The Country Which Has Had The Most Impact on The Modern World

[Strike For The South]

For me it comes down to two Countries The UK And France

I say France because England is terribly boring, Scotland is like Alabama, and no one cares about the Welsh.

The only good thing to come out of England was the Sunday fry up and my mum

France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy

Vive Le Francios

Vive Le Republique

[Vladimir]

I thought you were going to say Texas.

[Sarmatian]

Is this supposed to be a real discussion or just anoither way of SFTS to express his France fetish?

[Strike For The South]

Is this supposed to be a real discussion or just anoither way of SFTS to express his France fetish?

Can it not be both?

From Rosseau to Montisqeau the French have seamlessly synthesisized the wonder and the pratical of life. A 300 page romance from Flaubert has as much real world application as it does surreal wonderment.

The British on the other hand are being miserable, drinking tea in the rain, wondering about what it all means. Its all been down hill since Aqunias. They need to learn to take it all in instead of wondering why its there.

Boom, disscussion

[Rhyfelwyr]

I would say the UK because it was the single most dominant superpower that there has ever been at any point in history, and at a time of rampant globalisation. And in addition to that it gave the world the modern day superpower - the USA.

You could maybe even argue that the USA is truer to British values than Britain. Heck the USA was born from a rebellion that was out of loyalty to a distinctly British strain of values and political thought at a time when the British state was itself trampling on them.

I would also suggest that Britain's predisposition towards more moderate and stable forms of government has allowed its political ideals to have a bigger impact on the world today than those of the much more reactionary and radical French.

I mean, Locke laid the foundations for modern day liberal democracy which is so dominant that some people consider it to be the "end of history" (although I don't personally agree with that). Whereas the likes of Rousseau seem to have created more of a framework for the totalitarianism of the last century.

Of course this could be interpreted as my own bias as a Briton and dismissed as hubris. Of course my country v your country debates are often silly, but I think the reason for what I have written above is due to Britain's quite unique, isolated geoplitical situation.

I would also ask Strike in what way is Scotland like Alabama, and remind him that Northern Ireland exists. Of course, he is right that nobody cares about the Welsh. Nothing interesting happens there, they haven't really contributed anything to the world.

[Tellos Athenaios]

On the modern world? The USA. From Coca Cola, Mac Donalds, to Apple, to Windows, to Afghanistan to Iraq, to Internet, to Wall Street to War on Drugs: it is all made or broken in the USA.

[Kagemusha]

Im with Strike on this one. To put it in a nutshell. France has given us what we desire. UK what is essential, US what we do not need and Germany what we do not want. Thats about it.

[rvg]

Modern World? I'd say the USSR.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If we take modern as "starting with the reformation" like usually in history, I would guess Britain, especially since the US is an offshoot. Along with much of the world.


France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy

Penicillin was discovered by a scot, a bunch of economists were scottish too...I think a bunch of the early sporting institutions were formed in britain...And there are more famous german philosophers than french...the puritans believed that women couldn't conceive without having an orgasm...actually I don't think anything from your list is mainly french...

[Lemur]

France on the other hand gave us [...] rock & roll
Yes, but of course. I believe House Music originated in the Languedoc-Roussillon region as well. And why oh why do they call it Mississippi Delta Blues when everyone knows it came from Gascony?

[HoreTore]

Germany.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If we take modern as "starting with the reformation" like usually in history, I would guess Britain, especially since the US is an offshoot. Along with much of the world.



Penicillin was discovered by a scot, a bunch of economists were scottish too...I think a bunch of the early sporting institutions were formed in britain...And there are more famous german philosophers than french...the puritans believed that women couldn't conceive without having an orgasm...actually I don't think anything from your list is mainly french...

Actually, the orgasm this was a common belief from antiquity until the 19th century, at which point doctors starting advocating female circumcision to reduce your wife's libido.


Germany.

If by that you mean "in the last hundred years" then I would have to dissagree - the major ramification of WWI were the decline of the British, French and Russian states and these were US policy objectives. It was achived by sitting out most of the war and only coming in to "save the day" once Britian and France agreed to relax trade franchises, thereby gimping their economies for the next forty years.

Germany was just a patsy.

[gaelic cowboy]

What do we mean by modern??

If were talking modern as in who impacted the 20th century the most then hands down it's America fullstop no arguements end of.

Cinema, television, computers, nukes, coke, big macs, pepsi the internet and the moon landings and thats just technology and stuff

America has influenced through it's great writers, artists, thinkers, actors and movie directors.

American culture is now world culture when family guy is on the telly it is full of prob 80-90% pure american jokes purely because American popculture is the worlds popculture.

We shouldnt be even able to laugh at half it but we do because even here in Ireland we have heard of Bo an Luke or Uncle Jesse but 99% of America has not a clue who father ted is

[HoreTore]

When I said Germany, I did so based on the criteria given above, from the 1500's and up.

My answer is still Germany.


Even though I would've loved it to be France...

[Kralizec]

...And there are more famous german philosophers than french...

I'm interested in hearing these numbers...

(in all fairness, I should point out that Rousseau is technically Swiss)


If by that you mean "in the last hundred years" then I would have to dissagree - the major ramification of WWI were the decline of the British, French and Russian states and these were US policy objectives. It was achived by sitting out most of the war and only coming in to "save the day" once Britian and France agreed to relax trade franchises, thereby gimping their economies for the next forty years.

Germany was just a patsy.

I find this analysis most...disagreeable. Heck, if the US wanted the European powers to harm eachother as much as possible, it would have been far wiser to just stay out entirely. That might have given the Germans the opportunity to exploit their success of the 1918 offensive; which they couldn't in real life, partly due to the American additions of manpower.

...

As for my own answer, assuming "modern" means everything after the 18th century...I'm leaning towards Luxembourg.

[Papewaio]

I'll think you'll find most actions have roots in synthesized ideas that on some parts go generations back.

If there was a country not defined by borders but shared knowledge and actions then it would have to be the state of modern technology. From the green revolution which two/thirds of the modern population relies upon to live (the modern farming revolution which fixes nitrates in the soil), to broadcast communications devices, to transport, to networking.

The impact for the modern world is what we are on at the moment. It isn't a country it is the tearing down of borders in the form of the internet. Of which there is many parents, not least the CERN and DARPA scientists.

So for influence not look at which country, look at which intellectual disciplines have delivered us the modern world.

Terrorists would have themselves and us huddle in caves looking at the shadows on the cave walls. Modern engineers and scientists would have us exploring the rugged world around us, feeding the hungry, seeing the pre-born with ultra sound, curing our ills, allowing us to talk with our loved ones, allowing us to fly in the modern miracle of a jet, and of course to converse with like and dislike minds around the world.

Don't curl up and whimper for old miracles. Learn science and make a new miracle happen.

[InsaneApache]

UK begat colonies, colonies begat Taxes. Ergo, UK FTW. :2thumbsup:

[Noncommunist]

I have read somewhere that a lot of terrorists have first been trained as engineers. Something about the fact that engineering may be less subject to interpretation which they like to see in their religion.

[Moros]

Surely it was Belgium.

We invented Gueuze, Lambic, Spéciale Belge, Trappistenbier, Oud Belgisch,... How many styles and sorts of beers did your country invent?
We gave you waffles as well
We invented the worlds most sexy musical instrument: the saxophone.
We invented surrealism.

We invented a new political systems: both the 'no government system' and the 'a government or five for every inhabitant system'
We invented modern asphalt roads. Who doesn't have those ruining the countryside these days?
We invented CFK's and hence the hole in the Ozon Layer. How about world impact there?
We invented plastic and hence trash.


In other words we ruined the world you live in, yet made you capable of enjoying life at the same time.

[Kralizec]

You could maybe even argue that the USA is truer to British values than Britain. Heck the USA was born from a rebellion that was out of loyalty to a distinctly British strain of values and political thought at a time when the British state was itself trampling on them.

Gah, this statement is its own refutation. Either Britain's history is one of harmonious, gradual political development towards modern democracy (as some romanticists claim, in the vein of Burke) or it's a history of the lowly Anglo-Saxon (or scottish, if you prefer) commoner with unalienable, god-given rights that he has to guard constantly against his own government (as some other romanticists claim). Can't have it both ways.


I would also suggest that Britain's predisposition towards more moderate and stable forms of government has allowed its political ideals to have a bigger impact on the world today than those of the much more reactionary and radical French.

I mean, Locke laid the foundations for modern day liberal democracy which is so dominant that some people consider it to be the "end of history" (although I don't personally agree with that). Whereas the likes of Rousseau seem to have created more of a framework for the totalitarianism of the last century.

Locke's ideas centre around the notion of the government and the people being almost entirely seperable entities. As long as the government refrains from interfering with some supposedly inalienable rights, property foremost, it should be tolerated. If it does interfere, then the people have a just cause for overthrowing it. There's an extremely large gap between Locke's philosphy (as enlightened as it was, for his days) and modern liberal democracy.

