[Cyanohydrin]

(Original post by Gales)
I'm more interested in their 'Energy Strategy 2050', at least they have a clear pathway on how they're going to get their energy, unlike the UK.

I would ask whether this decision by the Danish government is evidence based or perhaps the result of industry lobbying. Was the opinion of the engineering profession taken into consideration? Not long ago, the Danish publication Ingenioren [Engineering] reported that En planlagt, voldsom udbygning med vindkraft i Danmark risikerer at ende som et miljoflop [A planned, massive expansion of wind power in Denmark is likely to end up as an environmental flop.] The same article also noted: Nye vindmoller vil producere strom til ingen verdens nytte [No use for the electricity produced by new windmills], hinting at the difficulties involved with using the output of wind infrastructure efficiently. Denmark may well generate increasing volumes of electricity from the wind; whether this can be used productively and cost effectively remains to be seen. With one of Denmark's former energy ministers describing wind energy as a terribly expensive disaster, it will be interesting to see how Denmark's latest renewables venture proceeds.

Wind power is a deception, since it is an intermittent source. A transition to wind power as a "continual process" from fossil power plants is simply not possible. There is no such thing as "this wind farm powers 500 homes" because when the wind stops blowing, something else has to power the homes. Many days in winter, they produce absolutely no energy. Denmark will continue to import energy from Sweden, Germany and Norway like it does at the moment in 2050, no doubt.

(Original post by AtomSmasher)
Scandinavia. Norway and Sweden are as close to social utopias as we, as a race, have ever achieved (debatably).

Have you ever actually lived in (or even visited) these so called utopias?

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Bubblyminty)
I would say China as their education system is so tough and creates so many bright minds. They are also the richest right now and have a powerful defense. Shame I ccannot say the same about human rights.

And for all those saying places like the USA or UK for education, China comes out top in all the studies.

What are you talking about?

[fellowjoe]

IMO,

Military - USA (considering their achievements in not just their military technology but in their ability to sustain the long war against terrorism as well)

Economy - by this, i don't mean just whether their economies are in deep **** but also how significant their economy has contributed to the world. In this sense, Japan and USA

Socially progressive - Canada, Netherlands, Scandinavia (especially in terms of gay rights, freedom of speech, human rights record, et cetera)

Politically progressive - UK, Scandinavia

Etiquette/Manners - i meant in terms of the most civilised behaviour, thus gotta give this to Japan for the Japanese people's graceful and calm behaviour (just look at how calm and considerate they were when dealing with the tsunami disaster)

Technology - US, Japan, Germany

Environment - in terms of being environmentally-friendly and active, Canada

Education - US (talking about having an all-rounded education system that encourages a good mix of academics and extracurriculars)

[Bubblyminty]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
What are you talking about?

Do you know how much the US owe them? Yes their GDP may be high but is they are not doing that well if they need to take out huge loans. China is currently the "superpower" in the economy although I hope they won't be anytime soon as the politics is too messed up.

And yes they do have the best education (study by PISA).

[de_monies]

(Original post by Time Tourist)
Why are we talking about computers so much?

I'm telling you, wind power doesn't work, kills wildlife - destroys countryside and is making people poorer.

Advancements in wind power will stop all this, just like advancements in computing have led to more efficient devices that are vastly more powerful than the originals. Also, you provide no proof. Atm, they might be inefficient but more research in to it, is likely to get us something that uses stored energy and is more efficient to run, whilst taking up less space

(Original post by Time Tourist)
if something is not fit for purpose, it is not fit for purpose, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Holographic TV's aren't "fit for purpose" but they are constantly being developed on. That's how technology works

(Original post by Time Tourist)
No reason why nuclear power stations can't be built

Ideally, we would prefer something other than nuclear power.

(Original post by Time Tourist)
Or the recently discovered shale gas.

That's not exactly infinite..

