The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The fantasy of Australians' collective powers > Comments

The fantasy of Australians' collective powers : Comments

By Thomas Barlow, published 13/8/2007

The belief that Australians are uniquely original and inventive is one of the great Australian legends. And it isn't true ...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
We as a race were unique before we began wearing our caps backwards, wearing baggy trousers singing bad poetry, and forgetting our own rich heritage in favor of US heritage and customs, we are for all intents and purposes simply another State of the United Sates of America now.

Connie Rice visits little rodent every now and then to tell him what he will do, and Bush reinforces it whenever he can. Ask our children who Ned Kelly was, or Captain Starlight, they don't know, we have lost all that being Australian was.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 13 August 2007 10:37:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be honest though Thomas, Australia actually performs very well considering the percentage of GDP that is spent on research. We get much more "bang for the buck" than other countries. Unfortunately because of this narrow underfunding of our science, many of our top performers go overseas, even if temporarily, to make their greatest breakthroughs. We have capability in this country and the ability to punch well above our weight, unfortunately we just don't want to spend the money on it. We'd rather subsidise housing to the point that it becomes so unaffordable that even our best young scientists would never be able to buy one because even a PhD gets paid less than a tradesman thats just finished their apprenticeship!.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 13 August 2007 11:02:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
this will at least lead to more tradesmen.

the editor of the sunday herald, back in the 80's, characterized oz as "a nation of huddlers", when discussing the unwillingness of oz money to back oz brains. he was right, and i think it's related to the unwillingness to want democracy as well. this is a nation that has been collar-trained, waiting for the gummint to do something. gummints do nothing, if they can avoid it.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 13 August 2007 11:17:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A strange article, but it must appeal to some. I notice that the book from which it comes is recommended by that strange fellow, Robyn Williams, the pseudo scientist from the ABC.

I prefer the mapping of the Australian self reliance by writers such as C.E.W.Bean, and of Geoffrey Blainey , in “The Steel Master”, where he describes Australia’s war effort in the second world war.

I consider that the tradition remains, although we lost our direction for a while, and watched our degradation at the hands of destroyers like the greens.

We will have another opportunity to see it function, now that we have emerged from the depths of years of leaving our wealth in the ground, and employing our population in servicing tourists, as the dollar declined.

The last twelve years have seen us emerge as a wealthy nation at the beginning of a boom, where our resourcefulness will reassert itself.

We need to nurture our pride in our self reliance, backed by our inventiveness, and not be sidetracked by pointless comparisons. We are a great nation, about to reassert ourselves, and do not need nitpickers.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Monday, 13 August 2007 12:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A somewhat pointless article I would have thought. It neither informs nor amuses, only disparages. Have I missed smething here?
Posted by onemack, Monday, 13 August 2007 1:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thomas, I note by your snapshot you are very young. Must say as an aged West Aussie going on 87, that as far as farming innovations are concerned I beg to differ per your thesis.

Must say that Aussie farmers have been very adaptive to even roughly fashion their own machines to our particular agriculture. First the stripper harvester was an Australian invention. A very simple piece of machinery to harvest grain crops under Mediterranean summer conditions, simply stripping the grain from the heads without cutter knives, and threshing with pegs rather than with rubbing bars.

Also the stump plow was an Aussie invention, and like the stripper harvester was in great demand in countries similar to Argentina. Also it was Australian farmer engineers who had the commonsense to create the reaper-thresher, suitable for all types of grain crops world over, and which is simply the adaption of cutter-bar and threshing drum to suit most world conditions suitable to grow grain crops - and in fact is still the same adaption set-up that styles the huge combine harvesters now mostly purchased from John Deere, USA, helping to build up our overseas trading debt to nearly the 500 billion dollars that it now goes close.

Of course, the Victa Mover is an Australian innovation, which spurred off all the multiple small area mowers all around the world.

Also any grain Cockie like myself can tell how we still are forced to change machinery to suit our own conditions, small innovative improvements very often stolen from farmers, who have that unfortunate ability to yap, or blow their bags too much.

