Why did China fall behind Europe in technology?

[Aquamarine]

Regarding Sweden:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040425-102740-9436r.htm

 

[Joel]

Well, since the discussion seams to have strayed away from the original topic anyhow, I dare to continue my 'crusade for the welfare state.' (Please, feel free to move this into an own thread if you see it more fitting).

As far as I can tell (I don't pretend to be any kind of expert), Aquamarine's link brought up some well deserved critique about the labor market, unemployment and taxation, questions also relevant in Finland. I can not speak about Sweden, but those problems have not prevented Finland from becoming one of the furthest developed and highly respected information societies, according to academics and ranking-scales alike. I have understood that especially the co-operation between government research founding (directed through independent financing bodies) and industry conducted research has received prise for its support for the national-economy. A high level of education and good social support has allowed both private consumers and companies to take risks, rapidly adapt to new technology and make use of in most areas, such as money transactions, communication and etertainment.

Here is a quote from manuel castells:

‘No need to look into future: just look around at courageous efforts such as those taking place in Finland. The Finns have quietly established themselves as the first true information society, with one website per person, Internet access in 100 per cent of schools, a computer literacy campaign for adults, the largest diffusion of computer power and mobile telephony in the world, and a globally competitive information technology industry, spearheaded by Nokia. At the same time they have kept in place, with some fine-tuning, the welfare state.’ (Castells 2000, 72)

Sure, this is old news and today it may not sound very impressive. The unemployment rates are high and having a the national economy largely depending on one (american owned) company (and some forrest and metal industry) is not very assuring. But despite that, I would say that as a small (six million) society, Finland has done remarkably well in the big boy's league. At least we are not in the bronze age anymore, we are well on our way in the stone (silicon) age. Okay, okay... Bad joke.

And regarding earlier question: Maybe our big celebrity Linus Thorvalds deserve a mentioning in europes latest achievements?

A few articles presenting Finland the welfare state in a different light:
http://www.etla.fi/files/892_FES_03_2_information.pdf
http://www.e.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=9989
And this is on my to-read list:
http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-925699-3

 

[Joel]

Uhh, it appears that I have posted my replay about the welfare state in the wrong thread. It should of course be here, not in the other discussion, which got locked. Much apologies for the caused confusion, it was not my intention to disturb the discussion.

However, I am somewhat confused myself, I could have sworn there was more replays after aquamarines link... Has the thread been split or something?

Ps. Maybe a mentor could help, so the other discussion could continue as well? Thanks!

 

[hypnagogue]

I stitched things up for you, Joel. Enjoy!

 

[Joel]

I stitched things up for you, Joel. Enjoy!

Thank you very much! I will.

And again, really sorry.

 

[Jikx]

Well.. kind of back on topic:

I believe that China perhaps became too successful, its population grew to hidious levels and thus catalysed its fall as the technological leader of the world.

Probably one of the big problems was that China found it very difficult to remain as a single country; without fairly modern technology (telephone, telegraph) the word of a central government would not only be slow but open to corruption. I think the real power rested in the local warlords. As the population grew, it would only get worse. A surplus of labour is fertile ground for wars.

But with the one child policy kicking in, along with economic/social reforms, China could be a real powerhouse once again in the near future.

 

[Aquamarine]

I think all the explanations mentioned in the papers in my first post and in this thread are interesting.

But I think that most misses a vital fact. China made a conscious decision to reject the new technology. China was not completely isolated for hundreds of year and then suddenly found British soldiers armed with Gatling guns and ironclads knocking down the front doors. China could for at least several hundred years clearly see that Europe had a technological advantage that was constantly increasing.

In addition to this, China probably had the most intelligent administrators in the whole world. China very early revoked the inherited privileges of the nobility. Their examination system with their intensive study of the classics functioned as a gigantic nationwide IQ test that in theory allowed the humblest but very intelligent peasant to rise the to a position only second to the emperor. So China had very intelligent people in the state administration. These people must have understood that the new technology widely used, sold and demonstrated by the foreign traders and missionaries like the Jesuits was clearly superior and useful. So why did they reject it?

I think that they rejected it because it threatened their own power. It would have made their hard study of the classics worthless and removed the very reason for their power. And putting themselves before the population as a whole, they decided to close the nation as much outside influence as possible which postponed the power shift well beyond their own lifetime. It should be noted that the intelligent scholars turned rulers continued to resist change even after China completely had lost several wars to European powers using at most only a few thousand soliders. In the end a violent revolution was the only thing that removed them from power.

This can been seen more clearly in Japan were once made the best guns in the whole world during the wars before the unification. But after the unification the Samurai forbid the whole technology and the military regressed to sword fighting. They did this since guns allowed the peasants with little training to challenge the fighting skills of the Samurai which took years to master.

