He was just a little too enthusiastic when he was saying "gay bacon strips" for my tastes . . . also, you are recommending a "character" portrayed by Jonathan Goldsmith, thus ineligible.
I think being able to actually feed the "modern world" is a pretty important thing, don't you? W/o Borlaug, we would not be able to feed our planet.
Well, my feeling is that, like all scientific discoveries, if Borlaug didn't do what he did someone else would have as the research was being conducted regardless. If Pasteur doesn't make his discoveries in microbiology, do you think we still wouldn't know about germs?
Khan's accomplishments, mainly the cross-pollination of trade and culture, lead to the European Renaissance, and subsequently the Age of Discovery and the rash of scientific breakthroughs. Could another person have accomplished what Khan did? I don't think so.
So, I'd argue that without Khan, science, and hence Borlaug, is hundreds of years behind its current development.
Well, my feeling is that, like all scientific discoveries, if Borlaug didn't do what he did someone else would have as the research was being conducted regardless. If Pasteur doesn't make his discoveries in microbiology, do you think we still wouldn't know about germs?
Khan's accomplishments, mainly the cross-pollination of trade and culture, lead to the European Renaissance, and subsequently the Age of Discovery and the rash of scientific breakthroughs. Could another person have accomplished what Khan did? I don't think so.
So, I'd argue that without Khan, science, and hence Borlaug, is hundreds of years behind its current development.
But, the logical extension of your argument would be that, if not Khan, then someone else, and we would get into an argument that would very soon deteriorate into reductio ad absurdum. So, no, I do ot except your line of reasoning. Borlaug rejected an appointment to another field specifically to enable him to start the research that led to his discoveries. He knew that something needed to be done to advance the science, and then went ahead and did it. You could make an argument that many of the ancillary benefits of Ghenghis Khan's rule should more appropriately be attributed to his successors, as they were the ones who actually carried out these achievements, sometimes long after his death. Any one of them could sent this "legacy" in a different direction at their own whim. That is not something to credit a long dead ancestor for.
I disagree. If not Khan then no one would have had the vision and strength of character to do what he did. His ideas about tolerance and respect for other cultures were way ahead of his time.
Whereas any schmuck with the smarts and education can be a scientist in the 20th century. It takes no real character.
Whereas any schmuck with the smarts and education can be a scientist in the 20th century. It takes no real character.
But , what does take character, is forging ahead with your ideas in the face of obstacles put in front of you by your superiors, even at risk of your career and standing. To forge ahead in areas where the "traditional wisdom" has been rooted for decades, if not centuries is also evidence of a character made of sterner stuff. And lastly, to do all this in a field of endeavour that one might charitably describe as unglamourous, is also evidence of that character
To be frank, many of Genghis Khan's ideas about leaving indigenous cultures be were probably based more on the sound military strategy of not antagonizing the locals, thereby avoiding any issues with lengthy supply lines, then they were about tolerance for other cultures.
To be frank, many of Genghis Khan's ideas about leaving indigenous cultures be were probably based more on the sound military strategy of not antagonizing the locals, thereby avoiding any issues with lengthy supply lines, then they were about tolerance for other cultures.
No, that would be wrong if you thought that. Supply lines? Really? Read the book I linked to if you want the expert opinion.
Sorry, Borlaug wins ainec . . .
Some guy nobody's heard of before this thread is the greatest person ever and it's not even close? Ok, if you say so.
Notoriety does not always equate to greatness, and having read a book does not make you right. Until three years ago I had never heard of Borlaug, either. It is not just me chatting up Borlaug's contributions . . .
That was because we were at the Rogers Centre, the only appropriate venue for a match of this magnitude. Rev. Billy was counted out after waiting almost n hour to start the match . . .
Winner . . . and STILL the world's greatest human . . . Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.
That was because we were at the Rogers Centre, the only appropriate venue for a match of this magnitude. Rev. Billy was counted out after waiting almost n hour to start the match . . .
