Letters

Our

inaugural section on China examined how that country is directing its commercial growth outward, building foreign economies and its political muscle along the way. Readers grappled with how the world has yet to change China—and how China has yet to change the world

Re "The Chinese Century" [Jan. 22]: I am from China, and I'm studying in a medical school in the U.S. Like many young people in China, I have a lot of worries about the country's uncertain future. Chinese society has extremely good aspects, such as a booming economy and increased opportunities for young people, but also bad sides, like Internet censorship and peasants' and laborers' poorly protected rights. China's leaders must be made to understand that democratic reforms are urgently needed. Not only is China's peaceful rise an aspiration of 1.3 billion Chinese, but it will be good for the rest of the world too.
Kou Qin
Augusta, Georgia. U.S.

TIME reported on China's business activity in Africa but was silent on the continent's economic strategy. It involves the New Partnerships for Africa's Development (NEPAD). Far from being a begging bowl, as many have misunderstood them to be, the partnerships are aimed at achieving political reform, sustainable economic growth and social justice. The China-Africa Summit that was held in China last year emphasized NEPAD as a long-term framework within which China should engage Africa. China is a critical player that Africa will work with strategically to establish fair procedures for international trade. As for colonization, the African people will ensure that it never happens again.
Tshilidzi Marwala
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.

"The Chinese Century" convinced me that by buying products made in China I am supporting that country's political nonintervention policies in areas like Darfur and helping perpetuate a disgusting lack of regard for the value of human life and freedom. From now on, I am going to focus on buying American-made products.
Janet Thurston
Brighton, Michigan, U.S.

Most people don't realize that China has 55 ethnic minorities. An abrupt switch to a democratic system would probably prove disastrous. A strong central government exercising a bit of authoritarianism is probably not the worst evil for China at this point in time. China has made substantial progress in integrating capitalist reforms, which have brought immeasurable economic benefits. As the century moves along, the government will gradually relax its policies and adopt concepts like intellectual-property rights and maybe even human rights. I look forward to TIME's regular section on China.
George Lu
Rockville, Maryland, U.S.

Your article overemphasized the lack of democracy in China, leading to speculation about possible global catastrophe and war. Democracy can't be imposed on a nation, however; it must evolve to take root and endure. China has come a long way from the feudal regime it was only 100 years ago, and it will reach democracy on its own terms. China's strategy to meet its demand for natural resources is peaceful. Fierce competition for natural resources does not preclude international cooperation. Maybe China will align its strategies with the U.S.'s if the U.S. stops interfering in China's internal affairs and starts looking for common goals such as world peace and prosperity.
Christina Feng
Malvern, Pennsylvania, U.S.

There is a lot of hubris in the notion that a country needs to subscribe to American democratic principles to be civilized. It is reminiscent of 19th century Europeans who equated civilization with Christianity. Not all Christians are nice people, and not all democracies are nice places to live. In fact, some of them may even show unusually aggressive behavior toward others—in the name of democracy, of course, just as was done in the name of Christianity in the past.
Avelino Sousa-Poza
Phalaborwa, South Africa

Try, Try Again
"Looking for the Restart Button" [Jan. 22] stated that part of President George W. Bush's strategy for saving his presidency involves a "new way forward" in Iraq. But just as the reasons for the war were baseless, there is no imaginable outcome that could be called a victory, although this doesn't mean that the brave men and women who have fought in Iraq have been defeated. The ignominious defeat belongs to the Bush Administration and it alone. Let's make sure that not one more person dies for Bush's mistaken adventure.
John Cosgrove
Keyport, New Jersey, U.S.

