly at least). — Alkis Piskas

And a few hundred years ago people where saying that if man was meant to fly God would have given us wings. Both that argument and yours is really just an appeal to authority - this is the way it is now and it is what we know so why bother to question such things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

While the two things in life that seem to be certain is death and taxes, in reality there is actually nothing in life that is really certain.

Most of the increase in life expectancy over centuries has to do with nutrition and sanitation. I'm sure immunization and anti-biotics have had a big role too. Insect and rodent control also. At the same time, I don't think the maximum age to which people live has changed much. The three score and 10 years specified in the Bible is still fairly accurate.

I think the technology associated with longer life is probably at a whole different level affecting different bodily systems than that required for disease control. — T Clark

This sounds more or less the old conventional way of thinking when it comes to "life extension" - proper diet, avoiding high risk activities, getting shots for the flu and other diseases, etc., etc. which may or may not extend a persons life for maybe another 10 to 20 years and has been taught for around the last 100 to 200 years about.

However this thread is meant to focus on the "non-conventional" such as perhaps cryonics, gene therapies, cloning and what not, unless there is some kind of "radical" kind of conventional therapies that has a means of extending peoples lives for 30+ years or more such as something that is talked about in I believe is called the Blue Zones which I'm not sure if it fits into either into the conventional or unconventional medicine.

So why haven't we encountered aliens already? Or have we? Here are some discussion-points which some of my students have proposed:

1. they have found us, but they have observed that the Earth resembles a primitive swamp where the inhabitants eat each other and slaughter each other, often on slight provocation. Especially strangers, or anybody who is "different". Would you jump into a swamp with alligators, while saying "take me to your leader?"

2. they have seen us, but their government has designated us a "Planetary Park", and their environmental laws forbid them from interfering in pristine, primitive environments.

3. they have passed by but they haven't stopped because by their standards of civilisation we are not sufficiently interesting (gasp! Could it be that we are NOT as fascinating and special as our religions have led us to believe?)

4. they have never found us because at any one time, on average, there are only about a thousand civilisations in the galaxy and the nearest is 3,000 light years away. We're just a needle in a haystack.

5. they have never been here because, barring the discovery of an alternative physics, the difficulties of interstellar travel are insurmountable for any being with a finite life expectancy.

5. actually, they HAVE been here; the small minority of unresolvable UAP phenomena are, in fact, genuine. — alan1000

Fermi's Paradox isn't really a "paradox" since there are many, many reasons why we haven't been contacted by E.T.s yet. The first one is that we HAVE been contacted but it simply hasn't been recorded and/or made public. While this may not sound likely it is a given that up until recently many things that have happen haven't been recorded or even if it was recorded such records have been lost. Even if aliens have visited us hundreds of years ago, such recorded would likely not have survived to the present day and/or believed by the scientific community since stories about real events were often mixed with myth up until a few hundred years ago.

The second reason is simply that if an alien race discovers us, they may have reasons that we do not know of to make their presence known to us just yet. This is a counter intuitive reasons since as human's we WANT aliens to make their existence known to us, but the problem is it isn't what we WANT BUT WHAT THEY WANT that determines what they do, unless we are somehow able to discover them against their wishes. Why they would do this could be hard to fathom, but it is plausible they would rather see what course our civilization takes us before we meet a more advanced civilization: much like an anthropologist might want to be able to study a civilization before it made contact with the rest of the civilized world. While we may think it is better that they contact us and help us with their advance technology (in order to help deal with modern crisis environmental issues, etc.), it is very likely that they would be less concern with our issues than we are. Even if we faced possible extinction of the human race, they could merely collect (or abduct) a small number of our species and bring us somewhere else "IF" they didn't want the human race to perish but also didn't want to make their presence know to the human populace at large.

The Fermi's Paradox isn't that complicated if one is able and willing to think outside of the box a little bit.

To be honest I think I got a little lost in this discussion, although this is what usually happens - it's either that or it goes dead by now.

The only thing I think I can add at the moment is say that the other day I watched a movie called "The Brainwashing of My Dad".

