Podcasts about David Edgerton

It's often said we know more about the surface of the Moon than we do about the Earth's deep sea, and a new study is backing that up. Research from the Ocean Discovery League says just 0.001% of the world's deep seafloor has ever been seen by humans.We speak to lead author and deep sea explorer Dr Katy Croff Bell and marine biologist Dr Anna Gebruk from the University of Edinburgh, to ask whether we should be making more effort to investigate our oceans.As events take place to mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, presenter Victoria Gill also speaks to Professor David Edgerton from King's College London to discuss what impact the Second World War had on scientific research and innovation.We're also joined by Penny Sarchet, managing editor at New Scientist, to look through some of the top science stories you might have missed this week. And as David Attenborough celebrates his 99th birthday with the release of his latest film Ocean, we take a trip through the archives to hear some of his finest moments from more than 70 years of broadcasting.Presenter: Victoria Gill Producers: Clare Salisbury, Dan Welsh, Jonathan Blackwell Editor: Martin Smith Production Co-ordinator: Jana Bennett-Holesworth

We can't make this make sense.The world's most famous face of renewable solutions spent a record-breaking amount to get Big Oil's candidate into the White House. The ruling communist party of China is backed by Chinese billionaires. Political pundits are whipping up war fever without reason. The international rule book is merely scattered pages in the wind. And, in the midst of it, the Left is struggling to produce a coherent and collective analysis.David Edgerton, historian and author of The Rise and Fall of the British Nation, joins me to explain how we are in a unique period of history, pointing to changing geopolitical relations, emboldened authoritarians, oligarchic capitalists and flailing climate policy as evidence. We discuss the contradictions which make this world so hard to navigate, and probe the failures of Leftist discourse to make sense of the mess. This broad conversation covers war, productivity, dematerialisation, power and information — explaining why it's so hard to keep up with a rapidly changing world.Planet: Critical is 100% independent and community-powered. If you value it, and have the means, become a paid subscriber today. Get full access to Planet: Critical at www.planetcritical.com/subscribe

Half a year ago, the Labour Party swept into power with a huge parliamentary majority and Kier Starmer celebrated by saying that the country could “get its future back”.  Today, Labour are dogged by low approval ratings, having upset everyone from environmentalists to pensioners, farmers to small-business owners.  And just last week Reform overtook both the Conservatives and Labour in a poll of voting intentions - suggesting the public are already looking for an alternative. So, why has the public seemingly turned on the Labour Party? Should they be threatened by the rise of Reform? And how can the progressive movement push this government to create the world we want?  Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined by Grace Blakeley, economics commentator and author of Vulture Capitalism: Corporate Crimes, Backdoor Bailouts and the Death of Freedom, and David Edgerton, historian and author of The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: a Twentieth Century History. Music by A.A Aalto (available: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/A_A_Aalto/Bright_Corners/Corps_Of_Discovery/), used under Creative Commons licence: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Produced by Katrina Gaffney and Margaret Welsh. The New Economics Podcast is brought to you by the New Economics Foundation. Find out more about becoming a NEF supporter at: neweconomics.org/donate/build-a-better-future New Economics Foundation is a registered charity in England and Wales. Charity No. 1055254

This series was originally broadcast in 2020.Science and politics are not easy bedfellows - "Stick to the science" is a three part series which aims to find out why.In this episode we delve into the past, and uncover the complicated relationship between science, politics and power. Along the way, we come up against some pretty big questions: what is science? Should science be apolitical? And where does Nature fit in?This episode was produced by Nick Petrić Howe, with editing from Noah Baker and Benjamin Thompson. it featured contributions from many researchers, including: Shobita Parthasarathy, Alice Bell, Dan Sarewitz, Anna Jay, Melinda Baldwin, Magdelena Skipper, Steven Shapin, David Edgerton, Deborah Blum, Bruce Lewenstein and Chiara Ambrosio. Quotes from social media were read by: Shamini Bundell, Flora Graham, Dan Fox, Edie Edmundson and Bredan Maher. And excerpts from Nature were read by Jen Musgreave.Further ReadingHistory of Education in the UKNature's HistoryNature's Mission statementNature editorial on covering politicsMaking “Nature”, by Melinda BaldwinNever Pure: Historical Studies of Science as if It Was Produced by People with Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority, by Steven ShapinDavid Edgerton's writing on the history of science and politics in the GuardianThe received wisdom podcast with Shobita Parthasarathy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is again an exceptional conversation. For a long time, I looked forward to speaking with Prof. David Edgerton. He is currently a Fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin and Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology at King's College London.  He is a noted historian of the United Kingdom as well as historian of technology and science. In the latter field he is best known for the book “Shock of the Old” which has been translated into many languages.  He is also known in the UK for his commentaries on political and historical matters in the press.  He is also a Fellow of the British Academy. I read this book some years ago, and it left quite an impression on me. We talk about technology, or rather, why the word should not be used, about progress and stagnation; what role technology plays in societal change, if we really live in an age with an unseen pace of innovation, and much more. We start with the question of how the book title “Shock of the Old” came about. What does the term “technology” mean, how does it relate to other terms like “technium” or the German terms “Technologie” and “Technik”, and why is it a problematic term?  “Technology is a very problematic concept, and if I would write the book again, I would not use the term. […] Technology is a concept that macerates the brain as it conflates multiple concepts.” What is creole technology? Did we experience 50 years of unseen progress, or rather stagnation? How can we understand the reference of David Deutsch comparing the Solvay Conference 100 years ago with the current state of physics? Are we rather experiencing what Peter Kruse compares to a crab basket: “There's always a lot of momentum in a crab basket, but on closer inspection, you realise that nothing is really moving forward.”, Peter Kruse Can the 20th century be considered the playing out of the 19th century? What about the 21st century? Is technological change the driver of all change, or is technical change only one element of change in society? Does the old disappear? For instance, Jean-Baptiste Fressoz describes the global energy consumption in his book More and More and More. “There has not been an energy transition, there has been a super-imposition of new techniques on old ones. […] We are living in the great age of coal.” What is the material constitution of our world today? For example, Vaclav Smil makes it apparent, that most people have a quite biased understanding of how our world actually works. How can change happen? Do we wish for evolution, or rather a revolution? “The world in which we find ourselves at the start of the new millennium is littered with the debris of utopian projects.”, John Gray Can technological promise also be a reason for avoiding change? “Technological revolution can be a way of avoiding change. […] There will be a revolution in the future that will solve our problems. […] Relying only on innovation is a recipe for inaction.” Do technologists tend to overpromise what their technology might deliver? For instance, the trope that this new technology will bring peace can be found over centuries. Is maintenance an underestimated topic in out society and at universities? What role does maintenance play in our modern society in comparison to innovation? For example, Cyrus W. Field who built the first transatlantic cable between the US and UK proclaimed in an address to the American Geographical and Statistical Society in 1862 “its value can hardly be estimated to the commerce, and even to the peace, of the world.” What is university knowledge, where does it come from, and how does it relate to knowledge of a society? How should we think about the idea of university lead innovation? “There is a systematic overestimation of the university.” Is there a cult of the entrepreneur? Who is actually driving change in society? Who decides about technical change? Moreover, most innovations are rejected: “We should reject most of innovation; otherwise we are inundated with stuff.” Are me even making regressions in society — Cory Doctorow calls it enshittification? “We're all living through a great enshittening, in which the services that matter to us, that we rely on, are turning into giant piles of shit. It's frustrating. It's demoralising. It's even terrifying.”, Cory Doctorow What impact will artificial intelligence have, and who controls the future?  “Humans are in control already. The question is which human.” References Other Episodes other English episodes Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 100: Live im MQ, Was ist Wissen. Ein Gespräch mit Philipp Blom Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Episode 71: Stagnation oder Fortschritt — eine Reflexion an der Geschichte eines Lebens Episode 45: Mit »Reboot« oder Rebellion aus der Krise? Episode 38: Eliten, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Michael Hartmann Episode 35: Innovation oder: Alle Existenz ist Wartung? Episode 18: Gespräch mit Andreas Windisch: Physik, Fortschritt oder Stagnation Dr. David Edgerton... ... at Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin ... at King's College London ... at Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine ... at the British Academy Personal Website ...  on X David Edgerton, The Shock Of The Old: Technology and Global History since 1900, Profile Books (2019) Other References David Graeber, Peter Thiel David Deutsch Peter Kruse, next practice. Erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität. Veränderung durch Vernetzung, Gabal (2020) Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy, Allen Lane (2024) Vaclav Smil,  John Gray, Black Mass, Pengui (2008) Ainissa Ramirez, A Wire Across the Ocean, American Scientist (2015) Thomas Sowell,  Peter Thiel Fellowship Cory Doctorow, ‘Enshittification' is coming for absolutely everything, Financial Times (2024)