Fact' is, Thomas, could reckon that much of the blame for lack of innovation goes to our present government who prefers people better trained for a non-everlasting quarry economy, not looking far enough ahead, as well as far enough behind, as proven by today's average school kid, mentality only just behind the eyes and ears, rather than in the deeper recesses where we find both commonsense and better understanding.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 13 August 2007 1:36:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about all the innovative inventions that never gain a foothold in the Australian marketplace because investment dollars are impossible to find? A brilliant production-line 'energyless' coating technology has been developed and is just waiting for some investment to build the first line which, if taken up widely, will drastically reduce energy consumption in many industries that use decorative coatings (see http://www.spectratech.com.au). I'm sure there are many just as innovative, potentially world-changing technologies that have been invented in this country that can't get going because the government sees export revenue only in holes in the ground, and because of the constant response from venture capitalists "we don't invest in start-ups". Funding scientific research is great, but some successful research is done without any up-front funding and then ignored.
Posted by Shadyoasis, Monday, 13 August 2007 2:14:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note a number of other inventions have been missed by this disgruntled author, e.g. the Sarich Engine which was bought up by an oil company in order to bury it forever. I recall a number of other similar incidents. I also recall the withdrawal of funding for the sciences in the 1990's that forced many of our scientists overseas in order to simply work, let alone invent anything. Hence, many inventions that may have been developed here with appropriate funding, have been claimed by overseas interests.
Please, this is a useless article that demonstrates nothing, much less proves anything. Find something that really will occupy the attention of most Australians.
Posted by arcticdog, Monday, 13 August 2007 3:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shonga. The aborigines are a race. The “we” in your post is not.

Outside of aborigines, there are no Australian genes. All our genes have recently been imported from other continents. If Australians as a collection of people are good at inventing things, then it has to be due to an Australian culture which encourages invention.

The reality is that our culture for invention is far less productive than that of the Swedes and far, far less productive that that of the British and the Americans.

Our Noble laureates in science are fewer than what is claimed as they did their innovative work overseas. In other words - in a more productive culture. The accolades should go to the culture within which the work was done.

For as long as we have largely a scientifically illiterate parliament focused on economic growth which can be measured on an annual basis, there will be no appreciation for research for its own sake. Innovative Australians will go overseas to a more receptive culture.

The article delivers the right message – we are up ourselves
Posted by healthwatcher, Monday, 13 August 2007 3:50:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some years ago an aid worker of my acquaintance was in the midst of a crisis in a refugee camp when he heard someone shout, "Is there a doctor somewhere - British army or an Australian." He later queried this and was told that, in the medical world these two groups are the most highly regarded, especially for inventiveness.
Posted by Communicat, Monday, 13 August 2007 4:11:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You demonstrate a lack of coherent thinking in your assertions, healthwatcher.

There are many different races, that make up the politically designated “aboriginal race”, just as there are many races make up the Australian race.

“Race” is a term incapable of scientific definition, but that makes it no less real. In the case of many aboriginals it is a matter of personal choice, since they are whites who claim some aboriginal heritage.

The reality which you describe does not stand up to scrutiny. Despite the depredations of the last century, by the likes of Whitlam, Australia has reasserted itself.

It has a primary industry that has gone from being extremely labour intensive, to being the least labour intensive in the world.

Our army is outstanding, because of its unique Australian character.

In the medical field, we are a match for any country in the world.

Even in technology, where defence spending, in America, put it way out in front, Australia has in some areas come up with the innovations that are in the forefront.

How do the Swedes come into this? Are you impressed by the Volvo?

It is illuminating to hear from someone who is able to relate to the weird approach of this author.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Monday, 13 August 2007 4:56:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unlike onemack I found this article both amusing and informative. Like the author, I am a little tired of the exaggerated opinion Australians have of their own (or their fellow citizens’) inventiveness, and of the unacknowledged vanity this reflects.

