One of the beautiful features of our system is that if the Republicans cater to the extreme religious right, they will lose the center; at the moment, the Democrats are continuing to appeal to the extreme secular, anti-religious left and, in case no one has been paying attention, they are losing "market share" where it counts, at the polls. Our system is not perfect, but it has the ability to self-correct, which is always forgotten by demagogues. As a relatively secular American Jew who thinks we have strayed too far from our Judeo-Christian roots to the detriment of our culture, I find nothing wrong with my Christian neighbors asserting their interests and I will support them unless and until they go too far. I do not think we are heading for a fascist Theocracy; as long as we vote, this is not a possible outcome and those who make the charge are disqualifying themselves from the discussion.

Id like to make a statement im fairly confident the bulk of the country agrees with:
This country is not on the cusp of a theocracy, nor are Christians persecuted at any level worthy of taking up the cloak of victimhood.

Both sides need to realize that feeding red meat to their bases by indulging in their respective 'rape fantasies' of the coming Krystalnatch, either fundamentalist or atheist in origin, does nothing but ostracize the middle both need. The left needs to face up to the fact that they are largely out of step with more than half the country simply by not being familiar with religion at all, and the right needs to recognize that as George Will noted, what they are encountering is ultimately no more than 'petty indignaties' inherint in being on top. Im guessing most Americans think that when it comes to faith, there should be less talk and more action.

Hitchens: Thus far, the clericalist bigots have been probing and finding only mush.

If Hitchens understood religion in America, he would know that there is no clericalism in America, only religion. There was once clericalism in Mexico, and there was once thorough-going clericalism in Britain - though nobody thought to call Britain a theocracy.

No church in America ever has - or ever could - attain the powers that the C of E once had. That was one of the things that early Brit leftists like Byron admired so much about America: Low taxes, small government, and no tithes.

Religion in America has always been a community affair, mostly under the control of individual congregations. Organization above this level has never occurred because it is impossible: Methodists would never agree to a "theocracy" that included Presbyterians. Wisconsin Synod Lutherans would never consent to be governed by Missouri Synod Lutherans. The Seventh Day Adventists don't like taking orders from anybody, and so on.

If you don't understand how impossible such notions are, you're probably an Oliver Stone fan and living with a lot of unnecessary angst.

Mark,

"Less talk and more action." I suspect you're right.

Will discuss this more in some coming posts on faith-based assistance (a bigger deal, both politically and long-term structurally, than most people fully understand).

But talk isn't always a bad thing, either. Not when facing a very "in your face" culture and trying to set some limits back on it. Not when confronting a growing tide of relativism that has implications far beyond religion. There's a battle of ideals going on here, and that needs preaching as well as action. Disapproval is a potent weapon, and a legitimate one. Especially in cases where laws woukd be overkill.

IMO, ChicagoBoyz is right about where that battle's center lies:

"...if there was one core insight, it was this: Human beings, or governments, are not black boxes engaged in a competition of interests. What matters most is the character of the individual, the character of the community and the character of government. When designing policies, it's most important to get them to complement, not undermine, people's permanent moral aspirations - the longing for freedom, faith and family happiness."

The Democrats, as "The European Party" (including religion-hostile secularism), can't win in that arena. This will continue to cede the field to the GOP - but it won't result is a real GOP win unless and until this center is occupied without major overreach.

Will it? Can they? Since the Dems are way out of this game, that will depend on the internal balancing forces within the GOP itself.

Shrinkwrapped is right-- our constitution and bill of rights represent an error correcting code. I doubt very much that we are on the cusp of a theocracy, altho i willingly satirized it. ;)
Message from the Multiverse
Return of the Shortlifes

But i am still waiting for the correction of the "bioethics" council. i think we will see some correction for that, and for the supremely silly posturing attendant to the weekend passage of "Terri's Law" in the 2008 elections.