A new film from Steve McQueen is about to hit cinema screens: Blitz. Set during the devastating German bombing raids of 1940 to 1941, it follows Saiorse Ronan as east end mum Rita, and her son George, played by Elliot Heffernan, as they travel across London searching for each other.In some ways, it's a new look at history, Rita's son is mixed race – and issues of race, class, and gender are present throughout McQueen's film.But Blitz also takes its place in a long tradition: almost 80 years on from the end of the Second World War, Britain's role in both world wars still dominates British culture and retains a central place in our national psyche, and our politics. Why is this?Tom Gatti is joined by journalist and academic Gary Younge and historian David Edgerton.Get access to all our reporting at newstatesman.com and receive your copy of our weekly magazine. Podcast listeners can get the first two months for just £2 at https://www.newstatesman.com/save Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Das heutige Gespräch führe ich mit Dr. Manfred Glauninger. Er ist Soziolinguist und forscht am Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und lehrt am Institut für Germanistik der Universität Wien. Dieses Gespräch war für mich ganz besonders interessant und auch unterhaltsam, weil wir eine ganze Reihe von Dingen miteinander verbunden haben, die schon in früheren Episoden erwähnt wurden. Was ist Wissenssoziologie, warum muss Wissenschaft auch als soziales Phänomen verstanden werden? Ist es gefährlich oder notwendig, Wissenschaft zu entmystifizieren und auch hart zu kritisieren? Wirkt Wissenschaft in manchen Bereichen unserer Gesellschaft gar als Ersatzreligion? Was sind die Auswirkungen davon? Was lernen wir aus den schweren Krisen der letzten 20 Jahren und dem regelmäßigen Versagen von Institutionen über die Rolle der Wissenschaft? Wie läuft die Produktion von Wissen ab? Welche »magischen« Mechanismen gibt es hier, oder verhält es sich letztlich ähnlich wie die Produktion zahlreicher anderer Güter? Was hat es mit Fehlern und Inkompetenz auf sich? Gibt es unterschiedliche Arten von Fehlern? Gibt es eine frühe »Prägung« des Nachwuchses in der Wissenschaft, gepaart mit starken Hierarchien und Gerontokratie? Welche Rolle spielt Wettbewerb gegenüber Kooperation in der Wissenschaft? Richten wir die Wissenschaft zu sehr nach marktwirtschaftlichen Prinzipien aus, oder besser gesagt: spielt die Wissenschaft Marktwirtschaft, weil weder die Akteure dafür die Kompetenz haben, noch das Modell passt? In einigen anderen Folgen wurde das Thema Stagnation schon angesprochen, auch hier stellen wir die Frage: Verdoppelt sich das Wissen oder eher Rauschen regelmäßig? Eine in diesem Zusammenhang für die Gesellschaft sehr relevante Frage ist, welchen Beitrag die immer größere Zahl an wissenschaftlich ausgebildeten Menschen tatsächlich für unsere Gesellschaft leisten? Welche Rolle spielt eben diese wissenschaftliche Ausbildung dabei? Bringt die universitäre Ausbildung tatsächlich signifikante Gewinne für unsere Gesellschaft oder dominiert Signalisierung über Substanz? Der US-amerikanische Ökonom, dessen Name mir in der Episode nicht eingefallen war, ist Bryan Kaplan, der selbst an der George Mason Eliteuniversität forscht und unterrichtet. »My best guess says signaling accounts for 80% of education's return”«, Bryan Kaplan Die Idee der Signalisierung und sollte mit der schon genannten der Frage nach der Qualität der Bildung in unseren Institutionen verknüpft werden, besonders hinsichtlich der nur verbleibenden  20% : »Teachers' plea that “we're mediocre at teaching what we measure, but great at teaching what we don't measure” is comically convenient.«, Bryan Kaplan Auch zwischen den Studienrichtungen gibt es Unterschiede. Gilt die Geisteswissenschaft immer häufiger als Notnagel für diejenigen, die schwierigere Studien nicht schaffen? In einer früheren Episode hat bereits Prof. Michael Sommer ähnliche Aussagen getätigt. “The excentric university professor is a species that is going to be extinct fast. […] The bad currency is driving out the good and in effect where the people who are nimble in the art of writing for grants are displacing the idiosyncratic thinkers who are generally much less nimble at that sort of activity.”, Peter Thiel Peter Thiel bietet sogar ein Stipendium für diejenigen an, die »Dinge bauen wollen, anstatt im Klassenzimmer zu sitzen.« Damit stellt sich eine noch grundlegendere Frage: Stellen viele Fächer so etwas wie eine institutionelle Autopoiesis dar, ist es also Wissenschaft als selbstreferenzielle Legitimation ihrer eigenen Institutionen, weil sie keinen direkt erkennbaren Nutzen haben? Aber die Frage kann auch umgedreht werden: Was richtet Institutionalisierung mit Wissenschaft an? Als »Berufsdenker« sollte auch die Selbstreflexion hoch im Kurs stehen, warum hört man dann so wenig davon in der Öffentlichkeit, im Besonderen nach großen Krisen? Wie kann das Zusammenspiel zwischen Politik und Wissenschaft beschrieben werden? Kann Wissenschaft tatsächlich nur in Demokratien das volle Potenzial ausspielen? »Macht ist ein wichtiger Punkt in der Wissenschaft.« Was können wir hier aus der Vergangenheit lernen, etwa der Wissenschaft während der Nazi-Diktatur in Deutschland und Österreich? »Lawyers and doctors, all credentialed with university degrees, were substantially overrepresented within the NSDAP, as were university students (then a far narrower section of society than today)«, Niall Ferguson Benötigen wir überhaupt so viele Akademiker in unserer Gesellschaft? Der deutsche Philosoph Julian Nida-Rümelin spricht vom Akademisierungswahn. Der damalige britische Premierminister Rishi Sunak warnt, dass zu vielen Universitätsstudenten ein falscher Traum verkauft werde. Auch Thomas Sowell kritisiert die eindimensionale Betrachtung des Wissensbegriffs: »Someone who is considered to be a “knowledgeable” person usually has a special kind of knowledge—perhaps academic or other kinds of knowledge not widely found in the population at large. Someone who has even more knowledge of more mundane things—plumbing, carpentry, or automobile transmissions, for example—is less likely to be called “knowledgeable” by those intellectuals for whom what they don't know isn't knowledge. Although the special kind of knowledge associated with intellectuals is usually valued more, and those who have such knowledge are usually accorded more prestige, it is by no means certain that the kind of knowledge mastered by intellectuals is necessarily more consequential in its effects in the real world.«, Thomas Sowell Absolventen von Universitäten müssen aber auch als Denkkollektiv gesehen werden. Ist dies aber ein Kollektiv, wo Diversität nur auf der Verpackung steht?  Wer ist überhaupt Innovator in unseren modernen Gesellschaften?  »But just as most engineers are not inventors, and most scientists are not researchers, so most science is not research. […] The university was keeping up with a changing technological world rather than creating it.«, David Edgerton Was hat es also mit Kreativität im Wissenschaftsbetrieb, im Kollektiv zu tun?  Hat zumindest eine kleine Minderheit noch die Chance, sich einen Freiraum zu schaffen, den die Institution (noch) nicht erkannt und durch Prozesse und Regeln ausradiert hat. Zuletzt kehren wir zur Frage zurück, wie Krise und Expertise zusammenwirken. Was sind die zwei wichtigsten Aussagen, die Sie von jedem Experten hören sollten, aber selten hören? Dr. Glauninger wird es am Ende der Episode enthüllen. “Evidence based policy has become policy based evidence.”, Mervyn King Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 101: Live im MQ, Macht und Ohnmacht in der Wissensgesellschaft. Ein Gespräch mit John G. Haas. Episode 96: Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert Episode 93: Covid. Die unerklärliche Stille nach dem Sturm. Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Teil 1 Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 85: Naturalismus — was weiß Wissenschaft? Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 83: Robert Merton — Was ist Wissenschaft? Episode 72: Scheitern an komplexen Problemen? Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft — Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 71: Stagnation oder Fortschritt — eine Reflexion an der Geschichte eines Lebens Episode 44: Was ist Fortschritt? Ein Gespräch mit Philipp Blom Episode 41: Intellektuelle Bescheidenheit: Was wir von Bertrand Russel und der Eugenik lernen können Episode 39: Follow the Science? Episode 38: Eliten, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Michael Hartmann Episode 28: Jochen Hörisch: Für eine (denk)anstössige Universität! Episode 18: Gespräch mit Andreas Windisch: Physik, Fortschritt oder Stagnation Dr. Manfred Glauninger  Dr. Manfred Glauninger an der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Publikationen Fachliche Referenzen John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Findings Are False (2005) Sabine Kleinert, Richard Horton, How should medical science change? Lancet Comment (2014) Ludwig Fleck, Genesis and development of a scientific fact. ed. T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton, foreword by Thomas Kuhn. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1979. This is the first English translation of his 1935 book titled Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollectiv. Basel: Schwabe und Co Bryan Kaplan, The Case against Education, Princeton University Press (2018) Conversation between Peter Thiel und David Graeber, Where did the Future go? (2020) Peter Thiel Fellowship Niall Ferguson, The Treason of the Intellectuals, The Free Press (2023) Niall Ferguson, The Treason of the Intellectuals, Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson (2024) Julien Benda, La trahison des clercs (1927) Julian Nida Rümelin, Der Akademisierungswahn, Vortrag Körber-Stiftung (2014) Thomas Sowell, intellectuals and Society, Basic Books (2010) Rishi Sunak, Too Many University Students are Sold a False Dream, Telegraph (2023) David Edgerton, The Shock Of The Old: Technology and Global History since 1900, Profile Books (2019) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) Karl Popper, Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde

Esta semana, James McLamore y David Edgerton, creadores de la marca.

Esta semana, James McLamore y David Edgerton, creadores de Burger King.

Esta semana, James W. McLamore and David Edgerton, creadores de Burger King.

Esta semana, James McLamore y David Edgerton.

Founder and Executive Chairman of Brothers in Law Inc., David Edgerton III is a young, ambitious lawyer and a charismatic leader. In April 2021, Edgerton was selected from a pool of 845 applications from 328 institutions to be a Harry S. Truman scholar. He also serves as a civic engagement coordinator for the Howard University Student Association and as president of the Howard University Speech and Debate Team. He was named a Global Scholar and elected student council representative for the Council on International Education Exchange during his time abroad in Spain, Italy and England.Edgerton is an aspiring civil rights attorney who will attend the Howard University School of Law. He has dedicated his life to service and community action. An aspiring multi-vocational change agent, he believes that it is our duty as a nation to build up every child from every background.

FROM THE VAULT: PHIL'S PICK (1) On British decline. Much ink has been spilled over the Britain's fate since the end of its empire. Could it be that decline has been overstated? And what will happen to Britain as it leaves the European Union? We discuss how the history of the Industrial Revolution and Cold War militarism still shapes British politics today, as David Edgerton joins us to talk about the his latest book, 'The Rise and Fall of the British Nation'. Readings: A misremembered empire, David Edgerton, Tortoise Britain's 20th-century industrial revolution, Colin Kidd, New Statesman (review of Edgerton's book) Britain's persistent racism cannot simply be explained by its imperial history, David Edgerton, The Guardian

On Australian and New Zealand at the End of History.   Antipodean political scientists Shahar Hameiri and Tom Chodor join us to discuss the history and politics of Australia and New Zealand. If Australia is the “lucky country”, what about New Zealand? What explains the courses both countries took economically and politically over the twentieth century? And where do the two countries find themselves today - did they escape the end of the End of History?   Part 2: patreon.com/bungacast   Readings: Australian Labor's hollow victory, Shahar Hameiri & Tom Chodor, UnHerd Jacinda Ardern still haunts New Zealand, Tom Chodor, UnHerd /136/ Banana Monarchy ft. David Edgerton

This Farm Yarns with with David Edgerton-Warburton. The length has increased so that must mean that this podcast is getting better right? Let us know in the socials of what your enjoying or if you have a great farm yarn. If it's 3 minutes long or 3 hours. We're here for it. But most importantly keep on farming!www.farmsadvice.com.au Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David Edgerton is a historian of science and technology and of twentieth-century Britain.  He teaches in the History Department at King's College London, where he is Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology and Professor of Modern British History and was the founding director of the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine now at King's College London. In this conversation, we covered his book, The Rise And Fall Of The British Nation, the potential of Liz Truss as Prime Minister, the calibre of our modern politicians and the possibilities of Brexit.  https://mobile.twitter.com/DEHEdgerton  https://www.davidedgerton.org/  HELP ME CROWDFUND MY GAMESTOP BOOK. Go to https://wen-moon.com  to join the crowdfunding campaign and pre-order To The Moon: The GameStop Saga! You can listen to the show on Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/5AYWZh12d92D4PDASG4McB?si=5835f2cf172d47cd&nd=1  Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/chatter/id1273192590  Google Podcasts - https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5wb2RpYW50LmNvL2NoYXR0ZXIvcnNzLnhtbA  And all major podcast platforms.  Watch Us On Odysee.com - https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TheJist:4   Sign up and watch videos to earn crypto-currency!  Buy Brexit: The Establishment Civil War - https://amzn.to/39XXVjq  Mailing List - https://www.getrevue.co/profile/thejist  Twitter - https://twitter.com/Give_Me_TheJist  Website - https://thejist.co.uk/  Music from Just Jim – https://soundcloud.com/justjim   