The Brainwashing of My Dad
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3771626/

I don't know if what it talks about in the movie directly causes wealthy people wanting to start "class warfare" on the poor but I pretty certain that it may indirectly be a reason for i since in the movie it talks about right-wing think tanks are able to help the conservative make more people think the way they do and it helps them push their agenda -which of course includes destroying/dismantling any and all social programs.

Classic.

https://archive.today/20211025032625/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/technology/amazon-employee-leave-errors.html

https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics-revealed-in-leake-1829305201

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/01/amazon-osha-injury-rate/

https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-u-k-accused-of-sweatshop-conditions/

https://www.thestar.com/business/2020/06/26/amazon-delivery-drivers-in-canada-launch-200-million-class-action-claiming-unpaid-wages.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20200824215335/https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/02/new-study-deems-amazon-worst-for-aggressive-tax-avoidance

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/9/9/20857030/amazon-employees-walkout-environmental-policies

... maybe pick another bookseller? — Isaac

I will try to look at all of these when I get a chance. If you have more links/sources I'm happy to look into them as well but I will admit it might take some time the more I have..

Anyways, again thank you for posting them. :D

How do we know that Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan trip isn't designed to make big sums of money for her and her husband? — Agent Smith

I guess we don't really know if she and her husband somehow made tons of money on the trip, but then again we really don't know if he trip was just another piece of the Saurian's plans to gain more power to help them get control over the governments around the world and eventually allow them to rule over all of us.

It should be obvious that in such a scenario the United States may not want to defend Taiwan if it means sparking WWIII, hence they pursue strategic ambiguity. — Tzeentch

If one is the biggest super power in the world and wishes to remain so, they must be willing to defend themselves (and their allies) against all potential advisories at any given time. It has nothing to do if they really want to fight or in the mood for it on any given day, it is about it being a given that at any moment if they let themselves look weak enough for a potential enemy to strike and/or take advantage of any weak link in their global defense strategy then said enemy will most likely use it.

It is plausible for a country to be able to pick and choose which enemies/conflicts they get involved with and for certain countries it is possible for them to either be (or become) one of the biggest super powers in the world, but it is more or less a given that is a country that is a super power can not be afraid to get into conflicts and remain a super power for long.

You called Taiwan a trivial issue for the Chinese, which it clearly is not.

Thereby you are making the same mistake as the West has made in Ukraine. Assuming things to be trivial, when the reality is that Russia was prepared to go to war. Taiwan is of similar importance to China. The fact that the issue has been hot for over half a century should tell you enough.

You need to read my posts more carefully. — Tzeentch

If you can find a post where I said Taiwan is a trivial issue I will believe you but since it is very unlikely that I did that (and even if I did it would have either been a typo, or just a sentence that I said something else but you are interpreting it to make it say what you want to believe it to say).

And because it is a given that I'm more of an authority of what I actually believe, think, and say, I think I can safely say I'm in a much better position than you to say what is true or not true when it comes to what I actually think. After all I have 40+ years of dealing with what/who I am where as you have maybe 10 minutes of knowing who am and what I might be thinking merely from reading a post of two I have wrote.

Because countries cannot make navies out of thin air. — Tzeentch

I don't know where you get that idea. Germany attacked Poland in 1939 by making the people in Germany think that Polish soldiers where trying to at a German radio station. The US started the second war with Iraq in 2003 under the pretense that Iraq was "working on weapons of mass destruction", and Russia started a war with Ukraine this year under the pretense that the people of Ukraine were abusing/"terrorizing" it's Russia speaking (and/or those with Russian background) citizens.

In each of these three instances the powers that be in each country manufactured "navies out of thin air" because the country they wanted to attack were not stupid enough to do something that would give them a good enough reason for them to be able to go to war with them. And because they didn't have a good reason to start a war, they merely turned to some spin doctors and/or other "creative" military operatives. In Nazi Germany they went so far as to dress political prisoners as Polish soldiers and shoot them in order to have "proof" that the Polish army did attack.

