The Decline of America, the Rise of China
A civilization proves its fecundity by its talent to incite others to imitate it; when it no longer dazzles them, it is reduced to an epitome of vestiges and shards.- E.M. Cioran, History and Utopia
As America presses forward on the unilateral 'America First' policy, all while Donald Trump repeatedly criticizes and trolls long-term allies on twitter, it is quite possible, if not outright probable, that Xi Jinping's China will soon surpass America as the leading state on the world's stage. Taking immediate advantage of America's currently feeble leadership, General Secretary and President Xi Jinping recently positioned China as a leading advocate for global issues ranging from from curbing climate change to promoting free economic trade. As Trump leads America away from global economic trading partnerships it once championed, China's Belt and Road Initiative, arguably one of the most expansive and expensive infrastructural and trade investment project in history, will pave the way for China's insuperable dominance in the sphere of the Euro-Asian economy. Countries will start looking to China as a viable partner instead of America.
But despite the optimistic prognostications that China's increased involvement in global affairs, the liberal economic reforms it underwent, and its growing middle class, would require China politburo to submit to political liberalism, China has instead moved towards authoritarianism, focusing on the self-preservation of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) above all else. China's Standing Committee has moved to dissolve the Constitutional amendment that limits the presidency to two-terms, effectively enabling Xi Jinping to remain China's paramount leader indefinitely. Arguably, this act transforms Xi Jinping into the world's most powerful leader. Since taking office in 2012, Xi Jinping has quelled party corruption, jailed journalists, dissidents and detractors, and potential rivals. He has inserted his political philosophy, or Xi Jinping Thought, into the party's constitution, and he has increased surveillance and censorship.
Contemporaneous with the rise of Chinese authoritarianism is the general global decline of liberal democracy. As political scientist Larry Diamond argues, democracy has undergone a wave of recession in the last decade or so. Younger generations across America and Europe are more skeptical about the merits of democracy than older generations. Trust in public institutions have fallen to new lows. Given this backdrop, what will unfold within the next decade or two? It seems likely that an ideological battle will take place on the world’s stage, pitting a “retreating” liberal democracy against China’s growing one-party autocracy, the latter of which will make increased gains in influencing and exporting its political model on developing countries, or to be copied by political parties within developed countries. Will the concentration of global influence move from West to East?
Comments (77)
Here in Australia, there is a case where publication of a book by a prominent leftist intellectual on the covert influence of the CCP on Australian politics and intellectual life was cancelled, due to the publishers fearing economic and political consequences. Meanwhile, Apple has just announced that they will abide by China's laws concerning data storage, which enable the Chinese authorities to access any data stored by any party, anywhere in China. They're just two anecdotes that come to mind, but there are bound to be countless others. Here in Australia, there are influential public figures that are now part of various China 'friendship groups', that relentlessly undermine any attempt to draw attention to the CCP's anti-democratic agenda. And of course to say anything about it, is to be immediately depicted as being racist or trying to bring back the White Australia policy.
It's pretty scary, and also depressing.
Quoting Wayfarer
China is leveraging the fact that they are a growing economy, whose growing middle class indicates that it is moving towards a consumption-based economy, rather than merely a producing one, in order to strong-arm, threaten, or punish private businesses. For example, Marriott hotel, an American headquartered, multinational company, fired an employee for "liking" a tweet from a pro-Tibet twitter account. Delta airlines also apologized for listing Tibet and Taiwan as an independent countries. As multinational companies continue to enter the Chinese market, how far will they go to tip-toe the line, and appeal to China, in order to avoid getting expelled from the market?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2014/05/29/book-review-will-china-dominate-the-21st-century-by-jonathan-fenby/
https://vimeo.com/158554979
I'm not sure you've got the psychology of it quite right. The point made to me when I was meeting some of Taiwan's top China watchers - who really need to know - is that China's leaders have a greater historic fear of the potential for internal rebellion. If the people rise up, that's quite a lot of people.
So the US was founded on one kind of mythology - the endless frontier. China is instead a belief in an insular empire that had a bad century or two and now is getting back to how things should rightfully be.
Against these two identity myths, you have the realities of runaway consumerist economics and the environmental limits to that lifestyle model.
Any ideology is running smack into that as its actual challenge. And the problem is the degree to which either country can look past its past and the sense of self that has developed through that.
You mention Belt and Road. It might be interesting to check out the recent doco on Jeremy Rifkin - The Third Industrial Revolution - on that. He claims to be the inspiration for both EU and China's strategic directions on a transition to a post-carbon economy.