In Europe the same technology removed the status and power of the knights and the church. And at least the often intelligent leaders of the church understood this and they like the mandarins in China tried to stop this process.

The crucial difference is the lack of competition between states in China and Japan which both had essentially no competition from other states. The intelligent ruling class in China could forbid technology that would have been good for the population as a whole but negative for themselves temporarily.

In the Europe the ruling class was divided. If one the states adapted new technology their ruling class gained at the expense of the ruling class in other countries. And this gain was often enough to more than offset the threat to local ruling class from the technology itself.

 

[Aquamarine]

Regarding Finland and capitalism I note that Finland is a very capitalistic country. The most important thing in the capitalistic system is probably strong property rights and rule of law. These aspects are strong in Sweden and Finland and allow some economic growth even with high taxes and many regulations. I still note that Finland had an extremely deep economic crisis not long ago and that the government responded by reducing socialism, for example by extensive privatization and that this well explain stronger growth since then. I see little evidence that Finland shows that socialism works well.

I suggest reading and continuing the discussion in this more relevant thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

 

[primarygun]

Both Europe and China have relatively high IQs. However, the standard deviation of IQ in Europe is higher, producing more geniuses, and hence inventions.

True.
Many Chinese students have good brains but they love money too much.
Unless European, they have noble characteristic.

 

[Joel]

The crucial difference is the lack of competition between states in China and Japan which both had essentially no competition from other states. The intelligent ruling class in China could forbid technology that would have been good for the population as a whole but negative for themselves temporarily.

In the Europe the ruling class was divided. If one the states adapted new technology their ruling class gained at the expense of the ruling class in other countries. And this gain was often enough to more than offset the threat to local ruling class from the technology itself.

I can agree with your summary in general, but I have a counter argument to this above quote.

If I remember my history correctly, USA found it self in a somewhat similar situation after their independence. In order to separate it self from the 'old continent' and build a national identity, USA isolated it self from the rest of the world. And once the European colonies had been abolished, USA had no notable competition in North America, just like China in east Asia. Yet, USA became industrialized sometime after Europe. Yes, unlike China, USA had a lot of immigration in the 1800, but still, I have understood that USA became industrialized without regional competition. So, why was it such a big obstacle for the Chinese if not for the Americans?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I can agree with your summary in general, but I have a counter argument to this above quote.

If I remember my history correctly, USA found it self in a somewhat similar situation after their independence. In order to separate it self from the 'old continent' and build a national identity, USA isolated it self from the rest of the world. And once the European colonies had been abolished, USA had no notable competition in North America, just like China in east Asia. Yet, USA became industrialized sometime after Europe. Yes, unlike China, USA had a lot of immigration in the 1800, but still, I have understood that USA became industrialized without regional competition. So, why was it such a big obstacle for the Chinese if not for the Americans?

The US was not isolated as far as innovation went. The steam engine and railroads, for example were in practice copied from the English even though earlier US inventors had suggested them. Morse's telegraph is an exception, but note that he studied (art) in Europe!. There was discussion of the vague idea while he was in Paris, and he worked out a mechanism on the ship back. People in Europe also solved the problem, with different mechanisms. After the Civil War, during the peak of its industrialization, the US was not isolated at all.

 

[Aquamarine]

I can agree with your summary in general, but I have a counter argument to this above quote.

If I remember my history correctly, USA found it self in a somewhat similar situation after their independence. In order to separate it self from the 'old continent' and build a national identity, USA isolated it self from the rest of the world. And once the European colonies had been abolished, USA had no notable competition in North America, just like China in east Asia. Yet, USA became industrialized sometime after Europe. Yes, unlike China, USA had a lot of immigration in the 1800, but still, I have understood that USA became industrialized without regional competition. So, why was it such a big obstacle for the Chinese if not for the Americans?

The US had the great fortune to inherit much of its legal and technological system from England. And England had been in competition with other countries in Europe for several hundred years. A the time of US independence the industrial (capitalistic) revolution was already quite advanced in England. Major changes in the legal system, property laws, agriculture and technology was already in place. The steam engine had been incrementally improved for at least a century before the US become independent.

South America become independent only somewhat later. But their inheritance from the Spain was inferior and they never achieved anything comparable to the US. The US easily defeated competitors like Mexico.

In China the intelligent administrative class derived its power from studying the classics and they were afraid of losing the power if the value of this study was questioned. In the US, thanks to the British system, the ruling class derived its power from economic success in a capitalistic system with free markets and property rights. Technology was essential for the success of the rulers in the later system, not a threat as it was to rulers of China.