IMHO, it is actually pretty easy for the powers that be in almost any country to manufacture an incident/reason/pretense for starting a war when there isn't already a real reason to attack. All that they really need is the will to go through with it. Whether the public buys it is another story, but my guess is that if a near majority already supports going to war then it usually isn't that hard to get the public to shallow any reason/lie they try to sell to the public.

Also while it really isn't the topic of this thread, there is a propaganda methodology called the "Big lie" which is used to do things (such as fabricate reasons for going to war when there isn't any) by using various brain washing technique. Understanding such issues might help someone to have more insight into these issues and why it isn't that hard for a country to manufacture a reason to go to war when the country they want to start a war with won't give them one.

Gleiwitz incident - Germans false flag operation to invade Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

Hitler - Big lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

If you could provide some sources for the times China has warned WWIII with those countries mentioned, I would appreciate it. I do know that for them Taiwan is the "red line", and Tibet too, though this latter region is now more tightly under state control, as I understand it. — Manuel

If I had more time I would post all the links I found but unfortunately I don't. Below is a link to a discussion that was going on where China was almost doing the same thing as Russia was doing in Ukraine, but his was even before the war in Ukraine

What are odds that in the near future there will be a conflict with China?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12136/what-are-odds-that-in-the-near-future-there-will-be-a-conflict-with-china/p1

Also here are some YouTube videos on the subject:













..however to really understand this subject one needs to read up on it a little, and/or watch a lot of YouTube videos about the issue and come up with your own opinion on the matter. I'm sorry that there isn't an easier way but it is kind of a complicated subject.

One thing is what Xi wishes, another is what he is able to do. Very different things. As far as two days ago, the White House was not happy with the visit to Taiwan and even FP magazine thought it was a bad idea.

As for the actual threat here for China? You're right, there isn't a threat per se, it's not as if Pelosi can grant Taiwan nation-state status in the UN or something, it's more the symbolism that can be interpreted as China not being able to control its one red line, with its dream of unification and whatnot.

In short, this visit is pure provocation. And we still should recognize that China could not take over Taiwan in a week, regardless of anything else. It's playing with fire just to see who has a bigger d***. Not good statesmanship, imo. — Manuel

I could be wrong, but IMHO we need to so call "poke the Panda" every so often in order to remind China that they can not control people outside of China the way they can inside their own country.

Part of the reason for this is because China is going to attack regardless Taiwan (or any other country for that matter) "if" they think that such a war will benefit them. And if it doesn't benefit them then they won't. At least that is how Xi/China will more or less behave if they are acting in either a rational or at least a Machiavellian manner.

If they attack just because Pelosi visits Taiwan or other trivial matters such as what you had for breakfast this morning then they are pretty much acting in a irrational manner. I could be wrong but more or less when a leader or some other person acts in a irrational manner, often there is little you can do to really control their behavior. While China may say that if we (or some other country) don't respect "this" or "that" about their culture, history, etc. they might either start a war or do something else that we will regret, there is also a high chance even if we do what they want and try to kowtow to their wishes, they will still either start a war (or other hostile action) with said country. One only has to look at Australia (or even the US) as an a example of what happens to countries that try to be on friendly terms with them.

However since it is likely that China isn't completely irrational/crazy as they may try to pretend to be (since at least they understand that invading Taiwan at the current time would likely be very, very bad for them), one has to ask why are they behaving in such a manner. Maybe they are doing it for some internal political reasons, maybe they want to size up the US and our allies response to aggressive rhetoric, or maybe their leader is really an emotional basket case Or maybe there is even some other reason, but in reality it is hard to know for sure. All we can know is that they have gone from silently preparing to take over Taiwan and/or become the biggest superpower in Asia/Pacific area, to become much more vocal about such goals and ambitions.

I don't know if you have ever watched the series "Fear the Walking Dead", but there is a quote from a character named Victor Strand that I think kind of applies in this situation which is "The only way to survive a mad world is to embrace the madness".