I still say that 90% of this is about social issues, which is what most of the controversy that leads to the theocracy or persecution canards is about. While Democratic activists may have a selective (under a Republican president) understanding of secularism akin to the French laicism, the majority of the reasons they tend to invoke some of the extreme rhetoric on the religion issue is because they see many devout Christians as being their enemies politically.

Much the same goes as far as conservative Christians are concerned, leading to statements like Pat Robertson's abysmally stupid comments on ABC.

The problem is that both sides have defined victory on social issues as being a zero-sum game, which is the main reason why there's all the extremism on these issues.

Leveling the anti-faith charge against Democrats is, at heart, simply an exercise in the crudest form of identity politics--the idea that questioning a person's views is tantamount to discriminating against that person's identity group. It's the exact same kind of argument conservatives rightly rejected when African American liberals embraced it in the 1980s and 1990s. It is no more compelling now that the right is embracing it today.

Lewy,

It is a bit thin for Christians to be playing a victim card re: the filibuster. A simple call to rally around their interests ought to do just fine.

Nevertheless, there is a widespread feeling among many believers that widespread elements of the Democratic Party have gone beyond "spearation of church & state" to a form of anti-religious bigotry that also seeks to drive religion from the public square. The tone and venom of commentary from the party's activist base re: Pope Benedict 16th being a fine example, as Dan Darling noted.

The religious right wasn't leading the charge against race-based political correctness and the victim card back in the 80s, and it isn't doing so now. They watched the victim card tactic and it appears to work - and given that many of them do feel that they're the target of real animosity, it's not surprising to see them picking it up. Plus, some of the groups involved here don't have a right-wing history.

As this response continues, it will have the effect of deepening the fissures between those who listen to it and the Democratic Party. Especially given that real anti-religious bigotry does exist among the Dems' activist base, and any use of their platforms to deliver hostile messages will be seized upon as further proof. This feeds the cycle, and shifts more "aw c'mon..." types into "wow, maybe the Reverened had a point" types.

Not an edifying dynamic, perhaps, but these things work both ways, actions produce reactions if you push folks enough, and the judiciary is is a high stakes political fight.

My advice: expect a lot of histrionics on all sides, tune most of it out, and look for what's underneath.

And watch this cultural trend bubbling beneath the surface, it could become something big and long-term if it sets.

Joe,

I think it’s reasonable to observe that the activist base of the Democratic party is riding the tiger of anti-religious bigotry, the kind that equates faith of just about any kind with superstition. (“A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements.”) Imbued with such certainty about the universe and the debased nature of faith, they naturally want to cleanse the public sphere of such harmful ideas. I think they’re offensive and arrogant, I’m not one of them, and I agree that their attitude amounts to bigotry.

But I also believe that (some) social conservatives wish to impose creed on others, e.g. the Family Research Council’s opposition to HPV vaccination in developing countries. I’m opposed to this, too, and I wouldn’t accept the idea that my opposition makes me an “anti-religious bigotry”. (I’m certainly not saying you would, Joe, but some might). Sadly, some oppose the policies of entities like the FRC with a frothing of genuine anti-religious bigotry, when “a simple call to rally around their interests” would suffice. But if the religious social conservatives play the victim card against plain opposition, observations of the previous efficacy of said strategy are hardly exculpatory – i.e., it still sucks.

Joe, another thought, regarding “what’s underneath”. There is a dynamic underlying the view that faith amounts to primitive superstition, which I believe is driven in part by the arguably confused epistemology of some social conservatives. For a trained scientist or engineer especially, it is enough to drive one nuts. Allow frustration to boil into Wrath, add a cocktail of Hubris, Vanity and egotism, and you have the recipe for anti-religious bigotry of the modern form.

Actually relativism is a wonderful thing. It allows you to taylor the RULES to the circumstances.

If you are having trouble breathing it is best if possible to uncover your face. Unless you are 100 ft. below the surface and dependent on scuba gear.

Rules of behavior and religions suitable for survival and prosperity in a desert culture are not so workable in cities.