The US - being the big winner of the second industrial revolution - is mired in its Trumpian agenda of "making America great again". Which simply means cranking up the fossil fuel monster that is already dying on its feet. Meanwhile Google, Facebook and the rest are allowed to run riot, untaxed and unregulated in Wild West fashion.
So yes. Ideologies count. The powers are mired in their pasts. But those are colliding with realities. In the end, there is only the one planet to go around. And the second industrial era model is as good as dead. Trumpish politics can only be a blip - although potentially a lethal one.
The EU and China certainly seem to understand each other at the level of sustainable economic models. And China's historic inward-focus likely frames the talk of dominance or world hegemony rather differently. It always knew it was the Empire surrounded by a rabble. Would it matter if it China-rised the US or the EU culturally? That is likely less of an issue with the Communists having so effectively erased so much of that past anyway.
Quoting Wayfarer
Why? Because the BS you were sold as a young adult (New Age, open society, bla bla) turns out to be nonsense?
I think the time has come for all of us to return to constitutional monarchies, with one life-time ruler whose powers are limited by the Constitution, but who is in charge of the country and does not have to worry about losing power as much as rulers do in democracies.
Lawrence Lek (Chinese: ???;) a multimedia artist based in London, of Malaysian Chinese descent has put together an amazing video Sinofuturism (1839 - 2046 AD) that outlines China's characteristics.
https://vimeo.com/179509486
Edward Luce has recently put forward an intriguing (but not very robust) theory that "the secret to any nation's diplomatic character is embedded in its popular imagination." If you were to ask someone from England, America, or China, "which historical events made them proudest", the answer you'd be given is aligned with their foreign strategy. For example, a Brit would likely mention standing against Nazi Germany alone in WW2, or their victory over Napoleon. "Britain's worst fears and deepest triumphs have always coincided with Europe's unification under one power". A typical American may say defeating the Axis powers in WW2, or triumphing over the Soviet Union, or the victory for British independence, or landing on the moon. "Each instance reflects America's deep-seated belief in its own freedoms - and spreading them to others." It's no wonder then, that we have Bush's Freedom Agenda, or the Vietnam War, etc. However, for China, Luce states that two prized historic events for modern China are "China's detonation of the Hydrogen bomb in 1964," and "Britain's transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997." Both examples, "show China's deep-rooted desire to be treated with respect and dignity." And I would add that they want to be treated as an autonomous sovereignty, and a warden of the East, which will not fly with America's current foreign policy.
You are saying that democracy faces two threats: one internal and one external. Western democracies won't succumb to the external threat (China's cultural influence) unless it dies first from the internal one (subversion and impotence).
So the story hinges on whether events transpire so that western democracy experiences a renaissance. It's entirely possible.
When we think of China, perhaps it's easy for us westerners to forget that it went through cultural self-evisceration in the 20th Century. As it rises to the global table, its still discovering who it is as a culture. It is a child in many ways.
"At the big annual gathering of Chinese lawmakers and political advisors that kicked off March 3, Xi said that China is offering a “new type of political party system”—a Chinese solution that contributes to the development of political parties around the world, according to state media."
It's similar with Russia. The Russian people are used to have a Fatherly figure - they don't want to have it any other way.
Minorities, which are under the influence of the West. Irrelevant. If the West wasn't a liberal democracy, and if the West didn't have global hegemony, unlikely that these people would advocate for political change. And I'm talking about just the vast majority, not the 10-20% or so that protest, etc.
I don't know how old you are, so I don't know what perspective you are judging from. Let me make a list of major events in the course of liberal democracy since the end of WWII:
I acknowledge the problems and failures related to many of these events, but no one I have seen has made a convincing case for a downward spiral.
More perspective - in the 1980s everyone was talking about the rise of Japan and the US's loss of prestige and power. What's up with that? That doesn't prove you're wrong, but it does give warning people should be careful making broad predictions based on snapshots, pessimistic interpretations of events, and too much wine.
It's stunning but unsurprising hypocrisy for him to talk of anyone becoming brutish. There aren't many people around, atheist or not, who would be able to stomach the kind of crimes he's proved himself capable of including the murdering of journalists, the carpet bombing of civilians and the defense of brutal tyrants like Assad. Surprised you'd fall for such a transparent piece of propaganda that's really aimed at the least thoughtful and intelligent sectors of the population.