When a country such as China is constantly making threats and doesn't really want to "play ball" in a way that other developed countries are expected to do then it is kind of expected (at least in Western countries like the US since WWII) to have to kind of play "hard ball" with them. This is a bit of how the US behaved toward the USSR during the Cold War. Some times we may have been a little too aggressive, It may seem irrational or counter-intuitive to do things that might piss off someone that might start World War III for a number of reasons and who often acts "irrational", but just in case they really are not irrational it kind of pays to also act irrational in that your potential advisory may not be as crazy as they try to pretend to be and it you also do enough chest-thumping, saber-rattling, gun waving, and frothing at the mouth to match some of their craziness, it might give them enough pause when they are thinking of starting a war tonot want to attack a county who's people who are either as crazy or even more crazy then they can even pretend to be.

As I said before if they are really a war mongering country filled with crazies that want to go to war, they will attack at almost the first chance they can. But if they are only a country that really, really wanting to start a war but also afraid of the consequences, it is in our best interest to do everything possible to look like we will not back down from a fight and of course part of this behavior requires that we do not kowtow to every little thing they want us to do.

To put it in perspective, if you where a school yard bully and you needed to beat up someone and take their lunch money do you think you would choose a kid that trembles and wets himself at your mere presence or would you beat up a kid that is known for having psychotic issues, tattoos and piercings all over his face and body, constantly gets into fights, and likes chew on glass bottles (in order to show how much pain tolerance he has) which of these two would you pick a fight if both of them where about the same height and weight?

They could definitely use a little more gravitas. — Tate

I agree, however on the other hand by them acting like a child and constantly throwing temper tantrums in a way it kind of helps the US/Taiwan and our allies drum up support just in case China does attack. In a way it is kind of like how Russia invading Ukraine helped resurrect NATO from the grave, but just on a smaller scale.

As far as I know, the United States pursues a strategy of 'strategic ambiguity' in regards to Taiwan, meaning that they haven't made it explicitly clear whether they will defend Taiwan or not.

Didn't Biden say recently during a press conference they were committed to defending Taiwan, only for that statement to be recalled, reasserting their position was ambiguous as per the Taiwan Relations Act?

US State Department Walks Back Unusually Strong Comments on Taiwan — Tzeentch

If you really believe that the US military might stand back while China invades Taiwan because they "recognize" the "One China policy" then I got some people you need to talk to who have some beachfront property in Arizona they wish to sell to you at a great price.

The only way the US might not interfere with China taking over Taiwan is if the people in Taiwan decided they wanted Taiwan to be part of China. And since the odds of that are about the same as about an ice cube surviving in hell, it is pretty much a given that China is going to have to use military force to take Taiwan and it is also a given that the US will step in the moment they start using military action against Taiwan.

Maybe you see some other way in which China could somehow "reunite" Taiwan with China either without using military force, or perhaps using military force without getting the US involved, but I'm can not see one here unless they use something like a mind control ray that they beam down from space in order to control the minds of people in Taiwan and get pro-China politicians in office. And then these politicians take measures to reunite Taiwan with China.

No. It's not like that. The United States has not made it clear whether it will protect Taiwan in case of a military invasion and explicitly has made no guarantees to do so. But it still might. That's the idea behind strategic ambiguity. — Tzeentch

That is almost as bad as thinking that the US wouldn't want to fight after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. If you know anything about US history, military doctrine, as well as the average mindset of the average American you would realize we are a war loving, gun-tooting, psychotic bunch of people frothing at the mouth (or at least when you compare us to the average person in the rest of the developed world) who are ready to go to war any time another country tries to step on our toes. And of course China invading the US would definitely would be an example of China stepping on our toes/challenging our position as the global super power.

Again, you're falling into the same trap the United States and Europe have fallen into with Russia. You assume that Taiwan, just like Ukraine and Crimea, has only symbolic value, and that those symbolic values only matter to crazy dictators in power.

This is plain short-sighted and wrong. The fact that both of these issues have been hot topics for decades, Taiwan for over half a century, should tell you that we're not talking about benign matters, but in fact matters that a country like China could actually go to war over.