Rousseau is Swiss :clown: but yeah, his ideas are not entirely compatible with liberal democracy as we know it. To be fair though, in order to establish a link between him and totalitarian ideologies you'd have to cherry-pick parts of his political message.


Of course this could be interpreted as my own bias

Indeed. Perfidious briton! :snobby:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find this analysis most...disagreeable. Heck, if the US wanted the European powers to harm eachother as much as possible, it would have been far wiser to just stay out entirely. That might have given the Germans the opportunity to exploit their success of the 1918 offensive; which they couldn't in real life, partly due to the American additions of manpower.

It is, after all, what every powerful nation has done to its powerful neighbours since time began. Brtiain supported Portugal and Spain against Napoleon not only because Napoleon was the aggressor and his troops wer especially keen on rape and pillage, but also because Britain did not want a large power Bloc in Europe. Yay EU.

America only entered the War, both times, when German/Axis actions became intollerable and directly harmed American interests. In both cases it was recognised that this was deliberate, it was resented at the time and has been ever since. Further, the US required certain concessions from Britain and France before entering both wars, and in order to keep the subsequent peace.

Hell, you guys are always banging on about America doing this that and the other for oil, why it so hard to believe it did the same for iron or coal?


When I said Germany, I did so based on the criteria given above, from the 1500's and up.

My answer is still Germany.


Even though I would've loved it to be France...

Leaving asside that "Germany" did not exist, how so?

As far as I can see even those post-1500 innovations Germany actually came up with are heavily forshadowed elsewhere, including Lutheranism.

I suppose the printing press came from Mainz, but otherwise the cupboard fairly bare.

[Husar]

As far as I can see even those post-1500 innovations Germany actually came up with are heavily forshadowed elsewhere, including Lutheranism.

And so are things that other nations came up with.

Flying into space and onto the moon was heavily influenced by german rocket scientists, supersonic flight was made possible by looking at german swept wing designs etc.
Einstein was a german...
the mp3 format is more or less from Germany.

Blitzkrieg is a german invention.
World Wars are a german invention.
Schadenfreude is a german invention. ~;)

And noone said it's just about inventions, what has more impact, inventing the vacuum cleaner or starting two bloody world wars that throw Europe into a period of long-lasting peace?

I'm not sure one can just say Germany though, culturally the US has a HUGE impact on the western world as it is now.

The winner may also be whoever re-invented concrete after the romans...

A lot depends, as usual, on what you weigh more, is having had an empire more of an influence than spreading McDonald's?
I wouldn't know. :shrug:

[Beskar]

I would like to note that the British invented the Internet, not the Americans.
Tim Berners Lee. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee)

Americans.. thinking they invent everything!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Gah, this statement is its own refutation. Either Britain's history is one of harmonious, gradual political development towards modern democracy (as some romanticists claim, in the vein of Burke) or it's a history of the lowly Anglo-Saxon (or scottish, if you prefer) commoner with unalienable, god-given rights that he has to guard constantly against his own government (as some other romanticists claim). Can't have it both ways.

Well I'm pretty sure I did not mention anything to do with these competing narratives on the history of democracy in Britain. But I'll bite... I would regard both the "gradual, peaceful transition" and "ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution" viewpoints to be more mythology than anything.

But at the same time, mythology is central to a nation's character and values. The Anglo-Saxons didn't have democracy as we would recognise it today, but the myth of their style of governance inspired the Puritans and with them the likes of Locke to develop the kind of theories we would recognise.

Likewise the mythology of the harmonious nature of British politics with the Glorious aka bloodless Revolution etc came to be seen as part of the national character and this fact may (just speculating) have something to do with Britain's historic aversion to extremist movements.

The myth might not be real but when people believe it then it can have a real impact.


Locke's ideas centre around the notion of the government and the people being almost entirely seperable entities. As long as the government refrains from interfering with some supposedly inalienable rights, property foremost, it should be tolerated. If it does interfere, then the people have a just cause for overthrowing it. There's an extremely large gap between Locke's philosphy (as enlightened as it was, for his days) and modern liberal democracy.

Well, the economic realities were different in Locke's time but his fundamental ideas like separating the judicial/legislative/executive branches of government are relevant today and obviously shaped the American constitution.

And as for overthrowing the government, that right is just as real today as in Locke's. But our lives are pretty good so we don't tend to bother.


Rousseau is Swiss :clown: but yeah, his ideas are not entirely compatible with liberal democracy as we know it. To be fair though, in order to establish a link between him and totalitarian ideologies you'd have to cherry-pick parts of his political message.

It's less about cherry-picking particular points and more about looking at the spirit of his message as a whole. Much of what he says is based on his idea of the "general will" which in his mind the government has a duty to enforce over the individual.

Not to mention the fact that he thought that democracy should not take place at a higher level than would would today be considered a small town.

His ideas were certainly radical, but not very relevant.


Indeed. Perfidious briton! :snobby:

You're American, right? Once upon a time you lot were getting very angry when you were being denied your "rights as Englishmen"...

[Tellos Athenaios]

You're American, right? Wrong.

PS: At the time, plenty of Britons supported the colonies. There's this lovely exchange of letters between a Scot in the employ of the colonies, and another Scot whose estate just got pillaged. The first apologises, the second expresses his moral support for the revolution.

Also, American independence was fought for by the French, bankrolled & supplied by the Dutch & French, planned in Paris.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wrong.

Well now I just look silly. Apologies to Kralizec, I thought he was rvg, same avatar!

And yeah I realise there were loyalists in the colonies*, IIRC Lemur once said the patriot-loyalist-uninterested divide was roughly 40-30-30. But the patriots won and that fact shaped the vision of American nationhood today.

Because let's face it, the USA as a nation was created by WASP's, for WASP's. I think it is comical how the moderate left in America appeals to the constitution to support their own modern ideas of secularism and civil rights.

Those rights were intended for Englishman - slavery is constitutional. Religious freedom did not mean it was removed from the political sphere - official state churches are constitutional. Hence why both the above continued to exist when the constitution was drafted, and were entrenched by it.

I realise this interpretation of the constitution puts me in line with the likes of the Black Guerrila Family, but you've got to appreciate the historical context.

As for the French and American independence, surely that alliance was more strategic than ideological?

EDIT: Just realise you said Britons, not Americans. But I'll leave my rant.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As for the French and American independence, surely that alliance was more strategic than ideological?


Not entirely: the American independence was something of a cause célèbre, too. There were French volunteers who joined the forces of the colonies, some of whom were of real political significance in France, too. For example: Lafayette.

[Centurion1]

Rome? Nobody?

If I was to list off the ways that Rome has had an impact on your life, the list would be endless.

post 1500s or else i would agree especially in the west.

[Pannonian]

Can it not be both?

From Rosseau to Montisqeau the French have seamlessly synthesisized the wonder and the pratical of life. A 300 page romance from Flaubert has as much real world application as it does surreal wonderment.

The British on the other hand are being miserable, drinking tea in the rain, wondering about what it all means. Its all been down hill since Aqunias. They need to learn to take it all in instead of wondering why its there.

Boom, disscussion

Exactly. The English-Russian axis has been instrumental in preventing the world from being overrun by the corruption that is France and Germany. We don't care about your Montesqieus and your Kants. We just want to eat pies and drink vodka. And such is our legacy.

[Fragony]

USA of course. Germany comes second.

[Kagemusha]

The winner may also be whoever re-invented concrete after the romans...

Husar That would be French.:smug2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete

[Sarmatian]

post 1500s or else i would agree especially in the west.

Where does it say in the OP post 1500s?

From what I've been able understand it is which country had greatest influence on the modern world, it doesn't neccesarily has to be a modern country...

[Vuk]

The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?

I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else.
On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate.

As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries.

As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US.

Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted.

Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)

[InsaneApache]

Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation.

Oh dear where to start.

Who invented the steam engine?

Who invented the tank?

Who invented the jet engine?

Who invented television?

Who invented the radio?

Who invented the computer?

Which country had the first all steel ship?

Who invented cordite?

Who invented scuba gear?

Who invented depth charges?

Who invented the fax machine?

Who invented the internal combustion engine?

Who invented locomotives?

Who invented light bulbs?

Who discovered penicillin?

Who invented the periscope?

Who invented radar?

Who invented shrapnel?

Who invented HUD?

Who invented Chobham armour?

Make an educated guess!

:blank2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?

I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else.
On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate.

As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries.

As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US.

Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted.

Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)

A lot of that is British tech, or British political thought.

The American constituion is clearly built on British (primarily Scottish) thinking, taking Rome as a practical model. American dress - I'll give you that one for the lower classes - otherwise fashion has been pretty staic since the war. Ties and turn down collars have barely changed and the average suit would be as recognisable in 1940 as 2012.