A humorous and fact-based bursting of this particular bubble is exactly what’s needed.

It is also noteworthy how often Australians’ presumed inventiveness is used as a special plea for government subsidies and intervention. If we’re not reaping billions from our God-given inventive abilities, it must be because of a lack of:
a) Government funding
b) Science education
c) effective commercialisation
d) R&D expenditure
e) Protectionism
f) Skills in protecting our intellectual property.
g) … insert your cause of choice, perhaps cue another sob story about orbital engines, and reminisce about the dance routines at the Sydney Olympics.

The author does’t say Australians are dumb or uninventive, just that we’re neither exceptionally good nor exceptionally bad at these things.

It’s telling how unwelcome this message is to some posters.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 13 August 2007 5:46:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a mealy mouthed self deprecating article.Thomas Barlow obiviously does not aspire to a greater consiousness.Who is he to decide that our inventiveness is no greater or less than the rest of the world.

In fact he misses the point entirely.If a child of mine aspired to do something that I considered to be beyond his/her ability, I would not be a detractor.The implication of this article is that we are no more or less than the rest of the genetic pool and therefore should be victims of his perception of medicocrity.

It is not just genetics or environment that inspires the creative spirit,it is the culture of courage,tenacity and inspiration that came from our past generations and not from post modern interluders who have not a clue.

It is the illusion of our greatness that inspires all humans to be more than the reality of just mortal protoplasm.There in lies the magic which totally escapes Thomas Barlow.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 13 August 2007 8:44:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, I had concluded that the author was completely humourless, as well as quite limited in his understanding of his fellow Australians.

Fortunately, I have been enlightened by reading your post. I had viewed the author as having unfortunate limitations for a person living in a country like Australia, as he devotes hundreds of words to criticism of what he sees as failings in his fellow countrymen. He seems incapable of perceiving their immense worth.

He appeared to me bound by his own limitations to make great efforts in criticising people who have an enthusiasm, and a zest for the achievements of their fellows. You have made me realise that he demonstrates his superiority, and his unusual sense of humour, by having a snide giggle at their reprehensible positive outlook.

The few facts which he presented were unobjectionable; it is his interpretation which is unsupportable.

He denigrates the inventiveness which is so greatly admired in Australians, their ability to adapt and refine existing technology.

I recall one instance where, at a dredging conference in the US, attended by delegates from around the world, one of the speakers outlined an approach which might be of assistance in the extension of the life of the pipes used. After the luncheon interval, the chairman introduced an Australian from the audience who had already developed and used a similar method, and was able to give the data which would enable implementation by any one who cared to note it down. He spoke as an unscheduled addition to the programmed speakers. He did not file a patent, and gave freely of his knowledge. He was known to, and welcomed by the delegates at every subsequent conference. He was told many stories about other resourceful and generous Australians, by Americans who he came to know.

There are many fields where Australians are highly valued overseas, often much more than in their own country, and generally for their inventiveness in existing areas of expertise, which is no doubt why our clever author discounted this attribute. He criticises whatever he can, and withholds credit where he cannot criticise.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 13 August 2007 10:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thomas, you are suffering an affliction which is running rampant amongst our "academic" achievers, particularly in the arts and social sciences. This is a serious psychological affliction for which you need help.

Nihilism - very sad, Thomas. Get help quick.
Posted by chrisse, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 9:28:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not symptomatic of nihilism, self-deprecation or lack of patriotism to admit that we’re no better, and no worse, at invention than other comparable nationalities.

We have a history of solid achievements in this area that will suffice to provide modest satisfaction for those whose sense of self-worth is influenced by such things. But we’re not world-beaters.

Even the “need to nurture our pride in our self reliance” should not be completely divorced from evidence or reason, nor can it justify an aggressive national pride that can’t tolerate even light-hearted and modestly unfavourable comparison with others’ achievements.

Apart from personal anecdotes or assertions, can any of the article’s detractors point to any actual evidence that Australians are more inventive and innovative than other folk?

