Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?
Whom do you admire most? In what way does that person inspire you?
230 comments
Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Carnegie, Phil Knight, Steve Fosset...
The founders - Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Washington - the world owes them a debt of gratitude.
Ernest Shackleton, Pat Tillman, Chuck Darwin, (politics aside)Barack Obama, Samuel Clemens, Einstein, Micheal Jordan, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Emerson, Jon Stuart, Ron Paul, MacGyver, Elon Musk, Hugh Hefner, Tiger Woods, Feynman, Socrates, Lewis & Clark, my mother. (don't mind the order)
Funny, I think all of these people, except my mother, are athiest/agnostic, goes to show you...
The founders - Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Washington - the world owes them a debt of gratitude.
Ernest Shackleton, Pat Tillman, Chuck Darwin, (politics aside)Barack Obama, Samuel Clemens, Einstein, Micheal Jordan, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Emerson, Jon Stuart, Ron Paul, MacGyver, Elon Musk, Hugh Hefner, Tiger Woods, Feynman, Socrates, Lewis & Clark, my mother. (don't mind the order)
Funny, I think all of these people, except my mother, are athiest/agnostic, goes to show you...
> Funny, I think all of these people are athiest/agnostic, goes to show you...
Why do you think that? Dylan famously converted to Christianity, BHO is a long time churchgoer, and Ron Paul is supposedly a creationist Christian. I don't really know about the others (obviously Einstein had a lot to say about god and dice and so on, but that hardly makes him a believer...)
Why do you think that? Dylan famously converted to Christianity, BHO is a long time churchgoer, and Ron Paul is supposedly a creationist Christian. I don't really know about the others (obviously Einstein had a lot to say about god and dice and so on, but that hardly makes him a believer...)
Oh yes, overlooked Ron Paul, Obama too, as religious people. Jury is out on Einstein, hes has made comments both ways. I'm probably wrong about a few others too.
And for some reason I wrote Steve Fossett when I meant Richard Branson.
Long day. Thanks.
And for some reason I wrote Steve Fossett when I meant Richard Branson.
Long day. Thanks.
"if I am in the devil of a hole and want to get out of it, give me Shackleton every time"
My grandfather. You guys have probably never heard of him, but he rocked.
I am sure many of us look to our parents, grandparents, and other relatives as heroes.
For me, I look to my dad as a hero, which is kind of funny considering how often have disagreements. I'm reminded of that line from Randy Pausch's last lecture, "Just remember, when your father was your age, he was fighting the Germans." Growing up I always heard stories about what my dad was like and what he was doing when he was in college, and the stories always seemed so distant. Now, I am going through those same years, and it blows me away to think about what my dad went through when he was at the same point in my life as I am.
Coming to the US with only a few dollars in his pocket, not knowing the language, working full time at bad jobs in rough neighborhoods in Houston, going to school full time in engineering, and building a life based around making sacrifices for the benefit of his family -- comparing this to my own life, which has been free of these hardships ('cept full time school in engineering, of course!) largely due to his efforts, I can't help but be inspired.
Thanks dad.
For me, I look to my dad as a hero, which is kind of funny considering how often have disagreements. I'm reminded of that line from Randy Pausch's last lecture, "Just remember, when your father was your age, he was fighting the Germans." Growing up I always heard stories about what my dad was like and what he was doing when he was in college, and the stories always seemed so distant. Now, I am going through those same years, and it blows me away to think about what my dad went through when he was at the same point in my life as I am.
Coming to the US with only a few dollars in his pocket, not knowing the language, working full time at bad jobs in rough neighborhoods in Houston, going to school full time in engineering, and building a life based around making sacrifices for the benefit of his family -- comparing this to my own life, which has been free of these hardships ('cept full time school in engineering, of course!) largely due to his efforts, I can't help but be inspired.
Thanks dad.
Growing up, my mom was basically the smartest person I knew, and it drove me to work harder. She had 2 annoying phrases that really pushed me.
"Tell me something I don't know"
"If that book is so good, why are you telling me about it instead of reading it?"
She was a great motivator.
"Tell me something I don't know"
"If that book is so good, why are you telling me about it instead of reading it?"
She was a great motivator.
Definitely second this, my grandfather was 98lbs wet, and the kindest person I've ever known.
Quiet, calm, assertive and wise...he's the reason I can't shake this desire to start my own business. He started a business in the 50s with minimal resources and grew it for 50 years before it was sold in 2000. I still remember him and my father paying me less than minimum wage (at the time was $5.15ish maybe?) to sweep the floors and handle trash and pick items....I miss that building, and I really wish I was older and could have talked to him more seriously before he died.
Quiet, calm, assertive and wise...he's the reason I can't shake this desire to start my own business. He started a business in the 50s with minimal resources and grew it for 50 years before it was sold in 2000. I still remember him and my father paying me less than minimum wage (at the time was $5.15ish maybe?) to sweep the floors and handle trash and pick items....I miss that building, and I really wish I was older and could have talked to him more seriously before he died.
Mr. Rogers. The guy was amazing on so many levels; there are lots of examples but I'll go with a HN related one. He contributed valuable testimony to the betamax case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers
Here's the Junod profile of Mister Rogers (it's never, ever "Mr."): http://www.thedqtimes.com/pages/castpages/other/fredrogersca...
It will make you cry.
It will make you cry.
I'm so glad you said that, because I was primed to think only of entrepreneurs. But in many ways — especially the most important ones — Mr. Rogers is a better guide. Seriously.
This video of Mr. Rogers is a huge help if you're ever in need of a pick-me-up. I always go back to it during the occasional rough patch. Like my sibling post, I should warn that it will make you cry. But in a good way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcvRMHz4mb4
This video of Mr. Rogers is a huge help if you're ever in need of a pick-me-up. I always go back to it during the occasional rough patch. Like my sibling post, I should warn that it will make you cry. But in a good way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcvRMHz4mb4
So glad you said that. An outstanding human being.
Steve Jobs. (1) He has amazing taste. (2) He did it twice.
Thrice. Twice at Apple, once at Pixar. (I'm counting NeXT as the second time at Apple. Though perhaps they should count separately.)
[deleted]
Billy Mays because he was a brilliant salesman.
the unsung heroes who don't make time for brown-nosing and fame-whoring
is this the same termie from back in the flock day? http://www.flickr.com/photos/foolswisdom/43145184/
No, I recently resurrected this handle from my 80s BBS days.
Carl Sagan.
If you wish to make a hero from scratch,
you must first invent the universe.
pg, because this is a cult. ;)
Google Suggest always wants to autocomplete my searches for "site:news.ycombinator.com" as "site news.ycombinator.com pg cult." (try it yourself)
Do people actually search for the term "pg cult?"
Do people actually search for the term "pg cult?"
I wasn't sure if you were kidding so I tried it. It's true!
They do now!
Google never lies.
Yukichi Fukuzawa anyone?
Great cultural disconnect from his autobiography:
Japanese envoy: Is the sale and purchase of land in Amsterdam freely permitted?
Dutch merchant: Certainly it is free.
Envoy: Do you sell land to foreigners also?
Merchant: Yes, as long as a foreigner is willing to pay for the land, we would sell any amount of it to any person
Envoy: Then, suppose a foreigner were to put down a large sum of money to purchase a great tract of land in order to build a fortress, would you allow that too?
Merchant: We never had occasion to think of such a case. Even though there are many rich men in England and France and other countries, we do not believe any merchant would spend money on such a venture.
Japanese envoy: Is the sale and purchase of land in Amsterdam freely permitted?
Dutch merchant: Certainly it is free.
Envoy: Do you sell land to foreigners also?
Merchant: Yes, as long as a foreigner is willing to pay for the land, we would sell any amount of it to any person
Envoy: Then, suppose a foreigner were to put down a large sum of money to purchase a great tract of land in order to build a fortress, would you allow that too?
Merchant: We never had occasion to think of such a case. Even though there are many rich men in England and France and other countries, we do not believe any merchant would spend money on such a venture.
Jesus, because the world would be a better place if we were more like him.
Hmmm. So imagine tomorrow everyone in the world started acting like Jesus. We all throw away our possessions, and wander around preaching to whoever would listen about being nice to each other. How long before everyone starved?
at least we could turn the whole red sea into red wine!
[deleted]
I know this was probably to provoke a reaction but Jesus as I understand him was a revolutionary who pushed people to stop following the established religion and financing its greed and instead to start living a good life. In this sense he was like Martin Luther in that he envisioned decentralised religion as the ideal - moral living for the masses not blind expensive ritual controlled by the few.
But I could be completely wrong.
But I could be completely wrong.
I totally agree with you on all counts. Except for the moral living part. It's establishment religious types that promote moralism-- Jesus' whole point is that your good works don't do jack squat.
Sola fide is a controversial stance, at best. Consider James 2:26, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
> Sola fide is a controversial stance, at best
Talk about an understatement! The Protestant Reformation is one of those things that has had such a tremendous impact on the world that I think it might be impossible to imagine the world without it (I only spent a few minutes just now trying, though)
Talk about an understatement! The Protestant Reformation is one of those things that has had such a tremendous impact on the world that I think it might be impossible to imagine the world without it (I only spent a few minutes just now trying, though)
Yeah my view on morals is more egoist than most but I assume that a system of morality is the best-case output of religion.
Satan, because without him we would have no free will.
Whatever your beliefs, the mythology suggests that God gave us free will by provding for the possibility of disobeying Him.
Ah....which Jesus? The real person about whom we know nothing or the fictitious facade that the catholic church has erected?
Our perception of all public figures is a facade. Walter Lipman's book "Public Opinion" comes to mind:
Great men, even during their lifetime, are usually known to the public only through a fictitious personality. Hence the modicum of truth in the old saying that no man is a hero to his valet. There is only a modicum of truth, for the valet, and the private secretary, are often immersed in the fiction themselves. Royal personages are, of course, constructed personalities. Whether they themselves believe in their public character, or whether they merely permit the chamberlain to stage-manage it, there are at least two distinct selves, the public and regal self, the private and human. The biographies of great people fall more or less readily into the histories of these two selves. The official biographer reproduces the public life, the revealing memoir the other. The Charnwood Lincoln, for example, is a noble portrait, not of an actual human being, but of an epic figure, replete with significance, who moves on much the same level of reality as Aeneas or St. George. Oliver's Hamilton is a majestic abstraction, the sculpture of an idea, "an essay" as Mr. Oliver himself calls it, "on American union." It is a formal monument to the state-craft of federalism, hardly the biography of a person. Sometimes people create their own facade when they think they are revealing the interior scene. The Repington diaries and Margot Asquith's are a species of self-portraiture in which the intimate detail is most revealing as an index of how the authors like to think about themselves. (source: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/Lippman/ch01.html )
Great men, even during their lifetime, are usually known to the public only through a fictitious personality. Hence the modicum of truth in the old saying that no man is a hero to his valet. There is only a modicum of truth, for the valet, and the private secretary, are often immersed in the fiction themselves. Royal personages are, of course, constructed personalities. Whether they themselves believe in their public character, or whether they merely permit the chamberlain to stage-manage it, there are at least two distinct selves, the public and regal self, the private and human. The biographies of great people fall more or less readily into the histories of these two selves. The official biographer reproduces the public life, the revealing memoir the other. The Charnwood Lincoln, for example, is a noble portrait, not of an actual human being, but of an epic figure, replete with significance, who moves on much the same level of reality as Aeneas or St. George. Oliver's Hamilton is a majestic abstraction, the sculpture of an idea, "an essay" as Mr. Oliver himself calls it, "on American union." It is a formal monument to the state-craft of federalism, hardly the biography of a person. Sometimes people create their own facade when they think they are revealing the interior scene. The Repington diaries and Margot Asquith's are a species of self-portraiture in which the intimate detail is most revealing as an index of how the authors like to think about themselves. (source: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/Lippman/ch01.html )
Albert Einstein. The greatest scientist ever lived.
Thomas Jefferson.
A man who saw the world as it could be and did everything he could to get it there.
A man who saw the world as it could be and did everything he could to get it there.
Alexander Hamilton:
The Man who enabled Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase with his shrewd policies (like debt assumption - cool economic hack) as Secretary of the Treasury. Federalist Papers are/were invaluable too.
Bonus point for not having a mausoleum, library or any other grand memorial as a monument to him.
Bonus point for not having a mausoleum, library or any other grand memorial as a monument to him.
...though he does have an entire Manhattan neighborhood named after him!