Technology, well that's all British. Where America has been a big driver is mass production, but that's mostly because of America's economic might. A hundred years ago Britain did the same with rail and steam powered ships.

If you look at the American military, well the "New Model Army" was British, and even if America had supperior cavalry iun 1860, well who cared by that point? Only cavalrymen. I read somewhere that American cavalry sometimes didn't bother to carry their sabres, because they so raely used them. On the other hand, if you look at British line Infantry, they have been supperior for most of the period from 1640's onwards, during the Napolionic wars they fired four to five rounds to every other army's three, were the first to equip rifle regiments, and during WWI the "Tommys" were so accurate with their SMLE's that the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire.

Although, though in terms of military organisation the Prussians come out on top for the General Staff, the doctrine of keeping reserves and being the first to equip whole units with assault rifles at least 20 years before anyone else.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Husar (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=3510) That would be French.:smug2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete


No, it would be the British, because we invented Portland cement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement

You need that for concrete. Also, I note you linked to "reinforced concrete", the Romans didn't reinforce their concrete.

[gaelic cowboy]

I would like to note that the British invented the Internet, not the Americans.
Tim Berners Lee. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee)

Americans.. thinking they invent everything!

he invented an easier way to use the internet so that the networks became more like the internet we recognise but the the yanks had already laid the copper wire and networked the computers.

[Kagemusha]

The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?

I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else.
On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate.

As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries.

As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US.

Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted.

Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)

There is so much nonsense in this post, that i cant wrap my head around to decide where to start debunking it.:shrug:

[Kagemusha]

No, it would be the British, because we invented Portland cement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement

You need that for concrete. Also, I note you linked to "reinforced concrete", the Romans didn't reinforce their concrete.

Portland cement was only a stop during the path to reinforced concrete, which is the modern concrete.

[Kagemusha]

Is there any doubt that people a few hundred years in the future who look back asking this question will say "USA"?

I'm not backing Vuk's post, but don't discount the American influence. Without a doubt we are up there with all the other superpowers of history, and in terms of global impact we certainly must be at or near the top by now.

The thing is. If the question was, which Country will have the most impact on future world of lets say 100 years from now. The answer would be no brainer.USA, as it dominates the modern World, but if we are talking about the impact on modern World.We will have to look into the past to find answers. In that case US is not on the top, so does speak. :vanish:

[gaelic cowboy]

Portland cement was only a stop during the path to reinforced concrete, which is the modern concrete.

Cast iron is a far more important material than concrete and while casting is very ancient it was the Brits who pioneered its real development.

If you want to take industrial applications then the Yanks invented the idea of Just in Time, Lean Manufacturing and the assembly line.

It was America who pioneered the development of modern manufacturing practices due to the needs of WW2 basically Japan would never have developed the Toyata production system without US thinking

The yanks also pioneered jigs and fixtures enabling both mass production and interchangeable parts vital in today's industry.

[Kagemusha]

Your wasting you time man cast iron is a far more important material than concrete and while casting is very ancient it was the Brits who pioneered its real development.

If you want to take industrial applications then the Yanks invented the idea of Just in Time, Lean Manufacturing and the assembly line.

The yanks also pioneered jigs and fixtures enabling both mass production and interchangeable parts.

Well we were kind of talking about concrete, werent we? Also interchangeable parts were invented by a Frenchman Honoré Blanc. :smug:

[gaelic cowboy]

Well we were kind of talking about concrete, werent we? Also interchangeable parts were invented by a Frenchman Honoré Blanc. :smug:

No he dabbled in it Whitney actually made it a reality so the gong goes to the Yank

It was the Jigs and Fixtures that were the key here for Whitney they allowed unskilled labour to manufacture parts and put them together later.

Blanc made one piece then he compared each piece off of that one to maintain quality and tolerence.

Whitney once he had his Jigs and fixtures could be assured his parts were all the same even if a drunk of the street made them.

[Kagemusha]

No he dabbled in it Whitney actually made it a reality so the gong goes to the Yank

He invented it, period. :P You should really understand that without French we would be living in world of saggy breast´s, thus invention of bra = End of discussion, France reigns supreme.:2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

Well I'm pretty sure I did not mention anything to do with these competing narratives on the history of democracy in Britain. But I'll bite... I would regard both the "gradual, peaceful transition" and "ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution" viewpoints to be more mythology than anything.

But at the same time, mythology is central to a nation's character and values. The Anglo-Saxons didn't have democracy as we would recognise it today, but the myth of their style of governance inspired the Puritans and with them the likes of Locke to develop the kind of theories we would recognise.

Likewise the mythology of the harmonious nature of British politics with the Glorious aka bloodless Revolution etc came to be seen as part of the national character and this fact may (just speculating) have something to do with Britain's historic aversion to extremist movements.

The myth might not be real but when people believe it then it can have a real impact.

Fair enough.




Well, the economic realities were different in Locke's time but his fundamental ideas like separating the judicial/legislative/executive branches of government are relevant today and obviously shaped the American constitution.

Hmm, I don't think Locke's ideas were particulary influential in regards to the concept "seperation of powers". Than honour is usually bestowed on Montesqieu; allthough he based his idea on some misguided perceptions of what Britian's system was like.


It's less about cherry-picking particular points and more about looking at the spirit of his message as a whole. Much of what he says is based on his idea of the "general will" which in his mind the government has a duty to enforce over the individual.

Not to mention the fact that he thought that democracy should not take place at a higher level than would would today be considered a small town.

Not in so many words. Rousseau's concept of the General Will has a few internal problems. For example, he thinks that your will as a person is not necessarily the same as your "will" as a citizen; as the former is clouded by selfish motives, while the latter is rational and in fact the basis of the General Will. This has led some people to argue that it inspired totalitarian systems because it gives an excuse for governments to act against what appears to be the will of its subjects.
In all fairness; Rousseau did say that the authority to interpret the general will, or legislative authority, could never be delegated to a smaller body (a.ka. representative democracy). That's the reason why he thought that democracy could only work in smaller entities, like Swiss cantons.


His ideas were certainly radical, but not very relevant.

Well, not directly relevant. His legacy is largely that he furthered political philosphy by his radical proposals.

[Kralizec]

It is, after all, what every powerful nation has done to its powerful neighbours since time began. Brtiain supported Portugal and Spain against Napoleon not only because Napoleon was the aggressor and his troops wer especially keen on rape and pillage, but also because Britain did not want a large power Bloc in Europe. Yay EU.

America only entered the War, both times, when German/Axis actions became intollerable and directly harmed American interests. In both cases it was recognised that this was deliberate, it was resented at the time and has been ever since. Further, the US required certain concessions from Britain and France before entering both wars, and in order to keep the subsequent peace.

Hell, you guys are always banging on about America doing this that and the other for oil, why it so hard to believe it did the same for iron or coal?

"You guys"?

The idea that great powers generally follow policies meant to weaken others is true enough. I just never heard anybody allege that the USA tried to do this during WW1. Some facts:

- the USA tried to broker a peace as soon as the war started
- it did warn the belligerents that they should refrain from targetting merchant vessels
- until they did, there was never going to be enough support in the USA for intervention. Next thing, Germany sinks a bunch of USA merchant ships.
- before the USA entered the war, Germany tried to convince Mexico to declare war on the United States and annex its southern territories. By accident, the telegrams became public. The USA did not appreciate this.

I've never heard of French or British concessions to buy American assistance. But if there were any, it would not be unusual.

[gaelic cowboy]

He invented it, period. :P You should really understand that without French we would be living in world of saggy breast´s, thus invention of bra = End of discussion, France reigns supreme.:2thumbsup:



It's not enough to come up with or invent an idea.

No one claims that the greeks invented Steam Engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria) you have to develop the idea then refine it and finaly make something of it.

thats why it's no use claiming that some german (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow) invented the television before Logie Baird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird)

Even with Britain's invention it is obvious that the television is in fact a US machine, US culture permeates it even though the American hardly make anymore a television worth buying.


Telly invented by Europeans but developed to it's fullest in America, would anyone understand the idea of a tv dinner in France would we even have said items if it was not for America.

Incidently that thumbs up your using while coming from earlier cultural writing and paintings has remained with us by way of American cinema and it's ideas of ancient rome and ww2 movies.



Too much of the debate on this thread is who made or wrote X down first, we should be asking who took X and made it there own or developed a culture around said things.



So it's USA USA USA USA USAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[Kagemusha]

It's not enough to come up with or invent an idea.

No one claims that the greeks invented Steam Engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria) you have to develop the idea then refine it and finaly make something of it.

thats why it's no use claiming that some german (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gottlieb_Nipkow) invented the television before Logie Baird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird)

Even with Britain's invention it is obvious that the television is in fact a US machine, US culture permeates it even though the American hardly make anymore a television worth buying.


Telly invented by Europeans but developed to it's fullest in America, would anyone understand the idea of a tv dinner in France would we even have said items if it was not for America.