I think the evidence points the other way. As well as the facts listed in the article, the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s list of 322 of the world’s greatest inventions includes only one from Australia – the boomerang:
http://www.i-dineout.com/pages2003/inventions1.html

Arjay is unintentionally close to the mark when he says that “it is the illusion of our greatness that inspires”. Yes, we can be inspired by our national myths, even if they are in fact illusions. The inventive and resourceful Aussie will remain a national stereotype to inspire and encourage, whatever the evidence suggests. But surely we’re mature enough to admit that there may be a gap between the myth and the reality.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:18:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is quite simple. The majority of Australians are from “British” ancestral stock. That is where the inventiveness and innovation comes from.

So, until the Australian gene pool is diluted to the point where those inherited inventive traits are lost among the mass of inferior emulator and copyists traits, Australia will continue to fair above average in the innovation stakes.

I would note, USA owes a similar debt to the ancestral origins of its own founding fathers.

As for Shonga’s outburst “we are for all intents and purposes simply another State of the United States of America now.”

If you could think beyond the rim of your cereal bowl, “We” do not exist. Every nation culture, which is worth preserving, considers its citizens as “individuals”, individually deciding which cultural lead to follow or ignore.

That some seem to irrationally adopt or (as with Shonga) irrationally reject a particular leadership (be it parochial or alien) is neither here nor there to the rest of us. We all make our own way and the preserving strength of Australian values is that we will continue to make our own way, at least until the socialists again try to impose their futile perversion of reality upon us.

So, let us reflect on what a leading source of contemporary political philosophy, dearest Margaret Thatcher, was known to have said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

that is the attitude which respects those who can “innovate” and “invent”.

She also stated

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Because that is the environment which stimulates the innovative and inventive mind.

It seems to me, we have a lot to thank that inventive British character for (but that is no reason to give any quarter on a cricket pitch)
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:25:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1970s: The Bionic Ear was invented by Professor Graeme Clark and a team of scientists in the 1970's.

1992: Multi-focal contact lens - world's first multi-focal contact lens invented by optical research scientist, Stephen Newman in Queensland.

1992: Supersonic combustion - University of Queensland demonstrated the world's first supersonic combustion in an atmospheric flight test at Woomera on July 30, 2002. The craft reached speeds of more than Mach 8, or 8 times the speed of sound.

1993: Scramjet - The University of Queensland reported for the first time the development of a scramjet that achieved more thrust than drag.

1993: Underwater pc - The world's first underwater computer with a five-button hand-held keypad was developed by Bruce Macdonald at the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

1995 EXELGRAM - The world's most sophisticated optical anti-counterfeiting technology was developed by the CSIRO.

2005: Liquid spray-on skin technology for burn victims, which binds to the topmost layer of skin. It is waterproof and sweat-resistant, with one application lasting three to four days.

Not bad for a 200 year old country started as a penal colony. Just imagine what we could do if millions were spent on research instead of football and handouts to ethnics.
Posted by dee, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 7:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Dee, Australians have invented lots of useful things, but so have citizens of many other countries.

Incidentally, it’s a shame the blurb introducing this month’s topic regurgitates the furphy that Australia has the highest number of per capita Nobel laureates in the world. A quick Google shows several countries also claiming this honour including Canada, Israel, Hungary and St. Lucia. All of these in fact have many more Nobel prize winners per capita than Australia, with St Lucia topping the table with two prizes and a population of just 178,000 (11.9 per million population), compared to Australia’s nine prizes and population of 21,000,000, representing 0.43 prizes per million population.