Meinen heutigen Gast habe ich ebenfalls schon länger auf meiner Wunschliste und es hat mich gefreut, dass er auch sofort zugesagt hat! Erich Prem ist nicht nur Vertreter des "digitalen Humanismus" (DH) — das Thema der heutigen Episode — sondern ein breit gebildeter, interdisziplinärer Denker, wie in dieser Episode deutlich werden wird. Er ist in seiner Erstausbildung Computerwissenschafter, der sich mit künstlicher Intelligenz beschäftigt. Er hat am ÖFAI in Wien am sogenannten Symbol Grounding Problem gearbeitet und am MIT in den USA an verhaltensbasierter Robotik. Er leitet seit über zwei Jahrzehnte ein strategisches Technologieberatungsunternehmen, Eutema, in Wien, das neben der EU Kommission auch Ministerien und Universitäten berät.  Er beschäftigt sich als Philosoph — seiner Zweitausbildung — mit komplizierten Fragen an der Schnittstelle von Ethik, Digitalisierung und Technologiepolitik.  Neben vielen anderen Publikationen ist er Mitherausgeber des jüngst erschienen Buches »Perspectives of digital humanism«. Er unterrichtet Digitalen Humanismus an der TU-Wien und Datenethik an der Universität Wien. In dieser Episode beginnen wir mit der Frage, wie unsere tägliche interaktion mit digitalen Geräten tatsächlich aussieht und wie wir uns das eigentlich wünschen würden. Wie verändert sich die Arbeitswelt? Wie gehen junge Menschen mit digitalen sozialen Räumen um? Welche Rolle spielen digitale Technologien im geopolitischen und ökonomischen Sinne auch für Europa? Denken wir an Überwachung, langfristige Absicherung wesentlicher Technolgien. Dann setzen wir uns mit dem relativ neuen Begriff des »digitalen Humanismus« etwas konkrete auseinander: Was ist Humanismus? Was ist die Rolle des Menschen, vom Menschenbild des alten Griechenlands über klassische Bildungsideale zur heutigen Zeit. Spielt Humanismus heute überhaupt noch eine Rolle und sollte er eine Rolle spielen? Was ist nun der DH und warum braucht es diesen neuen Begriff? Die Kritik von Adorno und Horkheimer am Humanismus wird im DH aufgenommen und Freiheit, Menschenrechte — liberale, westliche Werte verankert, bei einigen Vertretern ist auch eine starke Kapitalismuskritik zu finden, sowie Hinweis zum Überwachungskapitalismus. Allerdings betont Erich, dass das Individuum nicht alleine im Zentrum stehen darf, sondern sich immer in Reflexion mit der Gesellschaft befindet. Denn digitale Technologien sind auch Machtinstrument und bedürfen politischer und gesellschaftspolitischer Debatte um die Frage zu beantworten: wer formt »das Digitale« eigentlich, wem nutzt es? Dann diskutieren wir die unterschiedliche Wahrnehmung digitaler Technologien zwischen Kulturen und Nationen, etwa am Beispiel des Techniums von Kevin Kelly, europäischer Philosophie und der Globalisierung, sowie der Frage, woher eigentlich das Design von Technik stammt: top down, bottom up oder gar ungesteuert? Eine Besonderheit des DH, auch als Abgrenzung anderer wissenschaftlicher Strömungen wie etwa der Technikfolgenabschätzung ist, dass DH von Informatikern geprägt ist, mit dem Anspruch, die Folgen der eigenen Technologie besser zu bestimmen. Dies geschieht nicht Technologie-feindlich, sondern in der Erkenntnis, dass wir uns in Frühzeit der Digitalisierung befinden, die in vielen Bereichen schlicht noch nicht gut genug ist, beziehungsweise falsche Wege eingeschlagen hat. Der DH nimmt also an, dass es kein Schicksal ist sondern nach gesellschaftlichen Vorstellungen Technik gestaltbar ist. Ich stelle dann die Frage, ob wir nicht teilweise auf Medien-Hypes hereinfallen und die Bedrohungen möglicherweise gar nicht so groß sind. Als Stichworte könnte man nennen: Social Score in China, Google Flue Trends oder Covid AI, und unterscheiden sich die rechtlichen Prinzipien in der analogen Welt wirklich so stark von der digialten, wie manchmal behauptet wird? Auch wenn es hier und da Übertreibungen gibt, so erkennen wir doch zahlreiche Folgen der Digitalisierung, die sich mit dem Bild, den digitale Humanisten haben, nicht zur Deckung bringen lässt. Darf eine Person etwa auf ihre beobachtbaren Effekte reduziert werden — vor allem von der Vergangenheit in die Zukunft mit vielleicht anderen Kontexten? Wie sieht es mit dem Filtern und der Moderation von Inhalten auf Plattformen aus? Oder, was ist schlimmer: gute oder schlechte »künstliche Intelligenz«? Einen Kritikpunkt des DH spreche ich noch an, nämlich die Frage des Anthtropozentrismus? Fokussiert sich der DH zu stark auf den Menschen? Was ist mit Nachhaltigkeit und anderen systemischen Fragen? Zuletzt grenzen wir noch den Digitalen Humanismus vom ähnlich klingenden Begriff der Digital Humanities ab und, was wesentlicher ist, stellen die Frage, was unter Digitaler Souveränität zu verstehen ist: ist Souveränität das gleiche wie Autarkie? Was haben wir in Europa in dieser Hinsicht in den letzten Jahren übersehen, wie sollten wir politisch reagieren? Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 4 und Episode 5: »Was will Technologie«, wo ich genauer auf die Ideen von Kevin Kelly eingehe, die wir im Gespräch erwähnen Episode 28 mit Prof. Jochen Hörisch zur Idee und aktueller Situation der Universität Episode 24 mit Peter Purgathofer: Hangover: Was wir vom Internet erwartet und was wir bekommen haben  Episode 30 mit Tim Prilove über Techno-Optimismus Erich Prem Homepage von Erich eutema ÖFAI Technikphilosophie der Uni-Wien fachliche Referenzen Manifest zum digitalen Humanismus Hannes Werthner, Erich Prem, Edward A. Lee, Carlo Ghezzi, Perspectives on Digital Humanism, Springer (2022) Erich Prem, A brave new world of mediated online discourse, Communications of the ACM (Feb. 2022) Shoshanna Zuboff, Das Zeitalter des Überwachungskapitalismus, campus (2018) Kevin Kelly, What Technology Wants, Penguin (2011) Edware Lee, The Coevolution, MIT Press (2020) Social Score China: Spectator Podcast, Chinese Whispers: Mythbusting the social credit system (2022) Why Google Flu is a Failure, Forbes (2014) What we can learn from the epic failure of Google Flu Trends, Wired (2015) Hundreds of AI tools have been built to catch covid. None of them helped. | MIT Technology Review (2021) Jonathan Haidt, Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid, The Atlantic (2022) Coleman Hughes on The Death Of Conversation with Jonathan Haidt (2022) Cathy O'Neill, Weapons of Math Destruction, Crown (2016) David Edgerton, The Shock of the Old (2019)

Government intervention is back in a big way, as countries turn back on years of free market ideology to actively support national industries in an increasingly competitive and unstable world. The session presents the case for an active industrial strategy to meet social and economic goals. Chair: Patrick Allen Speakers: Paul Sweeney, David Edgerton, Michael Jacobs

Last month the Progressive Economics 2022 conference, a one-day festival of transformative economic thinking, took place at the University of Greenwich. In a world battered by crises, facing environmental collapse, PEF brought together leading thinkers from across the progressive movement to present the arguments and solutions we need to build a radically better economy. Speakers included Gargi Bhattacharryya, Aaron Benanav, Francesca Bria, James Meadway, Kate Pickett, John Mcdonnell MP, and David Edgerton amongst many others. PTO was pleased to be an official media partner of the event and in the coming weeks we'll be posting some of the excellent panel discussions that took place at the event. First up, is a session on the Cost of Living Crisis. In the panel discussion James Meadway, Susan Newman, and Rupert Russell discuss the causes of price rises, the disastrous effects of conventional policy responses, and what the real solutions are to high inflation.

Is regenerative agriculture the answer to the problems caused by factory farms, or might modern forms of food production have an important role to play in the future of food in England? In this episode, Lewis Bassett speaks to: Matt Chatfield, sheep farmer and advocate of alternative farming techniques; the nutritionist Lucy Williamson; the historian David Edgerton; the farmer and director of the Soil Association Liz Bowles, Oxford based climate scientist Michael Clark; author and journalist Aaron Bastani; and Elena Walden from the Good Food Institute. Tess Kelly, a spokesperson for Quorn, tells us about their ambitions to see the world eat less meat. And the author Pen Vogler and celebrity chef Tom Kerridge explain how factory food and class intersect in England.This show was produced by Lewis Bassett with music from Forest DLG. Get extra content and support the show on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The DEJ Group connects diverse talent with inclusive companies. We are dedicated to uncovering the real needs of our client organizations and bringing forward a slate of vetted candidates with an array of backgrounds and experiences. We work with companies to search for and acquire qualified candidates for CXO, vice president, general manager, and director roles. Our industry focus is nonprofit, retail, healthcare, and manufacturing.Leveraging our technical experience, business acumen, and passion for diversity, equity, and inclusion, we create value for companies by searching and finding the best talent for their open opportunities. If interested, let's connect and chat about what's possible."Confidence is when you say you are good. Excellence is when everyone agrees with you" - DEJ

