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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

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...

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

Somebody's grumpy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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


When the Space Age Blasted Off, Pop Culture Followed

10 tech breakthroughs to thank the space race for

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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:

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.

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?

"braving some cold weather"

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Then I go for Larsa. :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.