Incidently that thumbs up your using while coming from earlier cultural writing and paintings has remained with us by way of American cinema and it's ideas of ancient rome and ww2 movies.



Too much of the debate on this thread is who made or wrote X down first, we should be asking who took X and made it there own or developed a culture around said things.



So it's USA USA USA USA USAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

All that talk reminds me just of saggy boobs.:painting:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Portland cement was only a stop during the path to reinforced concrete, which is the modern concrete.

I dissagree, regular concrete is still used all the time, as a surface, as blocks. Reinforced concrete may be essential, but it's still just concrete with an iron bar in it.

[Kagemusha]

I dissagree, regular concrete is still used all the time, as a surface, as blocks. Reinforced concrete may be essential, but it's still just concrete with an iron bar in it.

Like i earlier mentioned, British have given us essential things, but concrete really does not do it for a person compared to boobs.:shy:

[Moros]

Woops Nevermind.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else. On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate. As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries. As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US. Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted. Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)This is what I call a TryHard.

[Tuuvi]

I dissagree, regular concrete is still used all the time, as a surface, as blocks. Reinforced concrete may be essential, but it's still just concrete with an iron bar in it.

All concrete has rebar in it, including sidewalks and the foundations of homes.

EDIT: Actually, I just remembered that sidewalks and patios don't have rebar in them. My bad lol.

[Greyblades]

Germany, pretty much everything in world was radically and suddenly transformed due to the second world war and without germany it wouldnt have happened. Not much that happened after 1950 would have happened the way it did without it. Seems like the logical conclusion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All concrete has rebar in it, including sidewalks and the foundations of homes.

EDIT: Actually, I just remembered that sidewalks and patios don't have rebar in them. My bad lol.

Really? Even a concrete block?

I'm not convinced.

Anyway, I'm changing my vote. The Res Publica has given us more than Britain, France, the US and Germany combined have - even though Rome officially ceased to be a power in 476 AD the Romans have continued to exert an influence over every aspect of our lives. You name, they did it first - from architechture to mass entertainment, from mechanized production of marble facades to books.

[Moros]

I find the influence of Res Publica to be quite overstated really. And after 476 AD it was not a country. ~;)

Architecturally they did great things, though reusing many principles from others. But the cement/concrete buildings of the Sassanids were perhaps of a longer lasting nature one might say. Mass entertainment already existed in the form of many festivals or Greek theatre. Not forgetting olympic (and similar) Greek games as perhaps the most influential for sports of this age, much more than the Gladiators (with Etruscan roots) or horse races did in my opinion. When it comes to literature again we find it to be borrowing heavily from others mostly Greek tradition. Sure there were new additions for example the added importance of morality in autobiographic work, that would also manifest itself in much of Medieval literature. Marble façades surely aren't the Roman thing, how many examples are there even dating from times that Rome was mere bricks and mud?

I think Rome was perhaps one of the cultures that was most influenced and was successful at picking the beneficial things up and yes improving them. But being the most influential, I think not. Romanisation itself is also highly exaggerated and that is recently getting more and more recognised as well by the scientific community.

The question asked here is difficult to answer. It depends on what you find important, how you rate a country's share at being responsible for certain changes or events,... Sadly there are no charts for holding most territory or for most advanced faction in the real world.

But if we take it literally I could think of Belgium (Ozone layer), China (biggest polluter), Brazil (chop, chop),...

[CountArach]

Luxembourg.

[Husar]

And human flight, underseas discoveries and space explorations as well as particle accelerators (don't say catapults now :laugh4: ), you name it, the romans did it first. ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

I love these threads. Everyone gives predictably nationalistic answers (apart from the jokers) whilst making every effort to appear completely rational and objective. :grin:

Trying to count philosophers, colonies, and inventions are ultimately exercises in futility. Western thought, achievements, and advancements were built upon one another. They are like the bricks and mortar that support modern Western Civilization. The British may have invented the jet engine, but the Germans made it workable, and so on.

That is, imho, the only reasonable answer to the question posed in the OP. The modern world has been most impacted by Western Civilization - Europe and European colonial nations. It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, I was thinking about the absurdity of it too. To know what "impact" means, you have to be able to rank and compare what's most important. I little adjustment in that can spin everything in the other direction. So you would have to be the worlds greatest philosopher and the world's greatest historian to answer the question.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...

How so? China is a dictatorship that bribes its people with jobs, while facing the hard limits of the free market, bound at the hands and feet by western markets who are the main purchasers of their products, looking to shift the demand onto its own rising middle class which is becoming only more demanding from its government now that it has a taste of economic freedom and materialistic goods. Its own state capitalism can only serve to a certain point before they must reach the point of no return and relinquish control over its citizens in order to remain competitive since no top down economic structure has ever survived in the long term.

[Centurion1]

The most influential empire for the West and therefore the modern world is very clearly the Eastern Roman Empire. Without it the Muslims would have run roughshod over most of our ancestors and the world would likely be a much more dim place. Not because of the muslims themselves haha but because the west delivered the world to modernity was because the unique collection of nationalistic cultures and competing nations in such a tiny geographical area that resulted in warfare and thus technology positively exploding. So my answer goes to the Byzantines.

[Tuuvi]

Really? Even a concrete block?

I'm not convinced.

My dad worked for a concrete company for 15 years, and I helped him set up the forms and pour the concrete for the house I'm living in right now. Like I said in my edit; patios, driveways, sidewalks, basically anything that's just a simple slab, don't have rebar in them. So you were right about that. I probably shouldn't have even posted anything but I wasn't remembering clearly.

If by concrete block you mean like a cube, I imagine it would need to be reinforced, otherwise it would be too fragile and wouldn't be able to hold it's shape, it would just fall apart.




I love these threads. Everyone gives predictably nationalistic answers (apart from the jokers) whilst making every effort to appear completely rational and objective. :grin:

Trying to count philosophers, colonies, and inventions are ultimately exercises in futility. Western thought, achievements, and advancements were built upon one another. They are like the bricks and mortar that support modern Western Civilization. The British may have invented the jet engine, but the Germans made it workable, and so on.

That is, imho, the only reasonable answer to the question posed in the OP. The modern world has been most impacted by Western Civilization - Europe and European colonial nations. It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...

I think you're right. You can't really name one country which impacted the modern world the most.

One country that needs to be added to the list that hasn't been mentioned yet is Spain. The conquest of the Americas transformed the world, and it's one of the events that allowed Europe to become such a powerhouse.

[InsaneApache]

Israel.

Game over. Thread needs closing now.

[Fisherking]

This:



France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy

Vive Le Francios

Vive Le Republique

You obviously come from an alternate universe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My dad worked for a concrete company for 15 years, and I helped him set up the forms and pour the concrete for the house I'm living in right now. Like I said in my edit; patios, driveways, sidewalks, basically anything that's just a simple slab, don't have rebar in them. So you were right about that. I probably shouldn't have even posted anything but I wasn't remembering clearly.

If by concrete block you mean like a cube, I imagine it would need to be reinforced, otherwise it would be too fragile and wouldn't be able to hold it's shape, it would just fall apart.





I think you're right. You can't really name one country which impacted the modern world the most.

One country that needs to be added to the list that hasn't been mentioned yet is Spain. The conquest of the Americas transformed the world, and it's one of the events that allowed Europe to become such a powerhouse.

Cast strone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_stone AKA "solid concrete blocks", very widely used in the UK for the outer course of external walls (inner course being thermal blocks) and for internal walls. It has the advantage of not suffering from "concrete cancer", so if the morter fails it does not crack as the steel rods rust. I've demolished the stuff with a sledghammer (fun afternoon) and I can tell you, it's just concrete a grit.

The US builds completely differently to the UK, what you call "dry wall" we call "stud wall" and we only use it to divide existing rooms, or in cheap builds.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That doesn't really disprove his point. If China underwent the scenario you described, then they would become truly comparable to the USA in the in the first half of the 20th century. They really would own the future if that happened.Except the US was never a dictatorship, and that is where the key difference is in how the two handles social unrest when you can't provide millions of new jobs every year...

[Sarmatian]

You can stop this discussion as we all know what the answer is - it is Serbia of course. On what do I base this on, you wonder? Well, game that has sold most copies in history is GTA IV. What do you do in that game? You play a Serb, who`s kicking ass and taking names. It doesn't take a genius to understand this means that, consciously or subconsciously, you all want to be Serbs, which makes Serbia most influental country in the world ever. QED.

[gaelic cowboy]

My dad worked for a concrete company for 15 years, and I helped him set up the forms and pour the concrete for the house I'm living in right now. Like I said in my edit; patios, driveways, sidewalks, basically anything that's just a simple slab, don't have rebar in them. So you were right about that. I probably shouldn't have even posted anything but I wasn't remembering clearly.