Intrest on loans is not required in agricultural societies because payment can be in kind. Longer distance ventures than agriculture require interest because it is no longer as useful to pay in kind.

So the relationships allowed are relative to the conditions.

Our #1 problem is that we have no systems theory for deciding the rules that is widely accepted. Instead what we have in America is 50 million experiments.

Now if we only had a reliable way of measuring results (and for deciding what outcomes are desirable).

Which leads me to mostly leave other people alone and let them muddle through. Of course if I was more certain I'd be passing laws, killing judges (well at least day dreaming about it), and telling everyone what to do.

Lewy writes:

There is a dynamic underlying the view that faith amounts to primitive superstition, which I believe is driven in part by the arguably confused epistemology of some social conservatives. For a trained scientist or engineer especially, it is enough to drive one nuts.

There is a deep irony here, in that what I call "scientismists" operate on primitive superstition or other flawed logic (appeal to authority being paramount), while mouthing off about science without actually having a referent for the term.

And there are also, as has been mentioned more than once on WoC, scientists who are convinced that the ends justify the means when they believe public-opinion-and-thus-the-future-of-mankind, is at stake. Heirs to Plato, they'll act as a cadre of philosopher kings crafting virtuous lies for the hoi polloi. Nuclear Winter being a prime example, the Club of Rome model being another.

A sad state. Let's keep correcting errors when we can, including our own. What more is there to be done?

Perhaps: not losing faith.

What to have faith in? Ah, now there's a worthy question to live in. W. W. Bartley's The Retreat to Commitment is a mostly unheralded, but worthwhile, look at this question.

From http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/51.html :

Bartley writes: "This book explores the nature and limits of criticism. Thereby it explores the nature and limits of rationality. It contains a generalization of Sir Karl Popper's approach to philosophy. By applying this generalization, it is able to solve a philosophical problem that has, since antiquity, been thought to be insoluble -- that of the examination and justification of basic presuppositions. As an immediate result, the traditional arguments for both skepicism and fideism, and for most forms of relativism, are vanquished."

But only if your worldview permits it. :/ :)

PS: I should disclose that I am a recovering scientismist and certified bullshit artist. But I'm letting my certificate expire and I hope never to renew it.

#7,

Frist has to play the victim card to distract from the fact that despite a 55 to 45 majority he does not have enough Republican votes.

He is giong to jump up and down hollering about Democrats while keeping quiet the Republican defections.

The Bolton vote was a shot across the bow.

But only if your worldview permits it. :/ :)

Nortimus, my worldview is definitely Platonic, (ie bird view, as opposed to aristotelian, frog view), and my focus is way narrower than youse guys-- just when does the religious right begin seriously impacting our ability to be competitive in bioengineering and transhuman therapies? Are we really ready to take a second class status to China in research and development of "anti-religious" technologies?
I mean, idealogically, China is poised to eat our lunch in biotech.

Jinn, and you should see all the usefull "research" of those NAZI doctors.

So they mangle tortured a few Jews eh ? whats the big deal, look at all the good science we got. And can get, if we can just bypass that silly moral problem eh ?

if we can just bypass that silly moral problem

Raymond, i would like to deal with the "silly moral problem" actually-- but first it has to be defined. Could you define the problem for me please?

Your argument is completely orthogonal to what i said.
The nazis delivered no worthwile scientific results in any field related to human biology or medicine. zero, zip, nada. They were racists, not geneticists or biologists. Their approach was deformed to pseudo-science by their predjudice.

Jinn, I don't know. And I think some people ought to ask what you're asking, and push back. "Go'head'on!" Please don't take anything that follows as "fightin' words", but check out another perspective, if you please.

I have some transhuman sympathies; one big challenge is going to be what Eric Drexler wisely called "a future that is workable and appeaing." Those two words must be taken in a cultural, and not merely an absolutist-individualist, context if one wants to defuse the villagers with torches and pitchforks. Marc Stiegler called it "The Gentle Seduction" in a work of the same name.

In Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley's original, Frankenstein's monster was a pretty nice and erudite fellow. Didn't cut any ice... so to speak.