Reading what you write here reminds me of someone I met when I was in school in the early 1970s. He was a very cultured and educated Spaniard. I remember visiting his room and seeing a picture of Francisco Franco in military uniform prominent on his wall. Franco was still alive at that time. He was a brutal dictator who crushed democracy during the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s and then went on to lead a murderous regime for almost 40 years until his death in 1974. My friend was from the upper levels of Spanish society who had benefited most from Franco. As with all who blithely support totalitarian regimes, he didn't have to worry about the goon squads coming at midnight.
And I have not fallen for it - I know that's what politics is about, I wouldn't expect anyone in politics to be "gentle". I separate the politics of it from the cultural critique though.
Quoting Baden
Putin is respected in Russia because he stabilised the country. After the era of Yeltsin who was too busy getting drunk and chasing girls, Putin actually put an end to the chaos, and introduced some order. Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union things were very chaotic - businessmen would get shot in the middle of street, etc. These areas were like a jungle. No doubt that Putin has set himself and his friends to set the rules of the game, and to control everything that happens - but at least there is a degree of order now.
The common people generally never had to worry about the knock at midnight. That was more for the middle to higher level people who were involved in administration, whether directly in government or otherwise as bosses and managers in factories - or were professors. Professors were also dangerous if they did not promote the party line.
This is off the point. Just tell me how more brutish I, and other atheists, are because we're not good Christians like Putin, and help educate me the Vladimir way on how I can become a better person.
:s I don't understand your point. I never said you or your atheist friends are brutish.
What part of the video were you referring us to then?
Quoting Baden
The part where he describes problems with the West ideologically:
• Abandonment of tradition
• Abandonment of the importance of our religious heritage
• Political correctness
• Trying to enforce our system of government over everyone
• Relativisation of morality
Yes, he said that makes us brutes. It's right there in the captions. And it's silly because, apart from the laughable hypocrisy, the evidence points in the opposite direction: the most religious societies today are the most brutish. Look it up. You'd do well to encourage atheism if it's the opposite you're after.
Oh, I see. People who deserved visits from the goon squads.
It is gratifying to see you putting out your beliefs so clearly. Maybe you've done this before on the forum, but it has never struck me this strongly. I spend less time on the political threads than I do on metaphysics.
Here are some quick thoughts I'm not sure about - Capitalism leads to consumerism; which leads to increases in the standard of living; which leads to greater expectations from the population; which leads to more power to the population, whether or not that means democracy, which leads to more freedom. I think capitalism will wipe authoritarianism out, perhaps to be replaced by corporatism, if that's a word. Whether or not that will be better is open to question.
Depends what you mean by that, because you can certainly be an atheist who values religious heritage, even though he does not believe in the dogmas. And I don't agree that that makes you a brute btw, as I said, I only agree with some of the things he said there.
Quoting Baden
What do you mean by brutish in this context?
Willingness to resort to physical force rather than reason to address problems.
Yeeeeees, exactly.
Quoting T Clark
Does it? I would say capitalism only leads to increased standards of living up to a point - and after that, it doesn't anymore. Today we are pretty much in a crisis globally precisely because capitalism does not work anymore.
Today, less and less people have access to private property (including owning homes) except by taking massive loans which basically enslave them for a large portion of their lives. This isn't an increased standard of living at all. In fact, if a rational person had to choose a time to be born, it would probably be around when you were born - that was indeed a golden period for mankind (comparing to other historical times) - the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, unfortunately corporatism has been growing, which isn't a good sign either.
Quoting Baden
Okay I see. Some religious countries are like that, mostly Islamic ones from what I see. The Vatican is also a country, and it is not "brutish" I don't think, for the most part.
Am I correct in assuming you will not be one of the ones who deserve to be visited? My friend from Spain certainly thought he wouldn't be.
I don't live in a country with goon squads anymore :P
Quoting T Clark
Well, your friend from Spain was a young guy. You know how young guys usually are - overconfident.
I don't know how he fared when democracy was re-established.
Plus much of Christian Africa, Buddhist Myanmar, Jewish Israel and so on... Countries infected with - if not always dominated by - religiously inspired hatred and violence.
(I'll leave it at that as we're some way off-topic.)
I was thinking more of people outside the West. China etc.
I don't think you can meaningfully compare Japan with China, given that the former makes up 1.7% of the world's population, while the latter has 18.5%. China also first surpassed Japan's GDP in 2009, and has now since more that doubled it.