Antariksh Matters #1: Fishing out illegal fishing vessels— Pranav R SatyanathDuring the Quad Summit held in Tokyo on May 23, the leaders of Australia, India, Japan and the United States agreed to establish the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA). This initiative hopes to extend the existing mechanisms for maritime cooperation among the four countries and harness commercially-available data to put together a more accurate picture of the maritime domain.The Quad countries also plan to use greater cooperation to tackle the issue of illegal fishing by Chinese vessels, as reported by Demetri Sevastopulo in the Financial Times. The report states that the partner countries will use space-based capabilities and existing maritime fusion centres to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing carried out by Chinese vessels in the Indian Ocean. The problem of IUU fishing by Chinese vessels is not new, with the IUU Fishing Index 2021 giving China an overall score of 3.86 (a score closer to 1 being the best) – making China the worst performing among 152 countries.Space-based capabilities to track maritime activities are not new and remain crucial marine safety and sustainability pillars. However, the Quad initiative to enhance maritime awareness through data exchanges is novel, as it brings together state-capacity, commercial capabilities of the partnering countries and publicly-available data to better monitor the maritime domain. There are three main ways to monitor and track maritime activities, which are likely to be used in tandem by the Quad countries. Each of these methods is described below:Transponder signatures: Any vessel that ventures into the seas is required to have onboard the Automatic Identification System (AIS), a transponder which transmits data about a vessel’s set course, speed and manoeuvres carried out. Further, it also provides details of the vessel’s registry under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the vessel’s dimensions and its call sign. Although AIS transponders are not registered, they can be identified by a vessel’s unique 9-digit Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI), which is included in all transmissions.The IMO requires all international vessels weighing 300 gross tons or more to carry onboard AIS transponders. This requirement initially served the purpose of avoiding accidents and collisions at sea. Today, the AIS data, which anyone with a correctly configured receiver can access, has become an essential pillar of coastal security, monitoring IIUU fishing, tackling anti-piracy, and enforcing international sanctions.International Registry: The registry of a vessel under the IMO is an authoritative and legitimate identification of a vessel. IHS Markit assigns each registered vessel a unique 7-digit identification number on behalf of the IMO, which can be publicly accessed free of charge. This number remains permanent, even after a vessel changes its flag (the country where the ship is registered). The IMO registry provides details such as the vessel’s ownership, physical features, and registered flag. It remains the most authoritative form of maritime identification.Physical identification: The final way of identification is by a vessel’s physical features. Since the details of a vessel’s dimensions are already available in the public domain, it can be verified either by coastal surveillance or through satellite imagery. The use of satellite images has become commonplace in the shipping industry. Besides using optical images, new commercially-available technologies such as synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites have made it possible for private entities and NGOs to verify several aspects of illegal maritime activities. Furthermore, the use of machine learning to identify vessels at sea is also an upcoming technology used in the maritime domain.International cooperation has always been an important initiative in combating illegal maritime activities. The United States, for example, has forged several multilateral partnerships to curtail IUU fishing across the world. Based on the available details about the Quad’s IPMDA initiative, we can speculate that the fusion centres in India, Singapore, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu will use the methods mentioned above to monitor and track IUU fishing activities. In addition, data gathered by coastal radars, patrol boats, drones and manned patrol aircraft could act as a force multiplier in their effort to mitigate illegal maritime activities.Matsyanyaaya: A Roadmap for the Quad’s Emerging Technology Working Group— Arjun GargeyasThe official statement released by the White House following the first-ever in-person Quad summit in September, outlined the broad areas that the partners were looking at. From 5G and semiconductors to biotechnology, critical areas were identified for the alliance to develop a strategic advantage in. With the launch of the ‘Quad Semiconductor Supply Chain Initiative’, the group signaled its intent to establish itself in the technology domain.Notwithstanding this pledge, there still exists uncertainties regarding the commitments made on the technology front. There is also the question of how much progress has been made by the member states regarding critical and emerging technologies. With the remnants of the COVID-19 pandemic and new geopolitical events such as the Russia-Ukraine war still affecting several technology supply chains, the Quad has to focus on three main areas to create an immediate impact in the technology domain.Bubbles of TradeExtending the concept of the ‘bubbles of trust’ approach that envisages better diplomatic relations between like-minded states, the Quad should set up a mechanism for the free flow of goods, labour, and capital-related to strategic technologies. Taking the example of the semiconductor industry, it is clear that key technology sectors have burgeoned globally and have relied on international cooperation for their growth and sustainability. This ensures that they cannot be restructured in such a short period of time. Robust infrastructure and an efficient value chain have been developed in high-tech sectors due to free trade.But the current situation has thrown up several key challenges for the Quad to navigate. This includes protectionist measures resulting in high import tariffs and export control regulations preventing access to critical components for building key technology ecosystems. The military applications of these technologies have also raised the fears of weaponisation resulting in lesser collaboration efforts. The Quad should aim for creating a more liberalised and open market policy that helps the four countries indulge in a greater exchange of goods, labour and capital related to strategic technology sectors. Favourable trade policies encouraging the exchange of technology sector-centric trade must be a priority. The governments of the Quad should focus on developing a comprehensive trade policy suited or catered to building strategic technology ecosystems across all the states.A Robust IP Protection RegimeWith the technological rise of China and the fears of economic espionage, there has been a restriction on the transfer of critical technology between states, thereby hampering the level of growth and innovation in certain fields. This can be addressed by the Quad coming together to build a strong intellectual property (IP) protection framework. It can help in formulating transfer of technology agreements in critical technologies between the states without fears of IP theft. Securing technology supply chains have become a challenge due to the intrinsic dependencies that have been created in several areas. Technology transfers remain a solid solution to build resiliency in these value chains themselves. However, the qualms of the IP-owning countries have been the fear of these critical technologies leaking out and reaching adversaries.A starting point for the Quad would be to introduce and ensure the enforcement of strict IP theft rules and regulations to facilitate technology transfer agreements. Prevention of exports, restrictions on domestic operations, and levying fines or penalties for specific firms violating IP theft guidelines will ensure innovation-based competition and create a favorable environment for multilateral collaboration. It must be noted that almost all modern-day technological powers have benefited from the transfer of technology from more advanced states. Hence, it remains in the interest of the Quad to share critical technologies between its alliance members. Joint Standards DevelopmentThe race for technological superiority has moved from the domination of market share to the establishment of governance mechanisms for certain critical technologies. This is where technology or technical standards come into play. Setting standards in crucial technologies have allowed states and companies to reap economic and geopolitical benefits. The Quad has the collective technical expertise to formulate and set technical standards in various emerging technologies. In recent times, there has been a steady increase in governments’ participation in the process of standards-setting. States are now openly advocating for certain technical standards to be adopted as the global ones which would eventually benefit the state and its domestic private sector. The Quad, as a group, must prioritise pre standardisation research as well as advocate and push for jointly developed technical standards at international standard-setting bodies. An increase in Chinese influence in these global standard-setting bodies has set alarm bells ringing in the West. The Quad can take over the mantle and establish committees to spearhead standard development activities in technologies like advanced communications, quantum technology, and artificial intelligence. This would put the alliance in the driver’s seat to set and formulate standards that will end up shaping the way future technologies might work.Antariksh Matters #2: Can you ban space weapons?— Aditya RamanathanDoes it make sense for India to pursue arms control in space? The recently concluded session of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) meeting in Geneva has infused urgency into this question. The OEWG focused on how space threats could be reduced through norms, principles, and guidelines My colleague Pranav R. Satyanath covered the OEWG in the previous edition of this newsletter.For our purposes, the OEWG meeting was notable for both the absence of any substantial efforts to ban space weaponry and for the lack of active Indian participation. This Indian reticence will keep it from shaping the future of space security. But to actively intervene in future discussions, Indians will need to agree on a few basics. As Pranav pointed out, states are debating about:“whether to regulate space capabilities or to regulate space activities; and second, whether to negotiate legally-binding treaties or whether to agree on non legally binding transparency and confidence-building measures.”This week, I’ll stick to considering the first of these themes: space capabilities. There’s been widespread scepticism about the prospects for arms control in space. One reason for this, as we previously argued, is that space warfare is essentially primitive in its current state – at least when you compared to the highly evolved systems of warfare on Earth that incorporate speciated weapons and platforms fulfilling niche roles on battlefields.As two scholars with the United Nations Institute of Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) pointed out, potential space weapons are often ‘dual-capable’ systems such as repair satellites that can be used for more hostile purposes. In addition to these dual-capable systems, there exist multi-use capabilities such as direct ascent ASAT missiles, which are largely derived from existing ballistic missile defence (BMD) systems.If potentially offensive space capabilities are either dual-capable or multi-use, can they really be curbed? To consider this issue, it’s best to look at key factors that usually help decide success in arms control. Paul Scharre suggests three factors that influence the feasibility of a workable deal: “the perceived horribleness of the weapon; its perceived military utility; and the number of actors who need to cooperate for a ban to work.”We can add two more criteria to this list. One, whether the capability is dual-capable or multi-use. Two, whether verification of compliance with an agreement is feasible.How do these criteria fare against the implements of space warfare? Since space warfare can be waged on both Earth and in space we must consider each category of weapons. On Earth, space warfare is waged with well-established arms and modes of fighting. The combat aircraft, long-range missiles, or elite infantry forces used to attack Earth-based space assets will not be subject to bans for obvious reasons.This leaves us with those capabilities that directly target space-based assets. Specifically, these are:Electronic warfare and cyber attack capabilitiesKinetic ASAT missiles (whether direct ascent or co-orbital)RPO satellites (such as the aforementioned repair satellites or debris- clearing craft)Directed energy weapons (such as lasers and high-powered microwaves)Any future space-to-Earth kinetic weapons such as the once-proposed ‘Rods from God’The proscribing of offensive space capabilities would work best when:the perceived horribleness is highthe perceived military utility is lowthe number of actors that need to agree is lowthe capability in question in not dual-capable or multi-useverification is feasibleThe table below maps how five types of offensive space capabilities fare against these conditions:Naturally, there is much that is subjective about arms control. In particular, ‘horribleness’ is a slippery concept. For instance, anti-personnel laser weapons that can blind people are proscribed while lasers that target weapons platforms are allowed along with all manner of other conventional and nuclear weaponry that shred or incinerate human beings. As a rule of thumb, weapons that specifically target humans are subject to much greater scrutiny than those that target things – even if attacks on those things leads directly to human suffering. Therefore, electronic warfare and cyber attacks, RPO satellites, and lasers that attack orbital craft are unlikely to elicit the visceral opposition as blinding lasers. The one exception to this rule is the kinetic destruction of satellites. While kinetic collisions in space may not directly kill anyone (though the resultant debris could notionally endanger spacefaring humans), they create serious practical problems and impose high reputational costs, which could, in turn, have serious diplomatic consequences during a conflict.Candidates for Arms ControlThe table makes clear that only one type of system meets all the ideal conditions for arms control: orbital space weapons meant to attack Earth-based targets, such as the so-called ‘Rods from God’ fanciful proposals for orbital craft that will unleash 20-foot-long tungsten rods that act like artificial meteorites, striking hardened targets such as bunkers or ICBM silos.Despite their evident horribleness, such weapons would have low military utility simply by virtue of being highly vulnerable. To be able to get weapons on target quickly, the orbiting platforms would have to be in low earth orbit, making them easy targets for Earth-based countermeasures such as ASAT missiles. Any user would also need to maintain a sizeable a constellation of these platforms to ensure adequate coverage.Besides this, no state has invested serious resources into developing ‘Rods from God’, meaning the number of actors is presently zero. Furthermore, any such platform is not dual-capable/ multi-use and their existence can be easily verified, since these large orbital platforms will resemble nothing else circling the Earth.The other candidate for some manner of arms control is Earth and space-based kinetic ASAT weapons. On the one hand, these weapons possess some clear utility: destroying a satellite puts it out of action permanently and signals serious intent to an adversary. However, a closer examination reveals these weapons score low on military utility and high on horribleness.Consider utility: the violence of kinetic collisions narrows down its potential use to the sole circumstance of high intensity conventional conflict. If used first by a spacefaring state, it opens itself up to retaliation in kind. Furthermore, to substantially degrade an adversary’s use of space, several satellites will need to be targeted. While non-kinetic capabilities theoretically offer the ability to disrupt multiple satellites for specific periods of time or over specific ground tracks, attempting something similar with kinetic collision could create enough debris to risk India’s own celestial lines of communication.With high horribleness, low military utility and a relatively small number of actors (only five states including India have proven ASAT capabilities), kinetic kill ASATs seem like good candidates for a ban. However, the multi-use nature of direct-ascent ASAT missiles and the makes any effective ban impractical. What is possible is a ban on destructive ASAT tests. Back in March, we had advocated India unambiguously back such a ban. The following month, US Vice-President Kamala Harris committed the US to a self-imposed ban on such tests and establishing such a moratorium “as a new international norm for responsible behavior in space.”Having already conducted a successful destructive test in 2019, India is in a good position to support an international moratorium on destructive tests with direct-ascent ASAT missiles.Working out a Negotiating PositionIndia’s stance on space security is likely to evolve in the coming years. While traditional arms control is unlikely to serve as a foundation for its strategy, India may do well to propose outright bans on space-to-Earth kinetic weapons, and back a global ban on destructive DA-ASAT tests.In the coming weeks and months, Pranav and I will examine the effects of the OEWG on space threats, consider ways in which India can best secure its interests.[Book] The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900 by David Edgerton.[Article] “Operational Monitoring of Illegal Fishing in Ghana through Exploitation of Satellite Earth Observation and AIS Data by Andrey A. Kurekin et. al.[Blog] Artifice and Intelligence by the Center on Privacy & Technology This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hightechir.substack.com

This talk was recorded as part of the live streamed 10am Family Worship service on April 24, 2022. David Edgerton presenting.

This talk was recorded as part of the live streamed 10am Family Worship service on April 24, 2022. David Edgerton presenting.

David Edgerton joins Long Reads for a discussion about the making of the modern British nation. David is a professor at King's College London, where his work concentrates on twentieth-century history, global science, and technology. His most recent work is The Rise and Fall of the British Nation, one of the most ambitious reinterpretations of modern Britain for many years.Long Reads is a Jacobin podcast looking in-depth at political topics and thinkers, both contemporary and historical, with the magazine's longform writers. Hosted by Features Editor Daniel Finn.Produced by Conor Gillies, music by Knxwledge. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

New #TeesMe podcast episode alert with David Edgerton Jr. What you'll hear: - Creating the future that no one else sees - Finding your bag, are you ready to share your story? - The art of shifting mentality, embracing a CEO mindset - CEO thinking 101 - the Beauty Salon Biz Example - Mindset shifts- No one knows Grandma's recipe vs value - Bigger than you, building legacy - Mr. Hershey - But are you Bill Gates smart? - the internet levels the field, but you still need effort + time - Ikigai - finding your purpose for being - the sweet spot - after hours corporate training, the Tiger Wood effect, the next generation #representationMatters - Golf at the track, “driving” the Indianapolis 500 & Anniversaries - the Lexus Shop Biz Example and dollar store to eBay arbitrage - Go to school and get a degree or not? no one likes fish bones ************************* Things you should know: IG: @DavidEdgertonJr Interise - https://interise.org/ Indy 500 Golf - https://www.petedyegolftrail.com/courses/brickyard-crossing/ Meet David: https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/executive-education/person/david_edgerton_jr And that the Twin Cities are Minneapolis and Saint Paul in Minnesota (because geography wasn't for everyone) Resources: BOOKS YOU SHOULD CHECK OUT Business Brilliant: Surprising Lessons from the Greatest Self-Made Business Icons by Lewis Schiff The Education of Millionaires: Everything You Won't Learn in College About How to Be Successful by Michael Ellsberg Rich Dad Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not! by Robert T. Kiyosaki Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell ************************* David Edgerton Jr. is the managing principal for The DEJ Group, an executive search and recruiting firm that focuses on finding and connecting exceptional diverse talent with inclusive companies. The firm also provides executive coaching and custom training services for minority entrepreneurs and business professionals. David has over twenty-four years of corporate experience and also has served as an adjunct professor for over eleven years – teaching information technology, project management and business analytics. With his passion in minority business development, David was recently appointed an entrepreneur-in-residence at the University of Minnesota to assist and coach startups as a part of the Discovery Launchpad MN program and also facilitates content for the Ascend Twin Cities program in partnership with JPMorgan Chase, the Metropolitan Economic Development Association, and the Carlson School of Management. David has a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from North Carolina A&T State University and an MBA from the Carlson School of Management. During his corporate career he has worked for several companies in the Twin Cities including Andersen Windows and Doors, Be The Match, Best Buy, Imation Corporation, Smead Manufacturing, and Ambient Consulting. David currently volunteers as a member of the board of directors for the Walker West Music Academy in St. Paul. He also serves on the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Advisory Board to the Dean for the Carlson School of Management. He is an active member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. and serves as a church musician and worship leader at his church. David is married to Michelle and has three children. ************************* Listen on Apple, Spotify, Google https://anchor.fm/TeesMe #TeesMe #podcast #storiesNeedToBeTold #untoldStories #golf #blackGolfers #blackGolfMatters #2021 #IN18 #IN18Ways #entrepreneurship #entrepreneur #twinCities #Indianapolis500 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