Concrete is poor in tension but excellant in compression hence it's use for concrete blocks basically you put steel in a foundation to improve its tensile strength. However you dont do this for the blocks as there expected to do a different job and it would be uneconomical and unneccessary to put steel in a block.


Basically a concrete foundation or lintel needs to prevent stretching and bending but the block only needs to resist compression.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A point to consider might be how appropriate it is to equate global culture (McDonalds etc) with American culture.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A point to consider might be how appropriate it is to equate global culture (McDonalds etc) with American culture.

Or: how come an American company is equated with global culture, and what does it say about the impact of the country that fostered the company? ~;)

[gaelic cowboy]

A point to consider might be how appropriate it is to equate global culture (McDonalds etc) with American culture.

Depends on your definition of global culture fully the majority of the world has proably never eaten a big mac can it be described as global then.

Your also missing the point that it doesnt matter if the idea is not inherently American they came up with the system of the McDonalds takeaway and exported it to the world.

Nowadays even completely Irish takeaways like Supermacs are using a system designed by and for Americans, this must influence how we treat the experience even if we have come to see it as global in nature.


Or: how come an American company is equated with global culture, and what does it say about the impact of the country that fostered the company? ~;)

You cant deny that America is influencing the world through it's fast food, soft drinks, telly an movies all consumed by non americans on a far larger scale.

It actually says more about the Non American consumers than the Americans themselves as there not the ones equating McD's with America

[Tellos Athenaios]

It actually says more about the Non American consumers than the Americans themselves as there not the ones equating McD's with America

Yeah, well, Mac Donald's is simply (part of) America's legacy to the world so that is what America is equated with. I imagine the Irish are not the ones equating Ireland with shamrocks and pubs. Certainly the Dutch don't equate the Netherlands with wooden shoes, wind mills or tulips. :shrug:

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah, well, Mac Donald's is simply (part of) America's legacy to the world so that is what America is equated with. I imagine the Irish are not the ones equating Ireland with shamrocks and pubs. Certainly the Dutch don't equate the Netherlands with wooden shoes, wind mills or tulips. :shrug:



True but the influence is still there underneath it all however diluted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaDonal)

[Vladimir]

I love these threads. Everyone gives predictably nationalistic answers (apart from the jokers) whilst making every effort to appear completely rational and objective. :grin:

Trying to count philosophers, colonies, and inventions are ultimately exercises in futility. Western thought, achievements, and advancements were built upon one another. They are like the bricks and mortar that support modern Western Civilization. The British may have invented the jet engine, but the Germans made it workable, and so on.

That is, imho, the only reasonable answer to the question posed in the OP. The modern world has been most impacted by Western Civilization - Europe and European colonial nations. It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...

By far east you mean China? I don't think so. Paper tigers don't last long.

Other than that I agree.

[Sarmatian]

By far east you mean China? I don't think so. Paper tigers don't last long.

Other than that I agree.


Huge population, ethnically homogenous, great GDP growth with an actual trade surplus, no debt etc... Western countries are more like paper tigers compared to China. After all, various western nations rose to prominence for a century or two, but China has led the world economically, technologically and militarily for 90% of the known history.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Or: how come an American company is equated with global culture, and what does it say about the impact of the country that fostered the company? ~;)

Maybe it just says that America was the environment that allowed for big multi-national corporations to take off. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are exporting American culture when they establish themselves elsewhere.

What would you say is inherently American about McDonalds? The place is decorated and the staff dress in a modern, western fashion. The food is based on American cuisine, although I've heard that McDonalds in places like India etc do all sorts of Indian foods.

I once heard the term "glocalisation" used to describe companies like McDonalds. Global in their reach, but adopting local customs wherever they are. I think that term is pretty appropriate.


Depends on your definition of global culture fully the majority of the world has proably never eaten a big mac can it be described as global then.

Your also missing the point that it doesnt matter if the idea is not inherently American they came up with the system of the McDonalds takeaway and exported it to the world.

Nowadays even completely Irish takeaways like Supermacs are using a system designed by and for Americans, this must influence how we treat the experience even if we have come to see it as global in nature.

But the question is that when the likes of Supermacs adopt McDonalds system, are they doing so because people buy into the American culture that is supposedly represents? Or are they doing it because it is simply the most efficient business model and an American company happened to come up with it first?

When I think of American culture I think of American football, basketball, rednecks, 50's diners, country music etc.

McDonalds isn't any of that, it's just bland generic corporate capitalism.

[Noncommunist]

Huge population, ethnically homogenous, great GDP growth with an actual trade surplus, no debt etc... Western countries are more like paper tigers compared to China. After all, various western nations rose to prominence for a century or two, but China has led the world economically, technologically and militarily for 90% of the known history.

Sure, they've been fairly powerful but they've also been fairly contained. In the 1500s and later, Europe was sending ships everywhere around the world, trading and conquering. Aside from Zheng He, how much was China really able to show any sort of dominance on the world stage and really demonstrate a "lead"?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm, that's really not how I would describe Chinese history based on what I know of it. The triumphalism seems misplaced.

If you look at ancient Egyptian history, they were very wealthy, had great agriculture and population, only went abroad for luxury items, built great monuments etc. They had "enough" because of their complaisance and willingness to bow to a supreme god/ruler. China seems similar. Their belief that they had nothing to learn from the Europeans was more like arrogance than actual superiority.

In any case, China engaged in a great deal of colonialism. You don't need to cross oceans in ships to be colonial.

[PanzerJaeger]

By far east you mean China? I don't think so. Paper tigers don't last long.

Other than that I agree.

I was actually referring to Asia in general. A number of factors, including population size, economic size and dynamism, government sobriety and foresight, and shared cultural norms are converging to push the genesis of most future human advancement to that part of the world. The cultural emphasis on education shared by most Asian nations alone will allow successive generations of Asian young people an ability to operate in the digital era in a way that many Western children will not be capable of. They will be the creators and we will be the users. In South Korea, laws have been passed to limit the amount of time children can study each day. Such problems do not exist in the West. There is a unique discipline, a will to succeed both on a personal and national level, that can only be found in Asia.

Contrast that to the complacency and governing incompetence that can be found in all aspects of life in the West. We are living in a society largely built on ideas, technologies, and wealth created generations ago. Walter Russell Meade calls it the blue model, and there is no alternative to our socio-economic arrangement on the horizon even as the money to pay for it slowly dries up. Our ability to pursue transformational national priorities diminishes each year due to political infighting, a cultural epidemic of shortsightedness, and the incredible cost of getting anything done in the West. Worse, our people's ability to envision such goals is in a similar downward spiral. Asian nations are embarking on great infrastructure and development programs while America could not even stem the tide of deteriorating infrastructure with half a trillion dollars for ‘shovel ready projects’. China built entire cities as America struggled to rebuild the site of the Twin Towers. The Eurozone's problems are well documented.

There is a genuine, shared goal among the Chinese at all levels of society to transform the nation. The French, on the other hand, are pretty content with where they are. Pseudo intellectuals and academic establishment types scoff at the idea of a 'national will' as it harkens back to the bad old days of colonialism and nationalism, but the concept does exist and is on display far more prevalently in Asian nations than Western ones. It can be very powerful.

Just as Europe and European colonial nations shaped the globe for centuries, that role will increasingly shift to Asia in the future.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@PJ: Sure, but in turn they come with their own unique set of issues that don't point at "too much of a good thing" but "too little of another good thing". If you take Japan as an example of a country which was largely driven to success in much the same way, it morphed into a country which is almost addicted as a society to escapism and it breeds very nasty social issues. South Korea has very tough problems related to a persistent corruption and the extent to which government and a couple of powerful families/concerns are intertwined, also in the way how the less fortunate South Koreans are treated ...

[Greyblades]

China built entire cities as America struggled to rebuild the site of the Twin Towers. The Eurozone's problems are well documented.

Those (http://gizmodo.com/5304233/entire-new-13+story-building-tips-over-in-shanghai/gallery/1) cities (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101923/Father-seriously-injured-exploding-manhole-cover-lighting-firecracker-igniting-sewage-gas.html)and chinese products (http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/05/18/chinas-exploding-watermelon-scandal/#axzz1ozTg2GCt) have (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/china-bullet-trains-collision?INTCMP=SRCH)a habit (http://100gf.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/chinese-boy-killed-in-the-bum-by-exploding-chair/) of falling (http://news.yahoo.com/report-china-rail-section-collapse-jolts-shares-075310720.html) apart (http://chinauncensored.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202:womans-lower-body-pierced-by-exploding-computer-chair&catid=39:tainted-products&Itemid=82) or (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15810116) exploding (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/dynamite-trucks-fatal-explosion-china?INTCMP=SRCH).