[internet tough guy]

Don't think military should count towards this debate about who is the most 'advanced', many countries voluntarily maintain a relatively small military.

[Time Tourist]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
Don't think military should count towards this debate about who is the most 'advanced', many countries voluntarily maintain a relatively small military.

too much tough guy talk!

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Bubblyminty)
Do you know how much the US owe them? Yes their GDP may be high but is they are not doing that well if they need to take out huge loans. China is currently the "superpower" in the economy although I hope they won't be anytime soon as the politics is too messed up.

And yes they do have the best education (study by PISA).

er yes, not enough to make them the richest country in the world. That's ridiculous. In absolute terms China is not the richest, in per-capita terms it's poor. Most people in China live like peasants.

[Time Tourist]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
er yes, not enough to make them the richest country in the world. That's ridiculous. In absolute terms China is not the richest, in per-capita terms it's poor. Most people in China live like peasants.

At the time of the industrial revolution, when Britain dominated large stretches of the world most of the British people lived in appalling conditions.

[Bubblyminty]

The people who live in rural areas and do farm work live like peasants. The ones who own successful businesses and work hard at school live like kings.

[Bubblyminty]

And btw China is ranked 2nd in all the tables in GDP. So how can they possibly be "poor"?

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Bubblyminty)
The people who live in rural areas and do farm work live like peasants. The ones who own successful businesses and work hard at school live like kings.

The people who live like King's in China are a tiny proportion of the population, its per-capita GDP is dismal.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Time Tourist)
At the time of the industrial revolution, when Britain dominated large stretches of the world most of the British people lived in appalling conditions.

Most people everywhere else in the world lived in appalling conditions too, but that does that have to do with this anyway?

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by Time Tourist)
too much tough guy talk!

Like Germany? They get a free army from the United States.

Yeah, when I'm given the question about 'which is the most advancd nation', I think of things which we can all unanimously agree to be beneficial - things like education, technology, health provision, etc. The military doesn't belong in the same sense here, because of how unlikely war is between major countries, once you get to a minimum level of military capability (for example to guard your freight ships from somali pirates), I'm sure most would agree that taxpayer's money would be better spent on other things which would bring about more tangible benefits.

If the U.S were to suddenly withdraw their military suport from Germany, I highly doubt they would start to arming up to match the level of France or Russia.

[style]

(Original post by fellowjoe)
You've got to be kidding right?

No, I'm not. Singapore is right up their with technology, environment and social catagories you have put up. They have one of the best education systems (I don't mean university) in the world along with Hong Kong, Shanghai and Finland and a really healthy population, among the highest life expectancy in the world. Are you serious about Russia and India as options?

[KCosmo]

Why the hell is healthcare not on the list, yet politeness/etiquette is? Wtf!?

[KCosmo]

(Original post by Bubblyminty)
And btw China is ranked 2nd in all the tables in GDP. So how can they possibly be "poor"?

GDP is a valuation of all the money in the country. China has over a billion people, and so their GDP is bound to be high. Their GDP per person however is terrible. Most people in China are still dirt poor.

[Time Tourist]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
Most people everywhere else in the world lived in appalling conditions too, but that does that have to do with this anyway?

according to you it did ?

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Time Tourist)
according to you it did ?

I said if you look at wealth on a per-capita basis, China is poor. If you look at it in absolute (GDP) terms, it's not the richest either.

[fellowjoe]

(Original post by style)
No, I'm not. Singapore is right up their with technology, environment and social catagories you have put up. They have one of the best education systems (I don't mean university) in the world along with Hong Kong, Shanghai and Finland and a really healthy population, among the highest life expectancy in the world. Are you serious about Russia and India as options?

Technology? No, they import it from overseas.

Environment? If you are talking about that green city image, yes BUT its not even among the cleanest nations on earth. You have not considered the cleanliness of its drinking water and air quality.

And just how is it socially progressive when there's no freedom of speech, gay rights and fair trial for convicts to speak of???