This month we discuss GM Tamas' essay "Telling the Truth About Class" published in the Socialist Register. Is Tamas' division between Marxist and Rousseauian socialism useful? Does it help us to understand the Left today? And is Tamas right that "authentic proletarian revolution... has never occurred in its anti-capitalist purity anywhere"?   Reading Clubs are for patrons $10+, sign up at patreon.com/bungacast   Additional readings: Why the left must abandon the myth of British decline, David Edgerton, New Statesman Ellen Meiksins Wood on the Nairn-Anderson thesis and the Bourgeois paradigm, Verso Books blog

Trident Debate: Britain's Nuclear Deterrent Should Be Consigned to HistoryThis is a fierce debate about whether or not Britain should retain her nuclear deterrent. Speaking for the motion are David Edgerton, Professor of Modern British History at King's College London, and Kate Hudson, General Secretary of CND. Speaking against are Lord Hennessy, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary University of London and Philip Dunne MP, Minister of State for Defence Procurement at the time. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, Lucy Dallas and Toby Lichtig are joined by Paul Griffiths to discuss the beauty and grace of Mozart, the untortured genius; David Edgerton talks us through the decline and fall of British coal mining and its relationship with the Labour Party; plus, new discoveries about Locke and Leviathan, obituary codes and the Buddha's wife'La Clemenza di Tito' by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart'Mozart in Prague' by Daniel E. Freeman'Mozart: The reign of love' by Jan Swafford'The Shadow of the Mine: Coal and the end of industrial Britain' by Huw Beynon and Ray Hudson'Yasodhara and the Buddha' by Vanessa R. SassonA special subscription offer for TLS podcast listeners: www.the-tls.co.uk/buy/podProducer: Ben Mitchell See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Host John Drummond chats with Prof David Edgerton,  English historian and author of "The Rise and Fall of the British Nation" and reveals some very interesting insights from the perspective of someone living outside of Scotland. 

This talk was recorded during the live streamed 8:30am service from St. George Maple Ridge. David Edgerton presenting

This talk was recorded during the live streamed 8:30am service from St. George Maple Ridge. David Edgerton presenting

In today's conversation, David shares insights on a number of topics, including how Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and how it relates to Innovation. He makes several connections to the Agile Best Self framework and how it can be used to create a better world for all.

As the four nations of the United Kingdom struggle to reconcile themselves to life outside the EU are we witnessing the gradual unravelling of the illusions and delusions that have dominated the traditional British political elite? Is this end of the "era of self-deception" the one positive aspect of Brexit? And, if the project itself is overwhelmingly English, what does this mean for the future of the union between the four nations? To answer these questions hosts Zoe Williams and Luke Cooper are joined by historian David Edgerton, a professor at Kings College London and author of The Rise and Fall of the British Nation.  For more information on the ideas covered in the podcast see:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/01/brexit-bonfire-national-illusions-labour-alternative-future  https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/David-Edgerton/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-the-British-Nation--A-Twentieth-Century-History/14131279  Producer: Luke Cooper Sound editor: Ben Higgins Milner 

Host: Larry Bernstein. Guests include David Edgerton, Dr. Ari Ciment, Martin Gurri, William Easterly, and Alan Abramowitz.

In this special episode, we look at the future of the United Kingdom. Miles Briggs, Member of the Scottish Parliament for Lothian, tells Bloomberg Westminster's Roger Hearing and Sebastian Salek a second referendum isn't the answer, despite polls showing increasing support for independence. Plus, David Edgerton, professor of modern British history at King's College London explains why he doesn't see the U.K. surviving as an entity.

For Brexiteers, Britain’s departure from the EU offers a shot at national renewal, with the country once more becoming a free trade and innovation superpower. But how likely is that? And are the Tories really serious about a break with the politics of the last 40 years? Aaron Bastani interviews Professor David Edgerton, author of […]

Science and politics are not easy bedfellows - "Stick to the science" is a three part series which aims to find out why.In this episode we delve into the past, and uncover the complicated relationship between science, politics and power. Along the way, we come up against some pretty big questions: what is science? Should science be apolitical? And where does Nature fit in?Tell us what you think of this series: https://go.nature.com/2HzXVLcThis episode was produced by Nick Howe, with editing from Noah Baker and Benjamin Thompson. it featured contributions from many researchers, including: Shobita Parasarathy, Alice Bell, Dan Sarewitz, Anna Jay, Melinda Baldwin, Magdelena Skipper, Steven Shapin, David Edgerton, Deborah Blum, Bruce Lewenstein and Chiara Ambrosio. Quotes from social media were read by: Shamini Bundell, Flora Graham, Dan Fox, Edie Edmundson and Bredan Maher. And excerpts from Nature were read by Jen Musgreave See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Fue fundada el 4 de diciembre de 1954 en Miami, cuando dos jóvenes emprendedores llamados James McLamore y David Edgerton inauguraron este restaurante basado en un concepto diferente al que existía y que se ha mantenido hasta hoy: «The Home of The Whopper».En 1955, 'el producto rey' fue incorporado como la imagen de la marca y ha perdurado como referencia: la Whopper, el producto principal de Burger King. En 1958 se lanzó el primer anuncio de televisión en Miami, lo que dio pie a una campaña televisiva de más de 50 años. En 1959 la marca comenzó su expansión por medio de franquicias, extendiendo sus operaciones por todo Estados Unidos y después a nivel mundial. Así, en el año 1963, abrió el primer restaurante fuera de los Estados Unidos, en Puerto Rico. En 1974 se inició la campaña de mercadeo «HAVE IT YOUR WAY» (Como tú quieras) permitiendo que los clientes personalizaran los ingredientes de sus hamburguesas. En 1975 se inició un nuevo servicio que permitía a los clientes recibir sus productos sin bajar de su automóvil. Ese mismo año la franquicia abrió su primer local en Europa: en Madrid, en donde la imagen de la inauguración fue la cantante internacional Rosa Morena. Debido a la demanda de clientes durante las primeras horas del día, en 1979, se incorporó el menú de desayunos.En 1989, la compañía Grand Metropolitan PLC adquirió los derechos de Burger King, comprando las acciones de Pillsbury, quien había adquirido los derechos previamente en el año 1967. En 1997 Grand Metropolitan PLC se fusionó con Guinness convirtiéndose en Diageo PLC, líder mundial en alimentos y dueños de los derechos de Burger King Corporation. Una nueva compra se gestó para el año 2002, Texas Pacific Group, Bain Capital Partners y Goldman Sachs Capital, compraron a Diageo PLC los derechos de marca, regresando la propiedad a Estados Unidos. En 2004, 'el rey' resucitó como principal vehículo de marketing, ya que en 1998 durante la actualización del logotipo y los restaurantes, se había dejado de lado esta imagen legendaria. Para el 50º aniversario de la Whopper, en 2007, se diseñó una campaña en la que se simulaba su desaparición del menú.Apoyame suscribiendote a mi canal y activando las notificaciones para que formes parte de mi familia digital. Gracias, muchas gracias por tu apoyo.Sigueme en Facebook https://www.facebook.com/borissanchotvInstagram https://www.instagram.com/borissanchoTwitter https://www.twitter.com/borissancho Y tambien en TikTok https://vm.tiktok.com/J63Q5yV/Consultas Disponibles en director@hispatvdigital.comVisita mi pagina web https://www.hispatvdigital.comIntro https://youtube.com/iksonAgradecimientos especiales a mis hermanos David Campos y Edgar Valladares.Y te invito con mucho cariño a leer mis articulos en el Blog Hablando Clarohttps://www.hablandoclaro.hispatvdigi... Gracias por ser parte de mi familia digital.

Tori Adams, Founder and CEO of her consulting firm, Cadwyn and Chief Innovation Officer at Value Technology Foundation. Tori has done strategy consulting for the public sector during most of her career at places like IBM and Booz Allen Hamilton. Tori has been a huge advocate and thought leader for blockchain technology for many years now. Based in Washington, DC, she has many connections to the DC blockchain ecosystem including Congress, federal agencies, and non-profits. We talked about her experience as a consultant, Covid-19, airport security, learning about blockchain in healthcare, and technology adoption. Disclaimer: Remember, the Health Unchained podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and we are not providing any sort of legal, financial, or medical advice. Please do your own research and due diligence before making any important decisions related to these matters. Show Notes •Introduction to Tori's background •Journey into the blockchain world •Experience in Washington, DC working with regulators •Update from Aug. 4-5 conference COVID airport security National Academy meeting •What is the goal of Value Technology Foundation and what do you do as Chief Innovation Officer? •Blockchain as a way to prevent fraud and theft •Can you share your consulting approach with a new client? •Trends in Blockchain Use during in COVID-19 •COVID-19 Testing and Infection Status •Tracking Supply Chains •Social Distancing Token •What is your opinion on the decision to send COVID-19 data to HHS instead of CDC? And now back to CDC, presumably. •How can blockchain alleviate some problems we face in the battle against opioid addition? •What are the biggest misconceptions of blockchain when you speak with various healthcare executives? •Technical and social adoption challenges for blockchain tech •What is the value of personal healthcare data? •In the DLT industry, what do you believe in that most people would disagree with? •If you had to have micro chip implanted in your body, where would you want it to be implanted? •Are you currently watching any interesting TV shows? A French Village •Favorite books - The Rise and Fall of the British Nation by David Edgerton. The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt •Final takeaways News Corner Social media has given humans so many amazing ways to connect with each other on a global scale. There’s a facebook community for everyone, families can stay up to date virtually, youtube videos can teach you almost anything you need to know. On the flip-side however, social media has created a more toxic polarization of ideas that are limited to the organizations with the most marketing dollars. I will admit, I look at my twitter and linkedIn feeds multiple times a day, unconsciously searching for the next dopamine hit from likes and comments. The reasons I am talking to you about this in this episode’s news corner is because 1. I recently watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix and 2. I saw a report that a 15 year old girl from Oklahoma attempted the Benadryl TikTok challenge and died. https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/benadryl-challenge-on-tiktok-is-dangerous-experts-say Health Unchained Links Website: https://healthunchained.org Telegram: t.me/healthunchained Twitter: twitter.com/Healthunchaind

On British decline.Much ink has been spilled over the Britain’s fate since the end of its empire. Could it be that decline has been overstated? And what will happen to Britain as it leaves the European Union? We discuss how the history of the Industrial Revolution and Cold War militarism still shapes British politics today, as David Edgerton joins us to talk about the his latest book, 'The Rise and Fall of the British Nation'.Readings: A misremembered empire, David Edgerton, Tortoise Britain’s 20th-century industrial revolution, Colin Kidd, New Statesman (review of Edgerton's book) Britain's persistent racism cannot simply be explained by its imperial history, David Edgerton, The Guardian

David Edgerton, Managing Principle of the DEJ Group joins us to discuss how having an "agile mindset" towards your diversity and inclusion initiatives will give you a better chance at succeeding.https://thedejgroup.com/

