Why did China fall behind Europe in technology?

AI Thread Summary
China historically had advanced technology compared to Europe but fell behind due to various factors. Political overreach and a culture that discouraged innovation contributed to stagnation, while Europe experienced a Renaissance that fostered scientific progress. The discussion highlights differences in societal structures, with European individualism promoting creativity versus Chinese collectivism. Additionally, invasions by groups like the Mongols and Manchus disrupted Chinese intellectual advancement. Ultimately, cultural and political dynamics played significant roles in the technological divergence between China and Europe.
Aquamarine
Messages
160
Reaction score
4
For much of human history China had a more advanced civilization and technology than Europe. Why did China fall behind Europe in technology?

http://www.cba.uni.edu/economics/Gernes.pdf
http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/china.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Computer science news on Phys.org
Aquamarine said:
For much of human history China had a more advanced civilization and technology than Europe. Why did China fall behind Europe in technology?

http://www.cba.uni.edu/economics/Gernes.pdf
http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/china.htm

Both Europe and China have relatively high IQs. However, the standard deviation of IQ in Europe is higher, producing more geniuses, and hence inventions.
China was given a great start due to being in a mostly warmer climate, and thus able to support larger population densities. However, as these two essays highlight, it stagnated due to political over control. Europe also had hostility to learning, and knowledge, but some of it managed to pass through to future generations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say its up to difference between individuality and teamwork.
 
plus said:
Both Europe and China have relatively high IQs. However, the standard deviation of IQ in Europe is higher, producing more geniuses, and hence inventions.
The standard deviation of the IQ in China is unknown. And a larger population would give more geniuses by itself.

Finally, the Chinese average IQ today is also very uncertain. Especially what if would be if China had the degree of nutrition that the US has and which seems to have raised IQ by at least 25 points during the last century.

It is very difficult to know what the IQ was in China and Europe during the Middle ages. But I would guess it was better in China due to better nutrition there. This do not explain why China lost its advantage in technology.
 
Last edited:
Aquamarine said:
The standard deviation of the IQ in China is unknown. And a larger population would give more geniuses by itself.

Finally, the Chinese average IQ is also very uncertain. Especially what if would be if China had the degree of nutrition that the US has and which seems to have raised IQ by at least 25 points during the last century.

There are estimates.
You state that the standard deviation is unknown, and then proceed that a larger population should give more geniuses- this is assuming that the standard deviation is equal or greater than the european average. The genetic IQ average today will not be the same as the average genetic IQs 1000 years ago. However talking about IQ with regards to groups is not recomended on this forum, as the thread will be locked.

I agree with Bladibla (I think) in that the chinese tend to be more hive like wheras the ethnic europeans tend to be more individualistic - something which is required in order to investigate and push forwards with new phenomenon. I believe that much of this effect will be due to society, but some is genetic. However, in the polder fields cooperation was required, and the chinese society back then encouraged conformity. Anyone suggesting strange technologies or ideas would not have been welcomed.
 
plus said:
There are estimates.
You state that the standard deviation is unknown, and then proceed that a larger population should give more geniuses- this is assuming that the standard deviation is equal or greater than the european average. The genetic IQ average today will not be the same as the average genetic IQs 1000 years ago. However talking about IQ with regards to groups is not recomended on this forum, as the thread will be locked.

I agree with Bladibla (I think) in that the chinese tend to be more hive like wheras the ethnic europeans tend to be more individualistic - something which is required in order to investigate and push forwards with new phenomenon. I believe that much of this effect will be due to society, but some is genetic. However, in the polder fields cooperation was required, and the chinese society back then encouraged conformity. Anyone suggesting strange technologies or ideas would not have been welcomed.
What estimates? There are very few modern Chinese IQ studies and none that are representative for the population as a whole.

The genetically more individualistic and innovative European theory cannot explain why the Chinese for a long time had a more advanced technology than Europe.
 
Aquamarine said:
The genetically more individualistic and innovative European theory cannot explain why the Chinese for a long time had a more advanced technology than Europe.

This seems to me an excellent refutation.
 
