Aardvark

I've got a religious friend who says this is all predicted in the Bible. Not so much Big Brother as the Anti Christ. I'm not sure which i prefer.

To say the Chinese people dont care is a disgusting insult to the brave Chinese dissidents who endure persecution, labour camps, exile and executions. Opiates of the people, if that is the case why does China need slave labour camps? Why did the PLA have to kill thousands of protesters in Beijing. Contented people dont normally need machine gunning to keep under control.

'I think their culture may be so fundamentally different from the western point of view that they may NOT ultimately rebel.' Look at Hong Kong, look at Taiwan. When Chinese people get the chance they do a fine job of running a democracy. To say Chinese culture is incompatable with democracy is therefore wrong.

What assumptions have i attributed to you? I dont see any attribution of assumptions in my posts at all. And it does matter what the nature of the beast is. If we presume to have opinions about China's development it seems axiomatic that we try to understand China's economic and political system. If China is ruled by an corrupt elite with only a fig leaf of ideolical justification then it may be more likely to resort to militiristic nationalism to maintain support, look at its behaviour over the Spratly island group for instance. It may also inhibit peaceful resolution of differences with Taiwan. Such an elite would also be wary of democracy in Hong Kong spreading into the mainland, also affecting economic and socail development. The effects on economic potential from politics are immense.

It matters a lot to the average Joe in Bejing whether he is ruled by communists, or democrats or by a corrupt nationalistic despotism. Isnt that obvious?

'If they said they were an anarcho-simunist commune, taking it in turns to wield supreme executive power because a moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at them, would it make them any less of a super power?' Whether China becomes a superpower depends very much on its type of government, which makes it important to understand what the reality is not just the label.

Whilst it's true no country can be considered to have been purely of completely communist some have made some serious efforts. Cuba and the USSR made major ideological commitments to communism. China also did, under Mao communism was taken seriously, now China has simply dumped the whole idea, just keeping the name.

There is no strawmanning in my posts, i'm querying why people persist in calling the Chinese regime communist when it has no communist attributes. I made an opinion statement and a query. That's not insulting anyone. And i'm not implying you are responsible for the state of China's government. What on earth gave you that idea?

That would also be assuming that foriegn investment in the US is automatically a bad thing. A pretty odd assumption.

Not much of a choice is it, you either have homosexual or incestous tendencies. Either way everyones got major 'issues' and needs a psychologist. Sounds like he was touting for business!

That tag sounds about as dodgy as they come. Even Big Brother didn't come up with that one.

Why does someone doing an oil change want your ID and address? That's not happening in England, at least not yet.

'Now, why do you get asked who you are, and where you live every time you want to make a purchase any more?' I'm confused. Are people asking your name and address when you go shopping?

Possibly not us personally. I'm not trying to imply any moral superiority over the Chimps in that post. Simply pointing out that aggression and general bad behavoiur is not unique to our species.

It might be possible to have a eugenics programme without infringing on peoples liberties anyway. Singapore is doing just that now. But that's not the sole concern. How do you define desirable traits, and who does the definition? What some may view as desirable others may see as undesirable. Ultimately eugenics may be largely subjective rather than objective. Which ends any scientific status it may lay claim to.

I've never heard of an Uzi carrying Chimp, but i have heard of Chimps engaging in tribal war and ethnic cleansing.

'The cost of extracting, deriving and transporting oil-based fuels will make them a non-viable source of energy long before it's all gone.' Sayonara. The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones.

Because they say it is? Does it occur to you they might be lying? China is a dictatorship, run by a party that calls itself communist, but its policies and behaviour are not communist. Other than calling themselves communist can you see any attribute of modern China that is in anyway communist?

If Freud was right would that mean children with bearded Fathers are less likely to be homosexual? Or maybe if Mother has particularly prominent breasts.

If the decline in Amphibian numbers is due to a fungus being inadvertantly spread by people across the global then paradoxically we might be cautiously optimistic. If it is the case of a plague of some kind then some individuals will likely have some immunity and in time populations can recover. This depends on the original habitat remaining for the populations to recover back into and for the original populations being large enough to have contained enough resistant individuals. We probably will loss some of the more vunerable species, but there could be the potential for recovery for others. Fingers crossed.

