how did china build its infrastructure ?

[CardSharp]

Guys,

Are we still on the Chinese infrastructure thread?

Top three reasons for this Chinese achievement that I can think of are:
1. Keep focused on your goals
2. Hard work with dedication
3. "Never get flattered" attitude

To be honest after all this talk, I think China is better at infrastructure because we are just more experienced. We've been doing it for thousands of year. China's emperors built a paved road system comparable to that of Rome, they built a 1000 km North-South grand canal connecting the yellow and the yangtze river, and of course there is the Great wall of China.


We Chinese just like colossal projects, I guess.

 

[Martian2]

China's Global Role | International Rivers

Two Liberian boys holding a picture of Chinese president Hu Jintao (Christopher Herwig)

"China is the country with the highest numbers of dams in the world, and in recent years, Chinese institutions have taken a lead in building dams not just domestically but also abroad. Chinese banks and companies are involved in constructing some 266 dams in 65 different countries, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, including Kamchay Dam (Cambodia), Mphanda Nkuwa Dam (Mozambique), Merowe Dam (Sudan), and Tasang Dam (Burma). (For more information on these projects, see our case studies.)"

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (L) shakes hands with Cambodian Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen during a token groundbreaking ceremony of Kamchay hydroelectric dam project in Phnom Penh, capital of Cambodia, on April 8, 2006. [Xinhua Photo]

Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.

"China's dam builders clean up overseas
By Peter Bosshard
May 12, 2010
...
Low costs, access to cheap loans and a big portfolio of domestic projects make them attractive partners for clients around the world. We are aware of at least 216 dam projects in 49 countries which have some form of Chinese involvement - and counting. Chinese companies are currently building 19 of the world’s 24 largest hydropower stations. The president of Sinohydro recently estimated that his company controls half of the global hydropower market.

The primary interest of Chinese dam builders in their new "going out" strategy is to win international contracts, which typically have much bigger profit margins than projects in China. Companies such as China Southern Power Grid and Yunnan Joint Power Development Co are also building projects in Myanmar and Laos to supply electricity to the Chinese home market."

http://www.internationalrivers.org/china/chinas-global-role/sinohydro-corporation

Sinohydro builds the Kamchay Dam in Cambodia, 2008 (Marcus Rhinelander)

"China's Leading Hydropower Dam Company

Sinohydro Corporation is China's leading dam builder, having built 70% of China's hydropower capacity. Sinohydro is involved in constructing many...big dams within China, such as China’s Three Gorges Project, Xiluodu and Xiangjiaba on the upper Yangtze River (aka Jinsha River), the Xiaowan dam on the upper Mekong River, the Jinping dam on the Yalong River, and the Laxiwa Dam on the upper Yellow River.

Now, Sinohydro is "going out," building dozens of big dams overseas....Sinohydro's overseas projects include the Merowe Dam in Sudan...and the Bakun Dam.... Sinohydro is also building the Bui Dam in Ghana, and several projects in Laos and Burma, as well as a growing roster of projects in South Asia.

Sinohydro's reach is expanding. The company will likely be a major player in plans to dam the Mekong River in Southeast Asia and the Gibe IV dam on the Omo River in Ethiopia. Sinohydro may seek to build the world's largest hydropower project - the Grand Inga Dam in Congo. In total, Sinohydro is building, plans to build, or has built some 105 dam projects in 47 countries outside of China (as of August 31, 2010; see Sinohydro Projects list)."

 

[Developereo]

Yet More on the Heritability and Malleability of IQ

Scroll to the end for the conclusion if you prefer to read about that instead of the calculations.