By my calculations, 25 countries have more per capita prizes than us, namely Saint Lucia (11.9 per million population); Switzerland (3.42); Iceland (3.26); Sweden (2.94); Denmark (2.57); Austria (2.53); Ireland (2.32); Norway (1.92); East Timor (1.88); the United Kingdom (1.8); Hungary (1.59); Germany (1.14); Israel (1.11); Netherlands (1.08); Belgium (0.93); France (0.85); Trinidad and Tobago (0.77); New Zealand (0.71); Finland (0.57); Canada (0.54); the United States (0.52); Bosnia and Herzegovina (0.5); Slovenia (0.5); Czech Republic (0.49); and Tibet (0.48).

data on prizes from here: http://www.answers.com/topic/nobel-laureates-by-country

data on population from the imf: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/index.aspx

In fact, Australians are much more heavily represented as recipients of the spoof Ig Nobel prizes for daft ideas (22 awards in a mere 16 years, including joint and institutional awards) than as recipients of the actual Nobel prize (9 awards in 106 years).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners

Actually, I’m rather proud of that, too.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 7:41:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Col Rouge (or Col. Blimp?) for your marvelous post. You have thoughtfully reminded us of Australia's glory days. Days unsullied by the gooks, slopes, dagoes, garlic-munchers, wogs, spicks, balts, chinks, nig nogs, curry-eaters and other refuse from the gutters who have now degraded our once marvellous country. Days when a man could fell a tree without some pinko chardonay-swilling politically-correct bureaucrat swanning in to whinge about the environment. Days when a Britisher could walk tall, carrying a big stick. All that awaits us now is inevitable doom as our creative force is snuffed out.

Thanks also for reminding us of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the great philosopher/warrior princess. I remember how British hearts swelled with pride when the windswept uninhabited tundra of South Georgia echoed to the sound of British gunfire as the brave Tommies recaptured it from the devious Argentines.

Well, I think I'll wind up my (British-made) Duophone gramophone and put on my (English) Columbia recording of Dame Clara Butt singing "Land of Hope and Glory". It always brings a tear to the eye....
Posted by Johnj, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 9:39:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author falls into the same trap as the people he is attempting to criticise - that is, thinking that it's somehow relevant and important to rank countries based on what some of their respective citizens have 'invented'.

The foundation of the article is the first line - "The belief that Australians are a uniquely original and innately inventive people is one of the great Australian legends."
A pretty vague assertion really, which is impossible to varify. What does he mean by 'uniquely original'? And does inventiveness include the development of new ideas, techniques, methods, strategies or concepts? If it does, then how would one go about quantifying them? If it doesn't, why take such a narrow view of of what inventiveness means (ie. making 'inventions')?

Most importantly however, does it even matter which country an individual who invented something comes from?
Posted by Dr. Livingstone, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed Johnj. I can't remember when I've been so swelled with pride at my Anglo ancestry.

Alf Garnett lives!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont'd)

Spelling correction varify > verify.

"In Australia, we have made ourselves so proud of this single innovation that it has almost come to define Australian brilliance."
Who's 'we'?

"Though it will disappoint those who continue to believe Australia must be in all things a country of extremes, the quantitative evidence suggests that Australia is neither a uniquely clever country nor, fortunately, a uniquely stupid one. In terms of our fundamental abilities to make new discoveries or to create completely new technologies, Australians are fairly average in performance."

Quantitative evidence? New discoveries or inventions? Which one is the author actually talking about? Very very few technologies are completely new - rather they tend to evolve over time via the work of many different people. Take for example the refrigerator. In the Encylcopaedia Britannica list linked by Rhian, the refrigerator was apparently 'invented' by one John Gorrie from the US in 1842. However, consider this history of the refrigerator from Wikipedia:

"The first known artificial refrigeration was demonstrated by William Cullen at the University of Glasgow in 1748, and relied on the vapor-compression refrigeration process explained by Michael Faraday. Between 1805, when Oliver Evans designed the first refrigeration machine that used vapor instead of liquid, and 1902 when Willis Haviland Carrier demonstrated the first air conditioner, scores of inventors contributed many small advances in cooling machinery. In 1850 or 1851, Dr. John Gorrie demonstrated an ice maker. In 1857, Australian James Harrison introduced vapor-compression refrigeration to the brewing and meat packing industries. The absorption refrigerator was invented by Baltzar von Platen and Carl Munters in 1922, while they were still students at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. It became a worldwide success and was commercialized by Electrolux. Other pioneers included Charles Tellier, David Boyle, and Raoul Pictet."

