Engineering?

[Chuck(G)]

An interesting tidbit I turned up.

For all nine members of the Chinese Politburo:

• Hu Jintao - Tsinghua University, water conservancy engineering
• Huang Ju, Tsinghua University, electrical engineering
• Jia Qinglin, Hebei Engineering College, department of electrical power
• Li Changchun, Harbin Institute of Technology, department of electrical machinery
• Luo Gan, Freiberg University of Mining and Technology
• Wen Jiabao, Beijing Institute of Geology, department of geology and minerals
• Wu Bangguo, Tsinghua University, radio engineering
• Wu Guanzheng, Tsinghua University, power department
• Zeng Qinghong, Beijing Institute of Technology, automatic control department

How about the US version of the Politburo, the Cabinet?

• Mike Johanns, Dept of Agriculture - Creighton University - lawyer
• Carlos Gutierrez, Dept of Commerce - Monterrey Institute of Technology - Business
• Donald Rumsfeld, Dept of Defense - Princeton, A.B.
• Margaret Spellings, Dept of Education - Univ of Houston, political science, journalism
• Samuel W. Bodman, Dept of Energy - Cornell BS ChemEng, MIT ScD
• Michael Leavitt, Dept of HHS - Southern Utah University, economics, business
• Michael Chertoff, Dept of Homeland Security - Harvard - lawyer
• Alphonso Jackson, Dept of HUD - Washington University - lawyer
• Gale A. Norton, Dept of Interior - University of Denver - lawyer
• Alberto Gonzales, Dept of Justice - Harvard - lawyer
• Elaine Chao, Dept of Labor - Harvard - MBA
• Condoleezza Rice, Dept of State - Univ of Denver - PhD, international studies
• Norman Y. Mineta, Dept of Transportation - UC Berkeley - MBA
• John W. Snow, Dept of Treasury - Univ of Virginia - PhD, economics, George Washington University law degree
• Jim Nicholson, Dept of VA - West Point
• Dick Cheney, Vice President - Univ of Wyoming, BA, MA
• Joshua Bolten, Office of Management and Budget - Stanford - lawyer
• Stephen L. Johnson, EPA - George Washington University - MS - Pathology
• Andrew H. Card, Jr, Chief of Staff - Univ of South Carolina - BS Engineering
• Rob Portman, US Trade Ambassador - lawyer
• John P. Walters, Office of Drug Control Policy - University of Toledo, MA

Interesting how the Chinese are all engineers, but the Americans are largely lawyers, MBAs and liberal arts, notable exceptions being DOE, EPA and Andy Card.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that China's an industrial powerhouse. Even more interesting is that the per-capita number of engineering degrees (among university students as a whole) in China is slightly ahead of the US. (Japan dominates, while South Korea and Taiwan are #2 and 3 in the rankings).

FYI.

[Mark]

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that China's an industrial powerhouse.

I suspect this will drift quickly into politics.

China does a lot of manufacturing because they can do it cheaper and with acceptable quality. The main reason they can do it cheaper is because the pay ridiculously low wages. I don't think it has much to do with engineering degrees.

[windshieldbug]

Go comrade!

(and remember- we shoot lawyers over here, so we may be well on our way to solving that problem!)

[Chuck(G)]

What bullsh!t logic.

Not really. If you talk about important things to a lawyer, he's going to think laws. To an engineer, well, engineering stuff.

To a lawyer or an MBA, lawyering or business is profitable. A lawyer makes his living from the law--he's pretty much useless if you want a toothbrush or a tuba. An MBA can only do business if there's business to be done--i.e. there's something to be bought and sold.

To an engineer, making stuff is important. Do you think lawyers would have come up with the PC or cellphone? Do you think that they would have even thought that such stuff is important?

When China visits Saudi Arabia or Brazil or Russia, they're usually inking deals for production commodities (natural gas, oil, metals, etc.). A lawyer wouldn't know tantalum if a metric ton fell on his left foot. An engineer knows that if you want to make those super-small capacitors that go into cells or IPods, you need tantalum--and it's not plentiful stuff.

I guess our crop of MBAs will come in handy in managing hedge funds--for Chinese clients.