Referência em Hamburger e Fast-Food, o Burger King está ganhando cada vez mais a atenção dos brasileiros. A rede americana antagoniza com o Mc Donald's desde seus primeiros dias, e conquistou uma legião de fãs e defensores. Mas como a rede surgiu? Por que ela se tornou tão famosa? Tudo começou com o sonho de dois empreendedores, Keith Kramer e Matthew Burns. Na década de 50, os Estados Unidos experimentavam uma época de prosperidade sem precedentes, principalmente pelo grande êxito dos EUA ao final da Segunda Guerra. O clima de euforia e a crescente geração de empregos e riqueza no país americano fez com que os hábitos dos estadunidenses se transformassem. Com o crescimento das cidades e a maior oferta por trabalho e emprego, os americanos ganharam novos hábitos de consumo, e entre eles estava o fato de fazer as refeições fora de casa. Porém, em boa parte do tempo, os americanos queriam refeições que fossem rápidas e ao mesmo tempo que entregassem um bom custo-benefício. Nesse contexto surgiram as lanchonetes fast-food, que oferecem comida rápida, prática e por preços módicos. Um dos grandes expoentes dessa revolução que irrompia no mundo dos alimentos era uma lanchonete em San Bernardino, California, fundada por dois irmãos: O Mc Donald's. A rede fundada pelos irmãos Dick e Maurice Mc Donald's se notabilizou em pouco tempo por conta da forma como servia os sanduíches, em um método extremamente mais rápido do que qualquer outro restaurante da época. O sistema funcionava conforme uma esteira de produção, nos moldes de uma linha de montagem ao estilo Ford. A dinâmica funcionava com a divisão das tarefas entre os funcionários. Nela, cada funcionário tinha uma função específica, que deveria ser executada sempre da mesma forma e no mesmo tempo, buscando a excelência e a eficiência. Esse método foi batizado como Speedy System, ou sistema rápido, em tradução literal. Mas, apesar de serem os criadores do sistema, os irmãos Mc Donald's não tinham muito apego ao sistema, e em vez de manterem o sistema como um segredo do restaurante, eles decidiram licenciar o sistema, através de um workshop em que qualquer pessoa poderia aprender a como montar e operar o sistema rápido em seu próprio negócio. Para tanto, os irmãos cobraram 950 dólares, em valores da época, para compartilharem os segredos do método. Nesse meio tempo, Keith Kramer e Matthew Burns participaram de um destes workshops e aprenderam tudo sobre o sistema rápido do Mc Donald's. Inspirados e com o sonho de abrirem uma lanchonete baseada em hambúrgueres, os dois amigos abriram em 1953 o Insta-Burger King, na cidade de Jacksonville na Flórida. Um restaurante que serviria hambúrgueres com um grande diferencial: ao invés de serem fritos em chapas, os bifes dos hambúrgueres seriam feitos em uma máquina chamada Insta-Broiler, que tornava a carne mais suculenta. Aliando este diferencial no produto e o sistema rápido, a lanchonete foi um enorme sucesso. E em cerca de um ano, a empresa passou a abrir unidades franqueadas. Uma destas unidades franqueadas foi vendida para outros dois amigos, James Mc Lamore e David Edgerton. Ambos haviam se formado em Administração na Universidade de Cornell, e procuravam uma oportunidade de negócio. E a exemplo dos fundadores da agora rede de lanchonetes, eles também visitaram os irmãos Mc Donald's para aprenderem melhor sobre o sistema rápido. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rodrigo-felicissimo/support

Al and James are joined by historian and writer David Edgerton to discuss industry and innovation during the war. Famous for taking on the ‘declinists’, David offers a unique perspective on the power of industrial Britain in the 1930s and 40s.Join the We Have Ways members’ club now for £5 a month using the link below:Patreon.com/wehavewaysA Goalhanger Films productionProduced by Harry LinekerExec Producer Tony PastorTwitter: #WeHaveWays@WeHaveWaysPodEmail: wehavewayspodcast@gmail.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On the 75 anniversary of the VE Day, David Edgerton tells Tim Phillips that Britain's belief in its go-it-alone scientific and inventive genius is “deluded”, and has stunted the nation's postwar growth. Download The Economics of the Second World War Seventy-Five Years On (https://voxeu.org/content/new-ebook-economics-second-world-war-seventy-five-years) , featuring David's chapter.

Talk "What does the Resurrection mean for the world" recorded as part of the full virtual service. Presented by David Edgerton

Talk Mark Chapter 8 - Food, Signs & the Road to the Cross presented by David Edgerton and recorded at the 10am service on March 1, 2020

Will Brexit break up the United Kingdom? Historian David Edgerton says that the time has come to let go of the idea of a “British nation.”

First talk in the Gospel of Mark series recorded at the 10am service on January 5, 2020. David Edgerton presenting

How does science drive the economy? What are the origins of the creative sector, and how should it be governed? In this episode of the Governance Podcast, David Edgerton (King's College London) sits down with Terence Kealey (University of Buckingham) to discuss the counterintuitive role science plays, and should play, in society.  Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast on iTunes and Spotify today and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us on facebook, twitter or instagram (@csgskcl). The Guest Terence Kealey is a professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham in the United Kingdom, where he served as vice chancellor until 2014. As a clinical biochemist Dr. Kealey studied human experimental dermatology. He published around 45 original peer-reviewed papers and around 35 scientific reviews, also peer-reviewed. In 1996 he published his first book, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, where he argued that, contrary to the conventional wisdom,  governments need not fund science. His second book, Sex, Science and Profits (2008) argues that science is not a public good but, rather, is organized in invisible colleges, thereby making government funding irrelevant. Professor Kealey trained initially in medicine at Bart's Hospital Medical School, London. He studied for his doctorate at Oxford University, where he worked first as a Medical Research Council Training Fellow and then as a Wellcome Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Science. David Edgerton  is the Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology and Professor of Modern British History at King's College London. He graduated from St John's College Oxford and Imperial College London. After teaching at the University of Manchester he became the founding director of the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine at Imperial College London (1993-2003) where he was also Hans Rausing Professor. He joined the History department with the Centre on its transfer to King's in August 2013. He was a Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellow, 2006-2009, and gave the 2009 Wilkins-Bernal-Medawar Prize Lecture at the  Royal Society.  Skip Ahead 1:00: Terence, you and I have known each other for many years. You started off as a scientist, as I did, indeed, and we've both found our way to thinking about the place of science in society and in the economy. How did you start on this path? 3:53: Where did you develop your thoughts about science funding? It's very unusual for a scientist to be writing about the economics of science at all, especially from the positions you were taking. Where did you find the space to articulate your criticisms? 6:48: I imagine you were politically engaged in some way at this time. What were you reading outside science, what positions were you taking in this rather strained political atmosphere of the 1980s? 8:52: In the 1980s, you're pointing out that the university labs are getting fuller and fuller. Now I assume that most of the money that paid for all those new researchers was government money. Your argument, as it developed over the years, was that governments need not fund research in universities or elsewhere. So you were effectively saying that the Thatcher governments were spending too much on scientific research. 10:51: But the great bulk of the money going into universities from the so-called private sector is surely charitable money from the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research and so on, and highly focused on the biomedical sector.  11:44: Now the Thatcher governments presented themselves as wanting to reverse the British decline, and many of the people arguing for more investment in research argued that the British decline since the 1870s was caused by a lack of investment in research. So you might imagine that the Thatcher governments would in fact launch a program of such investments, and it's interesting today to see the Brexiters today including Dominic Cummings talking about increasing funding for research... Why weren't the Thatcher governments pursuing that policy of investment? 15:13: So you don't see her [Thatcher] as following through on the liberal arguments from Gladstone onwards. 15:57: Terence, let me put this to you: in 1979, the British R&D - GDP ratio was higher than it was in 1990, when Margaret Thatcher left office. That's to say, essentially the private sector, dominating overall R&D funding, was spending less on research as a portion of GDP at the end of the Thatcher period. That doesn't seem to square with your crowding out thesis.  18:30: One could argue that the effectiveness of R&D productivity has declined since the 1970s-- obviously that is the case in pharmaceuticals; perhaps it's the case more generally. 21:41: I'd like to go back just a little bit to an issue that we both addressed in the 80s and early 90s, which is pertinent here. That is the relationship between national investments in R&D and national rates of economic growth. We both put forward the argument that there was no positive correlation between these numbers. And I think I recall correctly that experts in science policy and scientists were incredulous and thought that we'd lost a few marbles along the way. How did you come to this conclusion? 24:28: If you look at the industrially funded British R&D, it was relatively high into the late 1960s and the rates of British economic growth were low, and this wasn't because the British were bad at exploiting the research; I think that even there we had an element of an inverse correlation between national growth rates and national privately funded civil R&D. 26:49: One very striking conclusion you report in your first book, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, is that the higher the GDP per capita of a country, the higher the R&D - GDP ratio. That's important because the richer the country is, the lower the rate of economic growth.  29:52: If one were to put in the phrase 'economics of science' into google scholar, very quickly we'd be taken back to some foundation work in the late 50s and early 60s which treated science as a public good, and out of that a whole series of arguments about the need for the state to fund science. 38:37: So what you're saying is that that model of economics of science in the late 50s and early 60s which suggests that science is a public good misunderstands that science cannot be a public good in the same way that the light from a lighthouse is a public good... We can't all read a scientific paper and understand what it's about. 44:15: One of the new features of our public life is the centrality of a certain discourse about innovation and creativity; we're all supposed to be innovative and entrepreneurial. There's not a CV that doesn't claim innovation in some way... but you seem to be saying something rather interesting in that context, which is that what appears to be innovation is to a very considerable extent the result of learning, dare I say it, imitation. So what enterprises that want to create something new do is steal other people's ideas. That's very interesting. Another way in which your idea could be developed is to understand why creative institutions, far from being a universal feature of the economy, are in fact highly concentrated-- very particular firms have contributed very large proportions of innovation in the 20th century; very few universities account for a big chunk of Nobel Prizes. Could your model help explain this? 50:46: Terence, one of the many things you've done in your career is to become a Vice Chancellor. And you're clearly very committed to education and learning. Tell us a little bit about that role... that entrepreneurial drive to conquer the world of knowledge.

David Edgerton is Hans Rausing Professor of the history of science and technology and professor of modern British history at King's College London. He is the author of The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: a Twentieth Century History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicky James, aka Bloke from Barnsley, joins us to talk about the Rally For Our Rights taking place in London this coming weekend. Plus some further reflection on how it is that the Westminster bubble still can't read the other side, despite them being an open book. Brexit is a necessary crisis (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/brexit-crisis-global-capitalism-britain-place-world?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1570599167) - opinion piece by David Edgerton in the Guardian (PS Sorry for the audio quality in this one, we had to record the skype stream directly.) Special Guest: Nicky James.

I was pleased to speak with Will Thomas on the Acquisition Talk podcast. He is a senior science policy analyst at the American Institute of Physics, and is a historian of science and technology. His book is Rational Action: The Sciences of Policy in Britain and America, 1940-1960. There is a ton of interesting facts and useful analysis in the history of how the military learned how to learn, with clear application for today's debates on innovation. During the discussion we touch on a wide-range of issues, including the origins of operations research, whether a market in defense can actually exist, the separation of R&D from production -- and whether software considerations have changed the logic, the uses of technology readiness levels, similarities and differences between healthcare and defense, and the experience of Donald Trump's uncle, John, who was head of the British Branch of MIT's radiation lab during WWII. The talk features an analysis of the debate in RAND between systems analysts like ES Quade and luminary economists like Kenneth Arrow and Armen Alchian, who favored a sequential decision-making in R&D due to the prevalence of uncertainty. I tried to pick apart some distinctions between Arrow and Alchian, characterizing the former as more of an optimizer using an allocation paradigm and the latter as more evolutionary using an exchange paradigm. Will responds that I was over-interpreting Arrow, and that the goal of both was to support policies of government support to exploratory development without locking in technical configurations prematurely. I'd like to thank Will for joining me on the Acquisition Talk podcast. Be sure to check out his website which includes links to his book Rational Action and nearly a dozen fascinating articles. Here is his paper on Donald Trump's uncle, "A profile of John Trump, Donald’s oft-mentioned scientist uncle." His Twitter handle is @GWilliamThomas and he occasionally blogs at EtherWave. Will also recommends reading David Edgerton, among others, on the history of science and technology. This podcast was produced by Eric Lofgren. Soundtrack by urmymuse: "reflections of u". You can follow us on Twitter @AcqTalk and find more information at AcquisitionTalk.com.

David Edgerton attacks outdated views of the British nation and the British Empire during the 20th century with his new book. He revitalises discussion about declinist views of empire, and challenges the idea that the new British nation was forged in World War Two by Britain's isolation.All of the books discussed in the History Hit podcast are available at History Hit books. We'd love it if you supported what we do by using our affiliate link: https://books.historyhit.com/For ad free versions of our entire podcast archive and hundreds of hours of history documentaries, interviews and films, signup to History Hit TV. Use code 'DDAY' at checkout.Producer: Peter Curry See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David Edgerton attacks outdated views of the British nation and the British Empire during the 20th century with his new book. He revitalises discussion about declinist views of empire, and challenges the idea that the new British nation was forged in World War Two by Britain's isolation.All of the books discussed in the History Hit podcast are available at History Hit books. We'd love it if you supported what we do by using our affiliate link: https://books.historyhit.com/For ad free versions of our entire podcast archive and hundreds of hours of history documentaries, interviews and films, signup to History Hit TV. Use code 'DDAY' at checkout.Producer: Peter Curry See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David Edgerton joins me to discuss his new book, 'The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History'. We spoke about British declinism, the way declinist narratives structure understandings of modern British history and the political uses to which declinism has been put, both on the left and the right and by the architects of the Brexit project.

