Legend of the Corsair

There is a difference between 'industrializing' and 'industrialized.'

Plenty of third world countries are blogging these days.

From:

They were referred to as industrialized in the 1980's.

From:

Industrializing does not equal 3rd world.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country).

In the second link: First map - blue is 1st, orange 2nd, red 3rd. Second map - they are listed as lower-middle income, unlike traditional "3rd world" nations which are listed as low income. They've got (third map) a Human Development Index of 0.799 - 0.7, and further down the page the FTSE Global Equity Index has them listed as Secondary Emerging.

And this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country), third map down - the All Country World Index by Morgan Stanley Capital International 2006 lists China as an Emerging Market (as opposed to developed markets or NO market).

Are you willing yet to say that China is NOT a 3rd world country? That (and this is specifically worded) if they wanted to, they could build whatever the hell they wanted to, technology being present?

BTW: Go back to your original Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol), and not that there are already three companies listed that are currently building industrial-sized refineries.

From:

let me know when even one of those refineries is operational.

From:

Iogen Corporation in Ottawa, Canada produces just over a million gallons annually of cellulose ethanol from wheat, oat and barley straw in their demonstration facility.

Found posted in March 2008: The first commercial cellulosic ethanol facility (Coskata, Inc.) to convert waste wood materials into a renewable fuel (in the United States) went online last month near Upton, Wyoming. After 6 years of development, KL Process Design Group, in conjunction with the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, has produced a proprietary enzymatic method to break down wood and waste materials, such as cardboard and paper.

In late 2007, Range Fuels broke ground on a 20 million gallon per year facility that will process ethanol from wood and wood waste in Georgia. Talked about here (http://gas2.org/2008/04/02/worlds-first-commercially-viable-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-online-2009/)

Facilities seem to be leaning toward the gasification model of cellulosic ethanol production.

From:

US gasoline consumption is at something like 388.6 million gallons/day, and refineries thus must be able to produce comparable quantities-- those plants are just testbeds.

Also, none of that addresses breakeven concerns

From:

First: The second plant/refinery is NOT a test bed.

Furthermore: Jesus fucking Christ on a crutch... I can't wave a magic wand and make the damned plants appear.

That wasn't the argument.

The argument was that China is NOT a "third world country" as you stated, and that IF THEY WERE OF THE MIND TO they could build a cellulosic ethanol plant.

I'm not just going to simper and say, oh, of course you are right... because you aren't. I'm not saying that the infrastructure is there, it isn't yet, but it is technologically and economically feasible.

As

villagecharm is saying in another comment to this post: "It's probably better right now to think in terms of core, semi-periphery and periphery. Under that set of terms, China is a semi-peripheral nation moving into the core."

From:

my argument is this:

I don't think -anyone- knows how to build a plant or set of plants which will produce four million barrels of ethanol a day without consuming more resources than it produces... which is one percent of domestic US consumption, an effect so small you'd never notice it, even if it cost nothing to make in terms of money or the environment.

Since I don't think -anyone- can do it, I don't think -China- can do it.

You're arguing well outside of your expertise in terms of what is "technologically feasible."

From:

You really don't know WHAT my area of expertise is. So don't insult me by making assumptions.

In January, USDA researchers completed a five-year evaluation of another biofuel feedstock with the potential to make a serious dent in US petroleum usage. In the largest study to date, switchgrass has been shown to produce 540% more energy than was used to grow, harvest, and process it into cellulosic ethanol, while reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 94% when compared to gasoline.

Researchers don’t expect switchgrass to replace corn fields, but see crop development occurring on marginal, highly-erodible lands. Hence, it won't cut into our food production.

Biomass left over after converting switchgrass into cellulosic ethanol could be used to provide energy for the distilling and biorefinery processes, further adding to the fuel’s net energy balance. It has also been proved that this leftover can be used as feed for ruminant populations.

From:

In January, USDA researchers completed a five-year evaluation of another biofuel feedstock with the potential to make a serious dent in US petroleum usage. In the largest study to date, switchgrass has been shown to produce 540% more energy than was used to grow, harvest, and process it into cellulosic ethanol, while reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 94% when compared to gasoline.

Fine, yell out your ass, have the last word... no need for me to stick around.

From:

In contemporary terms:
First world:Developed nations.
Second world: Other industrialised nations.
Third world:Other nations.

