Chinese Economics Thread

[wdl1976]

After all the discussion and debate, is it safe for me to state the following:

Humanity = greed, as long as China can produce goods cheaper, no amount of critics or scientific article can actually hurt Chinese products?

Would anyone in this forums be prepared to buy any similar products at double the price because it is environmentaly friendly, produced locally etc?

If you are? what percentage of the population are you representing?

 

[vesicles]

Thats nice, but I was thinking that you would be in a perfect position to confirm whether the Amzonian rainforest contain plants that can be useful medicinally?

I remember watching a program suggesting they could come up with a stronger anti bacteria serum from crocodiles and down in the deep oceans theres this living organism (I cant for the earth remember what it was) but one would be able to extract something and use it for a very powerful painkiller much stronger and better than morphine.

But that was quite sometime ago and Ive never heard anymore of it.

One of my research focus is a group of drugs first found in tree saps, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Man, I was trying hard not to get into it since it's kind of hard to get me to shut up once I start talking about it (I'm passionate about what I do ). Well, you asked for it.

Salicylic acid (the active metabolite in aspirin) was first found in willow saps. And many ancient cultures treated wounds and inflammations with willow tree saps. It was first "officially" found in the 1600's and isolated by Bayers later. Aspirin was synthesized based on salicylic acid in the late 1800's to minimize its serious side effects. Well, we know how widely used these drugs are nowadays. We actually got an Army grant to study the ability of NSAIDs to treat spinal cord injury suffered by soldiers on the battle filed. We are also studying the ability of NSAIDs to prevent/slow down cancer development (clinical studies found that long-term use of NSAIDs can prevent many cancers by as much as 50%. We just don't know how they do it).

My research is actually fighting the mainstream dogma for the molecular mechanism of NSAIDs, which helped developed all the COX-2 inhibitors, like Vioxx and celebrex. We all know how effective they are We are suggesting a completely different mechanism (something to do with cell membranes), which is gaining momentum now, but still not getting accepted by the mainstream. Many biologists choose to ignore what we found because it would most likely invalidate what they have been doing for decades. But if what we found is true, it will revolutionize the way all drugs (not only NSAIDs) are being designed and even the entire biology (like how membrane proteins function and how cell signaling is being conducted).

Well, to answer your question, yes, many trees have medicinal use and we need to explore more :nana:

 

[vesicles]

Even when no fossil fuel is involved, people will still complain. People even complain when wind power plants are to be built. Plans of building wind mills near residential area will get people upset about noise and cancer-causing EM waves. Plans of building wind mills offshore will get people complain about the damage to scenery.

Have you guys heard about a theory on how wind mills would destroy the earth? Well, the theory goes something like this: the wind mill blades will interfere with the kinetics of wind and in turn affect the whole dynamics of the planet... So to these people, somehow those huge mountains will do nothing to affect the kinetics of the wind...

Also people say that solar panels are also contributing to global warming since they absorb the heat more effectively than earth itself. I always thought the solar panels convert electromagnetic wave to electricity, which should minimize the amount of light hitting the ground. Silly me...

Some crazy BS. I'd say we got too many people with too much time on their hands...

 

[Engineer]

I'd say we got too many people with too much time on their hands...

I disagree. What we have are too many dumb people who like to boss others around.

 

[xywdx]

One of my research focus is a group of drugs first found in tree saps, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Man, I was trying hard not to get into it since it's kind of hard to get me to shut up once I start talking about it (I'm passionate about what I do ). Well, you asked for it.

Salicylic acid (the active metabolite in aspirin) was first found in willow saps. And many ancient cultures treated wounds and inflammations with willow tree saps. It was first "officially" found in the 1600's and isolated by Bayers later. Aspirin was synthesized based on salicylic acid in the late 1800's to minimize its serious side effects. Well, we know how widely used these drugs are nowadays. We actually got an Army grant to study the ability of NSAIDs to treat spinal cord injury suffered by soldiers on the battle filed. We are also studying the ability of NSAIDs to prevent/slow down cancer development (clinical studies found that long-term use of NSAIDs can prevent many cancers by as much as 50%. We just don't know how they do it).

My research is actually fighting the mainstream dogma for the molecular mechanism of NSAIDs, which helped developed all the COX-2 inhibitors, like Vioxx and celebrex. We all know how effective they are We are suggesting a completely different mechanism (something to do with cell membranes), which is gaining momentum now, but still not getting accepted by the mainstream. Many biologists choose to ignore what we found because it would most likely invalidate what they have been doing for decades. But if what we found is true, it will revolutionize the way all drugs (not only NSAIDs) are being designed and even the entire biology (like how membrane proteins function and how cell signaling is being conducted).

Well, to answer your question, yes, many trees have medicinal use and we need to explore more :nana:

The recent COX-2 inhibitors are not well researched, it is clear they interact with more than just COX-2. So good luck with your work, I hope you lead us closer to the true mechanism.

 

[vesicles]

The recent COX-2 inhibitors are not well researched, it is clear they interact with more than just COX-2. So good luck with your work, I hope you lead us closer to the true mechanism.

Yep, that's the problem. These drugs affect so many mechanisms and treat so many diseases, like cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, etc... And yet people still believe it's got to be a specific drug-protein interaction between the drugs and COX...