I say: complaining about delays in progress down (a perceived) road to hell is not going to play as well as "think of all the lives we could save/improve" or "think how much more you could live your testament to God's grace if you could live to be as old as Methuselah" will. But one'll be caught as a fake if one mouths the words.

Here's some more info on Bartley's pancritical rationalism: it appears to have sprung out of a work he wrote in the 1950s called, I think, "I Call Myself a Christian".

The subtext being that God doesn't have to be dead, and neither does your critical faculty.

There are a lot of people fighting trench warfare on that axis who haven't spared the time to examine what Bartley carefully proposes as an end-run around fundamentalism of all stripes, including (as I would) religious, "skeptical"-as-distinct-from-zetetic, materialistic, hedonistic, and nihilistic.

Popper, Kuhn, Bartley. Who's next in the synthesis? Beats me.

Nortius Maximus: a generalization of Sir Karl Popper's approach to philosophy ...

An old teacher of mine knew the great Karl Popper back in the 1980s, and he gave me this quote from him: "I am a realist because I know that I'm going to die soon. I am a metaphysical realist because Death is untestable."

I always thought Popper was a bit off there, because you can always test Death - you just can't publish your results afterwards. Unless they have journals over on the other side - and who knows, they might.

So I guess you can test Death, and maybe even write a paper about it, but you can't repeat your experiment.

Ah, but Nortimus, if the reason that Amerikka is able to force the Bush Doctrine down the world's throat is basically our standard of living, and you accept (as i do) that China will not be quite as interested in the greater good as the naive and generous US, what happens when the Chinese GDP equals and eventually surpasses the US one? When we are no longer the superpower, but perhaps a lesser power?
Biotech is going going to be the next cash cow, for whatever country can support it.

And, did you ever see The Bride? The Monster gets the girl, in the pulchitrudinous form of Jennifer Beales. ;)

M. Simon: Frist has to play the victim card to distract from the fact that despite a 55 to 45 majority he does not have enough Republican votes.

what are you talking about?

Frist needs 61 votes to break a filibuster, no? So if a judge is filibustered, he can hold the R's together perfectly and still not get a floor vote.

Breaking the filibuster of judges was the subject of the "Justice Sunday" event, was it not?

Frist's problem is that his Shiavo bill didn't produce the stated result, meaning that either:

a) He is a lier. The bill was merely a ruse of support.

b) He is incompetent. He did not know how to draft a bill to reach the desired result.

c) He is easily fooled. He should not have conceded to Levin's demands on the language of the bill.

d) He is perfect. The judiciary is to blame.

If Frist lets up on the judiciary for one moment, people might begin to think he's a well-intentioned, but mediocore politician.

The problem is that when these biological and technological transhuman "improvement" techniques become generally available, human evolution could become captured by the same dynamic that gives us breast enhancements now.

I have nothing against breast enhancements in general, but the entire fadishness and fetishness of it, and other surgical inhancements for that matter, reveals much about the lack of seriousness and maturity of our popular culture. It's not about being smarter or stronger. It's ALL about demonstrating sexual vigor as potential mating partners.

I reckon from a natural selection point of view, it's not surprising that sexual displays are among the first things to make use of new technologies.

Will genetic engineering just take this to the next level and ultimately lead to similarly wide proliferation of other such sexual displays? If past is indeed prologue, then it's obvious that this will be so. What will our peacock feathers ultimately be?

Re: my remarks in #8... Joe Gandelman adds a lot of substance to them, along with a discussion that looks at both sides of the issue re: demonization of the religious:

Are Christian Evangelicals Being Stereotyped And Slandered In The News Media (And On Blogs)?

Since the arguments here are based on religion versus science versus morality versus etc... With the common theme being religion as the focal point for dissention. Here's an essay by Eric Pettifor that some might find interesting.

The True Religion

Jinn and with a hand wave it goes away ?

The german doctors was primer on planet earth.

