TEc debate motion "The language we speak shapes how we think" - It exercises influence but does not bound up thought.

What an exciting debate this is that I rush to comment wishing I could vote for both sides of the argument.

Thought and thought processes are triggered in multiple ways by any number of inputs.
While languages certainly make a great difference on the outwardly expression of thought I am not so sure that thought has been framed by language, mother-tongue I assume, upstream.
There is bound to be an interplay between the two which makes people meaning basically the same thing say it differently in different languages according to usage types and expressions of their particular culture.
That said I am led to believe that this is not a straight clear-cut motion statement defined by yes or no.
I just had to drop these lines even before reading what the guests and the moderator are saying.
But I'm afraid I will have to come back later.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As the debate moved on it has only become harder for me to make up my mind. Not being into philology puts me at a disadvantage with those who may easily grasp the influence of languages on thought.

But what does emphatically come first: thought or language?
Or both simultaneously, or is there any precedence at all?

I remain as hesitant as ever for there is doubtless an interplay more acutely verified in some languages relative to others.
English is a good case in point.The very language we are using writing in on this debate.
English is a particularly versatile and practical language that delivers in short sentences - written and spoken, briefly and to the point.
In my native Portuguese it generally takes many more words to produce the same content.
That, however, does not alter my thinking the least bit.


Whatever my abstract thinking on a given subject matter will then be released in the required language.
The form, the style, the fluency will be determined by command of the language rather than any alteration to the essential thought.
While some languages do make it easier to sum things up and may indeed shape the way we think practical, I cannot accept that they are the main driver.
Do the Japanese and the Chinese with their painfully exquisite plentiful characters and sounds think entirely different from us in a Western mindset speaking Western languages?
To some extent yes but would that be enough to concede that thought is shaped by language?
I have thrown up a few questions here but at the end of this linguistic journey I am now more confident to disagree with the house motion.
Even if I may partially agree, and I do, on language influencing thought it does not go as far as considering that the latter is actually formatted by the former.

TEc - "Save the date" - Predicting China's rise to unseat the USA. Is it no longer an if?

The economy is not an exact science, leaving ample space for variation.

Going by economic history for the past 2 decades, more so the last one, the trends for China and the US are very nearly cast in stone.(?)
The multiple reasons for growth and growth potential in either country too.
The logic of full-blown American invented capitalism - free capital flows, free markets, free trade, free banking and finance - all now favour China not the US.

If, however, an unforeseen event or circumstance crops up that alters current assumptions then those trends can head off in a different direction.
Right now that seems unlikely though.


Japan, the previous runner-up failed badly to fulfil predictions made earlier on in the 80's.
Why?
It is not difficult to find sensible answers.


China, however, even if it were not racing along at breakneck speed is an altogether different story.
Need I only mention the country's size, demography, iron-fist rule, still untapped potential and apparent collective focus?
For "The Economist" it is no longer a question of 'if' but 'when'.

TEc - "Pushing back" - India and China have scars from 1962 but are bound to get along.

No matter how big their disagreement and suspicion resulting from past wars India and China have come a long way.Ultimately they are bound to get on with each other from current levels of mutual interaction.

Neighbours tend to hold grudges of multiple sorts, there being many examples around the world.
What India and China share in common is their demography - with significantly divergent dynamics - fast economic growth, millennia-old cultures and a legitimate ambition to ever greater world prominence.
More than enough to keep both countries focused, showing respect for each other's sovereignty and deepening their relationship across the board.
Save a few more common points they are relevantly different multifold from political set-up down to the chores of daily living and activity.
Yet, both remain essentially interested in getting up to ever higher levels of material development.
An aspirational desire as much as a dire requirement for all the needs still vastly pervasive given the low starting points of not many years ago.


India and China face daunting internal challenges and any number of priorities to busy themselves with in the foreseeable future.There is hardly a gain to be had in stoking mistrust between the two from unresolved issues left by history.Both peoples would profit nothing from raised border tensions and would certainly stand to lose a fair deal.

