What issues do you think are most important

[Nystul]

An educated world population wouldn't *allow* most of the problems we have at the present.  And if such problems did arise, it would find solutions that did not come from the barrel of a gun.
[right][snapback]62725[/snapback][/right]

Pete, you are almost sounding like an idealist now. I agree with the first half, but not necessarily the second. Give me a caucus of educated geniuses who wield arms, and a caucus of educated geniuses who refuse to, and I'll show you an unbalanced debate. I don't think any level of education can eliminate the desire for power and the problems it causes.

[Occhidiangela]

Perhaps.  Exams breed brevity in LurkerLounge responses.  I think my points are sufficient to counter his ignorance.
Hmmmm... the working culture of Germany and Japan are very different from that of America.  Comparing the three may be dangerous - I think that some very different 'ethics' were at work in all three cases.  German and Japanese notions of work developed quite differently from those in Britain and the States and we see the results today in their corporatist industrial structures.   

In Britain, it was factory owners who modified existing notions of work, and not some inherent 'work ethic' that led to industrial relations of production. 

That's not what I am talking about, I am referring to an cultural norm.  A cultural norm that finds its voice is such poetry as

Work
Godbless the might of it
Work that springs from the heart's desire
Sets' the body and soul on fire!


Thus, my next point... 
The vaunted 'American work ethic' is, I would argue, of British inheritance. 
[right][snapback]62704[/snapback][/right]

And I'll argue that it is, or was, pick your era, a cultural norm. Alternatively, I could offer a different counter . . .

The vaunted 'American work ethic' is, I would argue, of British inheritance.

Or Scottish? ;)

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't think any level of education can eliminate the desire for power and the problems it causes.
[right][snapback]62727[/snapback][/right]

Oh, I quite agree with that part. And history shows us again and again that when a bright, charismatic, and power hungry leader appears on the scene war is often his (or 'her', though I cannot think of an example of 'her' at the moment) preferred means of achieving his goals. And war is often the only means of stopping such a leader -- or rather, the only means that does not involve waiting for his life to run out.

But, I contend that the more a population is educated, the less likely it is to have to resort to violence, the less likely it is to follow a violent leader, and if it does follow such a leader, the sooner it will be disillusioned and overthrow that leader.

The vision of armed and unarmed eggheads is amusing. However, I suspect that the division amongst the eggheads would favor the unarmed. As Foreigner said in a concert version of Hot Blooded, "We've got the amps, you've got the numbers. There's strength in numbers." The willingness to fight, as Gandhi and King showed, does not necessarily involves arms.

However, if your division was meant to be between those willing to fight and those not so willing, then you are right. That is well covered by Edmund Burke's dictum, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Again, though, I would like to point out that uneducated people, with no concepts of a better world, are much less likely to fight for such a world than are those who actually have the ability to imagine it.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ah, but which two?&nbsp; <_<
[right][snapback]62621[/snapback][/right]

That's simple. Everybody should know at least one programming language. The second language would be profanity for when the first one fails ;)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Revive Ancient Greek!

At least then people would be forced to have a greater appreciation for grammar, forced to carry around a dictionary with them, and forced into losing the will to live.&nbsp; :P

Cheers,

Munk
[right][snapback]62626[/snapback][/right]

That takes me back forty-some years to:
"Latin is dead, as dead as it can be.
First it killed the Romans, and now it's killing me."

:)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,
That's simple.&nbsp; Everybody should know at least one programming language.&nbsp; The second language would be profanity for when the first one fails ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]62825[/snapback][/right]

Well then, I choose French.

The Merovingian: "Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de conard d'encule de ta mere"

:)

[Nystul]

And I'll argue that it is, or was, pick your era, a cultural norm.&nbsp; Alternatively, I could offer a different counter . . .

The vaunted 'American work ethic' is, I would argue, of British inheritance.&nbsp;

Or Scottish?&nbsp; ;)&nbsp;

Occhi
[right][snapback]62733[/snapback][/right]

Personally, I always thought that my work ethic came from my German immigrant ancestors, and my laid back side came from the English on my mother's side of the family. The math leads to other conclusions, however, as I am about 85% German and 90% lazy.

I must say that I find great amusement in the notion that the successes of the U.S. were caused by anything and everything except for the virtues and cultures of the Americans themselves. I also find amusement in the idea that successful development is inherently impossible for some nations. There are overpopulated countries with virtually nothing in the way of natural resources that are highly educated meccas of democracy and wealth, and there are plenty of backwards countries with less land pressure and wealths of natural resources. It is the evolving cultures that make the difference, and a lot of people who hate the American culture live in countries that frankly are holding themselves back far more than U.S. influence ever could.

[Minionman]

Well then,&nbsp; I choose French.