[deleted]
Leo Szilard. Had the idea for fission chain reaction, realized what would happen if Hitler got hold of it, and kept his mouth shut... while browbeating the skeptical Fermi into starting the Manhattan Project, and ghostwriting Einstein's letter to Roosevelt.
Right up there with Norman Borlaug and Stanislav Petrov on the list of people you've never heard of because CNN is too busy covering Michael Jackson.
Right up there with Norman Borlaug and Stanislav Petrov on the list of people you've never heard of because CNN is too busy covering Michael Jackson.
Is the Hitler story true? Wikipedia says that he got the idea in London, where he filed a patent (!) for the fission chain reaction.
Here's the link to his patent, btw: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&...
Here's the link to his patent, btw: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=GB&...
I think he filed the patent and then got the patent classified.
I'll stick with Borlaug. I know singing his praise has become slightly cliched on this forum, but he very objectively deserves it. He's done more for humanity than anyone since whoever it was that discovered how to make fire.
So happy to see him mentioned - I recently read a collection of his short stories (The Voice of the Dolphins) and highly recommend it. His writing is somewhat dry, but really gives you a perspective on how people thought during the cold war era.
Benjamin Franklin.
Deng Xiaoping. In the pure utilitarian sense, he may have had the greatest positive impact of any person in the 20th century. In a century wracked by war between the ideologies, his philosophy was just the tonic the world needed: "Who cares if the mouse is black or white, as long it catches the mouse".
"Don't care if the cat is a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches the mouse, it's a good cat."
Basically for those who are interested in the background of the quote, Deng arose to power at the end of the Cultural Revolution, at the height of Chinese communism ideology when the government was so communist that they broke away from the Soviet's and accused of USSR as "revisionist"; destroyed all of the Buddhist temples in China as "backwards and Confucius," imprisoned the sons and daughters of former capitalists (because there were no current one's left) for being "Western corrupution," and stripped intellectual's of their post in Universities and forced them to "country-side re-education camps" for being "radical leftists against communism." Before he rose to power, Deng himself was denounced and stripped of his political post, and sent down for "re-education."
In little as four or five years, in that kind of environment, Deng has reformed the former Chinese market-command economy to become more capitalistic. Liberalized the political and free-speech in China, that allowed for media/film/journalism criticize the Chinese Communist party which eventually led to the Tienanmen Incident. Deng, confronted tremendous criticism and resistance from the hardliners of the Community party when he tried enact his reform. He used this quote about "black cat" or "white cat" in a speech he delivered to the political cadres to persuade them to be a bit more pragmatic and less ideological about their communism, after 43 million people have died from Great Leap Forward and the Culture Revolution. It was also Deng who eventually issued the order to strike down the student protesters in Tienanmen.
This ambivalent character of Deng, of balancing liberalization versus stability has become a hallmark quality of the Chinese government. See how the Chinese government encourages citizens towards private asset ownership and entrepreneurship, but not towards democratic representation. See how the Chinese government agrees in principle to a Korea/Iran nuke disarmament, but they are more so wary of the stability of Korea/Iran region in the event of a international escalation - that they block the UN Security Council sanctions. Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.
Basically for those who are interested in the background of the quote, Deng arose to power at the end of the Cultural Revolution, at the height of Chinese communism ideology when the government was so communist that they broke away from the Soviet's and accused of USSR as "revisionist"; destroyed all of the Buddhist temples in China as "backwards and Confucius," imprisoned the sons and daughters of former capitalists (because there were no current one's left) for being "Western corrupution," and stripped intellectual's of their post in Universities and forced them to "country-side re-education camps" for being "radical leftists against communism." Before he rose to power, Deng himself was denounced and stripped of his political post, and sent down for "re-education."
In little as four or five years, in that kind of environment, Deng has reformed the former Chinese market-command economy to become more capitalistic. Liberalized the political and free-speech in China, that allowed for media/film/journalism criticize the Chinese Communist party which eventually led to the Tienanmen Incident. Deng, confronted tremendous criticism and resistance from the hardliners of the Community party when he tried enact his reform. He used this quote about "black cat" or "white cat" in a speech he delivered to the political cadres to persuade them to be a bit more pragmatic and less ideological about their communism, after 43 million people have died from Great Leap Forward and the Culture Revolution. It was also Deng who eventually issued the order to strike down the student protesters in Tienanmen.
This ambivalent character of Deng, of balancing liberalization versus stability has become a hallmark quality of the Chinese government. See how the Chinese government encourages citizens towards private asset ownership and entrepreneurship, but not towards democratic representation. See how the Chinese government agrees in principle to a Korea/Iran nuke disarmament, but they are more so wary of the stability of Korea/Iran region in the event of a international escalation - that they block the UN Security Council sanctions. Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.
> he viability of either models remains to be seem.
I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior. And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs school education. It's more efficient if people do what they want. So even an oligarchy with an emphasis on practical results will still be less efficient than individual people managing themselves freely.
I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior. And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs school education. It's more efficient if people do what they want. So even an oligarchy with an emphasis on practical results will still be less efficient than individual people managing themselves freely.
> And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs school education. It's more efficient if people do what they want. So even an oligarchy with an emphasis on practical results will still be less efficient than individual people managing themselves freely.
I actually completely agree with this, but regarding your first sentence:
> I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior.
I agree with this, too, but neither of the two models being discussed here actually does this. Perhaps the question, then, is which of the two models does a relatively better job, and the answer is not so obvious. There are some who would argue that the Chinese model does a better job of it, and they are not completely nuts.
Edit: I wanted to add that your post deserves praise, because you have made an essential connection that few people have. It is more efficient when people do what they want, this does indeed apply to schools/education as well as large-scale economic organization, and in no way is this a coincidence!
I actually completely agree with this, but regarding your first sentence:
> I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior.
I agree with this, too, but neither of the two models being discussed here actually does this. Perhaps the question, then, is which of the two models does a relatively better job, and the answer is not so obvious. There are some who would argue that the Chinese model does a better job of it, and they are not completely nuts.
Edit: I wanted to add that your post deserves praise, because you have made an essential connection that few people have. It is more efficient when people do what they want, this does indeed apply to schools/education as well as large-scale economic organization, and in no way is this a coincidence!
I agree, people who praise China's system isn't completely nuts. I have lived in China though, and I have a bunch of relatives there. I also visit regularly. But the fact is that the general consensus among Chinese youth (both from those I've encountered and from sentiments I've read on the web) is that even they don't like their current system. Even older generations acknowledge the fact that their standard of living is lower, and that China is basically unstable, and hostile to free individual thought. My dad grew up in in China (grew up poor might I add) and does not believe in the Chinese system.
What does China have right now? Authoritarian style government. It's not near pure communism, just as America is not near pure capitalism. But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic.
I agree mob rule is bad. Can democracy work for China? Maybe. Democracy depends on the population to be educated in order to work ideally. Obviously 40 years ago many Chinese were uneducated and poor. Today many are still poor, but there is a growing middle class. More people are educated now and that number is continuously increasing. And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.
Obviously uneducated poor populations cannot govern themselves. One bad idea from one uneducated person will be echoed by 100 uneducated if democratic rule would take place. Therefore it is up to the few in that society who are educated to take charge. So in such situations an authoritarian style may be more effective. But when there is less of an education gap, it not only becomes more fair to adopt a democratic process, but more effective since there is inherent risk in granting power to select few in a more equal society. Of course the same risk is present in a society with a large education gap, but the benefits of having the smart making the decisions outweighs that risk. In the United States there is less of an education gap and people are more equal. Therefore the risk in having the smartest and best govern is not worth the fewer benefits (because an authoritarian regime can definitely be more effective if done right than a slow democratic system).
The risk I am talking about is of course having someone corrupt step into power. Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.
Establishing country is analogous to a startup (I love startup analogies). You start with a startup and few people have complete and utter control. These few people mean less checks on bad decisions. Why? Because if it fails, there is very little to lose, and if it succeeds, very much to gain. This is analogous to the authoritarian phase of a society where it is much more ideal to take big risks since everyone's life is already shit (excuse my language). Of course once your company hits it big and has lots more to lose if a bad decision is made, your company has to be very careful. This is analogous to the democratic phase of a society where incremental benefits in management or efficiency no longer outweigh the risks which could topple the established welfare of said society/company.
So the question now is what stage is China at? Are the citizens of China smart enough to make their own decisions now?
What does China have right now? Authoritarian style government. It's not near pure communism, just as America is not near pure capitalism. But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic.
I agree mob rule is bad. Can democracy work for China? Maybe. Democracy depends on the population to be educated in order to work ideally. Obviously 40 years ago many Chinese were uneducated and poor. Today many are still poor, but there is a growing middle class. More people are educated now and that number is continuously increasing. And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.
Obviously uneducated poor populations cannot govern themselves. One bad idea from one uneducated person will be echoed by 100 uneducated if democratic rule would take place. Therefore it is up to the few in that society who are educated to take charge. So in such situations an authoritarian style may be more effective. But when there is less of an education gap, it not only becomes more fair to adopt a democratic process, but more effective since there is inherent risk in granting power to select few in a more equal society. Of course the same risk is present in a society with a large education gap, but the benefits of having the smart making the decisions outweighs that risk. In the United States there is less of an education gap and people are more equal. Therefore the risk in having the smartest and best govern is not worth the fewer benefits (because an authoritarian regime can definitely be more effective if done right than a slow democratic system).
The risk I am talking about is of course having someone corrupt step into power. Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.
Establishing country is analogous to a startup (I love startup analogies). You start with a startup and few people have complete and utter control. These few people mean less checks on bad decisions. Why? Because if it fails, there is very little to lose, and if it succeeds, very much to gain. This is analogous to the authoritarian phase of a society where it is much more ideal to take big risks since everyone's life is already shit (excuse my language). Of course once your company hits it big and has lots more to lose if a bad decision is made, your company has to be very careful. This is analogous to the democratic phase of a society where incremental benefits in management or efficiency no longer outweigh the risks which could topple the established welfare of said society/company.
So the question now is what stage is China at? Are the citizens of China smart enough to make their own decisions now?
> But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic.
The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". China and the US both have authoritarian governments, although they do of course differ in certain ways.
> And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.
I don't think this is what has happened at all. Your suggestion that
> the few in that society who are educated...take charge
is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. Take the US, for example. It is run by a massive, permanent bureaucracy. In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.
> Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.
The key question when it comes to political systems is, who is making the decisions? Let's take education, a subject I think we're both interested in.
In Country A, the decision of how a person is to be educated is made by a large, government bureaucracy, supposedly filled with experts. The decision is not made by the person in question or even his/her parents. They have no choice but to pay for the government schools.
Meanwhile, in Country B, a student and/or his/her parents have full control over their own education and what is spent on it. In this case, they are making the decisions.
I would call Country A "authoritarian" and Country B "free". My question is, which is the US, and which is China?
The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". China and the US both have authoritarian governments, although they do of course differ in certain ways.
> And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.
I don't think this is what has happened at all. Your suggestion that
> the few in that society who are educated...take charge
is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. Take the US, for example. It is run by a massive, permanent bureaucracy. In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.
> Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.
The key question when it comes to political systems is, who is making the decisions? Let's take education, a subject I think we're both interested in.
In Country A, the decision of how a person is to be educated is made by a large, government bureaucracy, supposedly filled with experts. The decision is not made by the person in question or even his/her parents. They have no choice but to pay for the government schools.
Meanwhile, in Country B, a student and/or his/her parents have full control over their own education and what is spent on it. In this case, they are making the decisions.
I would call Country A "authoritarian" and Country B "free". My question is, which is the US, and which is China?
> The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian".
Sorry bad choice of word I guess. What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly.
> is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies.
The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.
> In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.
Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.
As for your education point, China has restrictions on information, and it has a similar style of education as the US, but with an even more mechanistic approach.
So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, but in the US you at least have freedom of information, which permits and promotes anyone to self educate if he or she wants to.
Sorry bad choice of word I guess. What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly.
> is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies.
The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.
> In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.
Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.
As for your education point, China has restrictions on information, and it has a similar style of education as the US, but with an even more mechanistic approach.
So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, but in the US you at least have freedom of information, which permits and promotes anyone to self educate if he or she wants to.
> What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly.
Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems. This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many resources on propagandizing their populations.
> The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.
I have to disagree with you here. As you pointed out, it's more efficient when people are generally left to do as they wish, including in the area of education, for example. Yet, the ruling classes in both countries have decided against this and are enforcing their views. In fact, your idea, fully applied, precludes the existence of a ruling class.
> Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.