[windshieldbug]

"Natural inclination" is to build a better mousetrap. Someone has to design it. Someone has to build it. Someone has to use it.

This society no longer values the ability to build things the way it once did, and the way that other societies do. It seems to be on the verge of not valuing the ability to design it in the same ways.

What is left? The ability to protect "intellectual" value, and the ability to consume...

[Chuck(G)]

On the other hand, 65% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies have degrees in engineering.

It used to be a higher percentage.

I'm not certain that they have law schools in China.

Oh yeah--and one of then's even run by Temple:

http://www.law.temple.edu/servlet/Retri ... nuitem=p18

http://english.people.com.cn/constituti ... ution.html

[funkcicle]

*"Working to achieve prosperity" is a natural inclination of man. It is not a "system". "Systems" can only effect this natural inclination in a negative way. This inclination will always be there, whether or not figureheads are favorable and/or savvy towards any particular versions of it.

What about "systems" such as morality and, say, religion? Would you say religion-based opposition towards materialism(pursuit of prosperity) has a negative impact on said materialism?

A big distinction can be found in the foundations of each society. America is founded largely on, well...bullshit! Who better to perpetuate that than lawyers! And of course, as long as the bullshit-pepetuators run the show there's little chance of the hierarchy changing in favour of more worthwhile pursuits. As a society that values possessions and instills materialism among it's young(as evidences even by you) it amounts to little more than one of those pyramid schemes you used to get in the mail, or now see on the internet. Essentially, America is a static/stagnant society doing exactly what it was designed to do, which will eventually outlive its usefulness for most...short of a dictatorship requiring everyone to go to law school .

China, on the other hand, has 3 things america does not: 1)history, 2) culture, and 3) dynamic leadership. The first 2 are really of little importance, as unabashed materialism and veiled aristocracy can serve as an easy substitute(see 1776-present), but without #3 you're stuck in whatever mold you started with. What points 1 and 2 count for are perhaps a more important(and maybe more 'real'?) natural inclination: self preservation. Let's look at it this way... in the wake of unimaginable global economic collapse where every nation has to turn to their natural inclination for self-preservation, what countries' actions are likely to come off as the most hypocritical, self serving, or ridiculous?

Putting that rant into perspective(and getting back on topic), what countries might you say are the most prepared for such a scenario? If you can't look to their leadership for a good idea then it's probably impossible to tell.

[windshieldbug]

Well, look at it from another perspective:

China outlawed tubas! How cultural can they be!

and remember...

When tubas are outlawed, only outlaws will have tubas!

[MaryAnn]

Replying to Funkcycle:

I'd say the societies (which may be within countries) that are best able to survive such a global scenario are the ones that can survive without excessive technology. "Excessive" technology would be technology that wouldn't be able to function in the case of a global economic collapse. So, agrarian societies that can grow their own food on a sustainable bases; ones that don't need electricity to get water delivered. Ones that have enough breadth of skills to continue without imports.

One of the global disaster scenarios that I think has some legitimacy is one in which warming proceeds at a pace that causes the polar ice to melt more rapidly than the world's ports can deal with. That is, sea level rises so quickly that ports are inundated and shipping comes to a halt. Without the delivery of fuel, transportation comes to a halt. You can't deliver goods without fuel. Basically, any and all societies that depend on transportation to survive (food imports; power to run pumps to deliver water) come to a screeching halt. The only societies to survive are those that still have the capability to live off their local land. That's very few societies.

Did anybody see the PBS NOVA program about global dimming? That was really interesting. Warming is caused by greenhouse gases; but dimming is caused by particulate pollution. They measured 5% (IIRC) less sunlight reaching the surface of the earth, because the particulates act as a filter. The conclusion reached was that warming is being modulated by the dimming, and that if the dimming factor went away, warming would be much more than we currently think it is.

To get political again, (who, me?) ... the evidence we choose to believe, as a world population, will shape our future. The choices we make, as a world population, will shape our future.

MA

[Rick Denney]

The choices we make, as a world population, will shape our future.

I don't believe those choices are largely controllable. A good-sized volcano eruption can put more particulates into the air than can mankind.

The issue is this: Are we developing the capability to deal with the effects that we see?

