Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 March 9

= March 9 =

Why hasn’t China progressed more as a country?
"China has the longest continuous history of any country in the world—3,500 years of written history". So what stopped them from taking over the planet and exploring the Solar System and beyond? They’ve had far longer than anyone else to accumulate knowledge and develop technology. What happened? Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Iraqi people have been writing for 5300 years, but are even farther away from taking over the world. Maybe it's cultural or something about natural resources. The freedom to criticise other people, even when they outrank you? The availability of water-based trade routes? Particular ores, crops or animals fit for domestication? PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It is somewhat bewildering that a historian wrote this ahistorical sentence. The history of China is very checkered. It is not as if there has been, for 3500 years, a "country" now known as China. The civilization is that old, but the precursor of today's China is the Qin Empire that emerged as dominant from the Warring States, founded in 221 BC when the king of Qin declared himself Emperor of Qin. However, it was shortlived, with various dynasties battling for and from time to time gaining dominance, with periods in which the area was broken up into the Three Kingdoms and later the Sixteen Kingdoms, followed by a break-up between the Northern and Southern dynasties, more dynastic wars, the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period, the conquest of all of China by the Mongol Yuan dynasty, with a later conquest of all of China by the Manchu Qing dynasty, until the 1911 revolution and the proclamation of the Republic of China, followed by the Chinese Civil War, interrupted to fight Japan which conquered large parts of the country but resumed again after the Japanese capitulation, with finally the Chinese Communist Party gaining total control of mainland China. This is not exactly the stable environment in which one expects the development of science and technology to flourish. Apart from all this, the prevailing cultural mindset did not encourage exploration and innovation. See also, Confucianism and Chinese exploration.  --Lambiam 11:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Saying that China had a "continuous history" is like saying that Europe had a "continuous history".  As noted, While China today is mostly (kinda) a single country (cough cough), it certainly has not continuously nor even often been a single nation-state.  This is rather humorously covered in History of the Entire World, I Guess with the "China is broken again" meme.  In many ways, this is part of the legitimization of the Chinese regime and "one state" philosophy rather than a reflection of any actual unity in the China broadly.  China has been often governed by a single state, but often it hasn't been.  -- Jayron 32 13:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You mention stability, but hasn’t science and technology developed during times of great conflict and strife, and is generally spurred on by military development due to conflict? Viriditas (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The question is rather odd and makes the implicit assumption of stability causing progress that you then questioned [following most scholars] but Jayron's and Lambiam's responses make assumptions/assertions against your more correct one. Proverbially, China has been more unified for over 2 thousand years than anywhere else on earth, with a less checkered history, with most often there being a single central nation-state. The only really long period of disunity was between the fall of the Later Han and the rise of the Sui. And it did lead the world in most or many respects, e.g. scientific/technological until around 500 years ago. A striking difference often explored is how technological innovations, some originating in China, tended to destabilize Europe while being absorbed without such disruption in China.John Z (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the very useful responses above, another reason might be “priorities”: Perhaps they don’t want to take over the Solar System …? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The question wasn’t intended literally. English is considered the universal language because of the reach and pervasiveness of the British Empire.  Chinese isn’t the universal language because they didn’t take over the world, but the British couldn’t even get as far as the Moon (but their scientists were very much interested in getting there). Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is there a question in there? -- Jayron 32 15:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so, just not a literal one. It’s in the title. Viriditas (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In a general sense, there are several things that generally held China back, despite the "lead" they had in technology up until the late middle ages. China was, for centuries, very isolationist.  The Haijin from the 16th century prevented China from the sort of cultural exchange that lead to continuing innovation in other parts of the world.  Exploitation by external powers when China did open up absolutely destroyed the Chinese economy, whether we're talking about the dumping of New World silver by the Spanish in the Global silver trade from the 16th to 19th centuries (which caused European powers to extract real value from China while devastating the local economy via inflation caused by the abundance of cheap silver), or the Opium Wars and the Century of humiliation at the hands of European colonial powers, and later Japan, to the anarchy of the first half of the 20th century, what with the fall of the Qing dynasty and the continual civil wars between various warlords during the nominal Republic of China (1912–1949) period, the purges of the Cultural Revolution, the economic disaster of the Great Leap Forward, and what's really amazing is the growth that China has made in the last half century.  I mean, spend just a little time in Chinese history and you'll find many, many, many reasons why China did not become a major world power until fairly recently.  -- Jayron 32 15:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m asking, why did the industrial revolution occur in Europe rather than Asia? Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm answering, largely the reasons noted above. A combination of isolationism, internal strife, and exploitation by European colonial powers. -- Jayron 32 15:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, just read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's sort of the canonical treatment for answering the question "Why Europe?" and consequently "Why not X?" where X = "anywhere not Europe".  -- Jayron 32 15:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I read it when it first came out. Most people don’t recommend it anymore for various reasons. Ideas change (see the criticism section). Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Or more briefly, Why Did The Industrial Revolution Take Place In Europe And Not Asia?. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s from 2005. And doesn’t really provide a single, authoritative answer, but many. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe, and this is just a crazy idea, that's an indication that there isn't a "single, authoritative answer". -- Jayron 32 19:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but I’m still searching for the best one. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, the article does not even mention the role of slavery and the slave trade. The big drive of the British Industrial Revolution that kicked off the Western Industrial Revolution was the mechanization of the textile industry. Not only did the labour of the millions of enslaved workers on the American plantations of the American Deep South guarantee a continuous stream of cotton as a cheap raw material, but the gains of the immensely profitable slave trade itself were used to finance the initial phase of the British Industrial Revolution. --Lambiam 22:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * European powers were very good at exploiting others. Not just their colonies, but also each other and even internally, the richer provinces exploited the poorer: England exploited Wales, Holland exploited Drenthe. I can't help feeling annoyed sometimes when the national government apologises to the former colonies for the way how "we" got rich by exploiting them, when large parts of the country (including where I come from) never got rich and were on the exploited end of the relation just the same. Only around 1900, thanks to the women's rights movement and the invention of socialism, this began to change, but that was only 40 years before the colonial empires began to collapse.