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

So who 'invented' it? Get my point?
Posted by Dr. Livingstone, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:57:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnj “Days unsullied by the gooks, slopes, dagoes, garlic-munchers, wogs, spicks, balts, chinks, nig nogs, curry-eaters and other refuse from the gutters’

Your words, not mine Johnj.

You seem to be suffering from a serious inferiority complex there but reading the rest of your invective, it is probably well suited.

Shame you cannot aspire to better than that which you are.

One is tempted to ask what sort of “other refuse from the gutter” you are but please, don’t bore us. Having read through your one post, any more would be enough to induce vomiting.

I guess you have, however, proved one of the awful truths about Australian society. –

That half the population are below average intelligence.

As for “pinko chardonay-swilling politically-correct bureaucrat swanning in to whinge about the environment”

you sound like a public servant (I was tempted to suggest civil servant, except I doubt there is anything “civil” about you).

Finally, I suggest , if you want to do something to benefit Australia’s cultural assimilation process, it should be to volunteer for an emergency vasectomy immediately.

Have a nice day

Dr Livingstone “Most importantly however, does it even matter which country an individual who invented something comes from?”

The answer is – no.

the obvious point is it is never the collective which invents or achieves anything but always the individuals which populate it, encouraged by the freedom of expression and inquiry which allows them to indulge their individual interests.

“Invention” is like being in a football club, you might have lots supporters but the players who scores the goals are always identifiable from the hangers-on around them.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 2:02:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Touched a raw nerve there, have I Col? Can't say I've ever used any of those epithets in conversation myself, but I've heard them all, and plenty more besides, from Australians, usually prefaced with "I'm not racist, but...", Actually, that's a fib; "nig nog" derives from the British sitcom Man About the House (but you seem to think that Australian=British, so I thought you wouldn't mind). Talk about ungrateful though, Col. I write a post agreeing with you, and all you can do is carp and criticize about my choice of words. Talk about political correctness gone mad!!

As for "you have, however, proved one of the awful truths about Australian society. – That half the population are below average intelligence." Such a judgement (coming from a mental giant like yourself) has shaken me to the core. And so clever of you to spot my cunningly disguised inferiority complex. Most of my (few) friends think I have the opposite problem.

What gutter did I spring from? Isn't it obvious for a man of your brilliance, Col?

Vasectomy? I can't believe you'd want all my "innovative British" genes going to waste.
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 9:01:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, nothing I say is unintentional.The intent of Thomas Barlow's article was to be a barb in the thigh of our egotistical psyche.You don't ethically raise your own profile by the denegration of others.

There must always be a balance between ego and reality,however without ego and ambition nothing would be achieved,we would still be nomadic cave dwellers murdering each other over food and territory.

It is better to be a realistic positive egotist than a negative introverted detractor who seeks power through subtle equivocation.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 17 August 2007 9:39:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnj - I actually thought you were Scandinavia, that is where "Trolls" come from

Have a nice day
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 18 August 2007 1:33:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a point of view that myth, in the particular sense of archetypal patterns of the unconscious mind, is an integral part of life. This was started by Carl Gustav Jung, and developed by followers such as Joseph Campbell (the consultant on mythology for “Star Wars”).

Jung said that a person should examine the myth that they are living, and if it is destructive, abandon it.

I like to think that he would also have said to examine the myth you are attacking, and if it is constructive, abort the attack.

A myth which is adopted gains its power from being a myth; its truth or falsity is irrelevant to its impetus.

The myths of, for example, “Stolen children” and “global warming” should not be examined for truth or falsity, but abandoned because they are destructive,

The myth of inventiveness and resourcefulness of Australians should not be attacked, on the basis that it may not be capable of verification, but should be supported regardless, because it is constructive.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 18 August 2007 2:17:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The constant polarisation of every issue by the abstraction of nationality is tiresome!

