Duh! You'd maybe say. But there's the next part which separates us into different, opposing groups: there could be possible ways out there to stop suffering, if we, as individuals or species, decided on it.

So, we either are doomed to suffer or need not to be so.

But let's talk about the different approaches first. The difference comes from the various pictures that could be drawn from the perception of suffering. Is it naturally physical? societal? Or is it mainly psychological? We've discussed these in the previous post.

There's another trinity that could be addressed here though, again coming into light with slight changes in the main question:

1. If suffering is mainly our neurological interactions, will our consciousness remain in any form, after we're dead? And will there still be the stimulus that'd shaped our experience of suffering, or at least some other, equally-functioning nomenon (or phenomenon, if you'd seem it necessarily perceptional) that products suffering? (It's mainly a secular version of the 'is there a God?' question, if you'd ask me.)

2. If suffering is born from our bonds with the world, would we still suffer if we'd free ourselves of all the worldly relations?

3. And finally, if suffering comes from our naivety in knowing the world (both the physics and the tenants of it) and thus, developing irrational expectations, would suffering abate if we'd know the world wiser?

Each one of these possible answers could be part of the perfect remedy to suffering, as they'd suggest counteractions against it: faith, positive apathy, and practical wisdom.

Needless to say that there's no necessity for the answer to be caged in only one option.

There's also a clear distinction to be addressed between the former and the latter question. Obviously if we'd know the world wiser we'd make healthier relationships, but that's not all there is about the worldly relations, as it extends to consist other, out-of-hand crises as well, of which political disarrays are a good example. So the second and the third are not the same.

This opens the box to another topic about how we could possibly stay apathetic and still have room to carry moral standards, which is a subject for later discussions.

But the suffering question is still in the realm of philosophy (or has it gained independence in neuroscience, as they'd likely have equalled some brain functions with suffering qualia and deem the question answered?). Still, there are ways to approach this question: individual, social, and psychological. I'd scratch the first one to reach the next two and discuss it in more detail.

1. The refined version of the question regarding an individual would be "If I'd be dead, will the suffering still be there?", which is just another version of the age-old question of "Is there an afterlife?" and so it's appropriate to refer this part to the debate over afterlife.

2. The social version isn't merely a plural form of the last question, which is what makes it a whole new one. There are quite a lot of things that can irritate an individual, yet there are lots of less items in comparison when you want to make a nation suffer (though they are still plenty to get us there, yet probably need more consistency, intensity or precision). So it would be "Should our nation be replaced with another so not to suffer?", which then translates to "What makes one nation suffer and not the other?" which leads to "Is there a psyche for nations?" and guids us to culture and how it shapes human beings in mostly holistic forms.

   So considering suffering, individuals are chaoticly different, but the society is organizedly polarized (and polars could be simply just plural individuals consenting on targeting their hatred towards something, which makes a difference when hating it individually.)

   That quite leads us and an answer, and if not, a more clear understanding of the matter: There's necessarily no need to replace a nation to redeem it. There's only need for what gathers people around something change (And not even that certain something, whatever it is). There are some penetrating needles that can do the job; traditionally there are religion, culture and patriotism, and the modern form is the media in any form; which then creates/resurfaces, spreads, feeds, and if necessary, buries cults and isms.

   But behind (and guiding) all these is people's will, even if they're not aware of it. An illiterate people can't simply progress (financial or moral) if all they decide to spend their time on is watching dumb videos on tiktok. And same people could flourish (financial or moral) under the harshest circumstances if they simply decide to do so.

   So as a society, we suffer because we have to pay for what we've chosen, and we'd be free (or at least suffer differently, or more productively) if we dare decide on another option.

3. And finally there's the psychological perspective: What makes us feel the pain? I'm not referring to neural activities here, but to the very basic mechanisms of the world which starts from morally-neutral entities like gravity and physical laws and extends to the brims of the realm of ethics (which then again can circle back and deny some of those basic elements as well).