Also, this was something I found that makes me laugh:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/china-tv-news-top-gun

[Vladimir]

Those (http://gizmodo.com/5304233/entire-new-13+story-building-tips-over-in-shanghai/gallery/1) cities (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101923/Father-seriously-injured-exploding-manhole-cover-lighting-firecracker-igniting-sewage-gas.html)and chinese products (http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/05/18/chinas-exploding-watermelon-scandal/#axzz1ozTg2GCt) have (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/china-bullet-trains-collision?INTCMP=SRCH)a habit (http://100gf.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/chinese-boy-killed-in-the-bum-by-exploding-chair/) of falling (http://news.yahoo.com/report-china-rail-section-collapse-jolts-shares-075310720.html) apart (http://chinauncensored.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202:womans-lower-body-pierced-by-exploding-computer-chair&catid=39:tainted-products&Itemid=82) or (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15810116) exploding (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/dynamite-trucks-fatal-explosion-china?INTCMP=SRCH).

Also, this was something I found that makes me laugh:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/china-tv-news-top-gun

Too much to respond to but this is basically right. Chinese progress is built on an unsustainable bubble, particularly in regards to their housing market. Really, who builds cities where no one lives?

The rest of Asia has peaked with only limited chances of growth. Granted, not as limited as, say, Europe, but the Asian tiger is a fantasy.

[rory_20_uk]

Where does one country / civilisation end and the next begin? If one were to choose England for example, it merely passed on developments which can easily be traced back to Greek / Roman developments and is hence merely a vector.

As such, I would have to say that the Roman Empire continues to have the largest effect: we still use their laws, they turned a religion of a few nutters running around in the Middle East to a religion of nutters spanning the globe. Their influence of language can be seen in several continents.

If we are merely talking very recent and impact in terms of geopolitical, then I think that the biggest bruiser in the room, complete with a big stick and lobotomy scars, is the USA. Never afraid to cause impact all over the place with a curious mix of zealous self interest and good intentions which invariably leads to if nothing else a big impact and unintended consequences.

China manufactures a lot of stuff, but as yet creates little of it, and if they were not doing so there are many other countries that would pick up the slack. No other countries would be prepared to have the unilateral impact in so many different areas that the USA does.

~:smoking:

[Moros]

As such, I would have to say that the Roman Empire continues to have the largest effect: we still use their laws, they turned a religion of a few nutters running around in the Middle East to a religion of nutters spanning the globe. Their influence of language can be seen in several continents.

No. Both were a products of the age mostly not much Roman about it in many aspects. Most typical and new things of Christianity are typically for the late-hellenistic Judean situation and religious trends. So typical of Christianity as the apocalypse or the Messiah, was just the sectish trend in Judea after first being dominated both politically and culturally by the Hellenes and later the Romans, and the inspiration found in the uprising by the Maccabaeans or for the Messiah part the Bar Kochba revolution. The old testament is of course a product of even more ancient times. Sure the Romans changed (or distorted) it a lot and invented the church (though personally I see that as a bad thing in some ways) and it's organisation. When it comes to law, yes Rome made some innovations and we took their laws as a basis, but again it was a by product of the time.

Men has made the world as it is today, not states, which are of course man made as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

@PJ: Sure, but in turn they come with their own unique set of issues that don't point at "too much of a good thing" but "too little of another good thing". If you take Japan as an example of a country which was largely driven to success in much the same way, it morphed into a country which is almost addicted as a society to escapism and it breeds very nasty social issues. South Korea has very tough problems related to a persistent corruption and the extent to which government and a couple of powerful families/concerns are intertwined, also in the way how the less fortunate South Koreans are treated ...

I am certainly not suggesting that the Asian nations are flawless. Indeed, each comes with its own unique set of issues. However, as a whole, the region is comparatively better positioned for growth and advancement than the West at this point in history.


Those cities and chinese products have a habit of falling apart or exploding.

That is nothing compared to some of the shoddy construction and poor products one could find in cities like New York, Chicago, and St. Louis near the turn of the 20th century and even in rapidly industrializing Britain a bit earlier.


Too much to respond to but this is basically right. Chinese progress is built on an unsustainable bubble, particularly in regards to their housing market. Really, who builds cities where no one lives?

Ever heard of ghost towns? :grin:

[Greyblades]

Nothing? When was the last time you heard of exploding chairs in america? Or a New York man hole shooting 50 feet in the air? Yeah the western engineers and architects screw up, but rarely in such spectacular ways. Heck, where else do you find exploding watermelons?

[Vladimir]

Ever heard of ghost towns? :grin:

I must admit that they do it better than we did.

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective. Asian growth is relative growth. While I'm glad that modern prosperity is spreading in the region I'm not in awe of it like others. It's hard to pin this down to a single country or political entity because, like others have shown, it's about Western culture and the exchange of ideas. China, in particular, is much more involved in intellectual theft than innovation.

[gaelic cowboy]

Those (http://gizmodo.com/5304233/entire-new-13+story-building-tips-over-in-shanghai/gallery/1) cities (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101923/Father-seriously-injured-exploding-manhole-cover-lighting-firecracker-igniting-sewage-gas.html)and chinese products (http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/05/18/chinas-exploding-watermelon-scandal/#axzz1ozTg2GCt) have (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/china-bullet-trains-collision?INTCMP=SRCH)a habit (http://100gf.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/chinese-boy-killed-in-the-bum-by-exploding-chair/) of falling (http://news.yahoo.com/report-china-rail-section-collapse-jolts-shares-075310720.html) apart (http://chinauncensored.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202:womans-lower-body-pierced-by-exploding-computer-chair&catid=39:tainted-products&Itemid=82) or (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15810116) exploding (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/01/dynamite-trucks-fatal-explosion-china?INTCMP=SRCH).

Also, this was something I found that makes me laugh:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/china-tv-news-top-gun

While this is all true there is nothing in those same articles or in Asian character prevents them eventually correcting these defects.

When one examines the idea people had of something being "Made in Japan" it has changed in the last 50 yrs completely. Forced by a lack of materials and resources after WW2 they had by default to focus on product quality.

This focus meant Japan imported the most modern management and quality techniques from America and eventually supassed many American technical achievements. This went as far as people even believing that Japan invented lean manufacturing when in fact American invented it but saw no need for it as it had no competitors.

Eevntually when America woke up to Japanese engineering they foolishly believed they were competing on price so they cut quality budgets and made inferior products this in turn reinforced Japans standing as a quality manufacturer.

What brought Japan down was a simple property bubble that was let get out of hand however even a laid low Japan is still a massively developed and rich country.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nothing? When was the last time you heard of exploding chairs in america? Or a New York man hole shooting 50 feet in the air? Yeah the western engineers and architects screw up, but rarely in such spectacular ways. Heck, where else do you find exploding watermelons?

Look up the American 'muckrakers' of the early 20th century and read some of their works. My favorite, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, details some of the egregious practices in the American meat packing industry. Here's a spoiler: workers often fell into rendering tanks and were simply ground up with the rest of the meat and sent out to grocery stores around the country. China is certainly not unique among developing nations in demonstrating the dark side of industrialization.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Chinese manufacture products to the specifications they are given. Chinese companies are capable of designing and building technologically sophisticated products, but it is often the case that Western companies contract Chinese manufacturers to produces products in the cheapest manner possible with very few questions asked. They often find out that you get what you pay for. :shrug:


I'm just trying to keep things in perspective. Asian growth is relative growth. While I'm glad that modern prosperity is spreading in the region I'm not in awe of it like others. It's hard to pin this down to a single country or political entity because, like others have shown, it's about Western culture and the exchange of ideas. China, in particular, is much more involved in intellectual theft than innovation.

I'm taking a much longer term perspective. Individual Asian economies will grow and falter, but the region will be the center of world economic activity in not so distant future. With that comes the ability to have the kind of global impact discussed in the OP.

[Greyblades]

Look up the American 'muckrakers' of the early 20th century and read some of their works. My favorite, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, details some of the egregious practices in the American meat packing industry. Here's a spoiler: workers often fell into rendering tanks and were simply ground up with the rest of the meat and sent out to grocery stores around the country. China is certainly not unique among developing nations in demonstrating the dark side of industrialization.


Yikes. Maybe i'm more hung up with the chinese because I'm spoiled by western industry that is generally forced to be standards by governments and the idea that sort of thing still goes on is surprising.

[Conradus]

When it comes to law, yes Rome made some innovations and we took their laws as a basis, but again it was a by product of the time.

Men has made the world as it is today, not states, which are of course man made as well.

Some innovations? The legal system of most of the developed world, heck most of the world, is based on Roman foundations. There are hardly any known laws or codices from before the Romans, sure they must've been there, but we don't have them. Rome was the first state to develop such a lawsystem with professionals and the first to make exhaustive codices of their laws. And they still are the forefathers of any European or related system, albeit developed a lot.

[Graphic]

Is there any doubt that people a few hundred years in the future who look back asking this question will say "USA"?

I'm not backing Vuk's post, but don't discount the American influence. Without a doubt we are up there with all the other superpowers of history, and in terms of global impact we certainly must be at or near the top by now.