收听提示 1、新科技能使教育更公平吗？ 2、科技在什么样的社会条件下被使用？ 3、不同的环境条件对技术的需求有所不同。 4、社会因技术的变化而变化。 本集文章 "Is technology driving educational inequality?"作者：Joshua Kim 本集书目 《老科技的全球史》作者：[英]大卫•艾杰顿 (David Edgerton) 内容简介 本书作者从宏观的角度，全面客观的对20世纪世界科技史的发展进行了经典的技术和解读。本书内容涵盖及其广泛，涉及了1900年以来全球范围内整个的技术与发明，创新及应用的技术历史，他的表述框架式从技术的重要意义，时间，生产，维护修理，民族，战争，杀戮，发明与创新等方面进行的每个方面都是由翔实的事例和准确的数据组成。 全新《八分》每周三、周五更新 欢迎留言与我们互动

收听提示 1、新科技能使教育更公平吗？ 2、科技在什么样的社会条件下被使用？ 3、不同的环境条件对技术的需求有所不同。 4、社会因技术的变化而变化。 本集文章 "Is technology driving educational inequality?"作者：Joshua Kim 本集书目 《老科技的全球史》作者：[英]大卫•艾杰顿 (David Edgerton) 内容简介 本书作者从宏观的角度，全面客观的对20世纪世界科技史的发展进行了经典的技术和解读。本书内容涵盖及其广泛，涉及了1900年以来全球范围内整个的技术与发明，创新及应用的技术历史，他的表述框架式从技术的重要意义，时间，生产，维护修理，民族，战争，杀戮，发明与创新等方面进行的每个方面都是由翔实的事例和准确的数据组成。 全新《八分》每周三、周五更新 欢迎留言与我们互动

I am proud to have David Edgerton, ITS Manager in Business Intelligence Technology for Andersen Corporation joins us to discuss how to take a team from great to exceptional. We also talk about the paradigm shift that happens when someone moves from an individual contributor role to a managerial or leadership role and why it trips so many people up.Check out the http://www.thedejshow.com

Professor David Edgerton explains why we need to revise our understanding of recent British history, from the world wars to the welfare state See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David Edgerton’s The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth Century History (Allen Lane, 2018) argues the United Kingdom had a distinctive national moment characterized by a strong state, powerful military armed with advanced weapons, and dedicated to developmental economics. Far from repeating older claims that Britain did not have a nationalism or was not sufficiently nationalistic, Edgerton shows a country that is increasingly interventionist, militaristic, and devoted to science and technology in the wake of the Second World War. Britain’s nationalist project reaches its height in the 1960s with the expansion of essential resources like food and energy as well as significant public expenditure on innovative technologies like supersonic jets and nuclear energy. Edgerton examines shifting interpretations of British capitalism, militarism, and the role of the state. He focuses attention on industrialists turned parliamentarians as well as public intellectuals, labor leaders, and scientists to provide a wide view of political economic thought. Debates about nation and economy are not simply drawn along lines of right and left, but rather in visions of what the nation could be or should be. Ideas are not static in Edgerton’s account, but rather grow and change in step with Britain’s socioeconomic and cultural transformation. The British nation reaches the crisis point in the 1970s. Expected economic growth does not occur and the public begins to lose confidence in the government. The United Kingdom transforms once again in the 1980s towards an economically liberal and globalist orientation by the Thatcher government. The government lifts barriers to trade and the British nation ceases to be a coherent economic unit. The United Kingdom becomes a center for foreign investment, entrepreneurs, and the entertainment industry. Along with economic change, sub-national politics in Scotland and Wales return to challenge the authority of the nation-state. Edgerton uncovers a forgotten materiality imbedded within Britain’s industrial past as well as the hidden role of capitalists, ideologues, and the military. Britain’s history is not one of inevitable decline or the development of the welfare state, but rather a story of power and change in line with other European nation-states like Germany or the Russia. James Esposito is a historian and researcher interested in digital history, empire, and the history of technology. James can be reached via email at espositojamesj@gmail.com and on Twitter @james_esposito_ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Edgerton’s The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth Century History (Allen Lane, 2018) argues the United Kingdom had a distinctive national moment characterized by a strong state, powerful military armed with advanced weapons, and dedicated to developmental economics. Far from repeating older claims that Britain did not have a nationalism or was not sufficiently nationalistic, Edgerton shows a country that is increasingly interventionist, militaristic, and devoted to science and technology in the wake of the Second World War. Britain’s nationalist project reaches its height in the 1960s with the expansion of essential resources like food and energy as well as significant public expenditure on innovative technologies like supersonic jets and nuclear energy. Edgerton examines shifting interpretations of British capitalism, militarism, and the role of the state. He focuses attention on industrialists turned parliamentarians as well as public intellectuals, labor leaders, and scientists to provide a wide view of political economic thought. Debates about nation and economy are not simply drawn along lines of right and left, but rather in visions of what the nation could be or should be. Ideas are not static in Edgerton’s account, but rather grow and change in step with Britain’s socioeconomic and cultural transformation. The British nation reaches the crisis point in the 1970s. Expected economic growth does not occur and the public begins to lose confidence in the government. The United Kingdom transforms once again in the 1980s towards an economically liberal and globalist orientation by the Thatcher government. The government lifts barriers to trade and the British nation ceases to be a coherent economic unit. The United Kingdom becomes a center for foreign investment, entrepreneurs, and the entertainment industry. Along with economic change, sub-national politics in Scotland and Wales return to challenge the authority of the nation-state. Edgerton uncovers a forgotten materiality imbedded within Britain’s industrial past as well as the hidden role of capitalists, ideologues, and the military. Britain’s history is not one of inevitable decline or the development of the welfare state, but rather a story of power and change in line with other European nation-states like Germany or the Russia. James Esposito is a historian and researcher interested in digital history, empire, and the history of technology. James can be reached via email at espositojamesj@gmail.com and on Twitter @james_esposito_ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Edgerton’s The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth Century History (Allen Lane, 2018) argues the United Kingdom had a distinctive national moment characterized by a strong state, powerful military armed with advanced weapons, and dedicated to developmental economics. Far from repeating older claims that Britain did not have a nationalism or was not sufficiently nationalistic, Edgerton shows a country that is increasingly interventionist, militaristic, and devoted to science and technology in the wake of the Second World War. Britain’s nationalist project reaches its height in the 1960s with the expansion of essential resources like food and energy as well as significant public expenditure on innovative technologies like supersonic jets and nuclear energy. Edgerton examines shifting interpretations of British capitalism, militarism, and the role of the state. He focuses attention on industrialists turned parliamentarians as well as public intellectuals, labor leaders, and scientists to provide a wide view of political economic thought. Debates about nation and economy are not simply drawn along lines of right and left, but rather in visions of what the nation could be or should be. Ideas are not static in Edgerton’s account, but rather grow and change in step with Britain’s socioeconomic and cultural transformation. The British nation reaches the crisis point in the 1970s. Expected economic growth does not occur and the public begins to lose confidence in the government. The United Kingdom transforms once again in the 1980s towards an economically liberal and globalist orientation by the Thatcher government. The government lifts barriers to trade and the British nation ceases to be a coherent economic unit. The United Kingdom becomes a center for foreign investment, entrepreneurs, and the entertainment industry. Along with economic change, sub-national politics in Scotland and Wales return to challenge the authority of the nation-state. Edgerton uncovers a forgotten materiality imbedded within Britain’s industrial past as well as the hidden role of capitalists, ideologues, and the military. Britain’s history is not one of inevitable decline or the development of the welfare state, but rather a story of power and change in line with other European nation-states like Germany or the Russia. James Esposito is a historian and researcher interested in digital history, empire, and the history of technology. James can be reached via email at espositojamesj@gmail.com and on Twitter @james_esposito_ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Theme 4: Conditions for rapid change In order to address pressing environmental challenges (particularly but not only climate change) and reduce possible dangerous levels of economic inequality, it may be necessary to achieve rapid change politically, economically, socially and technologically. What were the conditions that led to rapid change in the past?

Dr Srinath Raghavan is Senior Research Fellow at King's India Institute. He took his MA and PhD from the Department of War Studies, King's College London. He is the author of 'War and Peace in Modern India: A Strategic History of the Nehru Years'(2010) and '1971: A Global History of the Creation of Bangladesh' (2013). On 25 February 2015 he gave a talk examining the economic impact of the Second World War on India. It was hosted by the Sir Michael Howard Centre for the History of War and the the King's India Institute, and chaired by Professor David Edgerton. DISCLAIMER: Any information, statements or opinions contained in this podcast are those of the individual speakers. They do not represent the opinions of the Department of War Studies or King's College London.

Professor David Edgerton reflects on a WW1 clarion-call from the British scientific establishment. In a letter to The Times in 1916, many of the great names of British science declared their belief that both academic and applied science were being treated as Cinderella subjects. The Germans, they surmised, had got their act together and were outflanking the British military effort in chemical warfare, armaments and generally taking science more seriously. Edgerton finds out what was going on at the time and looks at how the First World War advanced British science.

How great artists and thinkers responded to the First World War in individual works of art.Professor David Edgerton of King's College London reflects on the Memorandum on the Neglect of Science, a 1916 clarion-call from the British scientific establishment.In a letter to The Times that year, many of the great names of British science declared their belief that both academic and applied science were being treated as Cinderella subjects. The Germans, they surmised, had got their act together and were outflanking the British military effort in chemical warfare, armaments and generally taking science more seriously.They continued by observing that the entrance examinations for Oxford and Cambridge Universities and the civil service, were weighted towards the Classics rather than sciences. Was this the first stirrings CP Snow's Two Cultures debate?David Edgerton, the Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology and Professor of Modern British History, at King's College London, finds out what was going on at the time and looks at how the First World War advanced British science.Producer: Benedict Warren.

Policy Impact Skills for Historians Workshop 2: Public policy engagement – practice and actors 1.15-2.30pm: Session 3 Historians engaging at local/regional levels, with specialist agencies and/or civil society Professor David Edgerton, Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology, Professor of Modern British History, King's College London

A clinic is to be set up at Westminster to help MPs suffering from mental health problems. Doctors in the House of Commons have reported a growing number of MPs coming to them with depression and anxiety. Officials have approved £25,000 annual funds for specialist treatment to be offered to MPs at Westminster after they said discrimination over mental health makes it hard for them to talk to doctors in their constituencies. A popular 12-year-old schoolboy nicknamed ‘little Superman’ was found hanging in his bedroom by his brother after his mother confiscated his mobile phone, an inquest heard today. Cain Westcarr, of Gloucester, had spent two days arguing with his mother Veronica Lee, and was discovered just 40 minutes after saying he was going to his room to listen to music. Beaufort School student Cain was later pronounced dead at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, but the inquest heard his act may have been a cry for help and he had not intended to take his life. A schoolgirl sent messages to her family via Facebook pleading for help while she was being raped in woods near her home. The 14-year-old used her mobile phone to write ‘help’ and ‘raping me’ on her sister’s profile page on the site, a court was told. But although the messages alerted her mother and sister, who eventually discovered her collapsed by the roadside, they were too late to stop her ordeal. Yesterday a judge criticised the police and Crown Prosecution Service after it emerged they had missed three chances to catch her attacker, David Edgerton, 22, in the months leading up to the rape. THIS sickening phone footage of a screaming schoolgirl being beaten up has sparked a police probe after it was posted on Facebook. The horrifying clip shows pupils surrounding a girl before she is pulled towards the ground by her ponytail and repeatedly thumped. ... victim was left with facial injuries. Within two hours of the video being uploaded on Tuesday night, almost 900 people had ’liked’ the video and 595 users had shared the link. The film sees a defenceless pupil from a school near Bradford, West Yorks, screaming while others surround the pair and film the incident on their mobile phones.