Will they go to war now? It's not likely, I'll grant you that. According to some projections China is not expected to be ready to invade Taiwan until 2027. But projections can be wrong, and China could just be waiting for a pretense to strike. Consider also that China may have more instruments to start a conflict besides an all-out military invasion, and that retaliations against Taiwan or the United States may take a different form. — Tzeentch

Your argument is a strawman since I have said nothing to indicate that I believe that either Taiwan, Ukraine or Crimea have only symbolic value. In fact, nowhere have I even mentioned anything about Ukraine or Crimea in this thread so it is a given that you can only assume I might have such a position (just as you might assume that of anyone else on this forum) since I have said nothing on such matters.

If they really want to go to war why should they wait till 2027, why not do it now and just get it over with? I could be wrong but China is trying to bid it's time until conditions become more favorable to them, but while they are doing that both the US and Taiwan (as well as allies like Japan and Australia) take measure to better prepare just in case China ever does decide to invade Taiwan.

And while I may be wrong, but any of these "instruments" that China may have where they may be about to take over Taiwan without an all out military conflict they probably won't be enough without it being something like mind control laser I previously mentioned. While the powers that be in the US are not always the sharpest tool in the toolshed, I'm pretty sure that if there was a means to take over a country (or at least a country that doesn't want to be taken over) without an "all-out military invasion" or a means to make any country submit to your will (no matter how different your worldviews are) without having to take extraordinary measures (like say either taking over their country and/or secretly kidnapping and brain washing a large percentage of their population), it is unlikely nay of these things China does will really matter. If someone could easily control the world through the use of some kind of gadgets or toys, they would have likely have done so. Perhaps in two hundred or more years such things might be possible, but I have not heard of any technology that could make such things possible today.

Jane Mayer documents this in her book Dark Money. TLDR: in the last few decades, enormously wealthy billionaire dynasties (the Kochs, for instance) in America have financed countless political action committees, think tanks, lobbying campaigns etc in an effort to abolish government intervention in a ludicrous right-wing libertarian "free-market" capitalism that could easily be described as fascist. — _db

I added it to Amazon wish list and will but it when I get the chance. :D

As far as I know, the United States pursues a strategy of 'strategic ambiguity' in regards to Taiwan, meaning that they haven't made it explicitly clear whether they will defend Taiwan or not.

Didn't Biden say recently during a press conference they were committed to defending Taiwan, only for that statement to be recalled, reasserting their position was ambiguous as per the Taiwan Relations Act? — Tzeentch

I think the language used in describing the situation is something like that if China attacks Taiwan, then the US will help Taiwan but not if Taiwan attacks China. And since it is a given that "IF" a war starts out between the two it is going to be China attacking Taiwan then it is a given that the US will help Taiwan if there is a conflict. The "ambiguity" is that it makes it sound like there would be a situation where the US wouldn't help Taiwan, but since it is a given that if China does attack Taiwan it is in America's (and our allies) best interest to help defend Taiwan.

But they won't look very tough if the United States just goes ahead with their plan and they do not retaliate in any way. They'll look like chumps. — Tzeentch

Yes but as I have said they have made hundreds if not thousands of threats before and haven't done anything about it so they are use to making hollow threats and looking like chumps when they are unable/unwilling to follow through with them. I don't know if they think it would be worse if they didn't make threats at all instead of worrying about looking like chumps every time they they make a threat and do nothing about it, but it is just the usual pattern of sabre rattling/chest pounding Xi Jinping and his cohorts or doing on a daily basis nowadays which I guess they think makes them look "tougher" in the eyes of his people. In a way China was a little more scarier back when they quietly planned to potentially start a war and one had to worry that they might attack without warning, but with them threatening daily with attacking Taiwan, it actually helps in getting the US, Taiwan, and our allies ready if they for some reason do attack.