Causes are so interconnected that I doubt we can hope to understand them well enough to do anything about them, and if we make draconian changes (mostly on the basis of politics and not science) based on an incorrect understanding of causes, we could end up in worse shape. It was only 30 years ago that scientists were predicting a coming ice age. We are trying to extrapolate from horribly insufficient data when we try to predict long-term climate trends.

But if we see those trends, we can throw our resources into learning how to deal with them. If the ocean levels are going to rise, we can protect our ports just as the Dutch do, but not if we've spent all our energy trying to keep it from happening, only to discover that the root cause was triggered by, say, Krakatoa rather than hairspray (or by the next Krakatoa).

Politics invades this field profoundly, and from all perspectives. That will likely have a good and a bad effect. The good effect is that the more draconian measures some want, often motivated by other agendas, will be squelched by popular demand. The bad effect is that nobody knows what to believe.

Rick "who thinks the leadership of China is anything but dynamic, being rather the bad combination of authoritarian and reactionary" Denney

[Joe Baker]

VERY clever, Chuck!! Why didn't I think of this: subvert the no-politics rule by hiding the discussion under a thread title that most of the shallow thinkers on the board wouldn't bother to read. Beautiful!!!

As for whether I want Engineers or lawyers, MBAs and Liberal Arts types running my government: I want broadly informed, brilliant, competent people for the specific job they will fill. I don't want an Engineer in the justice dept., I want a lawyer. I don't want an Engineer running the State dept. or the Treasury, either. Those people need a good broad understanding of the issues their departments deal with, and the leadership and management skills to make their departments work. I think Engineering is grand, but how many times have we seen great engineering fail because some other aspect of the company was lacking (marketing, sales, distribution, finance, etc.)

Consider the fact that the Chinese politburo doesn't NEED to politic or figure out whether they are permitted to do something. If they want to build a factory, BAM!! They build it. Here, we have to do environmental impact studies, and determine whether fair trade practices or illegal trusts will be created. OSHA has to approve the safety of the plant. Depending on the other products, an army of other regulators may be involved. Is there too much of that stuff? I'd say 'yes', Ralph Nader would say 'no'. But it's there, and an executive branch better have some lawyers and some political wheels if they're going to navigate the system and get things done. Imagine a bunch of Engineers trying to implement policy in the U.S. -- RIGHT!!

As to the whole global warming thing, Rick said everything I'd have liked to say, and with far more panache; so I'll just say "atta-boy, Rick" and leave it at that.

BTW, MA -- I think you may be right that there's not a lot of people changing their minds about things, but I think there's value in just considering and understanding how others who disagree with you think. Funkcycle said some pretty fringe stuff in his post, but no one has scolded him for it. Rick (correctly, I think) took exception to his wildest claim, namely that Chinese leadership is "dynamic"; but it's all been pretty civil, even where wildly different points of view have been expressed.

I hope if you-know-who notices this thread he'll take note of the civil tone.
_______________________________
Joe Baker, who finds these issues far more interesting than silver/lacquer and piston/rotor -- even if, in the end, they don't do any more to resolve the matter at hand.

[windshieldbug]

I hope if you-know-who notices this thread he'll take note of the civil tone.

If not, maybe it's time for some Civil Defense...

[Chuck(G)]

Joe, if the truth be told, anything on this BBS can be made to be political, off-topic or not. Why does Germany seem to have a thriving tuba business when the US is barely able to stagger along? Is lacquer more environmentally-friendly than silverplate?

I do think that things that affect us all, are deserving of discussion--and I think we can do it without going into bug-eyed red-faced screaming partisan politics.

Or we can sit here and discuss BBb vs. CC, rotary vs. piston, lacquer vs. silver, where to dump your spit, what oil to use, whether or not to give Bydlo to a euphonium, how wonderful this month's new instrument is, what mouthpiece to use and how to avoid taking your instrument to a repair tech till we drop dead of boredom.

Off topic, we can discuss cars, food and off-color jokes, I suppose.

Heaven knows, music gets short enough shrift on this BBS.

[windshieldbug]

What happened to dinosaurs?

Sam Neill did!

[Joe Baker]

Joe, if the truth be told, anything on this BBS can be made to be political, off-topic or not.