First world:Needs democracy that works better.
Second World:Needs democracy that works.
Third world:Needs democracy.

From:

So, in your opinion, where falls China? It is obvious to me, given your remark, but I am hoping for a definitive answer.

From:

They are at about a 1920s Russia level, industrially. Less so,in terms of infra-structure.Even less so in terms of business culture.(Quality Control is what?)
Watch the PR nightmare that the Summer Olympics is going to be.
(I have a 'mutual friend' who was just there-Beijing, Shanghai, Canton, plus completely different Hong Kong-doing technical work for hir employer's clients. Without violating the sanctity of the F-Lock,it was,shall we say,most informative.)
I find that it helps to think of counties,not merely in terms of position,but in terms of vector. Where is this country going,how quickly,and what is likely to happen to them along the way.

From:

Curiosity here: Would we have referred to Russia in the 1920's as "third world" I wonder?

I am aghast that the Summer Olympics are going to be held in China. Part of me wonders if the committee did it to give China an incentive to clean up... and I also wonder if the committee has every located an Olympiad in a third world country. My guess is no. That question is touched on here (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/36767).

From:

Well,the term obviously had not come into use yet, obviously, but that is not what you are asking. I think pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russian, which certainly had substantial foreign capital driven industrialisation, certainly could be described that way,and the Revolution did not change that with any great rapidity, so yes.
In post-Cold War terms, early Soviet Russia was third world.

The IOC have never given the Games to a third world country before. Now they have,and it's going to be a right cock-up.
I have no idea why they did this. I assume Beijing offered better bribes than Toronto. Yeah,I'm that cynical.

From:

Obviously,I used the word obviously,obviously too much.
Erg.

From:

Obviously. You must have, although, obviously, I was oblivious to your over-use of the word obvious.

From:

There is not enough caffeine in this world...

From:

Sorry. Didn't actually answer your question. Third world. Military strength,and space program notwithstanding.
In the twenty-first century,remember,people with even still an essentially Neolithic local economy can have access to,for example,cell phones.

From:

See. For some reason, when you answer, it doesn't seem confrontational.

I still don't see how it can be termed third world, even with such a dichotomy existing between rural and city dwellers.

Thank you for joining the discussion!

From:

Heh. I think non-confrontational discussion is a Canadian strong-point. We assume that there is always going to be legitimate opposition to any point of view. In fact,our form of government requires it.
Back to the matter at hand. Where would you put India?

From:

Great icon! Cute-and-in-control.

From:

Thanks! I love finding larger images on the web (usually desktops) and turning them into icons. This one is one of my favorites.

From:

astroprisoner.livejournal.com

This is just off the top of my head, and others will disagree, but...

With the 1980s ranking long since obsolete, the terms probably should go out the window as well. However, if we're going to stick by them, I'd rank China and India as 1st World countries now.

Ya know why gas prices are so high? Because those two countries along with the US are competing for so much oil to run all their cars. That many cars is a sign of prosperity, and prosperity was always an implied part of the "world" ranking.

From:

See, this is where I was trying to guide the conversation. Cold-War rankings are definitely obsolete. They (both China and India) are considered direct competitors to us for jobs and oil supply...

Just because our society/government/infrastructure has "evolved" doesn't mean that people who are where we were THEN can't be considered as economic equals.

It is entirely a western bias to consider them otherwise, even acknowledging their rural/city dichotomies. Hell, look at our poverty/rich dichotomy and you will see a LOT of the same inequalities.

From:

Hmm. I tend to think in terms of 'What would the local Geek populations primary objectives be,were they to take power there.'
(How can we make this more Star Treky?)

From:

villagecharm.livejournal.com

Who's calling China a Third World country? That seems a weird choice, even though I really don't know what the term "Third World" means anymore. The Cold War is over; to me, Third World today is just a reggae band.

It's probably better right now to think in terms of core, semi-periphery and periphery. Under that set of terms, China is a semi-peripheral nation moving into the core.

From:

That would be

dirkcjelli in a response to my previous post to this one... Where I got so enraged that I had to create another whole post (this one) to address it. I swear, it is like banging my head against a brick wall.

I like the terminology you use.

From:

sparkindarkness.livejournal.com

"hould I accept China being called 3rd world just because they aren't democratic or as up to date on having a clean, environmentally responsible to the planet political stance?"

Hells by that standard there are no first world countries! They only spin it better

From: