Why does the West innovate more?

Too many old examples,of course the West produced Newton and the fundamentals of modern science but if the West disappeared today China, Japan, South Korea, India and all the other countries would not stop scientific research.

To get basic research done a country has to be rich, in a poor country only applied science gets any budget. And basic research has been a state financed thing for the most parts of history. Or if you look back a bit more a privately financed gentleman hobby.

The table has turned now in many societies there is enough money,talent and a society liberal enough to allow a real science environment. That is brilliant thing because every new researcher speeds up development and benefits the whole.

This is silly. There are more Eastern "innovators" than Western ones. They just prefer to operate out of San Jose and Boston. Globalization works both ways, you know.

Why do the "innovators" make their homes in the USA? That's where the startup hubs are!

http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html

And we should distrust the word "innovator", which tends to be awarded to the engineers with the best English-language marketing team. When a product engineer in Malaysia invents a technique that doubles manufacturing efficiency, she is "skilled"; when an engineer living in Sunnyvale develops a web-based social network he's an "innovator".

>> I don't drive a Toyota or shoot with a Canon SLR because they don't work.

A poorly written article in my opinion. It revolves around the viewpoint of the author, without any facts or figures.

I remember watching a TV programme a few years back that contrasted the medieval engineering culture of Western Europe with that of China. I can't for the life of me remember the historian's name, but his theory seemed to have some merit.

His basic argument was that there was a fundamental difference in diets between the two cultures. China was primarily a rice-growing culture, which meant that they needed a large amount of space and irrigation to create paddy fields. Once the rice was grown, it was simple to harvest and the only further treatment it needed to be rendered edible was boiling. All in all, the Chinese culture had quite a low-tech solution to the problem of feeding large amounts of people.

On the other hand, rice was not native to Western Europe and impossible to cultivate there anyway. In order to feed its population, European culture grew grains such as wheat, oats and barley, which were not only far harder to harvest but required grinding / milling and baking into bread before they could be rendered edible. Compared to the Chinese rice-based solution, the Western Europe model required a lot more technology. There was, therefore, a much higher demand for technological, engineered solutions to the problem of providing mass sustenance. In turn, this demand led to the adoption of such advances as horse collars, mills, ploughs, crop rotation and horseshoes. All these things were expensive and often required collective solutions.

The historian's main hypothesis was that the effect of this continual (and necessary) improvement of farming techniques was to engender a culture of engineering in Western Europe. Regardless of where the innovations came from (and they were often cribbed from other cultures, often Middle Eastern) the continual and expensive process of re-engineering farming practices led directly to the development of engineering as a discipline.

I really wish I could remember the guy's name.

wow what a giant mess of ignorance and generalizations. I can write an entire article refuting every point he attempted to make.. there are so many Western "innovators" in the artistic field who were "inspired" by Eastern "copycats." Then again, their innovative works were partly influenced by previous artists who were, interestingly enough, Western. Point being, there's no difference in the willingness of one to be innovative, East or West. There are standardized social constraints in any culture but to those with the will to innovate they are irrelevant in making their decision to execute.. results and consequences are a different story. Sorry if this sounded like a rant.. I was just upset by the reality that people with this kind of uneducated views are still abundant. New York City with slanty eyes?? come on

For anyone interested in this topic, I very highly recommend _Carnage and Culture_, by Victor Davis Hanson. A fantastic book that destroys many assertions made in the more popular _Guns, Germs, and Steel_.

That's Fred Reed. He's an oddball.

But consider: Who's the most famous Japanese American? A lot of people here might say, "Guy Kawasaki", but somebody did a poll asking just this question, and the overwhelming response was..."Bruce Lee". A dead Chinese actor.

And I thought the word "wogs" went out with top-hats.

Fred Reed's (the articles author) website: http://www.fredoneverything.net/

Well, first impressions are often the last impressions.

People are the same all over the world. But they are just under different conditions. That is all.

Tell me who's your friends and I'll tell you who you are. How can you be an enterpreneur if all your relatives and friends suppose that stable and reliable job is the only way?

I'm surprise this is for the "September 10, 2007 Issue" The idea that the eastern world does not look favorably upon risk taker might be true 10 years ago, but thing has definitely changed since then.

Just think he shouldn't have used math as an example.