Just the other day I was watching a docu about highlights from the 20th century and I noticed that most...if not all scientific breakthrough happened
and is happening in the west. Can it be true that there are no scientist in the east working on scientific challenges...challenges if solved will
benifit mankind. I mean,... It is as if those heavy hitters like russia and china are just interested in the distruction of mankind by investing
their resources into the development of more powerful weapons....and even at that the west is leading.
Using the Nobel Prize as an indicator from where most scientific progress comes from ...it shows, after having a quick view at the nationality of the
Nobel laureates that there isn't much significant contribution from the east.
What is going on here...and what does this say? Should there be change..should change be welcome anyways..? What would be the consequence if there are
just as much excellent research centre (universities) in the east as there are in the west.
It says that when Martin Luther brought in education for everyone, that when Luther ended the Roman Catholic Churches power and control over the
world, when countries fully embraced the teachings of Jesus and helping each other society became progressive and caring and people lives became
Now we see people acting selfish and greedy just like before the reformation
What does it tell us, if people work together, people can make our lives easier
Yes, be grateful for what the Protestant church taught, the West is built on those teachings
Inbreeding does not help such as marrying you 1st cousin or even a sister. The genetic defects of any offspring (especially on deformities and smarts)
are always there and can manifest themselves several generations later if not sooner.
Next are the strongly religious secs who promote fear through their hell and damnation spiel or the religious police who roam every corner waiting an
wanting an infraction of the law laid down by their version of a sky fairy which can be prosecuted. To protect yourself you spend much time memorizing
and reading their version of a holy book...Visit some of the mid-east countries and you will totally understand what I am saying... Also when you take
half of the population out of the equation for breakthroughs and new ideas (women for they are but chattel in some countries) you severely limit your
Christens were no better when the Catholic Church ran everything in the dark ages but they did finally (for the most part) grow out of some of their
Last thing I will say is I.Q. simply because the average In some countries is less than 80..which stems from the inbreeding for generations and poor
diet when a child IMO.
edit on 727thk19 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)
A great example of this is to look at the automobile market in the USSR from 1930-1992 (even later). Below is a video that shows car production in
the USSR and it is a true embarrassment in comparison to what is available in the West. Now I do have to say that the cars in the USSR had some what
different requirements such as higher reliability, so building them more simply and robust (less prone to breakdown and easier to repair) was a higher
priority than in the west.
Even when the USSR was more prosperous from the 1970's onward, there was basically very little innovation and real creation there, it was almost
completely copying products of the west
I'm trying to think of any innovations for automobiles that came from the USSR or even anything they borrowed and perfected or at least made
Now there is one thing where they have been ahead of the west and IDK if that was due to luck, politics (in the US - limiting those who could work on
the project) or resource allocation (USSR placed HUGE priority on this - LOTS of resources/man power) - was the development of rocket engines. IIRC,
they created some extremely powerful engine (LOX fueled I think) that were much smaller than US designs but I think they put out MUCH more power for
size/weight & there was something about controlling them that was superior. IIRC, they wree the NK-33 and NK-43. I think the US ended up buying these
from the USSR and I don't think they ever reverse engineered them and produced them ourselves - which USSR would have done had the situation been
reversed. There's a really strange story behind these engines
There was also the production of Titanium back in the 60's or so, which IIRC, allowed for both the U2 and SR-71 black bird to be built. I think the
titanium was sourced from the USSR, which in turn the product/outcome of the sale, was used to spy on the country. This isn't because titanium is
scarce as TiO2 is very abundant and our allies had a lot of it not to mention a mine that opened in 1949 in Florida. For some reason it was the
production, refining or alloying that must have been the issue as there are VERY specialized processes required to work with Ti compared to steel or
even aluminum (the process is closer to Al refining/production).
I think it has to do with cultural mindset, schooling and upbringing. Many children are taught to think outside of the box, albeit not the majority
of the population, but gifted & talented children very often are. They might also have more emphasis in pursuing things which help develop a childs
mind at an early age, like playing an instrument, puzzles, reading, sports, etc. There certainly were those in the East that did the same, but IDK if
it was as widely accessible or even possible if there was generally less resources over-all.
Then you have the general availability of resources, tools, machinery, etc. In the West, if there is demand, it will usually be filled by someone
looking to make $ while in more communistic/socialist societies the government either owns the resources, sets prices on them or even allow them to be
imported, mined, created, etc. So there can be a much larger barrier to entry for creation, but conversely it can also be MUCH easier to create
something if the state decides it wants something and allocates appropriate resources - we can especially see this in China over the last 20-30 years.
All of this greatly effects the incentive for creation/invention b/c if the state thinks it is worthless or pointless, then why bother with it.
Lastly there is the profit, or getting rich, incentive which can create an uneven allocation of brain resources between the east and west. If a
person can make $2 million a year as an engineer in the West vs $30-40K per year in the East, the person (if they aren't an ultra
nationalist/ideologue) will go where they will make more (for many people). This was a large part of the reason for the brain drain from the USSR and
other countries - which creates a ripple effect through their economies and has an effect like compounding interest but in a negative and opposite
manner to the country that lost the "brain". I think brain resources are GREATLY undervalued by governments.
Video on Soviet Rocket Engine 50 mins - haven't watched yet
Also, nutrition, especially early childhood nutrition (fat & vitamins) is EXTREMELY important for brain development. Countries with poor nutrition,
lack of good food, poverty, etc will usually face lower IQ's and also poorer physical development - both of which lower the ability to create. These
things should be top priority for nations b/c the early years are the most important, followed by the growth years of puberty.
So many factors. One of the biggest is pick pocketing the most intelligent people of many cultures and giving them the freedom, resources, leisure for
research and personal incentives. Take away any of those and progress stagnates.
The US government has created this environment. It's not in the business of making money. It does not keep keep patents, software for profit. It
allows the the inventor to own it or, it allows others to use things like software (open source). The Jeep is a good example. The military designed it
but left the blueprints out there for anyone to use. Companies or people take the R&D the taxpayers paid for and improve upon it.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.