The connection between movement and the brain has recently been scientifically established . A good breakdown can be found in the book "Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain Paperback – January 1, 2013
by John J. Ratey"
Basically movement, especially aerobic (walk, run, etc.) but also complex movement (sports, music playing , martial arts) as explained in the book
1 causes neurogenesis (release of brain stem cells )
2 increases the size of your hippocampus and and improves memory
3 creates new brain circuits for the movement but these circuits are able to be recruited by different tasks
4 increases the production and balance of neurotransmitters and other hormones
5 increases and regulates executive function
And a lot more complex processes in the brain. This occurs immediately but increases with more exercise . It's interesting stuff and ratey explains well.
Thanks for this info. It will be interesting to read about how new brain circuits are created with movement.
I originally suspected walking has more to do with psychology, specifically paradoxic intention, than it does with physiology. That being easily distracted allows your mind to drift, whereas aiming to solve a problem keeps your mind stuck in the same unfruitful paths of thought. It's great that there is some science behind it.
I have not studied economics but I have casually heard that larger populations are important for developing countries to build larger economies/GDP and the political power necessary for growth before these countries become efficient enough to rely on other methods for growth and wealth. What does this mean for poorer countries who might be under pressure to reduce their population/births? There seems to be a correlation between population and GDP and also population and GDP/capita.
A country does not develop simply because it has a lot of people. It develops when those people acquire skills and contribute to the economy. India and China have almost similar populations now, but look at China's GDP and India's GDP [0]. Why the massive difference? Of course there are many many reasons for it, but China has succeeded in eliminating illiteracy, hunger etc of its people and trained a large number of engineers and is using them.
The US was booming as one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world in the 19th century. Why?
It had tremendous untapped natural resources, a wealth of coal and oil (it was the worlds leading exporter of oil until the late 1940s), and the social structures to allow mobilization of those resources.
Population isn't enough, and can be a curse. Europe saw a tremendous economic boom following the Black Death, largely because financial and real capital was concentrated in fewer hands, and populations were reduced below carrying capacity.
Education isn't enough. Drop a highly educated individual into the heart of Africa or slums of India, and they may do well compared to the locals, but it'll be a small fraction of what they'd be able to accomplish in the US or Europe, or by being wealthy and in India.
The role of resources, particularly agriculture and energy, in economic growth, are highly discounted by contemporary economists.
Hell, you can even get an expert on poverty and a Nobel prize winner on stage saying with an absolutely straight face that economists cannot explain growth:
> Population isn't enough, and can be a curse. Europe saw
> a tremendous economic boom following the Black Death,
> largely because financial and real capital was concentrated
> in fewer hands, and populations were reduced below
> carrying capacity.
I won't dispute that there was both a population decline and an economic boom following the Black Death, but do you have anything to back up the assertion of causality? Could the boom not be more parsimoniously explained by the inflow of wealth from the New World? Indeed, perhaps the Black Death dampened this boom and ultimately delayed the industrial revolution.
As I recall, James Burke's Connections discusses this tangentially at least once (several times as I recall -- it somewhat traipses back and forth across history a bit).
Columbus didn't even get to America until about 140 years after the Black Death. It took much longer than that for it to have a substantial influence on European revenues.
"This paradox between our affluence as consumers and our precariousness as workers poses economic, political, and moral conundrums. If we can produce more with less, and workers become redundant, who will buy the goods? A robot can make a mobile phone but it cannot purchase one. Workers are also consumers. Fire your workers, your profits will rise until the day no one can afford to buy your product. Henry Ford was a visionary for paying his workers enough so they could buy his cars."
I think he was referring to the negative effects of technology such as global warming, pollution from fertilizers, chemicals and plastics, poor farm conditions, tainted food supplies, weapons, citizen spy technology, etc.
That was beside the point though because your point is still valid that the "good" technology, which is hopefully the point of most technology, should not be held back for such superficial reasons. As someone smart once said, why should we build single man operated bulldozers when we can hire 10,000 men with spoons to do the digging?
This article is basically the conclusion of the book the millionaire next door. The authors comb through statistics of the rich and interviews with wealthy people.
Building a business is probably the best way to make a large lump sum of money. Unfortunately the business is more likely than not to fail before bearing fruit and even after successfully running the business for large profits over time competition, laws, and factors out of your control usually kill the business. Due to the inherent risks and stress involved the book states that most successful people would not advise their children to start businesses but to get professional degrees, especially the kind that can work for themselves or consult such as law, medicine and accounting. Not so much the non-professional jobs such as business management.
I wonder what it tastes like. I love the taste of lamb but cannot stand the taste (and smell!) of goat meat even though it's a delicacy where I'm from.
I'm not Chinese and I'm not American. I have seen countless Tencent WeChat ads while watching tv and especially during Champions League football. I have never seen a Facebook ad on tv.
5. No. You just need time and persistence. Unless you want to build the next Google/Microsoft. Then yes it is hard.
6. This is because they are not interested in building web based software and are not taught to build web based software. IT/CS is not about building web based software. Just as Mechanical Engineering is not about building cars.
Basically movement, especially aerobic (walk, run, etc.) but also complex movement (sports, music playing , martial arts) as explained in the book
1 causes neurogenesis (release of brain stem cells ) 2 increases the size of your hippocampus and and improves memory 3 creates new brain circuits for the movement but these circuits are able to be recruited by different tasks 4 increases the production and balance of neurotransmitters and other hormones 5 increases and regulates executive function And a lot more complex processes in the brain. This occurs immediately but increases with more exercise . It's interesting stuff and ratey explains well.