Seems to me we are still in a shakeout period. A lot good has happened in the past 75 years. It takes time for the world to sort things out. The lesson of the the collapse of the Soviet Union for me is that one day it's invincible, the next day it's gone. We shall see. Well, you shall see. Unlikely I will be around long enough.
Quoting Maw
I wasn't comparing the impacts of the two economies, I was only using it as a cautionary tale against making predictions with inadequate historical perspective.
That's fine, and I don't really disagree. I just find it annoying that, just because Donald Trump was elected president people keep running around saying "the sky is falling." As I said ever since he was elected, if he doesn't blow us all up, he'll just be another bad president. We've had a bunch in my voting lifetime and only one truly outstanding one, Obama.
Why was Obama outstanding? He left the US in tatters. Even to this day, Americans are still asking - where is the American dream?
Have you ever read the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" that is where the American dream is now.
We are adapting to Trumps new route of finding the cheese, definitely a road less traveled then the one chosen by Obama.
No, never read it, though I've heard about it.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yeah, though I'm starting to doubt whether Trump will actually be able to stop the decline of the West. He is definitely patching it if you ask me - a great improvement over what Obama et al. were doing who were basically blind to the problems. But even Trump is not capable of tackling the root of the problem, which is moral in nature - something is amiss at the core of Western civilisation, with our self-understanding, with our values. People are the engine of the economy, and if people are rotten, then the economy cannot fail to reflect that. There is this lack of energy - I don't know how else to call it - in people, pretty much in the entire Western world. A great uncertainty about what should be done, a lack of confidence in the future.
At this point, many of the Eastern European countries are on the precipice of falling under Russian influence once again, which would be dreadful for anyone capable in these countries. Part of the reason why this "renessaince" of the old communist forces was possible is because capitalism only uplifted the cities and the big industrial areas, which have been sucking all the wealth. Therefore, the countrysides are all poorer than ever, and this asymmetrical development has provided the needed leverage for the "old guard" to make a comeback by banking on this growing resentment. Weak institutions have also made this comeback possible by allowing corruption & permitting legislation to be easily changed, including election rules.
In many countries, new fiscal legislation is already being passed, with increased taxes on businesses and higher wages (sometimes 50%+ in addition to special pensions) given to all state employees to fuel a "consumption-driven" economy (to be able to claim "results"), and buy votes.
I think the EU is nearing a point of crisis. At some point @unenlightened, I might need to join you and be a refugee :rofl:
I've said this when they first introduced the concept, I'll say it again : this is a dystopian environnment in which hackers are going to thrive like never before.
China votes to allow President Xi Jinping to Rule for Life.
Wave Tibet Independence flag and go to back of queue for everything :cry:
Yeah, I am aware of that already. But at the moment it's an autocratic rule, not a monarchy. Sort of that "officially" not for life, but "really" for life.
A curious thing about China is that the historic events they tend to most dwell on are not of great victories and achievements but quite the opposite: defeats and humiliations - at the hands of foreigners, of course. Ressentiment is strong in traditional ideological propaganda, and the people seem to take well to it.
(This is gotten second- and third-hand, so take this with a grain of salt.)
So who writes the Constitutions?
The Parliament could write it. But more importantly than that, is that it should be very difficult to change the Constitution once it is written.
Your outlook seems to be stuck sometime 20 years ago. I remember, it felt like a hopeful time then. The fall of the Communist empire, the end of Apartheid, old seemingly intractable conflicts, like the one in Northern Ireland, finally dissolving, peace in Cambodia, the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Israelies negotiating with Palestinians, Pinochet's regime winding down... Of course, I was young then, and fortuitously situated to experience some of those events first-hand. But even accounting for the changes that advancing years bring to one's outlook, it's hard to deny that times have changed, and we are not living in the same period any more.
So if the current parliament writes it, is that not just making rule-by-mob in perpetuity? Do you honestly trust our current parliaments to come up with a Constitution which you'd be prepared to give absolute authority to?
Equality of opportunity, for example, is very popular at the moment, it seems very likely that if current world parliaments were to write a Constitution, such a concept might well be enshrined in it, would you be happy with such a rule being immutable law?
I wanted to post a similar topic but found this one more than good enough to address these issues.
One perspective that others haven't taken into consideration is the fact that China has integrated a robust economy into its central management system. They seemed to have been able to solve the management problem (effective allocation of resources) that the Soviets faced under a central command economy. Some people call this a hybrid economy, but I digress.