 

[Joel]

Thank you both for clearing this up for me. (So, that's where morse code comes from!) But what about the lack of regional competition? I am persistent in this point, because I remember Henry Kissinger arguing in his book, Diplomacy that the ideal of power balance in international relations sprung from Europe, it having a history of internal conflicts, unlike both North America and East Asia. So, even if USA inherited technology from England and was open to new ideas from Europe, it did not compete with other nations like the European nations during the imperialism. Again, according to Kissinger, it was not until the presidency of Roosevelt in the beginning of 1900 that USA took an active part in international politics. So, it would seam that USA only had domestic competition during their industrial revolution. And that is why I am still reluctant to say that lack of regional competition was a big factor in China's case. The other explanations seam more important.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Henry Kissinger was talking about political competition. The US did compete with Europe in technology and interacted non-competitively even more. Samuel Colt visited capitals of Europe, I believe including Moscow, to convince gevernments to buy his weapons, rather than European ones, for their armed forces. Dixie cotton was the main input to British fabric factories before the Civil War, and there was intense lobbying from the cloth industry for Palmerston, the British PM, to recognize the CSA.

But generally I agree with you, the regional competition theory is weak. The Confucianism explanation, combined with the Manchu contempt for commerce, sounds much better to me.

 

[Joel]

Yes, I just somehow got the impression that Aquamarine, by saying "...competition from other states" was talking about political competition. Also, political competition has consequences for economic and technological competition - and vise versa. Anyway, you are right, Kissinger does not talk about those and I do not know very much about it.

And good comments, thanks!

 

[klusener]

You are definitely wrong. Who invented '0'. You say "book", who invented the printing machine? Guttenberg stole(pardon me) it from Chineese. The art of plastic surgery was known first in India. The English stole the concept and introduced it to world. Gun powder, compass were not Uropean inventions. There are many medicine systems in India that are far better than Allopathy.
Yoga was developed not in Europe. Architectural marvels like the golconda fort where if u clap in the bottm of the hill. You can hear it in the King's Durbar.
The reason why Uropean scientists are famous is becoz, Urope ruled the world for a few centuries. So Uropean ideas are more profound and accepted.

that's right, man..

- The United States adopted ancient Indian catamaran-making technology to construct fast ships which were used with dramatic effect in the Iraq war. Among the equipment the Americans used to win the Iraq war were 100-feet catamaran ships to ferry tanks and ammunition from Qatar to Kuwait. The ships, built with technology adapted from ancient Tamil methods to make catamarans, can travel over 2,500 kms in less than 48 hours, twice the speed of the regular cargo ships, and carry enough equipment to support about 5,000 soldiers. Having a shallow draft, the boats can unload in rudimentary ports, allowing troops to land closer to the fight.

- In 1895, eight years before the Wright brothers flew their first plane, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade and his wife gave a thrilling demonstration flight on the Chowpatty beach in Mumbai. Mr. Talpade, an erudite Sanskrit scholar, constructed his aeroplane named 'Marutsakha' based on the description of Vimanas available in the Vedas.

-The theory of the Ion Engine has been credited to Robert Goddard, long recognized as the father of Liquid-fuel Rocketry. It is claimed that in 1906, long before Goddard launched his first modern rocket, his imagination had conceived the idea of an Ion rocket. However, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade used an Ion Engine to take his plane to a height of 1500 ft. in 1895, many years before Goddard.

- A glass-like material which cannot be detected by radar has been developed by Prof Dongre, a research scholar of Benaras Hindu University, based on technology found in an ancient Sanskrit text, Vaimanika Shastra. A plane coated with this unique material cannot be detected using radar.

- Indian astronomer, Brahmagupta, estimated in the 7th century that the circumference of the Earth was 5000 yojanas. A yojana is around 7.2 kms. Calculating on this basis we see that the estimate of 36,000 kms as the Earth's circumference comes quite close to the actual circumference known today.

- Indian astronomer, Aryabhatta was the first to have propounded the theory that the Earth was a sphere in the 5th century.

- Chess originated in India. It was known to Indians as Chaturnaga. It was taken to Persia in the sixth century where it came to be known as Chatrang, which according to the Arabic phonetic system became Shatranj.

- Baudhayana gave the 'Pythagoras theorem' centuries before the Greeks in 800 BC.

- USA based IEEE has proved what has been a century old suspicion in the world scientific community that the pioneer of wireless communication was Prof. Jagdeesh Bose and not Marconi.

http://www.indpride.com/didyouknow.html

 

[Aquamarine]

But the US did face "regional" competition. At the time of independence it is very doubtful that the thirteen colonies were more powerful than Mexico. Not to mention the whole Spanish empire. And the threat from England was very real both from Canada and from the sea in the beginning. England burned Washington in 1812.

Furthermore, improved technology had made the world much smaller. The Chinese mandarins could isolate much of China partly due to the long distances. Something increasingly more difficult in nineteenth century.

The US was an imperialistic nation in competition with the other European powers long before 1900. It was the US who used military force to open Japan in 1853. A few years later it again tried to use military force against Korea. The US intervened in Argentina, Uruguay and Panama during the 1850s. After 1850 it used military force to occupy many islands in the Pacific.