This paragraph would honestly make more sense if you replaced "democracy" with "aristocracy". In fact, many proponents of aristocracy make essentially the same argument you just did.
> So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal,
I agree, China's education system is even worse. But my main point is that we're talking about two bad options now, not one good option and one bad option.
Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems. This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many resources on propagandizing their populations.
> The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.
I have to disagree with you here. As you pointed out, it's more efficient when people are generally left to do as they wish, including in the area of education, for example. Yet, the ruling classes in both countries have decided against this and are enforcing their views. In fact, your idea, fully applied, precludes the existence of a ruling class.
> Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.
This paragraph would honestly make more sense if you replaced "democracy" with "aristocracy". In fact, many proponents of aristocracy make essentially the same argument you just did.
> So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal,
I agree, China's education system is even worse. But my main point is that we're talking about two bad options now, not one good option and one bad option.
Yes every government has to satisfy it's people, or it will be overthrown. The question is which typed of government is designed to satisfy the people. Whether or not it satisfies the people is up to reality to determine and enforce. The idealogies of the governments may not necessarily account. I think the current gov't in china, an authoratative oligarchy, is designed so that the majority of people are kept from weighing in on the decision making. This is again because of the assumption that the majority is uneducated and therefore unfit to rule. The democratic style in the US is by design meant to give people more power, and make the government more accountable to the public. It does his because of it's design of seperation of powers, so that no one entity can take over all governmental bureaucracies. This also makes it easier for dissenting groups to introduce disruptions to the government, which is so slow, ineffective, divided, and powerless. Since everyone is striving for power, and it's so easy to disrupt power if any one entity gains too much power, the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. So it introduces stability. Of course this gets into the other topic about conformists killing society. But in a democracy nonconformist still have more freedom to thrive.
For your second point, I have to say while the US has a formalized education system, the very concept of freedom of speech information is freely accesible and propogated outside of the education system, independent of government control. Compare this to China where the government has the final say on information on top of control of he education system. Also not everyone has to attend government schools in he US. So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.
For the third paragraph, I am not talking about rule based on hereditary titles or class. In fact I am talking about the exact opposite. The US system promotes a smart business man to run a business because he will have the best practical results, and a smart person to run a state, presidency, etc. This is what I mean those fit to rule will rule. The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top.
In terms of efficiency, the American system may not be that great, but it is stable, and this stability means any attempt to radically improve it's system will be tough since there is always the risk it could fail miserably. Democracy is the stage for when people are comfortable, and stability is needed.
Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.
For your second point, I have to say while the US has a formalized education system, the very concept of freedom of speech information is freely accesible and propogated outside of the education system, independent of government control. Compare this to China where the government has the final say on information on top of control of he education system. Also not everyone has to attend government schools in he US. So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.
For the third paragraph, I am not talking about rule based on hereditary titles or class. In fact I am talking about the exact opposite. The US system promotes a smart business man to run a business because he will have the best practical results, and a smart person to run a state, presidency, etc. This is what I mean those fit to rule will rule. The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top.
In terms of efficiency, the American system may not be that great, but it is stable, and this stability means any attempt to radically improve it's system will be tough since there is always the risk it could fail miserably. Democracy is the stage for when people are comfortable, and stability is needed.
Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.
> the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse.
This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction.
> So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.
I agree, but it is not very difficult to beat China in this respect.
> The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top.
This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy.
> Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.
Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction.
> So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.
I agree, but it is not very difficult to beat China in this respect.
> The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top.
This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy.
> Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.
Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
I hate to be jingoistic or defensive here, but you guys are way out there.
In practice, the US is an oligarchy
Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we?
We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become president. We had another president impeached for lying in court. During this same time, we've had expansionist foreign policies, realistic policies, conservative policies. We've had all sorts of financial policies. Our court system has swung both left and right.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a ruling class of bureaucrats and rich politicians in key roles, but the government has effectively changed up policies, executives, and legal theory in surprisingly quick order.
With all due respect, China just doesn't compare here at all. They're great people and all, but if they have that kind of flexibility in governance I haven't seen it.
In practice, the US is an oligarchy
Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we?
We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become president. We had another president impeached for lying in court. During this same time, we've had expansionist foreign policies, realistic policies, conservative policies. We've had all sorts of financial policies. Our court system has swung both left and right.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a ruling class of bureaucrats and rich politicians in key roles, but the government has effectively changed up policies, executives, and legal theory in surprisingly quick order.
With all due respect, China just doesn't compare here at all. They're great people and all, but if they have that kind of flexibility in governance I haven't seen it.
The reason you see us as "way out there" is because if you limit your vision to a fairly small area, the relatively minor policy changes you mention appear to be far more important than they actually are.
The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consistently running an empire for decades now. Take a look at what the State Dept. does. The financial system is a particularly bad example, as core financial policies have not changed at all.
For whatever reason, you're focusing on flexibility in governance, but are you really suggesting the Chinese government has been less flexible than the US on policy changes in the last 30 years? If there is any giant government that has been making rather sudden and extreme changes in short order, for better or worse, it's China's.
The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consistently running an empire for decades now. Take a look at what the State Dept. does. The financial system is a particularly bad example, as core financial policies have not changed at all.
For whatever reason, you're focusing on flexibility in governance, but are you really suggesting the Chinese government has been less flexible than the US on policy changes in the last 30 years? If there is any giant government that has been making rather sudden and extreme changes in short order, for better or worse, it's China's.
> Separation of powers" has been a complete failure.
I don't think this is true. You referring to the fact that the democrats have complete control is not good enough of an example of one faction controlling everything. The idea of separation of the government with three branches is not necessarily to have 3 branches controlled by different parties, but the idea of having three separate entities that do not report to a single point. That's what the separation of powers intends with the three branches of government. That being said the Democratic party is heavily factioned itself. It's not a very unified entity, especially when compared to the Communist party of China, and this is mostly because the representatives report directly to their constituents. If they piss off their constituents, most of them can easily lose their seats. So to say that the government is controlled by one faction right now is misleading since the Democratic party is huge, and represents about 50% of the population.
> This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy. As I said before, the representatives report directly to the constituents. So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy because a selected few are given the power to govern, but this is actually a republican type of government. It's necessary for this to happen because having every issue directly voted on would be super inefficient. The representatives that have power do not actually have as much power as you think because of their responsibilities to their constituents. In China, I'm pretty sure the communist party officials have final say no matter what.
> Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
Even if this is true, like I said before, the fundamentals of the US system is freedom of speech and democracy. Therefore you will always have the right to pursue an education independent of the government, even if it means doing it on top of government mandated education. So this makes the issue of the school system moot with respect to the style of government. The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy? Freedom of speech/individualism certainly isn't pushing it that way, right? I think the problem with the school system is actually a whole other issue not related to the American democracy/individual freedom. China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population. Manipulation will always result in something unnatural, such as the restriction of speech and information. That in turn means no freedom to pursue education as one wishes. So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
To summarize my points: If your issue is the education, the American style of government does not necessarily promote the current system of education we have. It may oppose a radical change to the education system, but that is simply because the government is designed to resist unnecessary radical changes. China on the other hand has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
I don't think this is true. You referring to the fact that the democrats have complete control is not good enough of an example of one faction controlling everything. The idea of separation of the government with three branches is not necessarily to have 3 branches controlled by different parties, but the idea of having three separate entities that do not report to a single point. That's what the separation of powers intends with the three branches of government. That being said the Democratic party is heavily factioned itself. It's not a very unified entity, especially when compared to the Communist party of China, and this is mostly because the representatives report directly to their constituents. If they piss off their constituents, most of them can easily lose their seats. So to say that the government is controlled by one faction right now is misleading since the Democratic party is huge, and represents about 50% of the population.
> This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy. As I said before, the representatives report directly to the constituents. So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy because a selected few are given the power to govern, but this is actually a republican type of government. It's necessary for this to happen because having every issue directly voted on would be super inefficient. The representatives that have power do not actually have as much power as you think because of their responsibilities to their constituents. In China, I'm pretty sure the communist party officials have final say no matter what.
> Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.
Even if this is true, like I said before, the fundamentals of the US system is freedom of speech and democracy. Therefore you will always have the right to pursue an education independent of the government, even if it means doing it on top of government mandated education. So this makes the issue of the school system moot with respect to the style of government. The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy? Freedom of speech/individualism certainly isn't pushing it that way, right? I think the problem with the school system is actually a whole other issue not related to the American democracy/individual freedom. China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population. Manipulation will always result in something unnatural, such as the restriction of speech and information. That in turn means no freedom to pursue education as one wishes. So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
To summarize my points: If your issue is the education, the American style of government does not necessarily promote the current system of education we have. It may oppose a radical change to the education system, but that is simply because the government is designed to resist unnecessary radical changes. China on the other hand has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
Separation of powers in the US was designed by the same people who did not even want a party system. So taken as a whole, the system can be seen to have failed almost instantly.
> So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy
If we look at the actual functioning of government (by which I don't mean just the elected representatives), most officials and bureaucrats are not significantly affected by any one election. There is a de facto permanent government, and there are clear patterns in the selection and activity of these officials.
> freedom of speech and democracy
The problem is that freedom/individualism is at odds with democracy. Most Western democracies do not have freedom of speech, again for democratic reasons. The US is an exception here, probably because of the prominent placement and unambiguous language of the First Amendment and the acceptance of freedom of speech as an American tradition.
> The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy?
Because the education system is run and managed by the permanent govt. mentioned above. They admit to wanting increased schooling and increased control. (Universal govt. schooling was a democratic idea in the first place.) Notice they have also come up with "scientific" justifications for this.
> China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population.
So does the US. You can verify this by, for example, looking at the typical state-mandated school curriculum.
> So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
Your description of China's method applies to the US as well. The democratic method does indeed force the bad education system; as I mentioned earlier, it is a democratic (small d) idea to have the government attempt to school everybody.
China...has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
I agree, but again, this applies to the US as well.
> So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy
If we look at the actual functioning of government (by which I don't mean just the elected representatives), most officials and bureaucrats are not significantly affected by any one election. There is a de facto permanent government, and there are clear patterns in the selection and activity of these officials.
> freedom of speech and democracy
The problem is that freedom/individualism is at odds with democracy. Most Western democracies do not have freedom of speech, again for democratic reasons. The US is an exception here, probably because of the prominent placement and unambiguous language of the First Amendment and the acceptance of freedom of speech as an American tradition.
> The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy?
Because the education system is run and managed by the permanent govt. mentioned above. They admit to wanting increased schooling and increased control. (Universal govt. schooling was a democratic idea in the first place.) Notice they have also come up with "scientific" justifications for this.
> China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population.
So does the US. You can verify this by, for example, looking at the typical state-mandated school curriculum.
> So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.
Your description of China's method applies to the US as well. The democratic method does indeed force the bad education system; as I mentioned earlier, it is a democratic (small d) idea to have the government attempt to school everybody.
China...has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.
I agree, but again, this applies to the US as well.
the US is definitely B. Because my parents did just that, they didn't like the public (or private) schools in my area, and instead mixed homeschool/unschooling principals for me and my brothers.
I don't know enough about China to say it's "A", I can assume it is, but I could be very wrong.
I don't know enough about China to say it's "A", I can assume it is, but I could be very wrong.
No doubt there is still some flexibility in the US, but unfortunately the US is also A, not B. I'm assuming you and your parents did not receive exemptions from taxes, legal credentialing requirements, and the like.
Not from taxes no, that's a must I'm afraid and a big downside to the whole situation.
legal credentialing requirements in Texas at the time were almost non existent so we didn't have to worry about that, my parents were considered pretty radical by peers back when we started, because homeschooling wasn't fleshed out nor well received at the time.
I still remember my parents not letting us go out mid-day by ourselves due to them not wanting everyone thinking we were just a bunch of hoodlums skipping school. Instead we got invaluable experience working at the family business.
legal credentialing requirements in Texas at the time were almost non existent so we didn't have to worry about that, my parents were considered pretty radical by peers back when we started, because homeschooling wasn't fleshed out nor well received at the time.
I still remember my parents not letting us go out mid-day by ourselves due to them not wanting everyone thinking we were just a bunch of hoodlums skipping school. Instead we got invaluable experience working at the family business.
It is not A by your definition that the person has NO choice in education. In the US we clearly do have choice, and even if we go the public education route, we still have the freedom to pursue spread and pursue information independently.
You don't have the option of not paying for govt. schools. You don't have the option of avoiding legal credential requirements in many careers. Again the US is obviously not identical to China, but they are both A.