Germany broadcast the 38 olympics on color TV, it would be another decade before Americans would start buying black and white ones in any number.

Was there quackery too ? sure, Hitlers own doctor even, but since when has it been new that leftists embraced new age quackery ?

You should look again how much of our medicine is based on the nazi doctors.

Without the Germans both we and the russians would have had no space program.

Germany had become the most technically advanced society on the planet, with a familiar decent into debauchery, the national socialist and the communists that vied for power was the product of their universities.

The hand wave dont work Jinn.

Lurker

Well a free person has the right to do, whatever he wants to do. if he wants 6 arms and legs and a thing the size of a horse, and he is happy I could care less. extra and enhanced parts and chips in their brains, I dont care, is a man not the property of himself ?

I just dont see what the problem is, as long as your not chopping up babies to do it.

That baby also owns a property in herself, her parts belong to her, her life belongs to her.

Its simple stuff really.

lurker, sure, there will be some of that-- look at viagra! How much would you pay for a neural-hormonal love potion? I mean, sex is the most basic and powerful motivator.
But memory enhancement drugs, gerontology drugs, minor elective surgery for enhanced sports ability, gene therapy for Alzheimers (check this! one out of ten americans over 65 has some degree of Alzheimers)-- those are the research front runners. And the incipient cash cows. Because the moral stance of the religious right on using ESC therapies will be right out the window when it's them or theirs needing therapy! ;)

raymond....i said medicine and human biology. there is no relationship between chopping people up and rocket science or optics or physics at all.

C'mon, pose the moral problem, raymond.

Jinn
The best use I see for it is to field a military of exceptional strength. Be careful what you wish for. As much good as you see in the technology one should turn it over to see what the bottom looks like as well.

Am I happy with seeing Viagra / Enzyte commercials at all hours of the day? I'm not happy Viagra sponsors NASCAR and I'm a huge fan. Am I happy with feminine hygiene products pushed in my face at all hours of the day? Here lets plug the hole in the boat. It goes on and on. These are the ploys that are used to keep the public at bay while the real motive goes on behind the curtains.

USMC--
to field a military of exceptional strength

won't happen-- full-body mecha and waldos is way cheaper and far more efficient--
now genetically enhanced cyborg assassins....that might be cost viable! ;)

as for the other, sex sells. Viva la capitalisme!

Are we really ready to take a second class status to China in research and development of "anti-religious" technologies? I mean, idealogically, China is poised to eat our lunch in biotech.

You have a different way to interpet that ?

"anti-religious" technologies?

Are pretending you didnt say that ?

There isnt a lot of room to misunderstand that.

Your sudden faux obtuse is amusing, but I expected better.

jinn
While I agree that may be true cyborg assassins none the less were dispatched in T1 - T3. It is the knowledge coupled with strength of humans that wield the power.

Even those working on the Manhattan Project knew exactly what they were doing. They were not led down a primrose path concerning the fruits of their labor. The scientific and biological industries today tend to over look that fact in my opinion.

As for sex sells. Certainly it does and just like everything else there is a time and a place for it.

raymond, perhaps i should have said, anti-Culture of Life technologies-- is that better?

dayum, now I have to post a definition--

Culture of Life-- life uber alles -- the belief that life is sacred, no matter the quality, legality, or morality of the issue. For example, the RCC subscribes to the Culture of Life in their continued anti-contraception policies.

perhaps i should have said, anti-Culture of Life technologies-- is that better?

Not better or worse, means the same thing, and confirms the way I interpeteted it ( as if there was any room.)

the belief that life is sacred

And involves rights that are immutable. but the full expression is "Innocent life is sacred"

Thats what seperates us from the pile of 174 Million skulls, created by those that did not hold to that principle.

For example, the RCC subscribes to the Culture of Life in their continued anti-contraception policies.

before the two sexes are mixed, they are not alive, they are a part of the host, not a new life. lots of the Catholic doctrine does not make sense, some, like chaste unmarried priests, has no basis any any law rule or suggestion handed to them from the creator or their prophets.

