The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002380.html
Further, I am not sure that the number of enegineers, even if comparable, has much to do with the creation of technology. India and Russia have probably always had more engineers that the US has had. But the US has led technology development because the country has a system that fosters and rewards it. This remains true.
There is a backdrop at TOD where engineers ridicule economists and economists keep quiet and roll their eyes. I am neither, but I do think the engineer worship here is misplaced.
I have news.
Only reason U.S. stays on top is because of VSA (Very Smart Asians).
Thirty-five years ago I noticed this, and my background is in economics, astronomy and some other disciplines.
Yes, the U.S. is #1.
And why?
Because we recruit Very Smart Asians.
That is it, in a nutshell.
BTW, have you looked at the percentage of our engineers who were born in the U.S.?????
Wild speculation: the US high-tech industry recruits like this, but the US auto industry doesn't...
In other words, don't expect any German scientists comming to America to build the energy solution that will end the next world war, we already owe them for the last time...
Indeed, one big reason Nazi Germany never put much in the way of resources into developing an atomic bomb is that its development would have had to have been based on "Jewish physics." Thus, any project based on those politically incorrect physics was impossible or practially impossible to fund.
Talk about irony.
BTW, yes, I am aware of some of the fictions published as histories that explain how it was the sweet humanitarian instincts of certain German physicists that suppressed development of the bomb under Hitler. If you choose to believe those accounts, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that is available at a bargain price . . . .
The Indian radio station survey story is interesting, but allegorical and not statistically significant. Your claim "it does not help when the majority of the world does not have a favorable view of America or its leadership." is pure opinion.
The fact remains that the US has hosted the world best incubator for innovation over the last few decades. I don't believe that this has changed, but am willing to listen to actual evidence to the contrary.
In the UK the percentage with a favourable attitude has dropped from 83% in 2000 to 55% now behind China viewed favourably by 65%.
Oil companies have been well into brain drain since 1985. Most of all their best engineers have retired a long time ago. Last of the good ones were on the way out when I started 30 years ago. Most now can't even write a specification, never mind get anything designed and built. I left the USA in 1986. I know another American chemical engineer that left in 1991. Worked in Saudi up to 3 years ago. He went back to the USA. NOW he just left the States last week for Qatar. You've lost the best and can't even hold on to them when they do try to go back. We say, "Let the tax accounts rip up your railroads."
Who keeps the boats sailing and the fuel moving? Engineers, obviously. Perhaps it is time for a mutiny: The ONLY way the Titanic could have been saved is if the Chief Engineer had led a mutiny against the deranged captain, who was ruining magnificent brand-new steam engines by running them flat out for a speed record instead of breaking them in properly.
I rarely advocate mutiny. Most mutinies fail. And engineers do not know how to organize, but when the leadership is deranged and the life boats are too few, you are out of good choices.
(O.K., personally, I'm building a raft and encouraging my friends to do likewise.)
BTW, I've never known either a mad scientist or a mad engineer; both types are generally sane. However, Ted Kacicinski (the Unabomber) was one of my math TAs at UC, Berkeley. He sucked as a teacher--but then so did all of my math teachers until I finally got lucky with one guy vistiting from Annapolis and another one from some Swiss university. Mathematicians for various reasons are way more likely to flip out than engineers or scientists.
One thing I truly enjoy about being around engineers is that they can show me how to fix things. Mending is better than ending.
The most absolute nuttiest professor I had was for (seems appropriate to mention it here, and this is really true)... exploration geophysics. I actually took one course in this. He beat my relativistic modern physics prof by 7 lengths. This guy was 73 years old (must be 103 now) with the wild white hair, square beard and everything and would ware the same searsucker blue and white pin-striped suit every day. He slept in his office for a good six months straight. When he would come in to class, he'd start writing equations on the blackboard, the bell would ring and we'd leave, but he'd keep going for 3 days running. On the 3rd day, he'd find a mistake and start rewritting all over again. The math guys were pretty much normal, except one made me memorize all the derivative and integral formulas, of which now I only remember about 6. Unfortunately, everything I learned about geophysics was in my soil mechanics and foundation classes (taught by civil engineering dept.). I still dream about setting up an oscilliscope and an array of microphones to the PC and hitting an iron plate with a sledge hammer. Supposedly it'll work if you can hit the plate hard enough to "raise the ball" to -88. I've got the PC oscilliscope program, but can't get serious about the mic array. Needs a sound board with too many channels. Guess I'm not the 100% stereotypical engineer, the BAR was pretty good, but my toy of choice would have been Candice Bergen;.. OK!.. I'd take the gunboat.
I've just finished orgainzing a start-up company for production and harvesting of 500,000 Hectares of paper pulp plants, paper company administration org, paper plant conceptual design, international proj mgmt engineering dept, paper plant detailed design, company operations & maintenance org for the next 6 years for a company to be located somewhere in South America.
I have lived in Asia for most of my adult life, so I am familiar with the issues at hand. I disagree with the idea that China's centralized system can "cherry pick" technology winners better then the private sector. This article in Foreign Policy sheds some light on the governmnet involvement in decision-making:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3373&page=1
"But China's tentacles are even more securely wrapped around the economy than these figures suggest. First, Beijing continues to own the bulk of capital. In 2003, the state controlled $1.2 trillion worth of capital stock, or 56 percent of the country's fixed industrial assets. Second, the state remains, as befits a quintessentially Leninist regime, securely in control of the "commanding heights" of the economy: It is either a monopolist or a dominant player in the most important sectors, including financial services, banking, telecommunications, energy, steel, automobiles, natural resources, and transportation. It protects its monopoly profits in these sectors by blocking private domestic firms and foreign companies from entering the market (although in a few sectors, such as steel, telecom, and automobiles, there is competition among state firms). Third, the government maintains tight control over most investment projects through the power to issue long-term bank credit and grant land-use rights."
I didn't say engineers aren't good or important. I just think there are more important things in the world than engineering. Look at history, we remember great leaders who create things and make changes - not the mechanics who implement them. I think a good political and economic system will produce good engineering. Good engineering can't produce good poltics or economics.
"Engineers have made changes in the world that have outlasted (many for centuries) just about any political leader's changes that YOU can name."
I don't mean to be insulting, its just that I really don't understand. Maybe you just need to broaden your view of history, or is it just that you don't actually have knowledge about this subject.
For every George Washing you can name, I can name a Ben Franklin, but (you know) I can't name any like Hitler and I will say Henry Ford and the Wrights changed the world more than Hitler and Ceaser put together. IMO.
Include some engineers. Ever heard of ARCHIMEDES? Ben Franklin? Maybe the problem is that engineering (as we know it) just hasn't been around as long as Ceaser, so we haven't got your attention??. Is this just because we can't tell you who invented the suspension bridge? I view engineers as anyone who takes science and mathematics and applies the principles towards constructing practicle devices. So, maybe you never really studied history, or only the history of political figures.. or what form of history have you ever studied? Or just maybe you're memory's not so good. I seem to remember for instance, Da Vinci, Galleio, Cassegrain, A. Volta, Anders Celsius, Montgolfier, Guillotin (there's one you've probably heard of), Eli Whitney, James Watt, Michael Faraday, Cyrus Hall McCormick, Bernoulli, Sir Sandford Fleming (time zones), Wright Brothers, Bell, Thomas Edison, Howard Hughes, John Stevens, Sikorski, Henry Ford, Goddard, without even trying very hard.
As a matter of curiosity, just who is on your list?