At the very least the U.S. won't be forgotten 2,000 years from now thanks to the Apollo program, America's single greatest achievement in my opinion.

I have to answer Rome, though. Britain is a close second. But if France or someone else was the super imperialist nation instead, things today would be different but we'd probably still be on the same path. Without Rome, however, the modern world would probably be completely alien. There would be a country called Schleckmalurky covering the U.S. midwest, subjecting its people to a Zoroastrian theocracy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is nothing compared to some of the shoddy construction and poor products one could find in cities like New York, Chicago, and St. Louis near the turn of the 20th century and even in rapidly industrializing Britain a bit earlier.

But don't you think a major difference in the world is that when we industrialized, the rest of the world wasn't? I mean, if the US looked today like it did back then it would not be a good sign of inevitable progress, it would be a sign of being way behind. I admit I'm talking about something I don't know much about, but I'm very suspicious of "asia ascendent" stories. They tend to be quite popular with liberals and conservatives, which leaves fewer people to fact check.


At the very least the U.S. won't be forgotten 2,000 years from now thanks to the Apollo program, America's single greatest achievement in my opinion.


How so? :dizzy2:

The Soviets went to the moon too. Is it that much greater an achievement to get there a few years earlier?

[Graphic]

The Soviets went to the moon too. Is it that much greater an achievement to get there a few years earlier?

They didn't put humans on it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They didn't put humans on it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

Would they have if Apollo had failed? With something that's mainly propaganda value the reason for going dries up pretty quick. I don't see the greatness of the achievement...

[rory_20_uk]

The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

Somebody's grumpy.

[Graphic]

Would they have if Apollo had failed? With something that's mainly propaganda value the reason for going dries up pretty quick. I don't see the greatness of the achievement...

You don't see the greatness of rocketing humans to a foreign body in space and planting a flag there, then returning safely to earth?

You are very hard to impress.


The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

I didn't say landing on the moon saved lives or changed daily life on earth, I said it was a great achievement. IMO takes a very dull view of human existence to judge every accomplishment by how it practically improved daily life. Might as well burn down the Louvre then.

[gaelic cowboy]

The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

I am astounded at this statement sure the space race achievement list is nearly endless and not confined either to purely technological advacements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space Race Advances in technology and education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race#Advances_in_technology_and_education)


When the Space Age Blasted Off, Pop Culture Followed (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/science/space/25pop.html)

10 tech breakthroughs to thank the space race for (http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-tech-breakthroughs-to-thank-the-space-race-for-617847)

merely providing money to universities and foundadtions would not have given us much of the tech we take for granted today a lot of it came about due to specific problems with going into space.

[Kralizec]

It didn't occur to me to pick the Roman empire, because I thought the OP meant "countries" that are a little more recent. While what PJ says about one country (or person) building on the achievements of its predecessors is true, the Roman empire does stand out for the enormity of its own contribution- arguably moreso than the Greeks, the British or Luxembourg.

...

As for the moon landings, no offence intended, but I think it's a little short sighted to measure its significance by the returns it has brought so far. I do think that human space travel (in our own solar system, that is) is going to be enormously important in the far future; and I'm sure that future generations will look on the 20th century space race as an important phase in history.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The moon landing wasn't impressive? Obviously, we have some martians here.

[Centurion1]

The moon landing wasn't impressive? Obviously, we have some martians here.

More like jealous Europeans. Look at how much pride they get in "leading" the fight in Libya with our bombs ACIN. Don't rub their faces in one of the most impressive feats of the 20th century.

No need to burst the children's bubble.

:wink:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We did some great things with satellites, while the USSR was doing a bunch of propaganda crap that made no real advancement. Then we stopped funding the good stuff and went for the propaganda ourselves.

The moon landing is impressive technologically, but not "the greatest achievement of the US"...I see no reason why the Soviets couldn't have managed it, even if it would have taken them longer.

We barely remember the names of the guys who went to the south pole first or climbed mount Everest first. The Moon race will only be different if we end up having a bunch of moon colonies like Kral suggests.

[Graphic]

Because braving some cold weather is totally the same as leaving the planet, landing on another celestial body, and returning. :beam:

I wonder how you'd feel if they discovered microscopic organisms on Mars. After all there are billions of different kinds on Earth, and no one remembers the name of the guy who discovered the latest known bacteria. Its just some more useless microscopic cells, who cares if it's alien?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"braving some cold weather"

Just proving how quickly we forget about the antarctic expeditions :)

[Graphic]

However much you can possibly dramatize it, it doesn't compare to flying to the moon and back. It just doesn't, and to think it's even in the same ballpark is baffling.

[Moros]

It didn't occur to me to pick the Roman empire, because I thought the OP meant "countries" that are a little more recent. While what PJ says about one country (or person) building on the achievements of its predecessors is true, the Roman empire does stand out for the enormity of its own contribution- arguably moreso than the Greeks, the British or Luxembourg.

Then I go for Larsa. :s

[Sarmatian]

We did some great things with satellites, while the USSR was doing a bunch of propaganda crap that made no real advancement. Then we stopped funding the good stuff and went for the propaganda ourselves.

The moon landing is impressive technologically, but not "the greatest achievement of the US"...I see no reason why the Soviets couldn't have managed it, even if it would have taken them longer.


That's highly debatable.

Soviets probably did have technology to land on the moon, they lacked funds to do it. One could argue that taking parts that weigh many tons and then assembling them in space to create a fully functional manned space station is a greater and more beneficial achievement in terms of technological advancement than landing on the moon.

[Vladimir]

However much you can possibly dramatize it, it doesn't compare to flying to the moon and back. It just doesn't, and to think it's even in the same ballpark is baffling.

It's actually not that different. Some of the more extreme areas on Earth are not unlike some other extreme areas on other planets, like Mars. The Antarctic can easily be used as a training environments for long term exploration. Deep sea exploration is another neglected area that could lead to advancements in extra-planetary exploration; like the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.


That's highly debatable.

Soviets probably did have technology to land on the moon, they lacked funds to do it. One could argue that taking parts that weigh many tons and then assembling them in space to create a fully functional manned space station is a greater and more beneficial achievement in terms of technological advancement than landing on the moon.

I don't believe that. They steal most of the technology they need and likely couldn't fill in the gaps by themselves. That, and their government couldn't handle failure of such an important mission.

[rory_20_uk]

What was the point in being second to the moon. Who cared? They probably had the know how, not the spare funds.

Giving money to universities would have probably given different breakthroughs, with probably a lot less wastage. Yes, there a lot of them. How many billion did it cost for each one?

If missions had been restricted to unmanned ones more could have been achieved as humans are basically dead weight when all one is doing is planting a flag and taking some pictures.

Future space travel has will utilise a lot of high tech computer systems that have managed to develop without NASA backing it. Many new fibres that are to be used came from many other industries and not necessarily NASA.

What pods do we use to get to the Space Station? They're Russian. What rockets are in service at the moment? Most of them Russian. Who is building the next gen craft? Private enterprises, as the ones NASA came up with were hideously complicated and expensive.

Sorry, but the race to the moon was not the genesis of the world as we know it.

The Space Space station has a lot of theoretical wonders, but few that have been realised.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

What was the point in being second to the moon. Who cared? They probably had the know how, not the spare funds.

Giving money to universities would have probably given different breakthroughs, with probably a lot less wastage. Yes, there a lot of them. How many billion did it cost for each one?

If missions had been restricted to unmanned ones more could have been achieved as humans are basically dead weight when all one is doing is planting a flag and taking some pictures.

Future space travel has will utilise a lot of high tech computer systems that have managed to develop without NASA backing it. Many new fibres that are to be used came from many other industries and not necessarily NASA.

What pods do we use to get to the Space Station? They're Russian. What rockets are in service at the moment? Most of them Russian. Who is building the next gen craft? Private enterprises, as the ones NASA came up with were hideously complicated and expensive.

Sorry, but the race to the moon was not the genesis of the world as we know it.

The Space Space station has a lot of theoretical wonders, but few that have been realised.

~:smoking:

You have the thing backwards Rory but I can see you are not going to turn so what the points your smoking smiley says it all really.

After all the CAT scans and MRI's you would need if prolonged smoking caused cancer would naturally have popped into existence if NASA hadnt needed to map the moon surface.

[Sarmatian]

I don't believe that. They steal most of the technology they need and likely couldn't fill in the gaps by themselves. That, and their government couldn't handle failure of such an important mission.

That's your prerogative but the moon landing was a publicity stunt mostly. Yes, it does rouse the human spirit, in a climbing Mont Everest kind of way, but it had little practical purpose.

It is also quite ludicrous to claim that Soviets stole most of their space technology. In 2012, USA and EU use Russian rockets to get stuff in space, not the other way around.

[rory_20_uk]

After all the CAT scans and MRI's you would need if prolonged smoking caused cancer would naturally have popped into existence if NASA hadnt needed to map the moon surface.