TEc - "No safe harbour" Australia's uneasiness with boat would-be immigrants

Unless Australia changes the way it views these would-be-immigrants I'm afraid there is no solution for them.

It being mainly a humanitarian issue with wider social, economic and political implications, Australia remains woefully uneasy about how best to handle it without losing face(?) or its own straight self-image(?).
Or jeopardize a hot theme for its internal politics that has long nurtured negatively the overblown idea of a country swamped by boat people arriving from populous countries to the north.
Doubtless I deem it as a difficult question particularly if these people are not being smuggled - in the darkest sense - but only making a genuine desperate dash to improve their living conditions.
Getting a second chance, perhaps a first to many - that which brought so many now full-fledged Australians to Australia after all.

Immigration should be a controlled process as pursued by the Australian State. An objective made easier to achieve given the mainland's island condition albeit with a huge coastline.
Perhaps the Australian State owes it to those who perished against the rocks of Christmas Island a review of the country's current policy.
Perhaps even going as far as opening a little window to them.
Despite the challenges posed by such a bold move.


These people were brave enough to knowingly undertake a perilous trip.Most did not make it to live to Christmas 2010, relevant to them or not.
Their ordeal is over.
Australia, however, will likely remain at odds with boat people.

TEc - "The best or the rest" British teenage students are falling behind many from other countries according to the Programme for International Student Assessment-2009 tests.

I cannot assess the criteria used in selecting schools and pupils to undergo the PISA tests.

Assuming that groundwork is made to produce representative and comparable samples is the starting point to the credibility of the entire exercise.


However, I am in no doubt that final rankings do provide an insight into the general standards of a country's educational system that allows for a fairly meaningful comparative analysis.
General perceptions are broadly confirmed for each country standing alone.
Their performance relative to others also seem to match.


Overall the PISA tests are a gauge to the delivery of an educational system.
If the same schools are tested in 3 years' time producing markedly improved results then it follows, cheerfully, something positive has happened.
The reverse is also true only far more worrying.

TEc asks "Has the International Criminal Court outlived its usefulness?" - I think not.

I would need to know a great deal more about the ICC's work and output to make an informed comment.

Save that key weakness I must say, nonetheless, that the world does require one such institution permanently.
Those of us who believe in the rule of law and on justice being served on Earth cannot but approve the efforts of an International Court despite every shortcoming it is charged with.
Leaders anywhere who act as if they are virtually immune to prosecution everywhere - after commiting the foulest crimes against humanity - should be aware that their hour of reckoning might only be a flight away after all.

I would leave the budgeting and other equally relevant issues to the experts to bring under control on balanced terms.

TEc - "Friends, or else" China's rise and wider implications

Why does China now command so much attention that the Western press seems transfixed by it?The question is deliberately rhetorical.Many answers could be readily provided though - and they would be right in all likelihood.China's fast rise across the board has caught much of the world by surprise.Yet it should be mainly welcomed as a normal occurrence that the world's most inhabited country is (again) acquiring greater prominence.The US through its President and Administration of the day will have to find clever ways of accommodating China while diplomatically seeking to exercise influence in favour of democratic freedoms and respect for individual human rights.
I do believe that increased social and material development will inevitably lead to greater demands from within by the Chinese themselves. These demands will have to be met when a critical tipping point is reached.The communist party will then no longer resist maintaining its self-notion of a closed-tightly-controlled society indefinitely.Just as the demise of the Soviet Union was never predicted until it riped and started unravelling so too will China's moment of openness eventually arrive.
The United States and the European Union have a lot of home work to do which is to repair, redress and rebuild their faltering financial, economic and production systems.It calls for a new approach that on many counts should take these countries back to basics and fundamentals.
The US can hardly stall China's rise nor would that be acceptable ever.
What it needs to do is to focus on the causes of its relative underperformance multifold.If China, South Korea, Hong Kong and Asian countries in general are on top in school achievement then Education surely requires much greater focus from the nation and its institutions.

The world is on the move and China is making sure it is one of the drivers.