   If you can understand this text, then it's not so useful now to dissection the process of its shaping and find out where our worldview had came from and how it'd evolved through time. So it's basically a rephrasing what I'm gonna do here, again: "If there's no me, will there still be suffering?" Which leads us to remember about the mentally-ill who suffer (do they?) from a lack or clouding of consciousness, which blunts their ability to feel, thus would result in a less experienced amount of pain, of whatever form that'd be. I'm basically referring to the very characteristic elements that actually makes us who we are (and makes us suffer accordingly).

   So be it childs, the mentally-ill, the geriatric, and the simpleton, there's something about any of them that makes them carefree, at least about some form of the suffering the rest of us are doomed to take.

   Do we have to lose our minds over it so we'd be happy? Isn't there any form of unfoolish happiness?

But is China really taking over the US?

China has never, in its long and complex history, shown a real desire to spread its culture and knowledge as a hegemonic force. The U.S. and the West in general, are quite the opposite. Hence China’s alliances are both fewer and less reliable. Whether through war or diplomacy, the road to dominance always passes through strong allies combined with serious, adamant power.

Then there’s the dollar: still the most trusted and traded currency across the globe. The Chinese yuan isn’t even second in this matter. (According to the IMF, the dollar makes up about 60% of reserves, while the yuan doesn’t exceed 4%.)

I’m not going to compare freedom of speech or other liberty indexes; you already know China ranks lower there (and the U.S. isn’t paradise either, but still better than China). Still, to establish a global power, a nation needs at least a somewhat positive image abroad, and that’s one thing China still lacks due to how it's.. built.

Add to that the challenge of language and culture: despite its massive population, Chinese hasn’t become a globally loved language. People often give up learning it after a while, compared to Japanese, which fewer people study but with much stronger passion. Surveys from China’s Ministry of Education and Japan’s Foundation show this. Even Duolingo ranks Japanese among the top five most-learned languages worldwide, with roughly twice as many learners as Chinese.

China simply can’t compare even to Japan in that sense. I won’t even start comparing any of this to English. This also is valid about the Chinese entertainment including animation and cinema compared to that of Japan and their western counterparts.

America is still the biggest economy mankind has ever built. It’s also the largest in military power, technology, and financial dominance. It’s home to many of the best universities in the world.

But flip the coin and see the other side , too: the U.S. struggles with problems such as crime control and healthcare: domestic challenges that aren’t caused by a lack of power, but by how that power is used.

The U.S. is like a machine: it runs mostly due to the driver’s will, shifting power internally every few years in a predictable rhythm. China, on the other hand, is more like a beast driven by nature: guided by its dual Taoist-Confucian philosophy until internal courage or external pressure forces it to change. (Remember Deng Xiaoping’s famous Cat Theory?) Ironically, part of that external pressure comes from Western culture itself, from the very media and lifestyle that the U.S. helped shape.

It’s okay if you hate America, but it doesn’t make it weak, nor does it mean your own country (if you’re non-American), could be independent of its support. (Not that the U.S. is always loyal to its promises, but its policy is still more consistent than China’s introverted one.)

It's not just welfare and culture that makes a global power. The statistics of power also include how often and against whom a country dares to use it, not just how many chips it can produce per year.

So, what are the final thoughts on this? If we compare today's U.S. and China to the declining British Empire and the rising America, the resemblance should appear (if there's any). China has already overtaken the U.S. in PPP GDP, is catching up (and in some fields, already ahead) in technology, and stands as the second most powerful military in the world.

It’s somewhat like the U.S. in the 1870s; except that China is still caged by censorship, restrictive policies, and limited alliances. That keeps it mostly a regional power, unless the U.S. faces a major economic crisis or global exhaustion that slows it down enough for China to rise. And all that still depends on whether China decides to break out of its millennia-old philosophy of introversion and finally open the cage.

Politics is mostly about choosing allies and then taking risks doing so. There are no guarantees; there's only history, and there's lessons in it for those who don’t want to become one themselves.

I don't know if I'm gonna regret writing this as my first, but I know surely I deem it necessary to kind of say hello in my own way, before rushing into any other topics. Now you know the title's message includes me as well, a proof to take it seriously. Don't rush.