The author is correct that Australians are no more or less resourceful than any other nationality - doubtless these creative thinkers have more noble aims in mind than perpetuating the self-congratulatory attitude of the nation, an attitude which many Australians promote too vocally, to the detriment of our overseas image, and our tolerance of diversity at home.

Of course the people who live in our immediate vicinity will have some degree of shared historical, geographical and cultural experience, and so we feel comforted in this collective identity, and proud of achievments made locally.

But to crow the superiority of "our" collective genius and bolster our national ego by comparison to other constructed groupings of nationality is redundant.

We should celebrate the adaptability and imagination of the human condition, regardless of an individual's (or research team's) citizenship status.

I am. You are. We are Australian? Bollocks. I am. You are. Full stop. Exagerating difference only exacerbates misunderstanding. Now get out there and invent something, to make life better for all of us, regardless of where we come from!
Posted by palmshell, Saturday, 18 August 2007 7:53:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, there seemed to me an internal contradiction in your argument – that we prefer science for its mythic and inspiring qualities, not for any (scientific) basis of reason or evidence, still less standing cheerfully before the bar of falsifiability – so I assumed it was unintentional. Apologies, but you can see why I might think it contradictory.

That doesn’t make me morally better or worse than you. I hope I’d never “ethically raise my own profile by the denegration of others”. This isn’t a discussion of ethics, but of science. I still haven’t seen anyone defending the proposition that Australians are unusually talented at science with anything resembling scientific argument - logic, evidence, verifiable (or falsifiable) methods and sources.

The core of the discussion is perhaps Leo Lane’ assertions that: ” The myth of inventiveness and resourcefulness of Australians should not be attacked, on the basis that it may not be capable of verification, but should be supported regardless, because it is constructive.”

I vehemently disagree with this, because a) it is in fact capable of verification (or more pertinently, falsification) and b) any proposition that is asserted to be incapable of verification has no place in an affirmation the merits of science.
Posted by Rhian, Sunday, 19 August 2007 1:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, I cannot understand how you can seriously assert that a proposition like this is capable of falsification.

The matter which you pursued, Nobel prizes, would to many people be quite irrelevant, as they have no regard for a left wing subversive organisation like the Nobel foundation, much less for its awards.

Agreement on what the proposition means is the first hurdle, but possibly surmountable. Gathering all the facts for and against, and agreeing which of them may be relevant, is impossible.

We are in the domain of belief, not science.

While Leo does not have the answer either, his suggestion is probably more sensible, and workable than yours.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Monday, 20 August 2007 12:17:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick

The benchmark of Nobel prizes per capita was not my choice, it was the editors of OLO who put the statement that Australia has more per capita Nobel laureates than anywhere else in their advertising blurb for this month’s featured topic. This statement is clearly capable of falsification. All I did was spend 10 minutes with Google and an Excel spreadsheet to work out whether or not it’s true, and found that it isn’t.

While no single set of data will persuade true believers, belief that Australians are uniquely original and inventive is surely capable of being tested against evidence. The claim presented by those who hold this proposition to be true, that we have more Nobel laureates per capita, is false. The other evidence presented in the article and this forum, apart from anecdotes and individual examples, points the other way.

I’m more persuaded by the evidence that Barlow quotes on patents etc and also evidence such as Australia’s modest representation in lists of the world’s greatest inventions and inventors.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:08:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are many inventions and ideas that don't get patented because it is just too expensive and are too easily copied by just varying inventions by 10%.Thomas Barlow has embarked on mission impossible.You cannot evaluate all inventions through mere number comparisons.Some are far greater than others and who has the intellectual capacity to determine their worth?

His emotive title was designed as a put down for our collective psyche so he could bathe briefly in his version of fame.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 24 August 2007 12:01:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy