POOR ANGELA Merkel. The German chancellor was trying very hard to be the hostess with the mostest at the G-8 summit last week. The preferred topics of conversation could scarcely have been worthier (poverty in Africa, climate change). She thought her only worry was the usual rent-a-mob of anti-globalization protesters. Being of East German origin, she solved that problem by building a 7-mile-long wall around the conference site. The problem was that one of her invited guests tried to spoil the party by bringing up the embarrassing subject of nuclear missiles.

To be fair to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, I can see why he doesn't much like the idea of American missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, which he and his pals at the KGB used to treat as Soviet imperial possessions. It's hard to believe that these facilities are not intended, at least in part, to neutralize a possible nuclear threat from Russia — still the only other nuclear superpower in the world besides the United States.

For Putin, if no one else, the old Cold War calculus still holds: An effective anti-ballistic missile system nullifies the balance of nuclear terror by allowing, in theory, a first strike by the U.S. against Russia without the risk of massive Russian retaliation.

Full marks to Putin for his witty counterproposal: a joint Russian-American missile-tracking station in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan. If, as Washington officials insist, it's Iran, not Russia, they are worried about, how can they refuse? But, sorry, Vladimir: Zero out of 10 for social skills.

By contrast, Putin's American counterpart was as good as gold. It was President Bush who was expected to be the party pooper. But, to everyone's amazement, the Toxic Texan was persuaded to sign a declaration committing the G-8 to take "strong and early action" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. He even agreed that the Kyoto Protocol, which he declined to sign, should be replaced by a new international agreement before it expires in 2012. And he promised to "consider seriously" the European goal of a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

Well, OK, Bush will consider that target seriously for about 10 seconds before dismissing the subject from his mind, because the deadline for Son of Kyoto is 2009 — the year his successor moves into the White House. Still, kudos to Merkel. A summit that threatened to end in ugly acrimony produced the required number of pages of bland diplomatic prose.

The question is, how much longer should we put up with these ludicrous gatherings, because the very notion of a Group of Eight "leading industrialized nations" is fast becoming a complete anachronism.

Back in 1975, there were only seven countries represented at the diplomatic top table: Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States. That made sense when those countries accounted for about 62% of global economic output. But today that proportion is down to 57%. And, if the projections made by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill and his colleagues are to be believed, that figure is set to plummet in the decades ahead: to about 37% by 2025 and a meager 21% by 2050. That last year, you'll recall, is the year by which Merkel aims to have reduced CO2 emissions by 50%.

O'Neill's argument is that the "G" in G-7 stands for "Going" — as in "Going, going, gone" — or perhaps "Graying," given the rate at which those nations' populations are aging. The future, in his view, belongs to the BRICs: Brazil, Russia, India and China (or the "big, rapidly industrializing countries," if you prefer). Today, these four economies account for about 10% of global output. By 2025, that figure could be as high as 27%. And by 2050, it could be 40%, nearly double the share projected for the G-7.

Add to that a second tier of fast-growing economies, which O'Neill has called the N-11 (as in "Next"), and you see how rapidly the balance of economic power is shifting in the world. By 2050, the BRICs plus N-11 could account for fully half the world economy.

True, the G-7 became the G-8 when one of the BRICs was invited to join in 1998. But it's absurd that Brazil, China and India continue to be treated as what the Germans used to call salonsunfÄhig — unworthy of an invitation to the salon. They, along with Mexico and South Africa, were relegated to the antechamber of global power last week, as "outreach" countries.

Outreach? More like outrage. What serious conclusions can possibly be reached on subjects such as climate change — or, for that matter, Africa — without the Chinese in the room? The same, incidentally, applies to the wrangle about missile defenses. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, China's military expenditures have nearly doubled in the last three years, from $62.5 billion in 2004 to $122 billion in 2006. That's still a lot less than the U.S. spends on defense ($522 billion in this fiscal year). But more and more American resources are being poured into the Iraq war.

By the time the leaders of the Graying 7 get around to inviting China and the other two BRICs to join an enlarged G-11, the party may no longer be worth attending. What was once a summit is fast becoming a hill of has-beens.