On this same note though, there are some jobs where you do indeed have the option to avoid legal credentialing. In fact, the nuclear industry, the industry with the heaviest regulations, will let you work at a plant if you can pass their tests, these tests are open on a government website and anyone may take them (this is according to my uncle who is indeed a nuclear engineer working at a plant).
Edit: No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing", because I don't want people who are under qualified working in the nuclear industry, but the fact stands the opportunity in the MOST regulated field in our nation, has entrance paths for those who did not get an engineering degree formally.
So there is a larger level of freedom than you make it out to be. The biggest regulator is the taxes. I don't have any formal credentials and I'm not finding any roadblocks keeping me from a greater quality of life or making millions.
Edit: No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing", because I don't want people who are under qualified working in the nuclear industry, but the fact stands the opportunity in the MOST regulated field in our nation, has entrance paths for those who did not get an engineering degree formally.
So there is a larger level of freedom than you make it out to be. The biggest regulator is the taxes. I don't have any formal credentials and I'm not finding any roadblocks keeping me from a greater quality of life or making millions.
> No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing"
Technically it does, but I do agree that it is more open than many other careers. And yes, there are plenty of options still left. But some careers are completely shut off to you if you do not go through govt.-approved schools. That is the key.
Technically it does, but I do agree that it is more open than many other careers. And yes, there are plenty of options still left. But some careers are completely shut off to you if you do not go through govt.-approved schools. That is the key.
Thanks for the informative post. I do have one quibble though:
> Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.
Neither of these models can accurately be described as consisting of "free markets". All three governments you mention exercise total control over their respective territories.
> Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.
Neither of these models can accurately be described as consisting of "free markets". All three governments you mention exercise total control over their respective territories.
He was also responsible for the Tiananmen Square massacre. Even as communist regimes were falling around the world, he ordered tanks and troops to gun people down for wanting reform in China, extinguishing any hope for civil or human rights in China for decades to come.
China has continued to become much more free since 1989. The comparison with Russia or the East European states is particular interesting, because China's growth rates have been much better.
As for Tienanmen, every single mob revolution in the history of the world has caused far more deaths than the number of people who died at Tienanmen. Imagine how many millions of lives would have been saved if Louis the XVI had acted in the same way as Deng. The Chinese government did the right thing in putting in forcefully dispersing the mob. Any government, when faced with a armed, violent rebellion, needs to put it down. Revolutions and civil wars are the worse than any government. (And yes, the protesters had weapons: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385482329/ref=sib_dp_srch_p... )
As for Tienanmen, every single mob revolution in the history of the world has caused far more deaths than the number of people who died at Tienanmen. Imagine how many millions of lives would have been saved if Louis the XVI had acted in the same way as Deng. The Chinese government did the right thing in putting in forcefully dispersing the mob. Any government, when faced with a armed, violent rebellion, needs to put it down. Revolutions and civil wars are the worse than any government. (And yes, the protesters had weapons: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385482329/ref=sib_dp_srch_p... )
Imagine how many millions of lives would be freer and richer if Deng had acted in the same way as Gorbechev, Yeltsin, or even Egon Krenz.
Had Louis XVI acted in the same way as Deng, continental Europe may still be under the heel of absolute monarchism today, with all the stupid pointless wars that entails. The French Revolution was a step forward for humanity, no matter how messy it was.
Had Louis XVI acted in the same way as Deng, continental Europe may still be under the heel of absolute monarchism today, with all the stupid pointless wars that entails. The French Revolution was a step forward for humanity, no matter how messy it was.
Imagine how many millions of lives would be freer and richer if Deng had acted in the same way as Gorbechev, Yeltsin, or even Egon Krenz.
Gorbechev was fairly similar to Deng. He liberalized the economy and increased freedom of speech, but he did not allow democracy. Yeltsin introduced democracy, and what was the result? A terrible economy, a dramatic rise in suicide rates and alcoholism, and now under Putin, even speech is becoming less free. If only there could have been two Dengs, one for China and one for Russia!
The heel of monarchism? What heel? The fundamental problem of monarchy was not that it was oppressive (it wasn't), but that it wasn't a very good military Schelling point. Were taxes higher under monarchy? Was their less freedom of speech? Were there more wars? No, no, and no. Where do you get your history?
Look at the history of free speech for example. Pretty much every country that has gotten free speech, originally got free speech while under non-democratic government (Britain under the monarchy, France under Louis the XVI, U.S. under British Colonial rule, Germany under Allied military command, Japan under allied military command). Democracy has generally either been neutral or corrosive towards freedom ( the French Revolution, the terrorizing of the loyalists in America http://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&printsec=f... , Nazis, etc ).
And pointless wars? The Wars of the French Revolution killed far, far more than any monarchist war. Not only that, they invented the usage of mass slave armies to fight the war. The French Revolution Wars and the Napoleonic Wars presaged the great Democratic total wars that followed - the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
Had Louis the XVI put down the mob, the nationalization, conscript armies, and total war may have never been invented. Prussia would have never felt the need to unify to protect themselves against France. It's almost impossible to imagine World War I or World War II without the Wars of the French Revolution.
Gorbechev was fairly similar to Deng. He liberalized the economy and increased freedom of speech, but he did not allow democracy. Yeltsin introduced democracy, and what was the result? A terrible economy, a dramatic rise in suicide rates and alcoholism, and now under Putin, even speech is becoming less free. If only there could have been two Dengs, one for China and one for Russia!
The heel of monarchism? What heel? The fundamental problem of monarchy was not that it was oppressive (it wasn't), but that it wasn't a very good military Schelling point. Were taxes higher under monarchy? Was their less freedom of speech? Were there more wars? No, no, and no. Where do you get your history?
Look at the history of free speech for example. Pretty much every country that has gotten free speech, originally got free speech while under non-democratic government (Britain under the monarchy, France under Louis the XVI, U.S. under British Colonial rule, Germany under Allied military command, Japan under allied military command). Democracy has generally either been neutral or corrosive towards freedom ( the French Revolution, the terrorizing of the loyalists in America http://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&printsec=f... , Nazis, etc ).
And pointless wars? The Wars of the French Revolution killed far, far more than any monarchist war. Not only that, they invented the usage of mass slave armies to fight the war. The French Revolution Wars and the Napoleonic Wars presaged the great Democratic total wars that followed - the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
Had Louis the XVI put down the mob, the nationalization, conscript armies, and total war may have never been invented. Prussia would have never felt the need to unify to protect themselves against France. It's almost impossible to imagine World War I or World War II without the Wars of the French Revolution.
Gorbechev did not kill the people gathered at the White House to demand their freedom from communism--he dissolved the Soviet Union and allowed liberalization. Deng may have not had the power to dissolve the communist system in China, but a recognition of the rights to free assembly and free political speech, combined with a concrete plan towards devolving power away from the Communist Party, would have been a better option than killing people for asking for it. Russia's economy has grown leaps and bounds in the last several years--while they had a contraction immediately after the fall of communism, this was mainly due to Soviet overproduction of unnecessary and unwanted goods.
The British monarchy was a constitutional monarchy with almost all of the real power devolved to the nobles and the commons by the time of the French Revolution, quite unlike the French monarchy prior to the revolution. It's a fallacy to compare the two. The American revolution was an issue of home rule, not an issue of democracy vs. monarchy. And not the first such conflict the British Empire would face.
The Wars of the French Revolution were monarchist wars, waged to protect Europe's monarchs from the seeds of dissension spread from the revolution. So, technically, were the Napoleonic wars, as Napoleon was an emperor. However, the Napoleonic Code was a step forward for civil rights in Europe.
The aggressors in WWI and WWII were either monarchies or dictatorships: Germany under the Kaiser, Austia-Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy, the Ottomans under their monarchy, Germany and Italy under fascist dictatorships, and Japan under a monarchy. At best you can pin Nazi Germany under the banner of democracy, since the Nazis were technically elected to parliament (after their street thugs started the Reichstag fire and beat up all the opposition). But since the Nazis were outspoken detractors of the very idea of democracy, even that is a stretch.
The British monarchy was a constitutional monarchy with almost all of the real power devolved to the nobles and the commons by the time of the French Revolution, quite unlike the French monarchy prior to the revolution. It's a fallacy to compare the two. The American revolution was an issue of home rule, not an issue of democracy vs. monarchy. And not the first such conflict the British Empire would face.
The Wars of the French Revolution were monarchist wars, waged to protect Europe's monarchs from the seeds of dissension spread from the revolution. So, technically, were the Napoleonic wars, as Napoleon was an emperor. However, the Napoleonic Code was a step forward for civil rights in Europe.
The aggressors in WWI and WWII were either monarchies or dictatorships: Germany under the Kaiser, Austia-Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy, the Ottomans under their monarchy, Germany and Italy under fascist dictatorships, and Japan under a monarchy. At best you can pin Nazi Germany under the banner of democracy, since the Nazis were technically elected to parliament (after their street thugs started the Reichstag fire and beat up all the opposition). But since the Nazis were outspoken detractors of the very idea of democracy, even that is a stretch.
would have been a better option than killing people for asking for it.
The people who died were people who refused to vacate a public area after occupying it for weeks, accumulating automatic weapons, defying orders to disperse, and burning buses and using them as blockades. These were not peaceful reformers, but power seeking revolutionaries, in the mold of revolutionaries that have destroyed nations for the past three centuries. At some point, a protest becomes an outright rebellion, and the government has every right and duty to put it down. The Tienanmen protesters crossed that line.
The Wars of the French Revolution were monarchist wars, waged to protect Europe's monarchs from the seeds of dissension spread from the revolution.
No, the French were the aggressors. The political leaders exaggerated the threats from the other countries ( as politicians are want to do), stoked the fears of the mob, and France declared war on the monarchies.
So, technically, were the Napoleonic wars, as Napoleon was an emperor.
Napoleon was a popular tyrant, a result of a revolution. A regime is defined by its succession process, not the names it's leaders go by. Succession processes that involve mobs and/or violence result in disaster.
Germany under the Kaiser, Austia-Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy, the Ottomans under their monarchy, Germany and Italy under fascist dictatorships, and Japan under a monarchy.
Almost all the main participants of World War I were at least as Democratic, if not more so, than the modern U.S. Germany had a democratically elected parliament that approved the war, as did France, Britain and Austria.
Stefan Zweig lived through Austria's tranisition from being a monarchy/aristocracy to having a universal suffrage parliament. He wrote:
Hardly had this [Universal Suffrage] been granted, or rather obtained by force, before it became apparent how thin though highly valuable a layer of liberalism had been. With it concilliation disappeared from public political life, interests hit hard against interests, and the struggle began.
But soon a third flower appeared, the blue cornflower, Bismarck's favorite flower, and the emblem of the German National Party, which -- although not then recognized as such -- was counsciously a revolutionary party, and worked with burtal forcefulness for the destruction of the Austrian monarchy in favour of a Greater Germany under Prussian and Protestant leadership, such as Hitlers dreams of. Weak in numbers, it made up for its unimportance by wild aggression and unbridled brutality. Its few representatives became the terror and ( in the old sense ) the shame of the Austrian parliament. Hiter also took over from them the anti-semitic racial theory - "In that race lies swinishness" his illustrious prototype had said. But above all else, he took from the German Nationals the beginning of a ruthless storm troop that blindly hit out in all directions, and with it the principle of terroristic intimidation by a small group over a numerically superior but humanely more passive majority.
I suggest you read the whole thing, it's from "The World of Yesterday". The introduction of universal suffrage to Austria, Germany, France, and Britain, etc., created the Fox News effect. Also known as the Yellow journalism effect. Also known as "Jingoism". Politicians competed with each other to blame problems on the leaders of other countries. Newspapers ran sensationalist headlines, selling copy by playing off prejudice and hatred.
Stefan Zweig visited France, and wrote about his experience attending a movie:
It was a small suburban cinema, utterly different from the modern palaces of chromium and glass; a sparsely fitted hall, filled with humble folk, workers, soldiers, market women -- the plain people -- who chatted comfortably. The third picture was "Kaiser Wilhelm visitis the Emperor Francis Joseph in Vienna." The train came on the screen, the first coach, the second, and the third. The door of the compartment was thrown open, and out stepped William II in the uniform of an Austrian General, his moustache curled stiffly upwards. The moment he appeared in the picture, a spontaneous wild whistling and stamping of feet began in the dark hall. Everybody yelled and whistled, men, women, and children, as if they had been personally instuled. The good natured people of Tours, who knew no more about the world and politics than what they had read in their newspapers, had gone mad for an instant. I was frightened. I was frightened to the depths of my heart. For I sensed how deeply the poison of the propaganda of hate must have advanced through the years, when even here in a small provincial city the simple citizens and soldiers had been so greatly incited agaisnte the Kaiser and against Germany that a passing picture on the screen could produce such a demonstration.