They're nothing but hot air, until they're not. We've seen in Ukraine what it can lead to when the biggest bully on the block - the USA - ignores warnings from other nations they are going too far. — Tzeentch

Yes, but whether Pelosi goes to Taiwan, or the Kardashian's have a new series in the Fall doesn't really matter in the big picture. You see "IF" they were ever READY to attack Taiwan up until now they would have already done it. They have already said that they want to take back Taiwan and if Taiwan is unwilling to "surrender" (in some unspecified time in the future) then it is a given that they would just go in and take Taiwan by force. Because of this Taiwan has already do something that IS enough to provoke China to attack the moment China is ready to attack, but out of the "kindness" of the Xi Jinping and his parties heart they have put off attacking Taiwan for the time being. However they have reserved the right to attack Taiwan at a moment's notice for the present and past transgressions that Taiwan has made against China.

Since China has been making threats against Taiwan since like forever (or at least since the Taiwan has come into existence), I pretty sure the US military has an eye on the situation and is not likely to be surprised if China tries to do anything that may look like a preparation of an invasion of Taiwan. As I said before when a country like China is constantly threating to start World War III for trivial reasons on a almost daily basis, it isn't to hard to convivence the powers that be in the US, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, etc., etc., etc. that some resources need to be allocated just in case of such a contingency.

I don't agree. There is no need for provocation at this level, hell, even that dimwit at the New York Times, Thomas Friedman - for once - said that this was reckless behavior.

I don't like China's government. Doesn't mean it's smart to do these types of maneuvers. Taiwan has gotten plenty of help from the US, so there is no imminent threat of a take-over made by force, without an extremely bloody conflict. But then that would bring the US in, and we're at a stalemate.

Given population projections for China, I very much doubt they are going to dominate the world. The US has by far a much stronger military force. This being scared of China makes sense, for those countries that fall within China's reach. Not the US or Europe, or Latin America, etc. — Manuel

Stop and think for a second, what real "threat" is there for China if Pelosi goes to Taiwan? The real answer is simply there isn't any, other than it shows to the people in China (and the rest of the world) that the people outside of China does not have to kowtow to Xi Jinping wishes if they do not want to.

I could be wrong but most "rational" leaders of a country know that they may be able to do as they will with those in their own country, but are unable to do so with people outside of their countries influence. And if they don't understand said difference, then they will either eventually drive themselves mad because they can't do anything about it or they will start a war to make those outside of their country become under their control so they can do something about it.

Xi Jinping is constantly getting upset about everything that goes on outside of his country that he can't do anything about. I'm pretty sure he wishes that he could send anyone and everyone who says and does things he is unhappy with into one of his concentration camps where he could have someone promptly beat them into either submission or more likely to death. However since China doesn't control all of the world yet, he is unable to do this to many of the people he is unhappy with.

I don't know what the US military's position on what Pelosi is doing, but my guess it is just one of the hundreds or if not thousands of times China has threaten either the US, Taiwan, Australia, India, New Zealand, Japan, etc., etc., etc., that if they do some trivial thing that makes Xi Jinping unhappy then China is going to start World War III over it. But of course because China really isn't prepared for the consequences of what would happen if they DO go to war, they just will beat their chest and rattle their sabers a bit more regardless of whether or not we do whatever they don't want us to do.

Any sane person looking at this situation realizes the more they continue to make hollow threats over EVERY little thing of little to no consequences it just means that they will continue to do nothing as long as they are not ready to start a war but the millisecond they think they are ready they will start one. Whether China starts a war or not has NOTHING to do with what we do, but EVERYTHING to do with the craziness that is going on in China right now. And because of this, it doesn't really help us any to try and kowtow to such threats, especially since they continue to make them on a daily basis.

While it isn't exactly the same situation, I think Winston Churchill's remark that “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth” applies a bit to this situation.

Not sure what the strategic interest in Taiwan is. Pelosi is like, "Whatcha gonna do about it?" — Tate

Exactly, if China was smart they would just keep quiet about it. The more they threaten and pound their chest without doing anything the more impotent they look to the rest of the world.

The truth is China really, really wants to start a war and invade Taiwan but they are far from being willing to take the risk/pay the price of actually starting one. They are constantly making threats and then doing nothing when another country still does something China doesn't want them to do.

When you are dealing with a dysfunctional/psychotic regime, such as the one that currently exists in China, in some ways you have to be careful but in other ways just ignore them.

