Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants

 

July 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants

 

The recent flap over President Obama's statement in this speech in Virginia prompted one commenter to state "That's as ridiculous as saying that Bill Gates couldn't have built Microsoft without Tesla."  

 

But there's a problem with that.  Bill Gates couldn't have built Micro$oft without the work of Nikola Tesla.  He was standing on the shoulders of Nikola Tesla, among others.  He was, as are we all, standing on the shoulders of giants.  

 

The fact is that no matter how "self made" a man might think he is, he is in fact standing on the shoulders of giants.  And the giants on whose shoulders Bill Gates is standing involve more people than just Nikola Tesla.  A lot more.  

 

There is in fact a large list of giants on whose shoulders Bill Gates is standing, whether or not he, or anyone else, chooses to acknowledge that fact.  Nikola Tesla is among them, but so are George Westinghouse, Thomas Edison, Charles Babbage, Ada Lovelace, Luigi Menabrea, Herman Hollerith, Samuel Morse, Alexander Graham Bell, William Preece, Walter H. Schottky, Lee de Forest, Heinrich Geissler, William Crookes, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, Herbert Matare, Heinrich Welker, Jack Kilby, Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, Federico Faggin, Ted Hoff, Stanley Mazor, Art Rock, Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton, Philo Farnsworth, Karl Braun, and the list goes on and on.  

 

Bill Gates stands on the shoulders of a veritable army of giants, and these are just the names of some of the individual people.  He's also standing on the shoulders of the Apollo program, and the entire microelectronics industry which it spawned.  And he's standing on the shoulders of all of the universities and institutions of higher learning that gave rise to the minds of all of these people, including Gates himself.  

He is standing on the shoulders of all of the people who built the infrastructure, the legal system, the political system, the social system, and the financial system of a nation which allowed and encouraged him to prosper.  

 

Most of all, he's standing on the shoulders of the the employees and contractors who did, and do the actual grunt-work of building Microsoft.  

 

Ultimately, he is standing on the shoulders of countless millions of consumers who buy Microsoft products and services, and the entire system which allows that to happen.  

 

We are, all of us, standing on the shoulders of giants in an unbroken pyramid that stretches back in time to the first protohuman to pick up a rock and bang it with another rock.  And that is why, when President Obama said "you didn't do it alone" he was absolutely correct. 

Comments

• 

  Charlie Martin And yet, there are three hundred million of us in the US right now, and still there was only one Steve Jobs, one Bill Gates.

Active Now

Alan Petrillo Who have both in the past acknowledged that they were standing on the shoulders of giants. In a couple of instances in those exact words.

Charlie Martin The thing here is that you've got a good point -- but it's aimed squarely 90 degrees from what Obama was saying. They may be standing on the shoulders of giants -- but each of those giants *also* was doing something no one else did. We don't say an architect didn't build a house because a brickyard made the bricks, a carpenter hammered the nails. And, for that matter, we don't say Isaac Newton, the person who first said the "shoulders of giants" thing, didn't really invent differential calculus and describe the Laws of Motion.

Active Now

Alan Petrillo I disagree. In context, President Obama's message was "we don't do things alone". And he was correct.

Charlie Martin Actually, *that* is taking it out of context. What was he arguing for? It wasn't just recognition of the contributions of predecessors.

Active Now

Alan Petrillo Indeed not. That was only one of at least 5 subjects that he touched on it this speech, but ultimately it was an argument against Supply Side economics.

Charlie Martin Yup, it was. So in context he was saying rather more than just "we don't do things alone."

Active Now

Alan Petrillo Rather a lot more, but the right wing has chosen to concentrate on a nine word out of context quote from a 5500 word speech.

Charlie Martin Alan, "out of context" really isn't a synonym for "damaging". The whole point here is that it's not out of context: it's part of his whole argument that taking money away from people who made it will somehow help.

Active Now

Alan Petrillo In other words: "Context doesn't matter if it detracts from our ideological point." Got it.

Charlie Martin Alan, that might be your attitude, but I don't share it. I'm pointing out the context: the only investment Obama considers in the whole thing is governement investment. He says explicitly it's not because the entrepreneur is smart, it's not because the entrepreneur is hard working.

He makes his point and reinforces it. It's not "taking it out of context" to note this.

http://reason.com/.../how-you-didnt-build-that-became-he...

reason.com

How "You didn't build that" became "He didn't say that"

How "You didn't build that" became "He didn't say that"

Active Now

Alan Petrillo " The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Yeah. That sounds like he's dissing intellect and hard work.

Active Now

Alan Petrillo And yes, Charlie, I read that piece. I read it yesterday, in fact. Maybe it's just an example that you take out what you bring in, but it seemed to reinforce my point that context is important.

Charlie Martin Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Nah, he's not dissing intellect and hard work. He's just saying they don't matter.