Just out of curiousity, why do any of you think China is communist when it isn't? It used to be, but it certainly isn't now. Also, since independence India has not had any famines. Despite freedoms not being curbed. Freedoms have been curbed in China, and estimates are of around 20 million Chinese dead of famine in the 1960's. Better an Indian green revolution than a cultural revolution.

Atinymonkey, you have some interesting points but you really need to take more care with your facts. De Gaulle did not become a POW in Colditz. He escaped to England. WW1 was bad in France but to say the 'closest thing to hell any place in history has ever become' is just odd. I'd say any comparsion with Russias nightmare disproves that. ''not a single foreign solder put one toe on American soil.' Actually Japanese soldiers put lots of toes on American soil, the Aleutian islands of Alaska were attacked and the Americans sustained high causalties before dislodging the Japanese garrisons. 'Try it when you are the only country in the world still standing against Fascism and overwhelming odds.' Are you really refering to France? When did France ever stand alone? 'You can hate the French all you like, but to be frank, without the defence they put up you would be living in the Third Reich. That's the simple truth.' No, the weakness of the defence put up by the French nearly meant Nazi victory. The actions of the Free French may have been honourable, but unfortunately were pretty insignificant in overall military terms. They had a chance to do more, but the French fleet choose to go over to the Nazis and on July 1 1940 the French air force actually bombed the British naval base of Gibraltar. Vichy French troops in Syria fought against the British and to a lesser extent fought against the US landings in Algeria. The French response to the Nazi invasion was a poor defence followed by wide spread collaboration. Not a pleasant thing to acknowledge but the facts are important.

I'm not sure quite how representative of 'the people' this forum is, but he might pick up a few ideas worth thinking about.

I think you will find that Africans evolved to have darker skins because individuals in Africa who had darker skins did better and so propogated more DNA on average. All the individuals live in the same environment and breed with each other so the most advantagous adaptations will spread through the population. That doesn't mean evolution acts at a group level, it's driven by individuals. Skyes point neatly encapsulates that. Any individual who acts in a way that helps the group but hurts itself will leave less DNA and so will be selected against. That halts any group evolution. I'm surprised you think the concept of individual evolution a bit vague (i can't claim it's my concept, that honour is Charles Darwins). I'll try and put it concisely. An individuals that have the most descendants are the ones whose DNA is carried on. An individual who responds to a situation by becoming homosexual will leave fewer descendants and less DNA will carry on. So over time a trait to homosexuality as a response to a situation will be eradicated, whatever the implications for the overall good of the group. Evolution is very selfish. It doesnt understand the concept of self sacrifice or acting for the greater good. After all, why should you have fewer children just so my family can have more food? On the side matter of South Asia. You can't generalise. India is mainly Hindu, Bangaldesh Muslim, Thailand Buddist. All very different cultures. Remember the Karma Sutra comes from India, and Buddist Thailand has never had the hangups about sex that we still have in the West. Thailand is much more relaxed about sex than the West, and not just in the cities but also in the countryside. I'm not talking about redlight districts, but an open healthy approach to sexuality, including homosexuality that is more than our 'flexible' attitude. To think only the West is open minded on these things is a mistake. In summary, no the homosexual thing can not be a group evolution because it would be selected against at the individual level, evolution works from the bottom up.

I look forward to seeing it. The relationship between the media and government can sometimes seem dangerously incestuous. Half truths and distortions. What disturbs me is the way something only matters to governments if it's on TV. A million Rwandans die. No one cares because there aren't any TV cameras there. Tibet repressed, but no TV cameras there. It's almost as if, if they are not on TV then people dont exist and dont matter. So people suffering and need, the international response are determined by ratings and the world of co operation between Media companies and governments. People have been slaughtered for over 20 years in Sudan. The big media companies decide to notice last month and only now does the UN and the West actually start to bother doing anything. Who decides what to show? Whats convienent for TV executives trying to establish good relations with governments and business investors/advertisers? George Orwell was prescient, we all need to make an effort to find the facts and see through distortion and selective reporting.