1.The most common formulae used to estimate heritability are wrong, either for trivial mathematical reasons (such as the upward bias in the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins' correlations), or for substantive ones (the covariance of monozygotic twins raised apart neglects shared environments other than the family, such as maternal and community effects).
2.The best estimate I can find puts the narrow heritability of IQ at around 0.34 and the broad heritability at 0.48.
3.Even this estimate neglected heteroskedasticity, gene-environment interactions, gene-environment covariance, the existence of shared environment beyond the family, and the possibility that the samples being used are not representative of the broader population.
4.Now that people are finally beginning to model gene-environment interactions, even in very crude ways, they find it matters a lot. Recall that Turkheimer et al. found a heritability which rose monotonically with socioeconomic status, starting around zero at low status and going up to around 0.8 at high status. Even this is probably an over-estimate, since it neglected maternal effects and other shared non-familial environment, correlations between variance components, etc. Under such circumstances, talking about "the" heritability of IQ is nonsense. Actual geneticists have been saying as much since Dobzhansky at least.
5.Applying the usual heritability estimators to traits which are shaped at least in part by cultural transmission, a.k.a. traditions, is very apt to confuse tradition with genetics. The usual twin studies do not solve this problem. Studies which could don't seem to have been done.
6.Heritability is completely irrelevant to malleability or plasticity; every possible combination of high and low heritability, and high and low malleability, is not only logically possible but also observed.
7.Randomized experiments, natural experiments and the Flynn Effect all show what competent regressions also suggest, namely that IQ is, indeed, responsive to purely environmental interventions.

Sigh.
I already explained the logical fallacy in your argument in this post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...-build-its-infrastructure-11.html#post1280988

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in your post proves that genetics is the determining factor in intelligence. In fact, the bold part actually disproves your hypothesis. Here's how: richer parents are able to guarantee a similar environment for their offspring so their IQ is likely to mirror that of the parents, i.e. high correlation. Poorer parents cannot provide the same guarantees -- their kids could end up much worse, or substantially better than the parents, so there is less correlation between the parents' and the children's IQ. The fact that the correlation goes even remotely close to zero proves that genetics is not a significant factor.

To put it another way, if genetics was the major determinant and environment was insignificant. then the correlation would be high regardless of the parents' socioeconomic status. The study shows the exact opposite results, disproving your hypothesis.

 

[Developereo]

You refuse to read my posts, don't you?

This is really a pointless debate.

I am saying that Asian accomplishments are because of culture and hard work. You are downplaying the importance and saying it's all because of genetics.

Fine. Whatever!

 

[below_freezing]

Sigh.
I already explained the logical fallacy in your argument in this post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...-build-its-infrastructure-11.html#post1280988

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in your post proves that genetics is the determining factor in intelligence. In fact, the bold part actually disproves your hypothesis. Here's how: richer parents are able to guarantee a similar environment for their offspring so their IQ is likely to mirror that of the parents, i.e. high correlation. Poorer parents cannot provide the same guarantees -- their kids could end up much worse, or substantially better than the parents, so there is less correlation between the parents' and the children's IQ. The fact that the correlation goes even remotely close to zero proves that genetics is not a significant factor.

To put it another way, if genetics was the major determinant and environment was insignificant. then the correlation would be high regardless of the parents' socioeconomic status. The study shows the exact opposite results, disproving your hypothesis.

I did not claim anything. I was merely posting a link to a study and showing its conclusions. I have also not agreed with Speeder. Address your comments to him, I'm not involved.

 

[Speeder 2]

I haven’t been off the topic for a bit.

To finally sum up my analysis:

(All statements I made on the IQ issue are on the basis of “on average”, “ in general” and “collectively”, thus it has nothing to do with you and I as an individual.

Even though IQ test is not perfect and yet to be improved, it is generally regarded as the single best tool we human have developed so far to measure the general intelligence of people with statistical validity)


Since collective general intelligence of any living organism group in nature constructs the bulk of the explanation of its collective behaviour patterns as we all know;

If 1: IQ measures general intelligence; and

If 2: the lion share of general intelligence ( as high as 0.8 as per stats) comes from inheritability;

then 1: different species & racial groups of primates such as humans have different levels of inherited general intelligence; and

then 2: this inherited general intelligence explains the lion share of their collective behaviours and traits (such as related culture & culture traits: hard work, diligence, humbleness, etc. etc. , and hence the collective behaviours like Chinese infrastructure build-up for the past decades as per the thread), using simple logical deduction.



You people can ignore my above logic and stick to the belief that the Chinese must have been collectively eating Super Rice or sth. in order to pull that infrastructure out, but I suggest you listen very carefully to the following fellow if you choose to be intellectually honest, because worldwide scientific communities listen to him due to the fact that the majority of we human civilisation's knowledge and understanding of Molecular Biology of entire 20th century came from his research and work alone.