Reinventing the Phone
"The Apple of Your Ear" [Jan. 22] showcased Apple's new iPhone. I remember a time when no one would think of spending a cent on an item that had such a tiny video screen. Remember the television screens in the early '50s? Well, we have come full circle and are right back where we started and don't mind squinting at a tiny screen. On the other hand, ophthalmologists and optometrists are patiently waiting for the bucks to start rolling in when our eyes go bad.
Kristi Richter
Chicago

Now not only do we have to be aware of distracted drivers using cell phones and iPods, but in the not too distant future, they will be surfing the Net and watching reruns of I Love Lucy. Society needs to catch up to technology.
Bob Scoza
Long Valley, New Jersey, U.S.

If Steve Jobs and his team at Apple would invent a little device that could clip to a soldier's belt and trip every electronic trigger for improvised explosive devices within a couple of hundred meters, then I would really be impressed.
Dean M. Brayton
Gold Canyon, Arizona, U.S.

The Enduring Argument
Bravo for your insightful "God Vs. Science" debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins [Jan. 15]. The discussion is not only important to Christians but to humans of other faiths as well. How can you compare God with science, which is merely a way of analyzing material things? Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't contradict the existence of a Supreme Being, since time and space have no relevance to God—our billion years could be a single moment to him. I disagree with Dawkins' assertion that science doesn't deal with metaphysics. Science is not in competition with God but is one way to approach him. That is apparently the experience of Collins, whose faith rests on reason. We require both religion and science to reach beyond ourselves.
Kamran Mohsin
Multan, Pakistan

Atheists often have very little knowledge of spirituality and confuse religion and spirituality. God is beyond comprehension, but there are techniques that can show you glimpses within yourself. The problem is that one has to have the perseverance to experience God. I don't know how many atheists have actually made that effort. If we look for external evidence in nature or evolution, then we will end up inconclusively, with faith on one side and scientific evidence on the other.
Deepak Agrawal
Gurgaon, India

In the dialogue between Dawkins and Collins, it was the atheistic rational scientist, Dawkins, who literally and figuratively had the final word. Religion is truly man's ineffectual and limited way of trying to explain and understand God. As Dawkins explains, if there is a God, it would be a lot bigger and more incomprehensible than anything any religion has to offer and more than even science can explain. God is beyond religion, beyond laws and beyond science. As a practicing Catholic with some faith and a strong belief in logical reason, I thank you, Richard, for your rational and scientific description of God.
Ben Santillan
Makati City, the Philippines

I see more reasoning in the ancient Vedic philosophy of India that the creator and the created are one and the same. The world is self-designing, depending on the environment, and it's a trial-and-error process. As Dawkins asserted, there can be no miracles, since neither the creator nor the created can act against the laws of nature.
Chepudira Poonacha Belliappa
Coorg, India

No amount of argument can prove or disprove the existence of God. Heaven and Hell exist on earth—those who live in either of those places know it. God or divinity is in the heart of every living creature. If you can't feel it, forget it.
Manohar L. Karwall
Jalandhar, India

How Did Fido Get So Fat?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first diet drug for the more than 3 million obese dogs in the country, our Jan. 22 issue reported. If you're wondering how a dog's life came to this, our April 26, 1968, story on pet foods provides some insight:

"Americans traditionally treat their four-legged household pets like members of the family. And they feed them accordingly. Today, even table scraps are not good enough—which means that the nation's 3,000 dog- and cat-food makers and marketers contemplate 1968 sales of over $900 million, up $300 million since 1965. At that price, the doggy dish runs all the way from chicken croquettes to chunks of pure beef. Pet-food makers insist that there is a little of the gourmand in every dog and cat, and last year they spent $52.5 million to advertise their argument—more than 80% of it on television ... The basic pitch is always to an owner's heart, not to his pocketbook. 'People always feel they have neglected their pet,' says Morris Levinson, president of Associated Products ... 'To help solve the guilt feelings, people want to feed their pet better—like themselves.' 'Who knows what greatness lives in the heart of a dog? We do,' runs the TV commercial for General Foods' Gaines Gravy Train. Purina notes in its advertising: 'All you add is love.'" Read more at timearchive.com.