But i think you toss that in there to soften the image of the far harsher and stark utilitarian CommuNAZI view of life you are advocating.

You read like a student of Peter Singer, or nazi medical authority Aurthur Guett.

China also does medical experiments on their people, and has the organ harvest team standing behind the deliverer of the bullet,, unless they want the head intact, and they use other methods, the cost which is billed back to the familly

They do a brisk transplant business, gee we are falling behind there too I suppose.

Such makes those that actually have an intact sense of right and wrong shudder.

Sorry Jinn, to see you in my face, utterly morally obtuse.

You want to know how Hitler got 80% of that third vote ? Jinn, you could serve as exhibit one.

Great, raymond-- why not just call me a hitler?
i personally don't believe a 16-cell cleavage stage or a nerula is human being, but i believe you are entitled to your beliefs. Does my belief turn me into hitler?
i also do not endorse communism, nazism, or any sort of totalitarian government. I do not think the Chinese are paragons of virtue, just that they may be a tad more practical in allowing the use of discarded embryos (yes, raymond, choice is legal there also) for new ESC lines.

LOL, lurker, here's your steel cage deathmatch-- Raymond with the sword of G-d, vs. Jinn with the sword of Science!

Yeah, I've waiting for a cage match. But Raymond vs. Jinn would be kind of boring. He'd stay over under the light trying to fight his own shadow. The light's better ya know. Raymond vs. p.lukasiac (sp?) would have been much better. At least each of them matches the expected respective shadow.

Now, if we're going to have a female cage match.... nah, there hasn't been enough asshole tangling for that. The women folk visiting here are just to dang classy!

#23 lurker: I absolutely share a concern about fads and the "bowerbird effect"(*) leading to problems for the resiliency of the human race. It's very hard to evaluate.

Some subpopulations will of course "go Amish" on some of this, but what will the self-selection do to limit the gene pool of "naturals"?

Heinlein made mention of "control naturals" in Beyond This Horizon, a short novel where enhanced humanity tried to hedge against "improving the race" badly. Something like that could be prudent.

But how do you get enough of the right people to remain dull-normal and "breed true"? Assert that for the good of the human race you'll "draft" every nth person and forbid them and their progeny any enhancement? Oh yeah? You and what army? Absent some incorruptible central forcing authority, what incentives will suffice--stipends? sinecures? How do you handle cheating? Can one apply market mechanisms to something as weird-feeling as this?

Wicked problem, with perhaps no righteous solution.

There's an odd partial parallel here to the "theocracy unlikely" conversation elsewhere in Winds. Is it likely that most of the human race will all adopt a fad genome that results in tragedy? How about having it forced on them by stealth, say with a retrovirus? How distinct are these cases?

Too soon to tell, but high time to ponder. Neal Stephenson's Neo-Victorians had their good points.

• "Bowerbird Effect": researchers used superglue to create tail feather extensions for male bowerbirds. In extreme cases that made it hard for the males to fly. But--the most extremely endowed males got all the females thanks to this exaggerated secondary sexual characteristic, though it made the males less effective at being birds. Perhaps the analogy here is steroid use in males, rather than breast augmentation in females. But the point is made, I think. As far as we know, neither implants or 'roid use get passed on to the next generation. The problem of the Brad or Jen package having a fatal flaw that decimates humanity is worth pondering.

But Nortimus-- won't the Drummers eventually overcome the Vickys? Isn't that what the Seed was all about?
Everything evolves.

Most likely we'll keep gametes in deep cryo to hedge against such a disaster-- unless the Culture of Life objects to all that unrealized human potential, umm, or unrealized potential humans. ;)

Jinn, you are what you do.

Untill you understand the very essence that seperates you from evil, what the difference is between those that find the mountain of skulls offensive, and those that created it .......

You think Germans had some Jew Burner Gene ?

You think all those that found life so cheap have some other quality besides the moral boundary ?

