Posted by @Karen_Fu in Uncategorized.
Tags: China, economic strength, future, India, LinkedIn, United States
My public answer:
“I can’t even see the link… anyway I will answer from what your question asks: it is an interesting question if you put the time frame as a span of 10 years. If its 30-50 years, it could have been a different answer. So lets focus on what may be happening in the next 10 years. I think the US will still remain in dominance and lead in various areas of science and technology because it has a very superior foundation that cannot be taken away that easily. Unless there are few things happening: -natural disasters that befall the country that could bleed the nations resources. -further turmoil economically that cannot be salvaged effectively within the next few years; which will send the foreign talent in the US to move out or back to their native land. – social unrest and spike in crime. – unexpected challenges arising from warring states in the middle east or even from the north. – increase in unemployment rate – increase in social breakdown mainly due to economic hardship in a very bad way. Notwithstanding, China and India, if they share the above same problems will face similar predicaments. Despite so, even if they could control the current crisis well and maintain in positive growth, I don’t think they can beat the US within 10 years. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, with constant postive growth, improvement in their infrastructure and education; health and security. I do not know that much about india other than seeing the indians here on business. They are impressive people who can match with the Americans anytime. But the problem with their country is that the benefit from their rapid growth doesn’t spread uniformly throughtout the country. If they stand alone in groups like Mumbai, New Delhi, with other prospering cities, it could have put them up in a better situation. Comparatively, China has a better spread. I recently attend an arts event held by the mainland Chinese. Together with what I have seen so far, they are learning very quick. I don’t even think that English is their stumbling block given their hunger for knowledge. Last years Bejing Oylmpics somewhat showed their determination to come up as a strong nation despite the environmental odds and the negative press review. Considering that, I think China is very determine to make it. India is very well known for finance talent and software talent. A lot of able people at top international financial establishments. Their ability in technology especially in developing inexpensive products is also a force to reckon with. Both cultures are historically very vibrant. If they want to prosper and surpass the states, they must learn to create a sense of order. Especially political and social sense of order so that economically and politiaclly they can set up for greater ambitions. They also lack creativity and imagination when compared the States due to the lack of expressive freedom in thinking. If that grip is lessen, it will be a totally different story.
Posted by @Karen_Fu in research, talent.
Tags: creativity, east india company, human resource, LinkedIn, methods, other areas of intelligence, PhD design list, research, scholars, sustainable living, talent
Some time back I was wondering about human talent and was reading an article in the Straits Times about how scholars are chosen. So I posted on a topic asking LinkedIners what talent is .
Singapore has virtually nothing given but human beings who emmigrated to this used to be a Malay fishing village – an island that was first founded by the British East India Company back in 1819. Since its inception as a British port to today’s diversified economy that includes oil refinery, biotechnology, enbironment technology, finance and others; the country’s sole reliance has been on human talent.
Talent is a fundamental capital not only to prosperity but to survival. But how does one define talent ? Are scholars the only talent ? Who should govern and improve the nation’s / world’s condition ?
They are hard questions to ask and probably require daring souls to answer and implement them.
Talent isn’t confined to just scholars from Ivy leagues who would go on to take on political roles as they are only part of the solution. A creative sociey would have to include people who are talented in other areas. But most societies often overemphasized on academic performance, which mainly focuses on language prowess to deliever knowledge and ideas. Should we focus on this to research and discovery ? One list I am on had discussed on this area (PhD-design at jiscmail) and has discussed on the prime areas of research in other media. However, we must take care that such forms will result in an objective response and not a full egoistical circle where the pure and earnest sharing and passing on of knowledge is eluded.
We have to nose into issues like ROI from these scholars we put our tax money in. Issues like whether they will serve the board of commoners earnestly.