What I see happening is that China is embracing technology unlike any other nation from a central command. Sure, surveillance is one of the prime motivators for doing this; but, for reasons mentioned already I can somewhat understand. I see the future of China as a technocracy subverted to the demands of the communist party.
Does anyone have legitimate fears of China becoming jingoistic? I don't really have anything empirical to support such a notion. I can't help but feel that having China as a future superpower eclipsing America as a win-win situation for the world? Does anyone think otherwise, and why?
Don't forget Muslim Africa--Boko Haram, et al...
I think you missed the context of my reply to Agu there. Africa in general is no picnic violence-wise.
Nobody is going to have a long term trouble free future; everyone is going to be contending with very large and practically intractable problems:
What are the practically intractable problems China, the USA, Europe, Africa, South American, India, et al will be confronting?
-Significant sea-level rise displacing large numbers of people and inundating installed industrial bases
-Drought
-Shortages of drinking water
-Unpredictable and unseasonably heat waves, heavy torrential rainfall
-Insect infestations--some of which will be disease vectors spreading both old and novel diseases
-Food shortages
-Energy shortages
-Raw material shortages
-Manufacturing disruptions
-Political instability
-And More!
China is actually taking steps to mitigate these issues on a national level. Just track the progress they're making on renewables. They're also the main exporter of cheap solar panels combined with heavy subsidizes that are hard to beat economically.
On the other hand we have people like Elon Musk on the Western frontier in an attempt to move to Mars and reshape the energy sector single handedly. Hats off to him.
What about all those windmills, solar panels, electric cars, etc. Look around: how many all-electric cars do you see? Check out whether coal or gas had anything to do with generating the electricity in your town. How many pounds of plastic are within 20 feet of where you are sitting right now? Are there ready replacements for that plastic that you can obtain and afford? How many trucks do you see on the freeway? How many of the trucks are running on battery power from renewable electricity? How busy is the airport near you? How brightly lit is your city at night? How much energy goes into cooling and heating your home?
A couple of billion more people in China, India, the Middle East, Africa, and South America want to join the Europeans and Americans in enjoying the good life of material pleasures--like heating, washing machines, air conditioning, gadgets galore, cars, vacations on other continents, and so on and so forth.
Let me tell you; you heard it here first. It isn't going to happen without severe changes in the ecological, economical, and social environments on top of the problems that have already been created. It isn't that I want Indians living in shit holes, or Africans starving, or anything like that. It's just that there isn't remotely enough green energy to achieve what people want. Why? Because we want materials, not just energy.
Hey, Minnesota and Texas are leading states at achieving significant power from renewable sources like wind. So are some other states. Does that mean that our cars are running on wind power? No. Does that mean there are no coal plants in Minnesota or Texas? No. Does that mean Texas and Minnesota know what to do with the nuclear waste from their nuclear power plants? No. Are Texans and Minnesotans living "green lives"? No.
All of those changes won't happen overnight. There will be time to adapt. It's not as doom and gloomy as you say it is. The changes will be slow and gradual. So, why get so emotional over it anyway, BitterCrank? Even I won't see the sum total of net negatives from this situation. I'm not trying to be cynical here; but, as much as it sucks saying this given the shitty situation us new guys and gals are inheriting from your generation, it's not your problem.
As Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead."
I'm pessimistic (about climate change, global warming, rising ocean levels, petroleum depletion, CO2 reduction, etc.) because it is too late by about 40 years to make the critical changes needed, and too much time (50 years, roughly) are required to find, perfect, and implement large technological changes. In other words, the horses are out of the barn and gone.
Here's a symbolic example: President Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House in 1976. in 1980 President Reagan had them removed -- not because they were ruining the roof, but because he rejected the whole ecological movement. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, accomplished nothing, and Obama didn't accomplish significant significant reductions, either -- though he at least signed the Paris climate change agreement, which Trump then rejected.
The 1970 decade was the last time we could have begun earnestly responding to climate change, but we didn't. Four more decades (1980 - present) pushed CO2 levels, global heating, and all that close to the top. It is now running over the top. Can nothing be done now? Well sure, if there were a world-wide-war-time-like commitment to radically changing our economies to ecological sustainability -- and then letting the economic dominoes fall as they will, yes. We might be able to turn the situation around.
Do you see anything remotely like that happening? No even middle-sized country, governmental unit, or economic region has gotten past gradualism.
IF China, the US, Europe, India, et al ALL committed to radical CO2 reduction today, it would still take at least 50 years to bring about the process. That puts us close to the end of the 21st century -- and into the major consequences of climate change -- too late.