If Xi Jinping wants to start a war with Taiwan and the US over a drop of the hat, then him and his government will do so regardless of what we do. Regardless of what Xi Jinping and his cohorts want we should continue business as usually since US world policy can revolve around the whims of a potentially crazy person that doesn't like the US or Taiwan.

:up:

All this could have been avoided if Pelosi hadn't planned this visit. As you mention, the relevant actors. especially China, must react somehow, otherwise they would look weak in the international stage. But what type of action they would take, is far from clear.

Very dangerous. — Manuel

It is better for the US and our allies to pay little to no attention to China's threats, so I believe it is better for Pelosi does go to Taiwan. Because China likes to think it is the biggest superpower in the world it likes to make threats over everything and anything. Once you start kowtowing to such threats you begin to embolden those running China to make even more threats and act in even a more intimidating manner.

If those in China had more common sense they would realize that constantly making threats makes them both look like little children to the rest of the world as well as someone trying to act like a bully. The problem is that those running things in China are not use to people doing things they don't like, but since they don't rule the world (at least not yet) they are going to have to put up with people outside their country doing things that don't make them happy. And if they don't like it well that is just too bad for them.

If Pelosi visits and the Chinese government doesn't back up their threats, they will look weak.

But then again, what could they do? Attack?

Regardless, this will be a big event in China-US relations.

If China is forced to back down it will damage relations and fuel animosity further, greatly increasing the likelihood of a military conflict over Taiwan in the near future. It could spark a Crimea/Ukraine-like situation where China, like Russia, is instilled with a sense of urgency to secure its outstanding claims before it's too late.

If China backs up their threats somehow, we could be looking at open war. The question is if in such a scenario Japan and South Korea would enter the war on the US-side, which would be a complete disaster and likely spark mass conflict, if not WWIII. For the US not to get involved military would be unlikely, considering their naval assets in the area, but they also never officially guaranteed Taiwan's independence (I think?), so perhaps there is a way out, though unlikely.

A very volatile situation. I don't think the United States is in a position to be waging any kind of war currently, and they are banking on the power of their deterrence to score a victory for the Biden administration - not unlike the Ukraine-situation. A dangerous gamble. — Tzeentch

If China really wants to attack, they will attack but it is pretty much a given they would be complete fools to do so. Unlike Ukraine, the US has pledged that if China invades Taiwan we will get involved and help defend them against China.

It "may" be in China's best interest right now to look tough and do a lot of sabre rattling, but it isn't in their best interest to start a war with Taiwan and the US.

Because China's threats are nothing more than a lot of hot air it is the US best interest to go about business as usual and not pay any any attention to their empty threats. If you don't stand up to bullies on the world stage then the rest of the world will look at you as if you don't have any backbone.

I don't know if it is still relevant, but the some of the issues in this thread has been discussed in a previous thread I made months ago before even the war in Ukraine started. Below is a link to that thread:

What are odds that in the near future there will be a conflict with China?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12136/what-are-odds-that-in-the-near-future-there-will-be-a-conflict-with-china/p1

Pretty sure fiat currencies are owned by the government anyway. So technically all of NOS4A2’s money is the government’s. If he doesn’t want them taking any of their money back then he should manufacture his own goods and barter them for the things he needs. — Michael

You are partly right, the money in our pockets are merely "IOUs" from the government and they are only worth something if the government and other powers that be say they are worth anything. At any time they can either print out so much currency that the money in your pocket isn't worth anything, or take the money through either taxes or other means.

Also if one is labeled a "enemy of the state" any wealth/property can be confiscated through one of several means. Most private citizens don't really own any real wealth or other resources that can not be taken away in a blink of an eye if they do something that either the government and/or some other power disapproves of. It is also a given that even "if" you are a person in good standing and have a little more wealth then others, you can be charged with fictitious crimes and/or sued into bankruptcy until you have nothing.