It was these hatreds that created World War I. Historian Carroll Quigley writes:
The influence of democracy served to increase the tension of a crisis because elected politicians felt it necessary to pander to the most irrational and crass motivations of the electorate in order to ensure future election, and did this by playing on hatred and fear of powerful neighbors or on such appealing issues as territorial expansion, nationalistic price, "a place in the sun," "outlets to the sea," and other real or imagined benefits. At the same time, the popular newspaper press, in order to sell papers, played on the same motives and issues, arousing their peoples, driving their own own politicians to extremes, and alarming neighboring states to the point where they hurried to adopt similar kinds of of action in the name of self-defense. Moreover, democracy made it impossible to examine international disputes on their merits, but instead transformed every petty argument into an affair of honor and national prestige so that no dispute could be examined on its merits or settled as a simple compromise because such a sensible approach would at once be hailed by one's democratic opposition as a loss of face and an unseemly compromise of exalted moral principles.
Hitler came to the power as the result of mob violence, which perfectly backs my point about the need to put down mob violence. If only the German generals had cracked down on the street thugs as Deng had put down the Tienanmen protesters.
As for Japan, even leftist historians admit that FDR provoked Japan into war. They just think that it was justified, in order to get the U.S. into the war against Germany. The Japanese government made numerous peace attempts that were all rebuffed. When the U.S. cut off their oil supply they basically had no choice, die slowly, or make a desparate gambit to knock out U.S. military capabilities. I suggest reading this: http://mises.org/books/perpetual.pdf
The people who died were people who refused to vacate a public area after occupying it for weeks, accumulating automatic weapons, defying orders to disperse, and burning buses and using them as blockades. These were not peaceful reformers, but power seeking revolutionaries, in the mold of revolutionaries that have destroyed nations for the past three centuries. At some point, a protest becomes an outright rebellion, and the government has every right and duty to put it down. The Tienanmen protesters crossed that line.
The Wars of the French Revolution were monarchist wars, waged to protect Europe's monarchs from the seeds of dissension spread from the revolution.
No, the French were the aggressors. The political leaders exaggerated the threats from the other countries ( as politicians are want to do), stoked the fears of the mob, and France declared war on the monarchies.
So, technically, were the Napoleonic wars, as Napoleon was an emperor.
Napoleon was a popular tyrant, a result of a revolution. A regime is defined by its succession process, not the names it's leaders go by. Succession processes that involve mobs and/or violence result in disaster.
Germany under the Kaiser, Austia-Hungary under the Habsburg monarchy, the Ottomans under their monarchy, Germany and Italy under fascist dictatorships, and Japan under a monarchy.
Almost all the main participants of World War I were at least as Democratic, if not more so, than the modern U.S. Germany had a democratically elected parliament that approved the war, as did France, Britain and Austria.
Stefan Zweig lived through Austria's tranisition from being a monarchy/aristocracy to having a universal suffrage parliament. He wrote:
Hardly had this [Universal Suffrage] been granted, or rather obtained by force, before it became apparent how thin though highly valuable a layer of liberalism had been. With it concilliation disappeared from public political life, interests hit hard against interests, and the struggle began.
But soon a third flower appeared, the blue cornflower, Bismarck's favorite flower, and the emblem of the German National Party, which -- although not then recognized as such -- was counsciously a revolutionary party, and worked with burtal forcefulness for the destruction of the Austrian monarchy in favour of a Greater Germany under Prussian and Protestant leadership, such as Hitlers dreams of. Weak in numbers, it made up for its unimportance by wild aggression and unbridled brutality. Its few representatives became the terror and ( in the old sense ) the shame of the Austrian parliament. Hiter also took over from them the anti-semitic racial theory - "In that race lies swinishness" his illustrious prototype had said. But above all else, he took from the German Nationals the beginning of a ruthless storm troop that blindly hit out in all directions, and with it the principle of terroristic intimidation by a small group over a numerically superior but humanely more passive majority.
I suggest you read the whole thing, it's from "The World of Yesterday". The introduction of universal suffrage to Austria, Germany, France, and Britain, etc., created the Fox News effect. Also known as the Yellow journalism effect. Also known as "Jingoism". Politicians competed with each other to blame problems on the leaders of other countries. Newspapers ran sensationalist headlines, selling copy by playing off prejudice and hatred.
Stefan Zweig visited France, and wrote about his experience attending a movie:
It was a small suburban cinema, utterly different from the modern palaces of chromium and glass; a sparsely fitted hall, filled with humble folk, workers, soldiers, market women -- the plain people -- who chatted comfortably. The third picture was "Kaiser Wilhelm visitis the Emperor Francis Joseph in Vienna." The train came on the screen, the first coach, the second, and the third. The door of the compartment was thrown open, and out stepped William II in the uniform of an Austrian General, his moustache curled stiffly upwards. The moment he appeared in the picture, a spontaneous wild whistling and stamping of feet began in the dark hall. Everybody yelled and whistled, men, women, and children, as if they had been personally instuled. The good natured people of Tours, who knew no more about the world and politics than what they had read in their newspapers, had gone mad for an instant. I was frightened. I was frightened to the depths of my heart. For I sensed how deeply the poison of the propaganda of hate must have advanced through the years, when even here in a small provincial city the simple citizens and soldiers had been so greatly incited agaisnte the Kaiser and against Germany that a passing picture on the screen could produce such a demonstration.
It was these hatreds that created World War I. Historian Carroll Quigley writes:
The influence of democracy served to increase the tension of a crisis because elected politicians felt it necessary to pander to the most irrational and crass motivations of the electorate in order to ensure future election, and did this by playing on hatred and fear of powerful neighbors or on such appealing issues as territorial expansion, nationalistic price, "a place in the sun," "outlets to the sea," and other real or imagined benefits. At the same time, the popular newspaper press, in order to sell papers, played on the same motives and issues, arousing their peoples, driving their own own politicians to extremes, and alarming neighboring states to the point where they hurried to adopt similar kinds of of action in the name of self-defense. Moreover, democracy made it impossible to examine international disputes on their merits, but instead transformed every petty argument into an affair of honor and national prestige so that no dispute could be examined on its merits or settled as a simple compromise because such a sensible approach would at once be hailed by one's democratic opposition as a loss of face and an unseemly compromise of exalted moral principles.
Hitler came to the power as the result of mob violence, which perfectly backs my point about the need to put down mob violence. If only the German generals had cracked down on the street thugs as Deng had put down the Tienanmen protesters.
As for Japan, even leftist historians admit that FDR provoked Japan into war. They just think that it was justified, in order to get the U.S. into the war against Germany. The Japanese government made numerous peace attempts that were all rebuffed. When the U.S. cut off their oil supply they basically had no choice, die slowly, or make a desparate gambit to knock out U.S. military capabilities. I suggest reading this: http://mises.org/books/perpetual.pdf
If only the German generals had cracked down on the street thugs as Deng had put down the Tienanmen protesters
Wow.
So Mao was okay in killing millions, but a few thousand held up in a park constitutes "power-seeking revolutionaries"
In a democracy, you change up who is in power every so often. How could a supporter of frequently-changing power structures be "power-seeking"?
Created the Fox News effect ... It was these hatreds that created World War I
WWI was caused by a lot of pre-planned military manuevers that ran automatically.
The August Madness was real, but don't go blaming the entire war on that.
Hitler came to power as a result of mob violence
Once again, you overstate. Hitler was part of a highly-motivated and organized political party. He was as much part of a mob as he was a ballerina.
FDR provoked Japan into war
What?
It's great to have unusual views. But you are really way on the outside of left field with a lot of these views. It's almost like you already have the answer and are taking a historical hammer and banging away to make the facts fit into your preconceived worldview.
I mean, hey, we all do the same thing, but at some point if you're making a dozen points that are all extremely debatable perhaps your logic isn't on such solid ground, you know?
Wow.
So Mao was okay in killing millions, but a few thousand held up in a park constitutes "power-seeking revolutionaries"
In a democracy, you change up who is in power every so often. How could a supporter of frequently-changing power structures be "power-seeking"?
Created the Fox News effect ... It was these hatreds that created World War I
WWI was caused by a lot of pre-planned military manuevers that ran automatically.
The August Madness was real, but don't go blaming the entire war on that.
Hitler came to power as a result of mob violence
Once again, you overstate. Hitler was part of a highly-motivated and organized political party. He was as much part of a mob as he was a ballerina.
FDR provoked Japan into war
What?
It's great to have unusual views. But you are really way on the outside of left field with a lot of these views. It's almost like you already have the answer and are taking a historical hammer and banging away to make the facts fit into your preconceived worldview.
I mean, hey, we all do the same thing, but at some point if you're making a dozen points that are all extremely debatable perhaps your logic isn't on such solid ground, you know?
I think it suffices to say that you have a lot of revisionist views. Not that you're wrong, per se, but that you go heavily against the common understanding of these events.
Yes, history (or "the common understanding of these events") is written by the winners. The democrats (small d) won the wars and conquered the world. Now, democratic schools teach pro-democracy views, which constitute the only acceptable mainstream position. Surprise, surprise.
> The French Revolution was a step forward for humanity, no matter how messy it was.
I don't think you have a full understanding of just how messy the French Revolution was. Are you familiar with the war in the Vendee? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendee
How about the Committee of Public Safety? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety
I don't think you have a full understanding of just how messy the French Revolution was. Are you familiar with the war in the Vendee? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendee
How about the Committee of Public Safety? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety
Are you familiar with the spread of liberal democracy across Europe and the world?
I think this is one of those things where neither of us is going to change his opinion based on what some guy wrote on the internet, but if you haven't read it yet, I recommend Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France". Burke was a British Whig MP who supported the American Revolution, but opposed the French. It's an interesting contemporary account of the early days of the French Revolution. You can read it here: http://www.constitution.org/eb/rev_fran.htm
I'd love to read some pro-Revolution writings if you can recommend any.
I'd love to read some pro-Revolution writings if you can recommend any.
Yes the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, but then liberty might be a biased western concept.
No, Jefferson was wrong, plain and simple. The American Revolution led to a net decrease in liberty. By the 1790's taxes were higher than they had ever been under the British. The war itself force tens thousands of loyalists out of their homeland. Tocqueville wrote: "I do not know a country where there is in general less intellectual independence and less freedom of discussion than in America. .. . In America the majority builds an impregnable wall around the process of thinking."
How can you quantify the amount of liberty in America???
Let's say taxes were higher, that doesn't mean a decrease in liberty. They fought because of taxation without representation, not because of high taxes.
So you're saying that majority rule in USA tends to prevent the smarter people from getting any power? I think what generally happens is that people who are smarter, and do things better, will do it. At least they have the ability to. Reality will prevail and reveal how much better they are, and then the majority will pursue the new method/idea.
Let's say taxes were higher, that doesn't mean a decrease in liberty. They fought because of taxation without representation, not because of high taxes.
So you're saying that majority rule in USA tends to prevent the smarter people from getting any power? I think what generally happens is that people who are smarter, and do things better, will do it. At least they have the ability to. Reality will prevail and reveal how much better they are, and then the majority will pursue the new method/idea.
I consider taxes to be a decrease in liberty, because I am no longer able to dispose of my income in a way that I please. Instead I am forced to hand some of it over, at pain of imprisonment. I have no actual power to prevent this.
We all have to sacrifice some liberty. You sacrifice your right to shoot someone so that you in turn will not be shot by someone else. Laws are instituted so that we sacrifice some liberty in order to better preserve other liberties.
As far as the war of independence goes, they were being taxed and not being represented properly, and this was an infringement on liberty. Were they doing it so that they can tax themselves higher later? No, of course not. That's not the reason why they wanted independence. They wanted independence to oppose that specific tyranny. So you can't argue that it was a bad decision because they ended up later having higher taxes anyways. You can't say independence was unjustified, because the act of fighting for independence does not by default lead to less liberty by taxation
Likewise the statement that blood of tyrants must be shed to preserve liberty is not necessarily wrong by your reasoning because the current act to preserve liberty by bloodshed committed by the Americans was not done with knowledge that it would lead to higher taxation--and less liberty-- later on. So Jefferson saying that bloodshed is necessary to oppose any current liberty restraining powers is independent of any future infringements on liberty, because if such future infringements occur, simply reapply Jefferson's commandment and kill your oppressive leaders.