Winner . . . and STILL the world's greatest human . . . Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.
Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers.
The day after He had miraculously fed five thousand men, the Jews sought Him eagerly, but their motives were all wrong. They only cared about physical needs. Jesus tells them that He came down from heaven to give eternal life, and that they could have this life by believing in Him. “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).
Notoriety does not always equate to greatness, and having read a book does not make you right.
You're obviously the kind of person who always has to get the last word in, so I'll just say this: I never said I was right. You are the one disparaging everyone else's picks and saying "my guy wins" in every reply.
Comments
It's ok, I'm sure Comp won't mind. Just make sure you use the photo from his good side
Both sides of his pillow are cool. That's enough for me.
The Most Interesting Man in the World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Runner Up:
Harley Morenstein
bacon
candy
Canadian
FTW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1_04GLrPs
Love the KitKat fries, though . . .
Johnathan Goldsmith is pretty damn cool though.
Well, my feeling is that, like all scientific discoveries, if Borlaug didn't do what he did someone else would have as the research was being conducted regardless. If Pasteur doesn't make his discoveries in microbiology, do you think we still wouldn't know about germs?
Khan's accomplishments, mainly the cross-pollination of trade and culture, lead to the European Renaissance, and subsequently the Age of Discovery and the rash of scientific breakthroughs. Could another person have accomplished what Khan did? I don't think so.
So, I'd argue that without Khan, science, and hence Borlaug, is hundreds of years behind its current development.
But, the logical extension of your argument would be that, if not Khan, then someone else, and we would get into an argument that would very soon deteriorate into reductio ad absurdum. So, no, I do ot except your line of reasoning. Borlaug rejected an appointment to another field specifically to enable him to start the research that led to his discoveries. He knew that something needed to be done to advance the science, and then went ahead and did it. You could make an argument that many of the ancillary benefits of Ghenghis Khan's rule should more appropriately be attributed to his successors, as they were the ones who actually carried out these achievements, sometimes long after his death. Any one of them could sent this "legacy" in a different direction at their own whim. That is not something to credit a long dead ancestor for.
Whereas any schmuck with the smarts and education can be a scientist in the 20th century. It takes no real character.
But , what does take character, is forging ahead with your ideas in the face of obstacles put in front of you by your superiors, even at risk of your career and standing. To forge ahead in areas where the "traditional wisdom" has been rooted for decades, if not centuries is also evidence of a character made of sterner stuff. And lastly, to do all this in a field of endeavour that one might charitably describe as unglamourous, is also evidence of that character
To be frank, many of Genghis Khan's ideas about leaving indigenous cultures be were probably based more on the sound military strategy of not antagonizing the locals, thereby avoiding any issues with lengthy supply lines, then they were about tolerance for other cultures.
Sorry, Borlaug wins ainec . . .
No, that would be wrong if you thought that. Supply lines? Really? Read the book I linked to if you want the expert opinion.
Some guy nobody's heard of before this thread is the greatest person ever and it's not even close? Ok, if you say so.
Billions Served: Norman Borlaug interviewed by Ronald Bailey - Reason Magazine
It's not a book, but read it anyway . . .
Billy and I went to the Gardens but your guy was a no show for the match!
Prophet22
Winner . . . and STILL the world's greatest human . . . Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.
DIG IT !!!
your guy is DEAD thatwhy the no show!
HOMEPAGE | DOCTRINE The Bread of Life
The Bread of Life
Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers.
The day after He had miraculously fed five thousand men, the Jews sought Him eagerly, but their motives were all wrong. They only cared about physical needs. Jesus tells them that He came down from heaven to give eternal life, and that they could have this life by believing in Him. “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).
You decide
You're obviously the kind of person who always has to get the last word in, so I'll just say this: I never said I was right. You are the one disparaging everyone else's picks and saying "my guy wins" in every reply.