His name is D. Sc. James D. Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA structure, a Nobel Laureate in Physiology & Medicine, the ex-Director of Human Genome Project in USA, with personal achievement Awards & Decorations covering all major ones in the related fields around the world.


Dr. Watson’s remark in relation to our topic:

---- “ ( I am ) inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa, … because all our social policies are based on "the fact" that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address… My hope is that everyone is equal, but people who have to deal with black employees find this not true… (but) you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level.”

( Dr. Watson, at advanced age, was forced to resign from all his beloved scientific lworks due to this remark , faced with insanely fierce and personal attacks by worldwide PC media led by libtard brigades of New York Times and Washington Post several year ago)

To show my due respect to Dr. Watson, I'll finish by quoting what I think of his most insightful remark regarding the issue we have in this thread :

---- “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

END OFF.

 

[Abhishek_]

Don't worry about his opinion. Chinese people are by no means racial supremacists and there is a clear and documented bias/preference FOR mixed blood children. People think they are exotic and prettier. (look at the popularity of the of the Taiwanese half-Chinese popstars)

Thanks for that CS.
Actually I was merely getting bored at work so I thought to get some entertainment out of him

 

[below_freezing]

Yes, if you followed the thread you'd note that most of us have been quite cool and calm about the IQ things. Watson should stick to X-ray crystallography, and not talk about social issues.

 

[Abhishek_]

Yes, if you followed the thread you'd note that most of us have been quite cool and calm about the IQ things. Watson should stick to X-ray crystallography, and not talk about social issues.

no worries freeze, I don't take internet forums that seriously (you probably know that about me by now)
Speeder's posts are very amusing to read

 

[CardSharp]

Yes, if you followed the thread you'd note that most of us have been quite cool and calm about the IQ things. Watson should stick to X-ray crystallography, and not talk about social issues.

Watson's been known in the scientific circle for putting his foot in his mouth. Not just about race but plenty of other things as well.

 

[no_name]

He's a good scientist, but sometimes he talks without thinking through the consequences first.

Rosalind Franklin is known to hates him.

Another famous eugenics advocator (and donor to the nobel sperm bank, lol) is William Shockley, co-inventor of the modern transistor.

 

[GodlessBastard]

To be honest after all this talk, I think China is better at infrastructure because we are just more experienced. We've been doing it for thousands of year. China's emperors built a paved road system comparable to that of Rome, they built a 1000 km North-South grand canal connecting the yellow and the yangtze river, and of course there is the Great wall of China.


We Chinese just like colossal projects, I guess.

That doesn't make sense considering India also has thousands of years of experience in infrastructure construction and large-scale construction. For example the Grand Trunk Road, which was built by Chandgragupta Maurya in the 4th century B.C.

 

[CardSharp]

That doesn't make sense considering India also has thousands of years of experience in infrastructure construction and large-scale construction. For example the Grand Trunk Road, which was built by Chandgragupta Maurya in the 4th century B.C.

I'm sure India had it's share of monumental buildings and projects (Taj Mahal can definitely be considered as such) but it was probably never a continuous thing whereas in China, this practice was continued right up to the Qing (forbidden city, summer palace) then continued by the communists under Mao. Mao mobilizes millions and millions in his grand experiment, the great leap forward, it ended in disaster because he didn't understand economics or modern production but still it was building and mobilization on a huge huge scale.

 

[no_name]

Taj Mahal is a beautiful building. It's almost fit to be a palace.

Monuments like these serve to remind us not to underestimate India irrespective of their current situation.

 

[GodlessBastard]

I'm sure India had it's share of monumental buildings and projects (Taj Mahal can definitely be considered as such) but it was probably never a continuous thing whereas in China, this practice was continued right up to the Qing (forbidden city, summer palace) then continued by the communists under Mao. Mao mobilizes millions and millions in his grand experiment, the great leap forward, it ended in disaster because he didn't understand economics or modern production but still it was building and mobilization on a huge huge scale.

Large-scale Indian construction took place almost continuously from the Mauryas in 300 B.C. to the Mughals in 1700 C.E. by various Indian kingdoms and republics.

The present-day Indian incompetence in infrastructure developement has nothing to do with a lack of historical precedent.