Those that pull up the moral anchors and drift with the current, soon finds the current flowing in the same direction as all those peoples that pulled up theirs.

Yes there is a difference between people like me, and you. it nothers me not that i find offensive what you view as means to an end.

Humanity has seen your kind before. the leftist utilitarian "ethic" responsible for the greatest of mans unhumanity to man stares in your face, large and ugly.

Some know it for what it is, others embrace it.

You want to do something evil and ugly, you want license, without wearing the stain of its moral judgement. you will be no more successfull than all those that came before you.

B-b-b-b-b-but raymond! I'm a registered republican!

So is Lugar, pushing his one world government LOST treaty.

Too bad we cant trade Lugar for Zell Miller.

It is not possible to establish my position any more clearly, and i take some delight that few have a catagory or label that fits.

You can learn how the universe functions by making electrons your playthings, the power company had to hang a 15kw larger pot on the pole due to my hobbies, i know what it is to cleave an embryo and to stuff the uterus back insode a prolapsed cow.

You deal with no ignorant.

I would only ask that you look at what i am saying, how to explain those that can walk past a mass grave of kids with hardly a shrug ?

I telling you principle is everything, there is a line that is here and no futher, and it is not based on perspective opinion feelings or varibles.

And you cannot let go of it, without losing everything.

Humanity seperates itself with peoples that havem and peoples that have not. those that have, never avoided where that goes.

Its a binary state change, it is not relative, it is not shades of grey. it is the terminator between light and darkness.

You can learn a lot about how to stay out of the dark, by the study of those that have fallen into the abys.

I know I cant change any minds, I once thought like you did, and I had to discover what evil was for myself. if by chance you come by the same discovery, perhaps you might remember more fondly what I said.

And it is a discovery, not an invention, an objective truth that exists on it own. as real as the earth under your feet. some are blind, some can see. perhaps some day, your eyes will open.

But Nortimus-- won't the Drummers eventually overcome the Vickys? Isn't that what the Seed was all about?

"Nortimus"? {chuckle} Is that supposed to be like "Artemus" in Wild Wild West? It's Nor-ti-us, my dear Jinn. As mentioned in Life of Brian.

Saying the Vickies had a point doesn't mean one swallows the entire Diamond Age whole. It's only a novel.

Everything evolves.

No, everything changes. One sort of change is death. {shrug}. One (deathist) response to that is to try to create a world you'd like your descendants to live in; another (cryonicist/reincarnationist) is to try to create a world you might not mind coming back to. {reshrug}

"You want to paint a perfect picture? It's easy. Just make yourself perfect and then paint naturally." -- R. M. Pirsig

Nortius (sorry, i'll get it right now)

One (deathist) response to that is to try to create a world you'd like your descendants to live in;

But that IS the evolutionary response! To make the world better for your kin. :)

Back to substance.

Ah, but Nortimus...what happens when the Chinese GDP equals and eventually surpasses the US one? When we are no longer the superpower, but perhaps a lesser power?

Perhaps what happens is that people like you learn that "evolve" doesn't only have the meaning you wish it had. ;) Or you could claim that such an outcome is "devolution". Me, I'll call it history and still hope to create a world I wouldn't mind coming back to.

There's a joke about an American historian in China, circa 1947. He discusses various things with two Chinese historians, and one of them politely asks what his area of interest is. He says "The American Revolution..." and then, hoping to open up a rich new topic, "...and what do you folks think of the American Revolution?"

The two Chinese historians look at each other for a moment. Then the elder says, with gravitas, "Too soon to tell."

Biotech is going going to be the next cash cow, for whatever country can support it.

Well, "cash cows" can dry up for funny reasons. China is possibly going to have much worse growing pains than some of her boosters think. Then again, maybe not.

There is a distinction between invention and production. There is a distinction between interdependence and codependence. Sometimes the tail and the dog wag each other.

Too soon to tell.

Nortius,
Me, I'll call it history

"History" is the laboratory of evolutionary psychology and population genetics.

To soon to tell indeed.