Carbon sequestration? Gigantic solar farms and windmills everywhere? Everybody on mass transit? Abandoning the private automobile, freeways, air travel and airports? Cease petroleum pumping, plastic production, and use? Abandon consumerism everywhere? Empty the suburbs? Gut the world economy?
One might as well plan on the second coming of Christ to happen this afternoon.
IF the West is declining (and we would want to define the ways in which it may or may not be declining) it isn't something that one president, be he Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, a Bush, W. J. Clinton, Obama, or Trump can stop. Declining or advancing civilizations are a global, macro, long range process.
It would be surprising if China was unable to mount a significant advance towards the dominant position in the world economy. A billion plus people, a well organized-even-if-dictatorial government, educational and industrial infrastructure, the desire to play a dominant role, etc. Whether it will succeed depends on many factors. It won't take a long time to get the answer.
I'm not at all sure whether any country can sustainably dominate the world economy at this point. We are past peak oil and even though the post peak period will be about as long as the pre-peak period (in other words, about a century) declining oil production is going to limit economic growth. Petroleum is just such a critical resource.
I've explained elsewhere in this thread (above this post) why there are limits on growth, regardless of policy.
But... Hundreds of millions of Westerners have not lost their basic beliefs in western values. Certainly some have, and they tend to be the chattering class, the vocal ditherati, nattering on about the bogus patriarchy, pronouns, and all that epiphenomenal stuff.
I'm not sure about that. We have projections of climate change being manageable up to a certain degree, and we haven't reached that point yet.
It's never too late to take action on climate change. Besides the green economy is booming, and will continue to boom as long as there's some desire or need to address these issues. Most people like 'green' and I don't see how the economics of the 'green economy' can be denied.
I don't see how pessimism has any utility or function here. It's a bad concept to introduce to the discussion and only stifles improvement.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm well aware of peanut farmer, nuclear submarine officer Carter, who's attempts to address climate change, have been vilified and shitted on by the right to no end. He was a great president, in many regards. But, it's important to note that the left is also to blame for the current circumstances. Nuclear is not all evil. It's one of the few energy sources that is not classified as a renewable; but, has enormous potential to solve these problems had it not been vilified and regulated by the left out of existence.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That's not true. We haven't yet reached a tipping point as far as I'm aware.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm not sure if that's the right way to view the issue. Economic forces are making solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources as more viable and cost effective than the current fossil fuel lineup. So, yeah, it's the economy "stupid".
Quoting Bitter Crank
False dilemma.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Non sequitur.
Just put them in the sunshine. The sun works miracles on green bananas.
The "tipping point" won't be like hitting a wall. It will pass pass like the very tip of peak oil -- it will be a non-event. Only in retrospect can we know when the tipping point happened.
So as not to immerse you in hopeless dread (didn't somebody start a thread about that), it is possible that climate change, global warming, our demise, may occur at a slower rate than we anticipated. In which case, if we were, are, and will be working diligently on CO2, methane, and other gas reductions (absolutely, not just relatively) we might make it. On the other hand, not to give you too much of a warm fuzzy, it's possible that climate change will proceed at a much faster rate than we anticipated. In which case, we are screwed.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Nein, mein Herr. It's not a false dilemma. The real dilemma is how to bring those things about quickly -- like yesterday.
Quoting Posty McPostface
True, but so does ethylene gas or calcium carbide. Let's all use more unnatural methods of doing things.
Yes, they are not "actually" democracies because it belongs to the essence of democracy to be unstable and to, over time, decline into tyranny. Although this is the same trope the communists played, saying that the USSR wasn't "actually" communism.
This is becoming more debatable as China's GDP rate has been slowly decreasing year over year, ever since 2010. There has been talk of how viable China's growth will be in the long term. Xi Jingping has placed himself in a precarious position by abolishing term limits, centralizing power around him, thereby placing the promise of continued growth squarely on his shoulders, so it will be interesting to see how he further steers the economic ship, and how strong an effect the Road and Belt initiative will have on China's economic growth.
The "robustness" of democracies exist on a spectrum. The United States today, while an imperfect democracy in myriad ways, is nevertheless stronger than the United States in the 1880s. Political scientists have shown, through a wide-set of criteria, there is a "disturbing retreat" of the "robustness" of democracies around the world. While not necessarily a "collapse", it is worrisome all the same.
A Republic is when public officials are democratically elected to represent their constituents. It is a representative democracy; a type of democracy.