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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.