But I will gladly agree that the US may have had less competition than the nations in Europe. But there was little need since the US was at that time the most capitalistic nation in the world. Competition forces the inferior solutions to adapt or disappear. As the US already had a superior social system it did not need strong regional competitors to adapt. But again, it was mainly the British who created the capitalistic system in strong competition with their neighbors. The US only imported this capitalistic system. And again, China's Confucianism administrators deliberately chose not to import capitalism and new technology since this would have removed the very reason for their power. They continued this policy for the whole nineteenth century, even after China utterly had lost several wars and the Western superiority was beyond any doubt.

Pure momentum will keep a good system running at least for a while even without competition. The great risk for the US (and Europe) is that they will stray from that path to prosperity. Competition, for example from China, would eventually force them back but the process can be long and painful. And a worldwide state would be devastating, it would remove all competition between different legal systems.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/intl-spend.htm

Regarding Manchu contempt for commerce I see little historical evidence for it in practical politics. It was the scholarly Mandarins who administered China and they generally were good rulers in situations were their personal powers were not threatened. They generally tried to strengthen agriculture and commerce. The Chinese population tripled under the Manchus before 1820. Living standards and life expectancy were at least equal to those in Europe until 1750. And in the Yangzi delta equal to those in England during the same period. China exported manufactured goods like porcelain to Europe and in return imported raw materials like silver, signs that the Chinese economy under the Manchus for long was as advanced as Europe.
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/chinawh/web/s5/index.html

It was only were technology and capitalism threatened their own power that the Mandarins acted against the interest of China as a whole.

 

[captain_boobs]

Whats the point of talking IQ? How pointless can you get. Frankly IMHO anyone how argues around IQ shows a serious lack of IQ.


I cannot remember the reference but one explanation of the state of technology in China goes like this.

For centuries they were the cultural and knowledge center of their known world. They became accustomed to being the source of information and civilization. For them to accept input from the "outside" would have meant listening to and learning from barbarians (ie the rest of the world) This simply went against their culture. Even as the Europeans attempted to bring them technology they turned their back. An example was at some point in the late 1800s the English, without proper permission, built a railroad back into some remote resource regions. When the Chinese govnt. discovered the illegal railroad. They did not do as any "normal" European nation would have done. That is to say, "thank you for the railroad, now get out, it is ours". They destroyed it!

The Japanese on the other hand had always lived in the shadow of the Chinese, they were accustomed to accepting imported technology, for centuries it was Chinese technology, when Europeans showed up, they were open to what they had to offer.

this is true.

 

[captain_boobs]

it is foolishness to state that europeans are the only ones capable of science. where were the scientists for most of history? and who is doing the science now? hahahahaha

otoh I'm glad that some posters have their thinking straight

on the side, creativity is a rather hard thing to measure. the chinese have invented a great many things, and without formal science. They have designed and created many sexy things, and it is commonly claimed that art is more creative than science. not only art but also in engineering they have excelled. down from antiquity there've been passed tales of the boldness of the ancients and the cleverness of their strategies. I hardly think there is anything wrong with the Chinese.

Those who would be quick to suppose racism, are merely using their identity as a prop for their self-esteem. They have nothing else going for them, evidently. hahahaha

 

[captain_boobs]

btw i would argue against mere individualism for creativity

creativity stems from something innate; individualism is simply the social environment supposedly being more tolerant of individuals standing apart

growing up here in the states i don't find that the educational system we have in place is capable of churning out any mass sort of geniuses. despite our great many educated people, despite our great many educated somewhat smart people, i sense that the thoughtstyle of the truly dedicated and the true genius is not fostered. In the olden days they were the exception, and it is the same today. In the olden days, perhaps the only ones to get educated were the rich and the dedicated/talented; in a way it is the same today. Although many are educated, few can accomplish. Many think they know, but they don't know. They cannot do

 

[captain_boobs]

science came about because the societal conditions necessary for its development fell into place. geniuses are recognized because the society they are born in allows for their development and recognition. down through the ages there have been europeans; why then has there been no science, if they are supposedly special? down through the ages countless things have been invented, many by non europeans. many fundamental underpinnings of the sciences were known by the chinese, the indians, etc. what of the names of their discoverers? what of the masses of the seemingly nameless inventors? what of the uncounted numbers of geniuses, let's humor the racists and say, european geniuses, who never got the chance to excel and succeed, to discover and transmit their discovery and be recognized? and what of all the chinese inventions the europeans did not have for the time; what of chinese advancement relative to europe? if we were teleported back to that time, would you say that the chinese were inherently better? or would you then begin to claim environment?

how then can you say, that europeans are special this and that. you only betray your own loserliness; your mediocrity, your own unworthiness. Your own stupidity, for muddling up the truth. clearly, it was only society