As far as the war of independence goes, they were being taxed and not being represented properly, and this was an infringement on liberty. Were they doing it so that they can tax themselves higher later? No, of course not. That's not the reason why they wanted independence. They wanted independence to oppose that specific tyranny. So you can't argue that it was a bad decision because they ended up later having higher taxes anyways. You can't say independence was unjustified, because the act of fighting for independence does not by default lead to less liberty by taxation
Likewise the statement that blood of tyrants must be shed to preserve liberty is not necessarily wrong by your reasoning because the current act to preserve liberty by bloodshed committed by the Americans was not done with knowledge that it would lead to higher taxation--and less liberty-- later on. So Jefferson saying that bloodshed is necessary to oppose any current liberty restraining powers is independent of any future infringements on liberty, because if such future infringements occur, simply reapply Jefferson's commandment and kill your oppressive leaders.
Are you saying the end justifies the means?
If he is, then so did the mob revolutionaries. In fact, so did an HN poster right here in this thread:
> The French Revolution was a step forward for humanity, no matter how messy it was.
(from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=868344)
The idea that the government should kill protesters might seem far too disrespectful of human life, but then, doesn't the word "messy" in the above quote evoke the same reaction?
> The French Revolution was a step forward for humanity, no matter how messy it was.
(from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=868344)
The idea that the government should kill protesters might seem far too disrespectful of human life, but then, doesn't the word "messy" in the above quote evoke the same reaction?
That was a bit of verbal slight-of-hand, yes. I meant to imply that if you're willing to say "the ends justify the means" to kill people at Tiananmen Square, you don't have very good standing to criticize the French Revolution, because it's in fact easier to make that same argument about the French Revolution than it is about Tiananmen Square.
> it's in fact easier to make that same argument about the French Revolution than it is about Tiananmen Square
No, it isn't, because your argument depends on the "end" being an escape from "absolute monarchism" into democracy. Even if you believe the ends justify the means in general, the argument doesn't work when the end result is not very good.
No, it isn't, because your argument depends on the "end" being an escape from "absolute monarchism" into democracy. Even if you believe the ends justify the means in general, the argument doesn't work when the end result is not very good.
I'm still not sold on the benefits of an absolute monarchy.
The problem is, it's far from self-evident that democracy is better.
It depends on the monarch.
I'd give Chiang Ching-kuo the credit for preceding Deng in that point of view.
Isaac Newton - Newton's Laws, Theory of Gravity _and_ Calculus.
and
William Shakespeare - basically invented modern english.
and
William Shakespeare - basically invented modern english.
A few off the top of my head (most are self-explanatory):
Charles Darwin, Richard P. Feynman, J. Robert Oppenheimer, John Von Neuman, Paul Erdos, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Thomas Jefferson, Aubrey de Grey, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Douglas R. Hofstadter
Charles Darwin, Richard P. Feynman, J. Robert Oppenheimer, John Von Neuman, Paul Erdos, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Thomas Jefferson, Aubrey de Grey, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Douglas R. Hofstadter
Aubrey de Grey? You mean the crazy dude that tells people we're going to live forever without any evidence to support his claims?
And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction before being disgusted by his treatment with concept of things which are self referential. It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.)
Pity, because the rest of your list is pretty damn classy. Those two are pretty weird additions.
And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction before being disgusted by his treatment with concept of things which are self referential. It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.)
Pity, because the rest of your list is pretty damn classy. Those two are pretty weird additions.
> And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction
...perhaps you should try reading the rest of the book.
> It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.)
Do you have a photo? Because if there's a Wikipedia article about how a fake blase-sophisticated seen-it-all-before pose of superiority can suck all the joy out of life, it should show your photo.
...perhaps you should try reading the rest of the book.
> It's kind of a noob outlook to find something mind boogling about the fact that a mind can contemplate itself.)
Do you have a photo? Because if there's a Wikipedia article about how a fake blase-sophisticated seen-it-all-before pose of superiority can suck all the joy out of life, it should show your photo.
I find it a little odd that you think Aubrey de Grey is crazy but Eliezer Yudkowsky isn't, given that EY is a vocal supporter of de Grey's research and claims that we'll live forever for considerably more speculative reasons than any that de Grey asserts. Any explanation of the distinction other than that EY is probably reading this comment and that de Grey probably isn't?
The answer to your query is that I confess a blazing ignorance of EY. Basically, the only people that buy the whole load of nonsense are folks that desperately want to live forever, like my ex (who regularly makes donations to fund longevity research).
Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved to be that way. It's a little unintuitive, but consider the tarantula. The female tarantula lives 8 years; the male tarantula only about 2. This is because it's advantageous for females to live longer. For the males, it's more advantageous to live for shorter periods, so they age and die earlier.
You're not going to be able to treat aging because it's programmed in. The only solution is to fix the source code.
Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved to be that way. It's a little unintuitive, but consider the tarantula. The female tarantula lives 8 years; the male tarantula only about 2. This is because it's advantageous for females to live longer. For the males, it's more advantageous to live for shorter periods, so they age and die earlier.
You're not going to be able to treat aging because it's programmed in. The only solution is to fix the source code.
> Aging isn't a disease, because lifespan is something which is subject to evolutionary pressure. Our lifespans are what they are because they evolved to be that way.
That's incorrect. Our genes don't care if they carry on by reproduction or by living longer in a single individual, but we care. How a body ages after reproductive age is in an evolutionary blind spot. Individuals with mutations that promote longer life aren't passing those genes on so the selective pressure if very small.
We don't have a clock that runs out of time. We just keep accumulating long-lived damage (misfolded proteins, advanced glycation endproducts, etc) until its enough to cause pathologies, from which we eventually die.
You are not the cells that you were a few years ago. Most have been replaced. But there are certain types of damage that your body can't fix, which is where an engineering approach could come in (for example, say we could have a vaccine that would make your body target beta amyloids in your brain, so you'd clear those misfolded proteins before they accumulate enough to give you alzheimer's).
That's incorrect. Our genes don't care if they carry on by reproduction or by living longer in a single individual, but we care. How a body ages after reproductive age is in an evolutionary blind spot. Individuals with mutations that promote longer life aren't passing those genes on so the selective pressure if very small.
We don't have a clock that runs out of time. We just keep accumulating long-lived damage (misfolded proteins, advanced glycation endproducts, etc) until its enough to cause pathologies, from which we eventually die.
You are not the cells that you were a few years ago. Most have been replaced. But there are certain types of damage that your body can't fix, which is where an engineering approach could come in (for example, say we could have a vaccine that would make your body target beta amyloids in your brain, so you'd clear those misfolded proteins before they accumulate enough to give you alzheimer's).
It's true that individuals that live a little bit longer but have the same end of their reproductive period do no better in the gene pool. However, if it were advantageous to live longer, and those folks had a slightly longer reproductive period, then we would expect the lifespan-while-fertile to increase. Presumably this would also increase the overall lifespan as well, but really that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, we keep accumulating damage. But we have mechanisms to control that damage. And clearly there's not a set limit on it. Tarantulas that only live 2 years are not constrained by cell damage. Cell damage is allowed to happen.
Yes, we keep accumulating damage. But we have mechanisms to control that damage. And clearly there's not a set limit on it. Tarantulas that only live 2 years are not constrained by cell damage. Cell damage is allowed to happen.
Through your own argument, you've conceded that aging happens when the body doesn't invest enough resources in controlling damge, and that the amount of investment made can vary widely between species and even within a species. So then what in the world leads you to believe that, provided with appropriate medical support, the body can't be made to invest far more?
I conceded nothing. You're confusing investment on an evolutionary timescale with investment on an individual timescale. A male spider couldn't spontaneously decide to live another 6 years- it would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to achieve that.
On a physiological level, increasing investment in the individual is difficult because so much about how we are built is developmentally fixed. You can't cure a kid with Down's Syndrome by taking out every extra third chromosome in every cell.
However, we know what genotype would produce a non Down's baby. In the near future, we might be able to clone a trisomy 21 person and produce a non Down's syndrome clone. But we can't produce a clone of that person that won't age.
We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life.
On a physiological level, increasing investment in the individual is difficult because so much about how we are built is developmentally fixed. You can't cure a kid with Down's Syndrome by taking out every extra third chromosome in every cell.
However, we know what genotype would produce a non Down's baby. In the near future, we might be able to clone a trisomy 21 person and produce a non Down's syndrome clone. But we can't produce a clone of that person that won't age.
We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life.
Here's you've just shown that you have no idea what Aubrey and SENS are proposing. Maybe, like with Hofstadter's book, you've just "read the introduction" and then stopped?
>We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life.
The whole point of SENS is that it DOESN'T try to fiddle with metabolism (our genes). All of the genetic diseases you mention are different from the diseases of aging, so they're a bad example.
SENS is all about maintenance and periodical repair (like with an antique car, for example). Every, say, 10 years you go in and they remove accumulated damage (which can only be present in a limited number of long-lived molecules) BEFORE it causes pathologies. Most of this can probably be done with your own immune system (you train it to recognize some molecules), and some of it will have to be done other ways (gene therapy to make your body produce certain enzymes, etc).
>We have no idea which genes contribute to aging, and how, and even how many. In all likelihood a simply astronomical number of genes would have to be altered to extend life.
The whole point of SENS is that it DOESN'T try to fiddle with metabolism (our genes). All of the genetic diseases you mention are different from the diseases of aging, so they're a bad example.
SENS is all about maintenance and periodical repair (like with an antique car, for example). Every, say, 10 years you go in and they remove accumulated damage (which can only be present in a limited number of long-lived molecules) BEFORE it causes pathologies. Most of this can probably be done with your own immune system (you train it to recognize some molecules), and some of it will have to be done other ways (gene therapy to make your body produce certain enzymes, etc).
> I know exactly what he's proposing. What I am saying is that it won't work, because aging has to do with developmentally fixed processes.
No you don't know "exactly" what he's proposing, and you don't understand what senescence is, as you've made clear many times here. I'm starting to feel this isn't very productive so we should probably stop this conversation.
> Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest.
Here you show again that you have no idea what SENS is proposing and you are making up strawmen. If you want to criticize something, please learn about it first.
No you don't know "exactly" what he's proposing, and you don't understand what senescence is, as you've made clear many times here. I'm starting to feel this isn't very productive so we should probably stop this conversation.
> Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest.
Here you show again that you have no idea what SENS is proposing and you are making up strawmen. If you want to criticize something, please learn about it first.
I know exactly what he's proposing. What I am saying is that it won't work, because aging has to do with developmentally fixed processes.
Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest.
Sure, you can replace blood cells, but do you really think we can replace all your cells, including your neurons? If you want to go in for a complete brain transplant, be my guest.
1) For most of history, humans and their ancestors didn't live very long. When you die at 30, there's not much selection for biological mechanisms to fix the problems that happen in someone who is 60. Natural selection is looking for genes that are good at reproducing themselves, not genes that are good at giving an individual long life. Once you have sexual reproduction in place, it is much simpler to just have lots of offspring than to evolve even more repair mechanisms to extend life (at no great benefit to genes).
2) That's the whole point of SENS; repairing the damage for which we DON'T have repair mechanisms because of point #1. For example, our lysosomes (the "garbage collector/incinerator" in our cells) accumulate some molecules that they can't break down because they don't have the right enzymes, so they accumulate throughout our lives and end up affection cell function all around our bodies (lysosomes are full and can't do their jobs anymore). SENS has found other organisms that do have these enzymes, and are looking at ways for us humans to use those enzymes to clean up that "long-lived garbage".
> Cell damage is allowed to happen.
Yes, because your genes don't care about you (so to speak - read Dawkins's The Selfish Gene). After you've reproduced, there's no pressure to fix damage that only affects you after reproduction age.
Nothing causes more suffering in the world than the diseases of aging, and curing those diseases should be priority #1. Living longer is just a welcome side-effect.
2) That's the whole point of SENS; repairing the damage for which we DON'T have repair mechanisms because of point #1. For example, our lysosomes (the "garbage collector/incinerator" in our cells) accumulate some molecules that they can't break down because they don't have the right enzymes, so they accumulate throughout our lives and end up affection cell function all around our bodies (lysosomes are full and can't do their jobs anymore). SENS has found other organisms that do have these enzymes, and are looking at ways for us humans to use those enzymes to clean up that "long-lived garbage".
> Cell damage is allowed to happen.
