Human beings as inventors and creators have reached a tipping point.  We are transitioning from dependence on oil to reliance on renewable resources and the paradigm-shifting potential of nanotechnology.  Unfortunately, USA and China are fueling their technological growth, in an increasing desperation, to maintain their superpower standing or to gain political negotiation power in the world. 

China's rapid growth is attracting a lot of interest as it is now widely acknowledged that its GDP may catch up with USA's by 2025. Their rapid technological growth is both a causal factor and a result of rapid economic growth. Although increasing research based collaborations between American and Chinese universities indicate that US-Sino relations are becoming more congenial, there is a widely-held perception within American media and analyst circles that the research done in China is not as advanced as what is carried out in USA and that American research will maintain its competitive-edge. Most policy analysts in US acknowledge China's progress but remain optimistic of USA's strengths such as its open-market economy supported by democratic governance and infrastructure that fuels creativity and innovation. On the other hand some analysts worry about China's alleged devaluation of its currency, USA losing its industries and R&D capacity to China because of Chinese subsidies and secretiveness about China's military advancement. While USA worries over China's foray into African natural resource markets and infrastructure building such as dams for oil-rich Sudan and telecommunications for copper-rich Zambia, China worries about USA's strategic presence in Pakistan and infrastructural investments such as nuclear plants in India. The primary concern behind these debates is: How do China's technological advancement, economic growth and international presence affect USA? The key notion here is strategic competitiveness between two behemoths. However, there is an alternative to gauge the technological advancement in China and its implications vis-à-vis USA. 

Consider a few advancements in nano research. In order to reduce the toxicity of nanotubes, scientists at University of Pittsburg, USA have found a biodegradable horseradish extract based product which disintegrates nanotubes and can clean up spills that are otherwise potentially more lethal than oil spills. Scientists in Chinaâ��s Tsinghua University have created a nano-speaker, a slim see-through plastic-like film made from carbon nanotubes which, when heated, vibrates the surrounding air, generating sound. This has the potential to dramatically change audio technology. International research is making progress in replacing copper wires with more durable carbon nanotubes for electric purposes. A European project has grown the densest bundles yet, packing 2.5 trillion carbon nanotubes per cm2 which is close to the density and lower internal resistance requirements for replacing copper in electric circuits. It would be interesting to see what could be achieved with an international collaboration of such advanced research projects in accelerating the commercial viability of nanotubes, an industry predicted to be worth nearly USD 2.4 trillion by 2012.

The renewable energy sector in USA and China (both heavy consumers of coal for electricity generation) offers much greater scope for collaboration and off-shore investments than currently availed. 2011 is experiencing a quantum jump in investments in the renewable industry with USA, China and India being the top 3 investment attractions. USA and China in particular have rapidly increased their renewable energy installations. China is an emerging leader in manufacturing and exporting solar panels and wind turbines, producing 50% of the world's solar panels according to the United Steelworkers Union in USA, which is protesting China's subsidy policies for its manufacturers. President Obama's plans to boost the renewable energy sector, stimulate green jobs and investments is one good solution for strengthening the sector. His national initiatives could have a lucrative boost if new investment opportunities such as off-shore wind farms are explored in collaboration with China, for their mutual reduction of coal and oil consumption for energy generation, among other benefits. 

The political sphere must realize the pivotal choice that technological advancement offers nations today. Trans-boundary collaboration in technological advancement has the potential to convert a US-Sino stand-off into a parallel and complimentary global presence. However such collaboration is impeded by USA and China's aim to use technological resilience as a buffer to protect national interests and guard against competition and/or threats as both countries are conforming to the conventional paradigm of strategic competitiveness. USA's concerns regarding growing Chinese prowess and China's thirst for negotiation power in the international realm are rooted and shaped by the legacy of deep seated fears from the Cold War's armament race when technological progress was equated with an increased capacity to wage war or coerce strategic suppression. The unfortunate consequence of this strategic technological race is the loss of massive opportunities in trans-boundary investment and research that are arising out of rapidly growing industries of the future. 

There is likelihood that USA and China will follow old notions of rivalry by competing for international natural resources, using their military, financial and foreign policies to secure their interests abroad. However they also have the choice to allow science to do what it does best: invention through collaboration. As the global market for renewable energy expands due to a very rapid increase in energy consumption and escalating oil prices, it is for the economists to calculate the profit feasibility of exclusive intellectual property patents in the hands of a few companies versus a global export capacity backed by both US and China, for commercially viable renewable energy and the potential plethora of nano technological products. 

Which brings us to the question, "When will political will catch up with technology?" My answer is "Why delay the inevitably prudent route?"