The Merovingian: "Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de conard d'encule de ta mere"

:)
[right][snapback]62837[/snapback][/right]

What exactly does this mean, if you can say it on the forums. I understand the "merde", "Nom de dieu", and "de ta mere", but not the rest of it.

[Chaerophon]

I must say that I find great amusement in the notion that the successes of the U.S. were caused by anything and everything except for the virtues and cultures of the Americans themselves. I also find amusement in the idea that successful development is inherently impossible for some nations.

That's not the point. The point is that industrial notions of time and work arose in the general population because they were forced upon them. A whole wack of subsistence agriculturalists didn't wake up in the morning and decide "hey, I want to work from 6 in the morning until 7 at night in a factory, repeating the same motions over and over again, and I want my kids to do the same".

The enclosure movement, the poor laws, along with several other factors led to the move from the farm to the factory. From there, it was a matter of socializing workers to think like workers. That's where the 'American work ethic' came from. Mid-18th Century light industrialists in Britain, socializing workers in places like the Soho, New Lanark and Wedgewood factories. Then came Taylorism.

The point is that Americans possessed a cultural legacy of industrial work that served them well. That doesn't make them inherently 'smarter'. It does make them well socialized for factory work around the early to mid-19th Century. The presence of natural resources only allowed them to flourish after the British had already begun to slow.

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's not the point.&nbsp; The point is that industrial notions of time and work arose in the general population because they were forced upon them.&nbsp; A whole wack of subsistence agriculturalists didn't wake up in the morning and decide "hey, I want to work from 6 in the morning until 7 at night in a factory, repeating the same motions over and over again, and I want my kids to do the same".&nbsp;
[right][snapback]62847[/snapback][/right]

I don't think that a "wack of subsistence agriculturalists" would have built a country out of a wilderness, and gone on to settle a region that, at the present, is larger than all Europe combined. And, if I remember my history rightly, industrialization *followed* colonialization in all regions, so the lack of fear of working hard appears to have been a characteristic of those colonists before the agency you suggest induced it existed.

Now, for both pragmatic and emotional reasons, I do not assume strict causality, but your argument is too 'relativistic' even for me to swallow. ;)

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

I don't think that a "wack of subsistence agriculturalists" would have built a country out of a wilderness, and gone on to settle a region that, at the present, is larger than all Europe combined.  And, if I remember my history rightly, industrialization *followed* colonialization in all regions, so the lack of fear of working hard appears to have been a characteristic of those colonists before the agency you suggest induced it existed.

Well, I suppose that it all depends on what you're referring to as the "American work ethic". The early colonization of both America and Canada were pre-industrial, yes. They had to carve out their own plots and clear their own land, yes. But so did most other cultures in the world, at some point. What made the process of American development, and the development of former British Colonies in general, different, was the result of social factors rooted in the formation of an early industrial consciousness in Great Britain, a thought revolution that had gone on years before America began truly to develop what I would call a unique ethic of work.

If all that you folks are talking about when you refer to the American work ethic is the capacity/desire to clear some trees and build some farms along the frontier, then I'm afraid that the French had you beat by a good hundred years in the Seigneuries to the North. Seems to me that the desire for free/cheap land and then, upon arrival, the need to survive on it would mean that yes, hard work was required.

However, what makes that particular brand of work so quintessentially American? It happens all over the world! When I think of a defining American ethic of work, I tend more to think in terms of the early development of America's industrial cities and the rise of industry in what was to eventually become the world's largest industrial producer. In the early to mid 20th Century, American society rose to prominence under the banner of these values, and these values are not the result, I would argue, of early 'survivalist' modes of work, but of socialized industrial processes. Survival work goes on all over the world every day. What was different in America was the social heritage of a different kind of work and a different kind of progress.

[kandrathe]

Well, I suppose that it all depends on what you're referring to as the "American work ethic".&nbsp; The early colonization of both America and Canada were pre-industrial, yes.&nbsp;
...
[right][snapback]62862[/snapback][/right]

Speaking from my own immigrant geneology, most of my ancestors were hard working and relatively successful both in Europe and in America. There were a few that were "lazy" and struggled to eek out an existence tilling the land. Those who came to America were far more successful than those who remained. Some even moved from Minnesota to Calgary, and went on to become wildly successful. The difference was the opportunities that were afforded to the former share croppers, who upon coming to America were able to become land owners. The vast expanse of "homestead-able" land, and the new economic and social freedoms in America gave those new arrivals a leg up over the entrenched existence they had experience in Europe.

I think you might be right in that the "work ethic" is an (false) impression, while measuring productivity (output/population) is a more appropriate yard stick. That is, if you think that per capita GDP means anything in the long term prosperity of a people or a nation.