Yes, because your genes don't care about you (so to speak - read Dawkins's The Selfish Gene). After you've reproduced, there's no pressure to fix damage that only affects you after reproduction age.
Nothing causes more suffering in the world than the diseases of aging, and curing those diseases should be priority #1. Living longer is just a welcome side-effect.
>For most of history, humans and their ancestors didn't live very long.
Again, this is completely irrelevant to your argument. You can still evolve to live for a longer time while reproductively viable.
>Once you have sexual reproduction in place, it is much simpler to just have lots of offspring than to evolve even more repair mechanisms to extend life (at no great benefit to genes).
Again, it's all about trade-offs. For some organisms, it's most advantageous for them to reproduce as much as they can all in one go, and for others it makes sense to live a really long time and reproduce throughout that time period. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semelparity_and_iteroparity
I own The Selfish Gene. And unlike you, I've read most of his actual scientific work as well, not just his work for the plebeian.
Again, this is completely irrelevant to your argument. You can still evolve to live for a longer time while reproductively viable.
>Once you have sexual reproduction in place, it is much simpler to just have lots of offspring than to evolve even more repair mechanisms to extend life (at no great benefit to genes).
Again, it's all about trade-offs. For some organisms, it's most advantageous for them to reproduce as much as they can all in one go, and for others it makes sense to live a really long time and reproduce throughout that time period. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semelparity_and_iteroparity
I own The Selfish Gene. And unlike you, I've read most of his actual scientific work as well, not just his work for the plebeian.
> I own The Selfish Gene. And unlike you, I've read most of his actual scientific work as well, not just his work for the plebeian.
Okay, you've just crossed the pompous ahole threshold. Good day to you, sir.
Okay, you've just crossed the pompous ahole threshold. Good day to you, sir.
> Basically, the only people that buy the whole load of nonsense are folks that desperately want to live forever
How about people who just don't think getting sick and frail looks like fun? People who don't want to lose loved ones, who think that 100-200k people dying each day is a tragedy, and who think that we and future generations should have a choice on the matter (you can refuse any therapies that are developed if you want, but shouldn't make the choice for others).
I bet you're not against finding a cure for cancer or malaria. Why would you think it's ridiculous to try to find a cure for the diseases of aging?
How about people who just don't think getting sick and frail looks like fun? People who don't want to lose loved ones, who think that 100-200k people dying each day is a tragedy, and who think that we and future generations should have a choice on the matter (you can refuse any therapies that are developed if you want, but shouldn't make the choice for others).
I bet you're not against finding a cure for cancer or malaria. Why would you think it's ridiculous to try to find a cure for the diseases of aging?
I'm not against it, I just find his predictions to be so optimistic as to be unrealistic.
Cancer is, effectively, a form of aging, which is why it's so damn hard to cure. Fortunately, it's what happens when one cell breaks down. Most other aging happens to all your cells, all at once.
Cancer is, effectively, a form of aging, which is why it's so damn hard to cure. Fortunately, it's what happens when one cell breaks down. Most other aging happens to all your cells, all at once.
De Grey's research is aimed at preventing cancer, not curing it. De Grey names his efforts "engineered negligible senescence". Senescence means the increase in your probability of developing a deadly disease within the next N years as you grow older. The probability of developing most cancers increases rapidly with age. The aim is to prevent that increase.
False all around. Aging is a result of evolutionary neglect, not evolutionary pressure. We haven't evolved to live longer because until extremely recent times, only a negligible fraction of us lasted long enough for old age (or menopause) to become an issue. Furthermore, your argument about tarantulas rests on group selection, which is discredited.
That's a semantic argument. But what it means for aging is functionally the same; we're programmed to last a certain amount of time (when there is pressure) and when the pressure runs out... we break down. This is essentially the same as having a programmed break down time.
Secondly, the argument on tarantulas does not rest on group selection at all. For any one male tarantula, he spreads his genes better by living 2 years than living 8. Long living male tarantulas don't do as well, presumably because of some trade-offs between reproduction and lifespan. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory
Secondly, the argument on tarantulas does not rest on group selection at all. For any one male tarantula, he spreads his genes better by living 2 years than living 8. Long living male tarantulas don't do as well, presumably because of some trade-offs between reproduction and lifespan. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory
So what if there's pressure? You argue that we must rewrite the source code -- so? Genetics = source code. So rewrite the source code.
We're too far away from understanding metabolism for that to be a realistic path to defeating aging in the near future.
The engineering approach of periodical repair seems like the only game in town.
The engineering approach of periodical repair seems like the only game in town.
My admiration of Eliezer comes from two things:
1) His work in the field of Artificial General Intelligence
2) His desire to see human rationality turned into something a bit more organized and easy to spread (see his post cycles at lesswrong.com).
1) His work in the field of Artificial General Intelligence
2) His desire to see human rationality turned into something a bit more organized and easy to spread (see his post cycles at lesswrong.com).
> Aubrey de Grey? You mean the crazy dude that tells people we're going to live forever without any evidence to support his claims?
That's not what he claims. You have apparently only heard the soundbites. All the details of his proposals are in his book (check Amazon). After reading it, I happen to think that his engineering approach is brilliant compared to the traditional gerontological approach. Periodically repairing the damage (of which there are only 7 types) before it accumulates enough to create pathologies is much smarter than trying to learn how to cure all pathologies, or trying to fiddle with metabolism. For a quick overview, you can google his TED talk (but it's a bit old and doesn't contain much biology).
>And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction
Once again, you seem to be commenting on something that you don't know much about. I'll admit I like Hofstadter more for who he is and how he writes, not for a specific idea or achievement, but GEB definitely isn't "dumb".
That's not what he claims. You have apparently only heard the soundbites. All the details of his proposals are in his book (check Amazon). After reading it, I happen to think that his engineering approach is brilliant compared to the traditional gerontological approach. Periodically repairing the damage (of which there are only 7 types) before it accumulates enough to create pathologies is much smarter than trying to learn how to cure all pathologies, or trying to fiddle with metabolism. For a quick overview, you can google his TED talk (but it's a bit old and doesn't contain much biology).
>And Hofstadter, the guy who wrote that really dumb book? (Here I admit that I only read the introduction
Once again, you seem to be commenting on something that you don't know much about. I'll admit I like Hofstadter more for who he is and how he writes, not for a specific idea or achievement, but GEB definitely isn't "dumb".
> I saw the Ted talks. Still bullshit.
Please elaborate.
Why do you think it's bullshit? Why shouldn't it be possible to repair damage that accumulates in our cells? You've offered no clear arguments so far.
Please elaborate.
Why do you think it's bullshit? Why shouldn't it be possible to repair damage that accumulates in our cells? You've offered no clear arguments so far.
See below.
I saw the Ted talks. Still bullshit.
Winston Churchill. Saved western civilization.
Saved western civilization.
From western civilization.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.
From western civilization.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.
I admire him for saving it. Whether he saved it from a rouge element of fringe western civilization (most of Germany not being part of the Roman Empire,) or the Muffin Man doesn't take away from his accomplishment.
Elon Musk
David Chappelle
I hate that he has faded so much from the public eye. If you've never seen Dave Chappelle's Block Party get it and watch it, whether you enjoy hip-hop or not. If you've seen that and are otherwise interested his Inside the Actors Studio interview is pretty solid too.
He is basically the type of role model I wish I could be someday.
I hate that he has faded so much from the public eye. If you've never seen Dave Chappelle's Block Party get it and watch it, whether you enjoy hip-hop or not. If you've seen that and are otherwise interested his Inside the Actors Studio interview is pretty solid too.
He is basically the type of role model I wish I could be someday.
I like Chris Rock, I like it that he is frank and forthcoming and always thinks a lot about what he says, whatever he says is logical and makes sense, sometimes you get inspired by watching his shows, especially with all the crowd !
Try Bigger and Blacker and Bring the Pain, two of the funniest shows I have ever seen !
Try Bigger and Blacker and Bring the Pain, two of the funniest shows I have ever seen !
Has his original script for Half Baked ever been released?
John Carmack. I think I've just always been an Id fan since I grew up with Quake, and I was just blown away the first time I read the Quake 1 source. I have just always dreamed of being a great C hacker like him. And he's doing even more amazing stuff now with Armadillo.
Seconded. I remember reading his .plan files in the 90s when he was working on Quake II, and I was amazed at how much he'd get done in a day. If you want an education in programming, download some of his source code:
http://www.idsoftware.com/business/techdownloads/
http://www.idsoftware.com/business/techdownloads/
Carmack definitely has a place in my mind as one of the greatest hackers ever. I was kind of bummed that he did not respond to the interview request for the "Coders at Work" book. However, the "Masters of Doom" book offered a fun insight into his early hacking adventures!
Richard Feynman, because he showed me through his writing that we all, no matter our backgrounds, can be enthralled by the mysteries that surround us.
And that through charisma, you can become more famous than physicists that do better physics than you.
What is the point of this remark? Feynman was brilliant and deserved that Nobel as much as Gell-Mann. The difference is that Feynman was also inspiring, while the Gell-Mann perhaps deserved a second Nobel. That's plenty of reason to admire the first and not the latter.
This is probably the most irritating comment I've seen on HN so far. Boo.
Any examples?
Murray Gell-Mann
Yeah, but I wonder how much of Gell-Mann's fame comes from his sometimes derogatory comments about Feynman
A bit of searching turned up this really interesting article about the two: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/johnson.htm.
Literary:
george orwell
douglas adams
leonard cohen[deleted]
Ian MacKaye - he lives his life completely on his own terms; maintains a purity about what he is doing; is able to see straight through roadblocks; and creates great music. I want to be an entrepreneur like Ian is a musician.
I admire the amazing people I know, the ones who make me think, if I try just a little harder, I can be like them.
Henry Rollins.
Creative, productive, knowledgeable, and funny.
Creative, productive, knowledgeable, and funny.
...and kind of a jerk, in his early days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3g4QPojMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3g4QPojMc
Elon Musk, a man who tries to change the world through his businesses.
Benjamin Graham, Claude Hopkins. Both wandered into fields full of failed artists and wild gamblers, and turned them into something closer to a science. The Intelligent Investor and Scientific Advertising are the only two books I know of that can give the same person the same epiphany twice.
Bill Watterson (creator of Calvin and Hobbes).
He created an epic masterpiece, never sold out, and left at the top of his game. He achieved fame without being drawn into celebrity, and his ideas have permeated our culture in a deep and wonderful way.
He created an epic masterpiece, never sold out, and left at the top of his game. He achieved fame without being drawn into celebrity, and his ideas have permeated our culture in a deep and wonderful way.
Bill Watterson had an ability to capture such emotion and life like expression with a small 2d comic strip like no other comic or graphic I've ever seen.
The guy was amazing, and I love that he lives as a recluse in a town that won't give him up to the media either. In fact, not many people even know what he looks like anymore from what I've read.
The never selling out part is also awesome. He refused to allow even one Hobbes stuffed tiger to be made because it would devalue his character...simply amazing, he really did it for the art.
The guy was amazing, and I love that he lives as a recluse in a town that won't give him up to the media either. In fact, not many people even know what he looks like anymore from what I've read.
The never selling out part is also awesome. He refused to allow even one Hobbes stuffed tiger to be made because it would devalue his character...simply amazing, he really did it for the art.
I admire Carl Djerassi. He created the first oral contraceptive and made a lot of money off of it, and then as a chemistry professor he did first-class research in organic chemistry for many years (according to my dad who is a chemistry professor, Djerassi's contribution can totally be considered Nobel-prize-worthy.)
But that's not what I admire him for the most. What really gets to me is that at the age of sixty five, he said, hey, let's try something new, and started writing fiction. He wrote several books, and they are really good and a pleasure to read, and if you took one in a bookstore and started reading it you would say it's a very fine novel even if you didn't know the first thing about the author. Why don't you give it a shot: http://www.amazon.com/Cantors-Dilemma-Novel-Carl-Djerassi/dp...
Think about it. He was sixty five. What will you be doing that age.
But that's not what I admire him for the most. What really gets to me is that at the age of sixty five, he said, hey, let's try something new, and started writing fiction. He wrote several books, and they are really good and a pleasure to read, and if you took one in a bookstore and started reading it you would say it's a very fine novel even if you didn't know the first thing about the author. Why don't you give it a shot: http://www.amazon.com/Cantors-Dilemma-Novel-Carl-Djerassi/dp...
Think about it. He was sixty five. What will you be doing that age.
When I'm sixty five, I'll be playing WoW and listening to the nostalgic popular records of my day, from fine artists such as Soulja Boy Tell 'Em and T-Pain.