A clinic is to be set up at Westminster to help MPs suffering from mental health problems. Doctors in the House of Commons have reported a growing number of MPs coming to them with depression and anxiety. Officials have approved £25,000 annual funds for specialist treatment to be offered to MPs at Westminster after they said discrimination over mental health makes it hard for them to talk to doctors in their constituencies. A popular 12-year-old schoolboy nicknamed ‘little Superman’ was found hanging in his bedroom by his brother after his mother confiscated his mobile phone, an inquest heard today. Cain Westcarr, of Gloucester, had spent two days arguing with his mother Veronica Lee, and was discovered just 40 minutes after saying he was going to his room to listen to music. Beaufort School student Cain was later pronounced dead at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, but the inquest heard his act may have been a cry for help and he had not intended to take his life. A schoolgirl sent messages to her family via Facebook pleading for help while she was being raped in woods near her home. The 14-year-old used her mobile phone to write ‘help’ and ‘raping me’ on her sister’s profile page on the site, a court was told. But although the messages alerted her mother and sister, who eventually discovered her collapsed by the roadside, they were too late to stop her ordeal. Yesterday a judge criticised the police and Crown Prosecution Service after it emerged they had missed three chances to catch her attacker, David Edgerton, 22, in the months leading up to the rape. THIS sickening phone footage of a screaming schoolgirl being beaten up has sparked a police probe after it was posted on Facebook. The horrifying clip shows pupils surrounding a girl before she is pulled towards the ground by her ponytail and repeatedly thumped. ... victim was left with facial injuries. Within two hours of the video being uploaded on Tuesday night, almost 900 people had ’liked’ the video and 595 users had shared the link. The film sees a defenceless pupil from a school near Bradford, West Yorks, screaming while others surround the pair and film the incident on their mobile phones.

My grandfather joined up when the Second World War broke out, but he was soon returned to civvy street as he was much more valuable employing his mechanic’s skills to fight the Nazis from a factory in Newcastle. He ended up making the parts of the spot lights that were used to guide anti-aircraft batteries (and my grandmother made parachutes, just over the River Tyne in Gateshead). Although this was not half as exciting to find out about as a young boy as discovering that he was in fact a Commando or part of the Long Range Desert Group, what my grandfather was part of was vital to the defeat of Nazism. In his excellent book, Britain’s War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War (Oxford University Press, 2011), David Edgerton is all about this crucial non-military part of Britain’s war with Germany, and it sets about challenges perceptions almost from the front page. His argument is that Britain was actually far more able and well resourced than commonly thought. It entered the war as the richest per-capita nation in the world, a ‘world island’ interconnected with markets across the globe. It had industry and it had a formidable military. Even after France fell, Britain still had its empire to fall back on, and that is before the economic (and then military) assistance of the USA is taken into account. It had the luxury of fighting a war that it was comfortable with, through Bomber Command and in North Africa and the Mediterranean: not for Britain the mass bloodshed that characterized the Eastern Front. Even by the end of the war, an exhausted Britain was still in enviable shape, although – especially in comparison to the USA – it did not seem to be. The book is full of fascinating information, facts and arguments. I did not realize that (again, contrary to accepted opinion) British tanks were actually extremely highly rated, or that British units were extremely well equipped with armour. The bombing campaign was extremely well suited to statistical analysis. In 1939 the Admiralty was sent around a thousand letters a day from garden-shed inventors, each promising that his amateur tinkering had produced an invention that might win the war against the Germans. I also appreciated that this book explained to me exactly how my grandfather (and grandmother) had done so much to win the war, without having to fire a shot. It was not risk free: I remember my grandfather telling me how a bomb had scored a direct hit on the factory’s toilet, just after one of his colleagues had disappeared inside with his morning newspaper. But it was also vital, and I thoroughly recommend the book, especially to those who want to know a little bit more about how war was fought, beyond the simple matter of bullets and blood. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My grandfather joined up when the Second World War broke out, but he was soon returned to civvy street as he was much more valuable employing his mechanic's skills to fight the Nazis from a factory in Newcastle. He ended up making the parts of the spot lights that were used to guide anti-aircraft batteries (and my grandmother made parachutes, just over the River Tyne in Gateshead). Although this was not half as exciting to find out about as a young boy as discovering that he was in fact a Commando or part of the Long Range Desert Group, what my grandfather was part of was vital to the defeat of Nazism. In his excellent book, Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War (Oxford University Press, 2011), David Edgerton is all about this crucial non-military part of Britain's war with Germany, and it sets about challenges perceptions almost from the front page. His argument is that Britain was actually far more able and well resourced than commonly thought. It entered the war as the richest per-capita nation in the world, a ‘world island' interconnected with markets across the globe. It had industry and it had a formidable military. Even after France fell, Britain still had its empire to fall back on, and that is before the economic (and then military) assistance of the USA is taken into account. It had the luxury of fighting a war that it was comfortable with, through Bomber Command and in North Africa and the Mediterranean: not for Britain the mass bloodshed that characterized the Eastern Front. Even by the end of the war, an exhausted Britain was still in enviable shape, although – especially in comparison to the USA – it did not seem to be. The book is full of fascinating information, facts and arguments. I did not realize that (again, contrary to accepted opinion) British tanks were actually extremely highly rated, or that British units were extremely well equipped with armour. The bombing campaign was extremely well suited to statistical analysis. In 1939 the Admiralty was sent around a thousand letters a day from garden-shed inventors, each promising that his amateur tinkering had produced an invention that might win the war against the Germans. I also appreciated that this book explained to me exactly how my grandfather (and grandmother) had done so much to win the war, without having to fire a shot. It was not risk free: I remember my grandfather telling me how a bomb had scored a direct hit on the factory's toilet, just after one of his colleagues had disappeared inside with his morning newspaper. But it was also vital, and I thoroughly recommend the book, especially to those who want to know a little bit more about how war was fought, beyond the simple matter of bullets and blood.

My grandfather joined up when the Second World War broke out, but he was soon returned to civvy street as he was much more valuable employing his mechanic’s skills to fight the Nazis from a factory in Newcastle. He ended up making the parts of the spot lights that were used to guide anti-aircraft batteries (and my grandmother made parachutes, just over the River Tyne in Gateshead). Although this was not half as exciting to find out about as a young boy as discovering that he was in fact a Commando or part of the Long Range Desert Group, what my grandfather was part of was vital to the defeat of Nazism. In his excellent book, Britain’s War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War (Oxford University Press, 2011), David Edgerton is all about this crucial non-military part of Britain’s war with Germany, and it sets about challenges perceptions almost from the front page. His argument is that Britain was actually far more able and well resourced than commonly thought. It entered the war as the richest per-capita nation in the world, a ‘world island’ interconnected with markets across the globe. It had industry and it had a formidable military. Even after France fell, Britain still had its empire to fall back on, and that is before the economic (and then military) assistance of the USA is taken into account. It had the luxury of fighting a war that it was comfortable with, through Bomber Command and in North Africa and the Mediterranean: not for Britain the mass bloodshed that characterized the Eastern Front. Even by the end of the war, an exhausted Britain was still in enviable shape, although – especially in comparison to the USA – it did not seem to be. The book is full of fascinating information, facts and arguments. I did not realize that (again, contrary to accepted opinion) British tanks were actually extremely highly rated, or that British units were extremely well equipped with armour. The bombing campaign was extremely well suited to statistical analysis. In 1939 the Admiralty was sent around a thousand letters a day from garden-shed inventors, each promising that his amateur tinkering had produced an invention that might win the war against the Germans. I also appreciated that this book explained to me exactly how my grandfather (and grandmother) had done so much to win the war, without having to fire a shot. It was not risk free: I remember my grandfather telling me how a bomb had scored a direct hit on the factory’s toilet, just after one of his colleagues had disappeared inside with his morning newspaper. But it was also vital, and I thoroughly recommend the book, especially to those who want to know a little bit more about how war was fought, beyond the simple matter of bullets and blood. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My grandfather joined up when the Second World War broke out, but he was soon returned to civvy street as he was much more valuable employing his mechanic’s skills to fight the Nazis from a factory in Newcastle. He ended up making the parts of the spot lights that were used to guide anti-aircraft batteries (and my grandmother made parachutes, just over the River Tyne in Gateshead). Although this was not half as exciting to find out about as a young boy as discovering that he was in fact a Commando or part of the Long Range Desert Group, what my grandfather was part of was vital to the defeat of Nazism. In his excellent book, Britain’s War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War (Oxford University Press, 2011), David Edgerton is all about this crucial non-military part of Britain’s war with Germany, and it sets about challenges perceptions almost from the front page. His argument is that Britain was actually far more able and well resourced than commonly thought. It entered the war as the richest per-capita nation in the world, a ‘world island’ interconnected with markets across the globe. It had industry and it had a formidable military. Even after France fell, Britain still had its empire to fall back on, and that is before the economic (and then military) assistance of the USA is taken into account. It had the luxury of fighting a war that it was comfortable with, through Bomber Command and in North Africa and the Mediterranean: not for Britain the mass bloodshed that characterized the Eastern Front. Even by the end of the war, an exhausted Britain was still in enviable shape, although – especially in comparison to the USA – it did not seem to be. The book is full of fascinating information, facts and arguments. I did not realize that (again, contrary to accepted opinion) British tanks were actually extremely highly rated, or that British units were extremely well equipped with armour. The bombing campaign was extremely well suited to statistical analysis. In 1939 the Admiralty was sent around a thousand letters a day from garden-shed inventors, each promising that his amateur tinkering had produced an invention that might win the war against the Germans. I also appreciated that this book explained to me exactly how my grandfather (and grandmother) had done so much to win the war, without having to fire a shot. It was not risk free: I remember my grandfather telling me how a bomb had scored a direct hit on the factory’s toilet, just after one of his colleagues had disappeared inside with his morning newspaper. But it was also vital, and I thoroughly recommend the book, especially to those who want to know a little bit more about how war was fought, beyond the simple matter of bullets and blood. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My grandfather joined up when the Second World War broke out, but he was soon returned to civvy street as he was much more valuable employing his mechanic’s skills to fight the Nazis from a factory in Newcastle. He ended up making the parts of the spot lights that were used to guide anti-aircraft batteries (and my grandmother made parachutes, just over the River Tyne in Gateshead). Although this was not half as exciting to find out about as a young boy as discovering that he was in fact a Commando or part of the Long Range Desert Group, what my grandfather was part of was vital to the defeat of Nazism. In his excellent book, Britain’s War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War (Oxford University Press, 2011), David Edgerton is all about this crucial non-military part of Britain’s war with Germany, and it sets about challenges perceptions almost from the front page. His argument is that Britain was actually far more able and well resourced than commonly thought. It entered the war as the richest per-capita nation in the world, a ‘world island’ interconnected with markets across the globe. It had industry and it had a formidable military. Even after France fell, Britain still had its empire to fall back on, and that is before the economic (and then military) assistance of the USA is taken into account. It had the luxury of fighting a war that it was comfortable with, through Bomber Command and in North Africa and the Mediterranean: not for Britain the mass bloodshed that characterized the Eastern Front. Even by the end of the war, an exhausted Britain was still in enviable shape, although – especially in comparison to the USA – it did not seem to be. The book is full of fascinating information, facts and arguments. I did not realize that (again, contrary to accepted opinion) British tanks were actually extremely highly rated, or that British units were extremely well equipped with armour. The bombing campaign was extremely well suited to statistical analysis. In 1939 the Admiralty was sent around a thousand letters a day from garden-shed inventors, each promising that his amateur tinkering had produced an invention that might win the war against the Germans. I also appreciated that this book explained to me exactly how my grandfather (and grandmother) had done so much to win the war, without having to fire a shot. It was not risk free: I remember my grandfather telling me how a bomb had scored a direct hit on the factory’s toilet, just after one of his colleagues had disappeared inside with his morning newspaper. But it was also vital, and I thoroughly recommend the book, especially to those who want to know a little bit more about how war was fought, beyond the simple matter of bullets and blood. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Edgerton explains why Britain was no underdog in the Second World War, Lucy looks at how hairstyles reflected political and social change and Chris Evans discusses British involvement in Latin American slavery. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Professor David Edgerton considers Churchill's approach to science and technology during World War Two and looks at his relationship with the 'Cronies and Technocrats' of the time.