My former mentor did an experiment in the 90's, where they completely knocked out the COX gene (COX-1 and COX-2) in mice. They found that the gastrointestinal tract of these COX knock-out mice looked the same as the wild-type. Now, the argument of the "NSAIDs side effect stemming from their ability to inhibit COX" is that COX-1 is cytoprotective. By inhibiting COX-1, NSAIDs (or non-specific COX inhibitors) eliminate the protective mechanism and cause damage in the GI tract. That's why they designed drugs that specifically affect COX-2 (the COX-2 inhibitors), not COX-1. IF this is true, we should get massive injury in our COX-knock-out mice since we completely eliminated the protective COX. Yet, these mice were very happy without COX. So where is the protective effect of COX?? :nono:

 

[bladerunner]

It's not Chinese demands. Those trees are being used to make products for the West. Didn't you say something about kicking the can? So who's kicking the can now? Blind obedience to environmentalists is why the world has to turned to fossil fuels.

Some of it is used for domestic consumption, but if Greenpeace are to be believed, China is the biggest purchaser and sometimes behind illegal logging of the hardwoods in SE Asia and manipulating documents to show illegal logs are plantation grown.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Some of it is used for domestic consumption, but if Greenpeace are to be believed, China is the biggest purchaser and sometimes behind illegal logging of the hardwoods in SE Asia and manipulating documents to show illegal logs are plantation grown.

As a Westerner would say "prove it." See you manipulate too. China doesn't go into other countries cutting down trees. It's their own citizens and goverment in those countries trying to make money. Why don't you then blame Westerners who go to China and have organ transplant surgery knowing full well they came from a prisoner killed for their organs as charged? Are Westerners criminals for taking those organs. You never hear that angle to which is the same as your charge about forest cutting. Who's to blame? Inconsistent as usual. What about how countries clear forest to create farmland? Gonna blame that on China too? It's not beyond environmentalist to exploit anti-China rhetoric to get support and donations. I remember back in the 80s when whale activists claimed that all whale beachings all around the world was a conspiracy of the Japanese in order to get people angry and join their cause. Just like environmentalists talk about how China's pollution reaches the US. Where does US pollution go? Is there good pollution versus bad pollution and China has all the bad pollution? Like I said before, you watch Whale Wars and they outright lie to the media and it's recorded for all to see. So it's not beyond an environmentalist to lie and exploit for their own gain.

I also love how China now has a domestic market. Before China was 100% export dependent meaning everything China makes is for someone else and not for China. You know that propaganda so Westerners think that China goes down the toilet without the West. Now the contradiction that China has a domestic consumer market so they can spin it and blame the tree-cutting on the Chinese and not the foreign corporation exploiting slave labor so they can make a huge profit charging their own countrymen many times more than it cost to make. What are the made-up figures now? Is the majority of all the resources China produces for the Chinese domestic consumer? But that would mean China is not dependent on the West economically but China is dependent on the West because it makes them all feel good that China cannot survive without them. NOMAD is about to self-destruct because that does not compute.

 

[bladerunner]

I dont think Im being inconsistent, im just trying to stick to the topic of enviromental concern.Im well aware that China is not the only country that sometimes shows a lack of integrity/morality in its economic dealings but we're not talking about organ transplants here. In answer to your question its yes, any individual benefiting from inhumanely taken organs is just as guilty as the perpertrator. IMO China and its apologists shouldnt continue to justify its actions because other countries do the same.

I also said if Greenpeace were to believed, the Chinese are the biggest purchasers of illegally logged hardwood. How can one go about proportioning blame in these matters, but can it be a case of " If there wer'nt any buyers there wouldnt be any thieves" I actually saw a TV doco on the matter a while back and the word China came up consistently with some officals waving "bill of loading certificates around implicating China based end users.

Unfortunately China doesnt have a very good track record in these matters does it eg illegal elephant tusks, rhino horns tiger products and the list goes on, so for Greenpeace to suggest they are the biggest end users of illegally logged timber, isnt surprising.


Actually my son is required do a technical report on Professionasl and Sustainable issues to finish his engineering degree His chosen topic is " world hardwood logging" so if he comes up with any interesting aspects on the topic, I might post it

You might find this surprising, but I agree with most of your points of view on China's critics, but man you sure dont pull any punches when expressing them. cheers.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Still inconsistent. Have you ever heard of a Westerner that goes to China for an organ transplant being vilified? Nope. Never. So therefore China can't be blamed for the illegal or unethical acts of people in other countries trying to make money on timber, rhino horns, elephant tusks, etc. The new spin on unequal laws and treatment. That's pretty hypocritical about your "China apologist" comment when you youself brought up the kick the can analogy. By that logic I can label you a China-basher because reading your posts in the past all you do is look at every angle to blame China while the West has no responsibility at all. Can anyone believe someone that only sees the worse in others while being blind to themselves? So why should CHina obey when the critics don't follow their own rules?

You might find this surprising, but I agree with most of your points of view on China's critics, but man you sure dont pull any punches when expressing them. cheers.

That's what I do. I don't have power to do that if people were actually consistent. But then I would be content in that world and wouldn't complain.