Bill Mollison. Hilarious, Intelligent, and a Revolutionary (in my mind).
Ayn Rand, for her development of Aristotelian philosophy (normative ethics, hierarchical nature of knowledge, theory of concept formation)
Gandhi. For being fearless _and_ inspiring an entire country to be fearless without a single weapon in hand. Think about it, it's nothing short of a miracle.
Gandhi is not the man you think he is: http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
I am an ardent critic of Gandhi, and many of those criticisms of Gandhi are worth considering and outside of private discussions, rarely brought up in India.
However, for an article that criticizes Gandhi for being racist, the author has some nerve saying:
"Throughout his entire life Gandhi displayed the most spectacular inability to understand or even really take in people unlike himself--a trait which V.S. Naipaul considers specifically Hindu, and I am inclined to agree."
Edit: The article is also not without glaring inaccuracies. For example, the author claims that Gandhi supported Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason Subhash Chandra Bose even quit the Indian National Congress was because Gandhi had him kicked out because of ideological differences.
However, for an article that criticizes Gandhi for being racist, the author has some nerve saying:
"Throughout his entire life Gandhi displayed the most spectacular inability to understand or even really take in people unlike himself--a trait which V.S. Naipaul considers specifically Hindu, and I am inclined to agree."
Edit: The article is also not without glaring inaccuracies. For example, the author claims that Gandhi supported Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason Subhash Chandra Bose even quit the Indian National Congress was because Gandhi had him kicked out because of ideological differences.
The article says, "He [Gandhi] sang the praises of Subhas Chandra Bose"
And indeed, in 1942 Gandhi called Bose "a prince among the patriots". Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Subhash_Chan... Wikipedia says that this was a "a reference, in particular, to Bose's achievement in integrating women and men from all the regions and religions of India in the Indian National Army." The source for the wikipedia quote is The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.
Thus it seems that the claim from the article is indeed correct, albeit it one-sided.
And indeed, in 1942 Gandhi called Bose "a prince among the patriots". Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Subhash_Chan... Wikipedia says that this was a "a reference, in particular, to Bose's achievement in integrating women and men from all the regions and religions of India in the Indian National Army." The source for the wikipedia quote is The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.
Thus it seems that the claim from the article is indeed correct, albeit it one-sided.
I'm sure the authors put as much effort into the conspiracy theory as they did the spelling of his name.
I am unsure of what you mean. I have no love lost for the author of that article: parts of that article are true but he seems clearly biased to the point of having included outright fabrications in other parts.
But, Gandhi is correctly spelt Gandhi in the article and not Ghandy or Ghandi as others often do.
Edit: Ah I see, the link spells it Ghandi. The article, however, gets it right.
But, Gandhi is correctly spelt Gandhi in the article and not Ghandy or Ghandi as others often do.
Edit: Ah I see, the link spells it Ghandi. The article, however, gets it right.
The misspelling comes from the site mirroring the original article, not the author of the article itself. What specifically about the article do you think is factually incorrect?
My Dad. because of the person he is & i want to be.
Steve Wozniak.because of the engineer he is & i want to be.
homer simpsons.
i know, i know, his totally a jerk, but i wish i could spend just one day with him.
The guys who did the moon landings. What an amazing display of engineering and courage.
Truly they were film making visionaries.
Craig Newmark for being truly a nerd, yet having an enormous impact on society. He spoke at my undergrad commencement (also his alma mater), and what really hit me from his speech was, wow, you WERE an engineering nerd just like all the rest of us.
He inspires me because through his great success, he's remained extremely humble and down to earth. It really seems like he just wants to keep his site going as a public service. They donate a large portion of their income to charity as is.. if only all public services could be run as well that they GIVE extra money away!
He inspires me because through his great success, he's remained extremely humble and down to earth. It really seems like he just wants to keep his site going as a public service. They donate a large portion of their income to charity as is.. if only all public services could be run as well that they GIVE extra money away!
Edmund Hillary. For using his fame only to help people, and always being humble.
Fravia for creating http://searchlores.org/ and inspiring me and I bet countless other seekers/hackers/reverse engineers. His website has articles on everything from "reality cracking" to searching the deeper web. His recent death saddened me deeply but I hope that his website will hopefully taken over by someone who will continue updating it.
Richard Feynman. For his boundless curiosity and his ability to convey that love of finding things out and making things to others.
Feynman, Einstein, Jiddu Krishnamoorthy, Sardar Patel, Steve Jobs, Benjamin Franklin..
Nikola Tesla
Indeed, the guy was really a genius. He pushed the whole of humanity towards using alternate current and it saddens me to see that he didn't (and still doesn't) get the credit he deserves.
In my mind he's the only true genius.
He was one in at least 20 billion.
Albert Einstein - for being different and being the smartest person who ever lived.
The folks who've lead the development and improvement of Unix over the years: dmr, bwk, jkh, tdr, cgd, ...
Who are the last three and did you intentionally omit Ken Thompson?
The last are a few folks behind *BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) whose logins/monikers I happened to recall. I only omitted Ken (and others too numerous to mention) mainly because I've not had the pleasure of corresponding with him.
Donald Knuth needs no introductions.
Arnold Schwarzenneger. The dedication required to make it as an immigrant from nothing to the stage he currently is at is nothing short of amazing.
people like "shooter" who stay positive & contribute even in the face of adversity ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=868325 & http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=867623
Immanuel Kant, if nothing more than realizing he was wrong and spending over 10 years trying to discover what may be right.
Carl Gustaf Emil von Mannerheim; the guy who rocked
In the 20th Century, John VonNeumann. He was a hacker through and through. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
Dean Kamen. So much more than the Segway.
Burt Rutan - the Ruth/Gretzky/Bradman of aviation engineering
I like George Carlin, but I do not admire him. I called that name here, because currently he gets a lot of my attention (haven't seen all of his performances yet). I find Carlin views very close to mine and admire professionalism and desire to work hard on his job.
But I don't think we should admire people, especially for a long time in our lives. I guess, it's like "liking -> falling in love -> peaceful loving or forgetting (if it didn't work)". I think it's healthy to find things you don't like in the person you admire and enjoy accepting them as is and gain understanding of your own views this way. I guess this would be the way you build your own personality.
But I don't think we should admire people, especially for a long time in our lives. I guess, it's like "liking -> falling in love -> peaceful loving or forgetting (if it didn't work)". I think it's healthy to find things you don't like in the person you admire and enjoy accepting them as is and gain understanding of your own views this way. I guess this would be the way you build your own personality.
Teddy Roosevelt. They don't make presidents like that anymore, in any country.
Also my buddy, who, whilst being induced into the Catholic confirmation process whilst in primary school, refused, saying that "I'm not convinced. It sounds like some sort of cult". I wish I had been so self-confident (not that being confirmed hurt me).
Also my buddy, who, whilst being induced into the Catholic confirmation process whilst in primary school, refused, saying that "I'm not convinced. It sounds like some sort of cult". I wish I had been so self-confident (not that being confirmed hurt me).
Ralph Nader... he's one of the great American patriots
Walt Disney doesn't get the credit he deserves as an innovator and entrepreneur. His legacy has been tarnished a bit my the hyper-consumerism that the Disney company is famous for. That said he:
1. Invented the feature length animated movie. A multi-billion dollar business that paved the way for Pixar, Aardman, and all the other great creators we admire in that industry.
2. Invented the modern theme park. The "Second Life" of 1955! This is another massive multi-billion dollar business. It is also impressive in its technical scope employing physicists, pyrotechnic folks, and a bunch of roboticists who work on the audio-animatronic robots.
3. The Disney "Imagineering" crew is probably one of the most interesting interdisciplinary groups around combining nearly every kind of engineer with every kind of artist to create amazing things on an ongoing basis.
4. Before he died he was applying his ideas on art and technology to urban planning. Not in the way you would expect (e.g. No mouse ears), but marrying ideas of "New Urbanism" with technological futurism to rethink how we live and work.
His story is also a classic one of entrepreneurial striving, failure, and an unwillingness to give up. Check out this book for more inspiration:
http://www.amazon.com/Walt-Disney-Triumph-American-Imaginati...
1. Invented the feature length animated movie. A multi-billion dollar business that paved the way for Pixar, Aardman, and all the other great creators we admire in that industry.
2. Invented the modern theme park. The "Second Life" of 1955! This is another massive multi-billion dollar business. It is also impressive in its technical scope employing physicists, pyrotechnic folks, and a bunch of roboticists who work on the audio-animatronic robots.
3. The Disney "Imagineering" crew is probably one of the most interesting interdisciplinary groups around combining nearly every kind of engineer with every kind of artist to create amazing things on an ongoing basis.
4. Before he died he was applying his ideas on art and technology to urban planning. Not in the way you would expect (e.g. No mouse ears), but marrying ideas of "New Urbanism" with technological futurism to rethink how we live and work.
His story is also a classic one of entrepreneurial striving, failure, and an unwillingness to give up. Check out this book for more inspiration:
http://www.amazon.com/Walt-Disney-Triumph-American-Imaginati...
George Washington.
The one of two people in all of history I know of who truely didn't want power.
After the war the British Monarch asked what Washington wanted to do; he was then informed that he planed to return to his farm (which he did) upon which the king commented that if he did that he would be the greatest man in the world.
You have to be some person to get your greatest enemy to say that you are the greatest man in the world.
The one of two people in all of history I know of who truely didn't want power.
After the war the British Monarch asked what Washington wanted to do; he was then informed that he planed to return to his farm (which he did) upon which the king commented that if he did that he would be the greatest man in the world.
You have to be some person to get your greatest enemy to say that you are the greatest man in the world.
My grandfathers.
Both left eastern Europe, alone, as teenagers, to come to the U.S., knowing that they would never see their birthplace again, and that they probably would never see most of their relatives again. They did this because they knew they had much better chance for a better life, for themselves and for their unknown children and grandchildren.
Every time things get tough, I remind myself, "They came here for me," and then my challenges seem awfully small.
Both left eastern Europe, alone, as teenagers, to come to the U.S., knowing that they would never see their birthplace again, and that they probably would never see most of their relatives again. They did this because they knew they had much better chance for a better life, for themselves and for their unknown children and grandchildren.
Every time things get tough, I remind myself, "They came here for me," and then my challenges seem awfully small.
Noam Chomksy.
Leonardo da Vinci because he didn't limit himself to the art/science divide.
Emmeline Pankhurst, because without her activities, and their effect on society, I would never have had the chance to achieve what I have. Also my grandmother; entrepreneur, politician and pillar of her local society.
(I felt this list needed more oestrogen, though both of the above are completely genuine. I'd add Thatcher, but I don't think I could survive the pitchforks - nevertheless, I do admire what she achieved.)
(I felt this list needed more oestrogen, though both of the above are completely genuine. I'd add Thatcher, but I don't think I could survive the pitchforks - nevertheless, I do admire what she achieved.)
Eckart Wintzen
http://extent.nl/about-eckart/
Unfortunately he's no longer.
http://extent.nl/about-eckart/
Unfortunately he's no longer.
The Woz for being the hacker he is and being different from other Steve.(I'm not sure. Few people came in mind, RMS, Linus, My friend geekaholic, But Woz was strong.)
George Foreman....because without him I'd have to use my barbecue ALL the time
Alan Kay, for constantly inventing the future.
Marcus Aurelius - relentless in his quest for self perfection even while ruling one of the most powerful empires in the world.
This reminds me of George Washington's words: Whatever you do, please don't build a monument for me. I'm happy just serving.
So what did they do? Built a huge freaking stone phallus in the middle of the nation's capital.
I admire a lot of people. Too many to try to narrow it down. The difficult part about choosing one is that you're always looking at relative progress. At the end of the day, doing something admirable means measuring the delta between what most people like you accomplished and what you accomplished. That means that famous president with a big monument probably isn't as impressive as poor, uneducated grandfather who did something to make a lot of people's lives' better.
But I think you measure greatness in making people's lives better in the long run. So if I don't have candidates, I definitely have the metric.
So what did they do? Built a huge freaking stone phallus in the middle of the nation's capital.
I admire a lot of people. Too many to try to narrow it down. The difficult part about choosing one is that you're always looking at relative progress. At the end of the day, doing something admirable means measuring the delta between what most people like you accomplished and what you accomplished. That means that famous president with a big monument probably isn't as impressive as poor, uneducated grandfather who did something to make a lot of people's lives' better.
But I think you measure greatness in making people's lives better in the long run. So if I don't have candidates, I definitely have the metric.