CAT scans utilise integration, X-rays and computing power. Which of these did NASA invent?
MRI utilises supermagnets and the spin of hydrogen. Which did NASA invent?

NASA did utilise radar. I thought that was invented in the '30's.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

That's your prerogative but the moon landing was a publicity stunt mostly. Yes, it does rouse the human spirit, in a climbing Mont Everest kind of way, but it had little practical purpose.

It is also quite ludicrous to claim that Soviets stole most of their space technology. In 2012, USA and EU use Russian rockets to get stuff in space, not the other way around.

The Soviets stole most of their technology, period. Their command economy couldn't take full advantage of it. The pride of great nations is a bit more than a publicity stunt. Now we have sports, then we had space. Which one matters more?

Russian rockets are little more than converted ICBMs and most certainly NOT a result of any technological supremacy.

[gaelic cowboy]

CAT scans utilise integration, X-rays and computing power. Which of these did NASA invent?
MRI utilises supermagnets and the spin of hydrogen. Which did NASA invent?

NASA did utilise radar. I thought that was invented in the '30's.

~:smoking:


look your fine believe what you want your smoking smiley has spoken.

<insert smiley here to assert my internets power>

[Vladimir]

look your fine believe what you want your smoking smiley has spoken.

<insert smiley here to assert my internets power>

Anybody notice an extra amount of hostility in the Backroom today? Let's find a common enemy to unite against. I say we invade the Frontroom! :knight:

[Sarmatian]

The Soviets stole most of their technology, period. Their command economy couldn't take full advantage of it. The pride of great nations is a bit more than a publicity stunt. Now we have sports, then we had space. Which one matters more?

Russian rockets are little more than converted ICBMs and most certainly NOT a result of any technological supremacy.

Edgy today?

If by stole, you mean from the Germans, both USA and USSR are guilty of that but both had rocket technologies prior to that and both added to that afterward. The best ww2 rocket launcher was a Soviet one, definitely not stolen from the Germans. That command economy sent the first object into space, first living being into space, first human into space, built the first permanently manned space station (and its technology is still dominant in other stations) etc...

I shudder to think what would it be like if they were able to take "full advantage" of it.

Sports analogy is spot on!

[gaelic cowboy]

Anybody notice an extra amount of hostility in the Backroom today? Let's find a common enemy to unite against. I say we invade the Frontroom! :knight:

excellant idea

[Vladimir]

Edgy today?

If by stole, you mean from the Germans, both USA and USSR are guilty of that but both had rocket technologies prior to that and both added to that afterward. The best ww2 rocket launcher was a Soviet one, definitely not stolen from the Germans. That command economy sent the first object into space, first living being into space, first human into space, built the first permanently manned space station (and its technology is still dominant in other stations) etc...

I shudder to think what would it be like if they were able to take "full advantage" of it.

Sports analogy is spot on!

No. EDGY TODAY! :angry:

Let's start with the most gentile of showers where the water flowed delicately out of the showerhead and moistened my skin this morning. I had to keep checking to make sure it wasn't yellow, not that I would know what's that like or anything :worried:.

But no, really, read up on your Cold War history. The only way the Soviet military maintained a near technological parity with the west was through espionage. More delicately, but in equal volume, to what China does today.

[gaelic cowboy]

But no, really, read up on your Cold War history. The only way the Soviet military maintained a near technological parity with the west was through espionage. More delicately, but in equal volume, to what China does today.

I thought there was some academic debate that the soviet programme was possibly a proof of convergent thought.

Beforehand the soviets might conclude atomic bombs were impossible but now they knew it could be done so they merely had to craft an answer.

It's like how writing might have developed because people knew writing was possible.

[Vladimir]

I thought there was some academic debate that the soviet programme was possibly a proof of convergent thought.

Beforehand the soviets might conclude atomic bombs were impossible but now they knew it could be done so they merely had to craft an answer.

It's like how writing might have developed because people knew writing was possible.

There were a lot of brilliant Soviet scientists but they couldn't afford proper research so they had to take shortcuts.

[Sarmatian]

No. EDGY TODAY! :angry:

Let's start with the most gentile of showers where the water flowed delicately out of the showerhead and moistened my skin this morning. I had to keep checking to make sure it wasn't yellow, not that I would know what's that like or anything :worried:.


Ok, sorry. On a day like that , you certainly don't need me proving you wrong.

[Vladimir]

Ok, sorry. On a day like that , you certainly don't need me proving you wrong.

:laugh4:

Yes, I know. :drama2:

[Furunculus]

For me it comes down to two Countries The UK And France

I say France because England is terribly boring, Scotland is like Alabama, and no one cares about the Welsh.

The only good thing to come out of England was the Sunday fry up and my mum

France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy

Vive Le Francios

Vive Le Republique

only one thing need be said to refute that:

Common Law.

but why stop there:

Gunboats
Dreadnoughts
Gin palaces
etc

[Papewaio]

Apart from the moon landing USSR has been leading the space race. First satellite, animal, man, woman in space. Most tonnage lifted. Ability to use standard fuels due to advanced porous metallurgy.

That and right now as we speak the US of A has to hitch hike to the international space station on Russian space craft.

NASA spent millions getting a pen to work in zero g. The russians use a pencil. Genuine genius solutions are elegant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Apart from the moon landing USSR has been leading the space race. First satellite, animal, man, woman in space. Most tonnage lifted. Ability to use standard fuels due to advanced porous metallurgy.

That and right now as we speak the US of A has to hitch hike to the international space station on Russian space craft.

NASA spent millions getting a pen to work in zero g. The russians use a pencil. Genuine genius solutions are elegant.

Why do people repeat this stuff???

NASA spent like $3 a pen, it was an independent company that developed them as a marketing gimmick or something (don't remember why). And if you break the tip of the pencil lead in zero G in floats around and can screw things up. They also burn very easily.

The story of the space race is quite interesting, no need to repeat urban legends and propaganda. The Russian program was all about firsts and things like 'first woman in space' that they could brag about., that's an insult to it not a compliment. The US was mainly concerned with spy satellites I think, and dragged their heels on launching their first satellite because sputnik solved a lot of problems for them regarding sovereignty of air space.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you break the tip of the pencil lead in zero G in floats around and can screw things up. They also burn very easily.

I don't know what the cost or the origins of the pen are; but the above two points are quite frankly irrelevant. There's more than just pencil tips floating around in your average manned spacecraft, and unless you're deliberately experimenting with open fire or sparks the tip will not ignite (auto ignition temps being rather higher than what you want to expose your astronauts to). Matches tend to work rather better if you daisy-chain phosporos tip to sulphur to graphite to match stick as you don't end up smearing graphite all over the matchbox.

[Papewaio]

Space race... Not much of a race with no manned lift capacity.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't know what the cost or the origins of the pen are; but the above two points are quite frankly irrelevant. There's more than just pencil tips floating around in your average manned spacecraft, and unless you're deliberately experimenting with open fire or sparks the tip will not ignite (auto ignition temps being rather higher than what you want to expose your astronauts to). Matches tend to work rather better if you daisy-chain phosporos tip to sulphur to graphite to match stick as you don't end up smearing graphite all over the matchbox.

I suppose it could be hype by the manufacturor, but I see no reason to think it is really...


NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge.

...

Because of the fire in Apollo 1,in which three Astronauts died, NASA required a writing instrument that would not burn in a 100% oxygen atmosphere.



edit:

More than you ever wanted to know:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1

Details on the lengths the pen company went to advertise themselves. Does make you wonder if it was anywhere near as useful as they try to imply.




Space race... Not much of a race with no manned lift capacity.

???

[a completely inoffensive name]

Now I want to buy one of those space pens.

[Papewaio]

A) an atmospheric mix is available that allows the person to breath but is not flammable as there is not enough oxygen flow to feed a flame. So if one is really worried about flames use a different atmospheric mix.

B) US currently has no vehicles that can lift humans. ;( Which is very sad and also why NASA should run itself as an exploration and science organization on par with deep sea divers, Antartic explorers and mineral geophysicists... Take risks and get results.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not have much time to respond up till now, but a low pressure 100% Oxygen atmosphere mix would indeed tend to explain this partly. Although in reality you wouldn't be able to survive that atmosphere long enough to do meaningful experiments: IIRC 20 mins of it is what you can typically take until its sustained effect becomes too much. Pure oxygen is essentially late 19th/early 20th century deep sea diving tech, unfortunately such mixes are rather toxic. That's why people started adding nitrogen to the mix, to dilute the oxygen.

But yeah at this point pure oxygen atmospheric mixes are a thing of the past.

[The Stranger]

philosiphy or sypholis?

(what happened to germany? anyway if it is about Philosophy, I think Germany is as, if not more influentual. Then ofcourse you have Philosophy of Mind but no self0-respecting philosopher cares about that ****)