Thread: Human development

Any idea why Japan is the only developed Asian country? (excluding special case Singapore)

Any idea how what started as convicts sent to Australia managed to produce a developed country in a couple of centuries?

Anglophile people and Europeans were and are more creative and adapt more than other peoples, IMO.

Originally Posted by bkkmadness

The point is people are much the same Smeg, there is no special Thai gene which makes them inferior to us. Give the country a load of money, change up the govt and the way things work at the very top, educate the people and you would see a less corrupt society. They would at least know how to hide it better if anything.

Why do they have to be "given" a load of money? Why can't they produce the wealth and developed infrastructure themselves? Who gave Australians a load of money to produce a developed country? It seems that they did it themselves (unless you are going to claim that they took most of it by plundering aboriginies!).

The below book may be controversial because people such as yourself are uncomfortable with the findings and set out to argue with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1] The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capitagross domestic product) correlate with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth, but that it is not the only determinant of these differences

Spending an inordinate amount of time every day obsessed with comparisons and how you stack up with others is unhealthy. Being a Brit, it's even less advisable.

I suggest you accept some things as facts and just move on.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Spending an inordinate amount of time every day obsessed with comparisons and how you stack up with others is unhealthy.

I only read the wikipedia page, not wrote the report.

But you are right. In doing that, maybe I'm becoming Thai

Originally Posted by Smeg

Any idea why Japan is the only developed Asian country? (excluding special case Singapore)

Any idea how what started as convicts sent to Australia managed to produce a developed country in a couple of centuries?

Observing this chart, I would consider the source. Then go from there....

Originally Posted by Milkman

Anglophile people and Europeans were and are more creative and adapt more than other peoples, IMO.

This is a perfect Eurocentric indoctrination and how it might be applied throughout some social science circles, less the general ignorant populous. Remember my friend, everything you know - infrastructures of every nature - you owe to traditional and "non-western" cultures. And then over and above the broad Eurocentic generalities that our Smegley offers, one has to question as to what "development" might be......

Originally Posted by Texpat

Spending an inordinate amount of time every day obsessed with comparisons and how you stack up with others is unhealthy. Being a Brit, it's even less advisable.

I suggest you accept some things as facts and just move on.

Good for you Tex!!!

Originally Posted by Smeg

Originally Posted by bkkmadness

The point is people are much the same Smeg, there is no special Thai gene which makes them inferior to us. Give the country a load of money, change up the govt and the way things work at the very top, educate the people and you would see a less corrupt society. They would at least know how to hide it better if anything.

Why do they have to be "given" a load of money? Why can't they produce the wealth and developed infrastructure themselves? Who gave Australians a load of money to produce a developed country? It seems that they did it themselves (unless you are going to claim that they took most of it by plundering aboriginies!).

The below book may be controversial because people such as yourself are uncomfortable with the findings and set out to argue with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1] The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capitagross domestic product) correlate with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth, but that it is not the only determinant of these differences

Your a wonder Smeg, You must have gone to the Max Weber School of Eurocentric Illusional Superiority Complex. And sure have bought the program hook, line, and sinker. Poor boy

The references above about such exceedingly growth and development {from an historic Western perspective} of Australia came at the expense of the generational genocide of the native populations. Very interestingly mirrored, historically, by their predominately Anglo-cultured cousins across the Pacific whom found it similiarly necessary to grossly exterminate a race of people to advance themselves.

Originally Posted by Smeg

Any idea why Japan is the only developed Asian country? (excluding special case Singapore)

Any idea how what started as convicts sent to Australia managed to produce a developed country in a couple of centuries?

Read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years " by Jared Diamond. He pretty much nails it down.

Amazon.co.uk Review
Life isn't fair--here's why: Since 1500, Europeans have, for better and worse, called the tune that the world has danced to. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond explains the reasons why things worked out that way. It is an elemental question, and Diamond is certainly not the first to ask it. However, he performs a singular service by relying on scientific fact rather than specious theories of European genetic superiority. Diamond, a professor of physiology at UCLA, suggests that the geography of Eurasia was best suited to farming, the domestication of animals and the free flow of information. The more populous cultures that developed as a result had more complex forms of government and communication--and increased resistance to disease. Finally, fragmented Europe harnessed the power of competitive innovation in ways that China did not. (For example, the Europeans used the Chinese invention of gunpowder to create guns and subjugate the New World.) Diamond's book is complex and a bit overwhelming. But the thesis he methodically puts forth--examining the "positive feedback loop" of farming, then domestication, then population density, then innovation, and on and on--makes sense. Written without bias, Guns, Germs, and Steel is good global history.

Incorrect. Jared Diamond only "nails it" through a extremely selective and narrow perspective. In some circles, Mr. Diamond is considered a charlatan. An open visionary objective historian in indoctrinationed circles. A wolf in sheep's clothing. If you consider this hefty edition as "good global" history, you need to redonsider your real world history and world history systems.

^RS, by what criteria do you compare/contrast Western and Eastern civilization?

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel

I watched the TV program. Interesting and made sense to me. If you wanted to you could analyse the world's history down to the finest detail and come up with a myriad of reasons why some parts of the world are more developed than others. But for and overall 'Big Picture' I reckon he did a good job.

Originally Posted by Smeg

Any idea why Japan is the only developed Asian country? (excluding special case Singapore)

You missed South Korea in the list. It sticks out black too.

What I do find odd though, is North Korea ranking higher than China. Do they get extra points as a nuclear power?

Originally Posted by Smeg

Take away caucasians (and the ancient Chinese) from human evolution... what would the world have without them?

Academia?
DNA research?
Theory of reletivity?
747s transporting people 1000's of miles in a few hours?
etc etc.

Originally Posted by Smeg

Originally Posted by bkkmadness

The point is people are much the same Smeg, there is no special Thai gene which makes them inferior to us. Give the country a load of money, change up the govt and the way things work at the very top, educate the people and you would see a less corrupt society. They would at least know how to hide it better if anything.

Why do they have to be "given" a load of money? Why can't they produce the wealth and developed infrastructure themselves? Who gave Australians a load of money to produce a developed country? It seems that they did it themselves (unless you are going to claim that they took most of it by plundering aboriginies!).

Probably bad terminology on my part, better to say 'If they had a load of money'. Wasn't suggesting they take a handout.

Many reasons why some countries are not at the same development stages at others, environmental factors, political factors and many other variables all take part in it.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by Smeg

Any idea why Japan is the only developed Asian country? (excluding special case Singapore)

You missed South Korea in the list. It sticks out black too.

What I do find odd though, is North Korea ranking higher than China. Do they get extra points as a nuclear power?

They get brownie points for sucking up to Uncle Sugar

So does anyone feel embarrassed that caucasians had more get up and go and were more technologically advanced? I'm quite sure that SE Asians would have tried to colonise and rape the world if they were up to it. As it was, the most they could do was pop over the border and plunder the nearest city.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by Texpat

Spending an inordinate amount of time every day obsessed with comparisons and how you stack up with others is unhealthy. Being a Brit, it's even less advisable.

I suggest you accept some things as facts and just move on.

Good for you Tex!!!

A surprising comment from you. I think tex was simply suggesting that what I'm saying is obvious

Human development17-11-2008 11:03 AMRural SurinA BIG RED FOR YOUR IGNORANCE

Bwahaha

Originally Posted by Smeg

So does anyone feel embarrassed that caucasians had more get up and go and were more technologically advanced? I'm quite sure that SE Asians would have tried to colonise and rape the world if they were up to it. As it was, the most they could do was pop over the border and plunder the nearest city.

Easy to speculate on historiographical content, isn't it Professor?