Using this mode of thought you could justify terrorism as a good thing. Maybe the West is just addicted to speed. Think of how everyone is happy that the Communists are gone except for China, North Korea and Cuba. So now the great beast to fear is China when our cousin across the ocean is building the currency that will do us in, not China. Would it not have made more sense to have gone slower and NOT destroyed the Soviet Union and proliferated all of those weapons while integrating through diplomacy the two economies and cross developing cultures. Using the competition between the two to keep each honest and unwarlike?
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Short-circuiting history (Don't make it too easy for people!) > Could it be for the same reason that the US is last in cell phone use and > technology? We have invested more heavily in outmoded copper wire than > any other nation and spent heavily on ethernet to create excess bandwidth > that may become irrelevant until satellites get oversubscribed. > > Bill > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:20:24 -0700 Stephen Straker > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." wrote: > > > *However*, long before Bernard Lewis asked "What went wrong?" > > > anent Islam, Joseph Needham spent a long lifetime asking: "What > > > went wrong?" (OK -- more accurately: "What failed to get > > > started?") in China. > > > > > > Needham's conclusion, which he did not like, was that Europe > > > "took off" into modernity whereas China stagnated because Europe > > > had capitalism and China didn't. > > > ... > > > Why didn't China "take off"? (Maybe they had too > > > much leisure?) > > > > Brad - I don't think this quite gets Needham right. His > > question took more the form: given that ancient and medieval > > Chinese technology and its implementations are vastly > > superior to those of the west, why was there an industrial > > revolution in the west and not in the east (& correlatively, > > the modern techno-science that was part of the process). > > > > To say that Europe had capitalism and China didn't would be > > too close to a tautology for Needham. As I read his answer - > > especially in an essay "Science and Society: East and West" > > (1964) - the essential matter is intense & repeated social > > breakdown in Europe - which has many causes, the formations > > of early capitalism among them - whereas Chinese history is > > characterized by long periods of social stability only > > rarely punctuated by upheaval and social change. Social > > dislocations in Europe allow for the emergence of new > > activities. new social roles, the scientist-engineer > > (pioneered in some ways by the artist-architect-engineers of > > the Renaissance) and the capitalist-entrepreneur among them, > > and consequently the social activities of modern science, > > the premium placed on innovation, etc. > > > > So, interesingly, "too much leisure" in a sense is right. If > > everything is ticking right along and society is not > > breaking down all around you, one can proceed in a leisurely > > way. Stability. Tradition. No crises. > > > > sound right? > > > > Stephen Straker > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Vancouver, B.C. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
