On Apr 7, 8:37 am, Jim Walsh <jSPAMimNwals...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Well, Survival of the fittest does not imply that there will only be one
> species left. There are lots of ecological niches. In other words, the
> idea that, in some future world, all but one species will be extinct is
> silly.
True. But in any one niche, there is only one species: the Competitive
Exclusion Principle.
So, since Chinese people can eat the same food, and do the same work,
as white people, or black people, or brown people, or Koreans, or
Japanese... if these groups of people stay separate from each other,
one group will be slightly better than the others at competing, and if
you wait long enough, the whole world will be of one nationality.
At least, this is what one interpretation of the ecological
consequences of evolution might lead to. Garrett Hardin, in one of his
books, dared to hint at this in a veiled manner.
More likely, of course, in the enormous amount of time this would take
to happen, the different ethnic divisions of humanity would mix and
disappear.
However, if the soft, rich West with its fearsome nuclear weapons in
the hands of the United States were to abandon the world due to lack
of interest, and it was down to a battle between the world's one
billion Chinese versus the one billion Muslims - with the rest of the
Third World as onlookers - I suspect China could win that fight.
China remembers its struggle with Japan, so presumably it also
remembers Japan's mistake in trying to persuade the rich, lazy
Americans to stay out of its fight with China. China has some
territorial claims against India and Russia.
Most of the world's one billion Muslims are in Pakistan, which has a
common border with China, and Indonesia, where some ethnic Chinese
have been mistreated. But China doesn't really have much reason to go
against its history and engage in foreign adventurism in that
particular direction; although it might follow the Russian pattern,
where we would see some brave Indonesians revolt against the corrupt
government there, and set up a government guided by Mao Tse-Tung
thought that would naturally seek closer relations with China. So far,
that hasn't worked even in Nepal, and annexing Peru, for example,
might annoy the United States.
Actually, while I would like to see the United States successfully
carry out regime change in China, as this would free Tibet, (but if
keeping order in Iraq, tiny by comparison, is evading the United
States - and if China has nuclear submarines now, ruling out a pre-
emptive strike - that isn't likely to happen) the aftermath might well
be what happened with Japan.
Defeated in war, but with a democratic government installed, Japan
became an economic success story, now competing with the United States
at the most advanced levels of technology.
So the military defeat of China might well be just what would unleash
its potential economic might, leading it to become the most powerful,
and ultimately the most dominant, country in the world.
Because our only fear is that Chinese military aggression deprives
people of freedom, whether in Tibet or Taiwan; our goal is not to
weaken or enslave the Chinese people. Of course, the anti-Americans
might claim that it is only thanks to Russia that America didn't make
sure they owned everything in Japan at bargain prices, like they did
to many Latin American countries.
What we need to avoid war is to have a bigger Earth, so we could
invite all the Tibetans in as immigrants without this depriving anyone
else of resources... and the effects of global warming on agriculture
are not helping. No wonder the Americans are not going to start a war
with China over Tibet; they expect someone, somewhere is going to
start a war soon enough, providing even those not looking for an
excuse to fight a war with the need to fight one.
John Savard
|