Any US citizen that likes to think they are an island unto themselves and could survive whatever the government or someone with power throws at them is just fooling themselves. In reality, they are on a leash just like the rest of us are, and with one little yank of the rope they would be force to come to heel just like any of the rest of us would have to.

I'm not sure but the days of making big money through exploitation are over i.e. the rich-poor gap is increasing alright but by other, more benign, more honorable, methods. What these are is currently beyond me, but the bottom line is the rich have nothing to be ashamed of, conversely the poor have nothing to complain about! :snicker: — Agent Smith

I disagree. One of the easiest (if not THE MOST EASIEST) to make money today is to find a way to exploit others. By either making others feel like they are not worth anything (or in some way a substandard citizen or human being), one is able to make them live/work in conditions that they would not be willing to deal with otherwise. And even if you can't make them believe as you want them to you can always either violence or the threat of violence in order to make them behave the way you want them to.

It has been going on since the beginning of civilization and will likely continue to go on for the foreseeable future. Western civilization has been built on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised and it will continue to be that way since it seems to be the easiest/profitable way for those in power to run things.

The idea of class war need not demonize the rich but only describe a tendency of the rich to maintain their luxuries and privileges at the expense of outsiders. Indeed, the poor are often encouraged to emulate the class consciousness of the rich. One way to clean my own room as a shrewd prole is to form free associations with other such proles and do what the rich do, team up explicitly in order to better squeeze politicians for tax money, protections, and privileges. — Pie

But what is the rich you are describing are acting like demons? Has anyone ever said we shouldn't demonize people like Hitler, the Nazis, or Putin and the Russians?

It is almost a given that whenever the poor/working class "team up" in order for them to better themselves (and have more leverage with those that they work for) those in power put them down as fast as they can. If you don't believe me read up on the West Virginia coal wars where those that owned the coal mines would employ "security forces" that would often go around killing and terrorizing any workers that dare stand up to them.

West Virginia coal wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars

"Collectivism" as if it's a bad word. Lol. — Benkei

I agree. I could be wrong but it seemed like during the Cold War, those in power in capitalist countries like the US were a little more careful in how they treated their workers perhaps out of fear that if socialist ideas spread too much in Western countries it might tip the balance of power a little more in Russia's (and it's allies) favor.

However since the end of the Cold War in certain Western countries values have changed and the powers that be that control the media likes to tell us that the only social/economic model that works is capitalism, even though there has never been (nor can there really ever be) "pure" capitalism since people in power use their resources to manipulate the system to make it do whatever they want it do at any given time.

If I have learned anything from studying philosophy and history is that when one ideology is considered the only thing that "works" (like Abrahamic religions before the modern era), people often become more simple minded and are less objective than they would be otherwise.

Here are a couple videos/links on this subject:

Mother Jones - It’s the Inequality, Stupid
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/

Class war is very real and very damaging to the world. Don’t pay attention to those who pretend it doesn’t exist — they’re unwitting puppets for pure tyranny. Always have been. — Xtrix

I agree.

Another day a government failure, another call for the government to fix it. By now we’ve relinquished so much social power, and converted what little responsibilities we used to share with one another into state responsibilities, that I fear it’s too late to do anything about it. So far gone are we that we now pretend voting for this-or-that politician or this-or-that piece of legislation is tantamount helping The Poor, even though politics and charity are wildly divergent activities.

The problem with the class war idea is that it isn’t true, and worse, pegs as good or evil one who may be the opposite—it’s unjust. Better to approach the blame game on an individual basis, to witness if one helps the poor or not, rather than making such determinations from which tax bracket or party they occupy. I wager you’d be surprised. — NOS4A2

I could be wrong but many of our current problems are not all that new. In a many ways the issue of "class warfare" has been going on since about the start of the industrial age which I think was about 1850. Because it isn't a new problem, it is plausible that measures taken in the past to help worker rights might hold some insight into what might work today in order to restore some of our rights.

It has become more apparent as the working poor have lost their economic power, and the social welfare gains of the C20th are rolled back. But don't worry, it's all going to get much worse. — unenlightened

The question I wonder about is HOW much worse it has to get before more people realize what is going on.