 * Note how China and Russia are busy exploiting Africa, using pretty much the same strategies as European powers used four centuries ago to build their colonial empires. The Chinese definitely know how to exploit other countries and are willing to do it. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did the Drenthe thing happen in USA too? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought that English only became a "universal language" by the mid-20th century, when the British Empire was already breaking apart. In the early 20th century, the scientists spoke German and the diplomats French. It may have had more to do with the dominance of British and to a lesser extend American pop culture. I don't see the status of English threatened in the near future, but if any Asian language could take over as universal language in the coming decades, I'd put my money on Korean. Chinese people listen to Korean pop music, not the other way around. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting is the fact that Europe had a fragmented political structure which allowed innovation not to be suppressed, and had diverse cultures with varying outlooks. This provided more opportunities for a trial-and-error approach to test new ideas.  Also, the culture had progressed from the Age of Enlightenment. --136.56.52.157 (talk)
 * See also:
 * --136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * --136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * --136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * --136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As any dyed-in-the-wool Capitalist can tell you: "greed is good"; if one can think of a new way to get rich quick, go for it; if investing profit in R&D would give an advantage over the competition then just do it. This sort of Victorian can-do spirit was lacking in Chinese top-down thinking (and frankly, still is). --136.56.52.157 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Chinese leadership isn't greedy enough? [Gasp] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Or that they have to moderate their greed and be discreet about their wealth, because of politically driven expectations. In a (nominally, at least) egalitarian and communal culture "the tallest nail" is liable to be hammered down: rich businessmen in modern China seem (to me – can't easily find sources) to have a greater risk than in the West of incurring governmental disapproval, and less chance of becoming political leaders themselves. {The poster formerly known as 87.91.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The point being that "top-down" greed is not good; however, enabling the individual to make decisions that are in their best interest ultimately benefits society as a whole. --136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The referenced texts express the purely personal view of one individual who is, apparently, a believer in unfettered capitalism. Calling the efficient market theory an "observation" that establishes that individual greed works for the common good is inane. It is like calling the Spherical Earth model an observation that shows Mount Everest is an illusion. --Lambiam 20:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as mentioned above, I refer to "dyed-in-the-wool" capitalists. Your results may vary.  Putting theory to the test, one can contrast & compare the results from the Capitalist model with the Communist model (but that's a topic for another thread). --136.56.52.157 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While the communist model ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") works in small tight-knit communities, it has not been tried in practice yet on a large scale in any technologically developed country. In societies with a substantial disparity in power, such as states, tests are doomed to be short-lived. --Lambiam 10:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Doomed? I'm not convinced. The western world has pretty much obtained secure free trade and the quote is preceded by "...be helpful each to the other in any common work,...". Unlike Musk world, many of our institutions have common goals (like Wikipedia and its global mission). The scale and success of each, such as state constitutions, has varied a lot. As for accumulated wealth and redistributions I expect we will see a lot more of that as we produce and inherit sustainable models that typically incorporate a mixture of private and public goods and resources. Modocc (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How many Chinese (or Russian) oligarchs made their fortune by starting from the bottom with a new idea? It typically starts with political connections and government contracts (i.e. "top-down").  China has recently started to limit "economic inequity", again from top-down government control.  --136.56.52.157 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * P.s.: I found one: Jack Ma; however, he did so by embracing capitalist ideas (but that is debatable). --136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In the dynastic period, farmers, artists, and poets were more highly regarded than craftsmen, and most certainly more than merchants. Not the best way to generate and accumulate surplus wealth. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)