I said exactly the same thing in a thread the other day. I just don't really understand the anti-politics rule; why politics? I've seen plenty of heated debate about cars, bicycles, and monster-weights, but there are no rules against those topics.

But, as of this moment I'm going back on the wagon, and apologizing to Sean for breaking the rules. But I value my freedom of speech too much to voluntarily give it up.
_____________________________________
Joe Baker, whose principals are leaving him with very little choice but to just quit coming here.

[tofu]

[tubeast]

I liked that remark on whether global warming was a such big a deal.
It just depends on whether you´d like to see our lifestyles and societies altered. For one thing I´m convinced that man is not smart enough to fully understand and control an ecosystem more complex than, say, an aquarium. Probably not even that. If we WERE able to understand what keeps the world going, we wouldn´t be wondering whether or not it´s a good thing to decrease our CO2-output. We´d know, and we´d all agree on the matter.

Our (mankind´s) problem is that our technology has progressed faster than our knowledge about its consequences.
To me, both groups are equally suspicious (Right term ? I mean I think there´s something fishy in their arguments):
Those who claim fuel cells and regenerative energy sources will prevent global warming as well as those who claim we (again, mankind)´ll be able to deal with global warming when it occurs, be it of natural origin or not.

At this time, fusion power seems to be THE answer to all energy problems. As was the case with nuclear energy sixty years ago. Who knows what problems will arise when we´re able to control fusion reactors.
Should we go for it ? I think yes. There´s a chance it might work, and doing it is the only way for us to find out.

End of sermon.

[MaryAnn]

The choices we make, as a world population, will shape our future.

I don't believe those choices are largely controllable. A good-sized volcano eruption can put more particulates into the air than can mankind.

The issue is this: Are we developing the capability to deal with the effects that we see?

I think you made some assumptions as to what I meant by "choices," based on what you think my political views are. I definitely see it as a choice to develop the capability to deal with the effects we see.

I also see it as a choice to dumb down our education system and a choice to allow chemicals free run into the environment based on simple-exposure studies. We'll reap the consequences for these and other choices down the line, be they good, bad, or indifferent. Personally I think Nature can whack us as badly as we can whack ourselves, but wouldn't it be nice if the only whackings we have to deal with are those dealt out by Nature?

MA

[Rick Denney]

I think you made some assumptions as to what I meant by "choices," based on what you think my political views are. I definitely see it as a choice to develop the capability to deal with the effects we see.

I also see it as a choice to dumb down our education system and a choice to allow chemicals free run into the environment based on simple-exposure studies. We'll reap the consequences for these and other choices down the line, be they good, bad, or indifferent. Personally I think Nature can whack us as badly as we can whack ourselves, but wouldn't it be nice if the only whackings we have to deal with are those dealt out by Nature?

My assumption was based on the way your wrote your post. I think it was a pretty easy assumption to make but you can tell me if I assumed wrongly.

We have dumbed down our education system because as a society we value self-esteem (even if it's illusory) more than excellence. That isn't a choice but rather a whole series of choices based on a whole series of effects, many of which are unconnected. That's the problem with the simple analyses I see on the Discovery of National Geographic channels. But 75 years ago, education was no better on average. It was better for the excellent students, and the students who were not excellent weren't there in the first place. They were making Chuck happy by being apprenticed to a trade.

On the subject of chemicals, we always have to balance the good an the bad, knowing too little about either (I know you said something along these lines so no need to accuse me of making more assumptions, heh, heh). Some chemicals have turned out to be dangerous, and moreso for some than others. Yet average lifespans have increased substantially since chemicals have emerge into wide use, and most people are more vigorous to greater ages even if they need exercise as we are constantly reminded. The chemicals have been part of the technological advancement that has made it possible for average lifespan to increase. Examples abound, and here's just one: Food preservatives may not be particularly nutritious, but with few exceptions they do a lot less harm than rot and starvation. Refrigerants may be greenhouse gases and hey may cause problems because of that, but lots of people have been able to eat fresh food consistently because of it. And so on.

Rick "noting that the retirement age used to be 60--when people were thought to be old" Denney

[MartyNeilan]

Sounds logical to me.