People that evolve a collectivist/ethnocentric group personality are less creative than those that evolve an individualist personality:

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/host.htm

When humans evolved, they did so in an environment of competing bands of people. As group evolutionary strategies evolved, altruism towards the group was beneficial, along with genocidal hatred for other competing groups and fanatical aggressiveness or bravery when it came to defending the tribe, what we call today patriotism and how we define heroes or martyrdom. The tribe, as a unified vehicle carrying more of the alleles for these traits competed with neighboring tribes, the more aggressive, genocidal, cohesive and intelligent tribe on average eliminated the lesser tribe (sometimes of course taking hostages). But slowly, humans that had bloodlust displaced the more peaceful tribes around them, and step-by-step humans became adapted for patriotism towards the group. Individualism was suppressed and cohesiveness became predominant. But all was not equal between different tribes.

The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation

Our ancestors stayed put over thousands of years and developed under vary different environments. For example, xenophobia, group cohesion, tribal conflict, ethnocentrism was heightened in groups that evolved where people were in competition for resources and lived closer together. From Asia to the Mediterranean for example, more people could be supported by the natural resources available. There were many more people, more tribes, and more conflicts. Evolutionary pressures pushed competing groups towards higher frequencies of genetic alleles that favored aggressiveness against one's neighbor. Constant wars and conflicts accelerated this process, producing on average people who today would score much high on ethnocentrism and would have little time for helping or tolerating exploitation by the other. Weak and peaceful tribes were either killed or enslaved.

At the other extreme for example, northwestern Europeans evolved in an extremely harsh environment, one that was glaciated about 10,000 years ago, and supported very few people. Neighboring tribes were not close together, population density was low, and tribal conflict less salient than planning and making provisions for the long harsh winters. In fact, it would be easy to imagine that coming across unknown and relatively altruistic neighbors was live saving. These people evolved in an environment that nurtured compassion for the stranger, because often strangers were a needed resource and not a threat. The greatest threat came from the harsh winters, not from competing tribes. So altruism flourished over xenophobia and fear of the other. High frequencies of alleles for altruism, compassion, tolerance, and benevolence towards all were selected for. But within reason of course. As long as the other did not appear as a threat, reciprocal altruism was selected for over intolerance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scientific Method said:
People that evolve a collectivist/ethnocentric group personality are less creative than those that evolve an individualist personality:

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/host.htm

1. This thread is about China, Europe and technology. Not about MacDonald's ethnocentrism theory that says nothing about the technological difference between China and Europe.

2. Whites usually score high in actual tests on implicit ingroup bias, directly contradicting MacDonald's theory. As do all groups that have a high SES.

3. Look at the Yanomamo Indians. Living in an area with extremely low population density. But no one would call them altruistic, most males die due to violence.

4. Jews have a collectivist/ethnocentric group personality in MacDonald's opinion. Not that he actually bothered to do any empirical research. Anyhow, they do not seem to have a low creativity:
http://www.jinfo.org/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Virtually all of the sciences were invented by a small handful of creative high IQ Europeans. Just open up a chemistry or physics book: every equation was invented by someone of European descent. The theory of evolution, the scientific method, the idea of democracy, etc. Europeans are always creating the original scientific ideas, then others just copy. I believe, based on research, that it's genetic. But again, it's only less than 1% of europeans that invent everything, the rest of the Europeans are not creative or geniuses. So then, if 99% of Europeans are no more inventive than East Asians, but only the 1%, then this makes an interesting statistic.

Of course, gene pools are not stagnant and the reproductive patterns of each generation affect the mental traits of the next generation, for better or worse. Currently within European society, the brightest are reproducing at below replacement birthrates, while the least intelligent are the most prolific. So, a time will come down the line when Europeans no longer are genetically successful.
 
  • #11
Scientific Method said:
Virtually all of the sciences were invented by a small handful of creative high IQ Europeans. Just open up a chemistry or physics book: every equation was invented by someone of European descent. The theory of evolution, the scientific method, the idea of democracy, etc. Europeans are always creating the original scientific ideas, then others just copy. I believe, based on research, that it's genetic. But again, it's only less than 1% of europeans that invent everything, the rest of the Europeans are not creative or geniuses. So then, if 99% of Europeans are no more inventive than East Asians, but only the 1%, then this makes an interesting statistic.

Of course, gene pools are not stagnant and the reproductive patterns of each generation affect the mental traits of the next generation, for better or worse. Currently within European society, the brightest are reproducing at below replacement birthrates, while the least intelligent are the most prolific. So, a time will come down the line when Europeans no longer are genetically successful.
You are wrong. Agriculture, writing, mathematics, cities and states where not invented by Europeans. Arabs had a far more advanced civilzation and science than Europe during the early Middle ages. China invented, among other things, paper, the printing press, gunpowder and the compass. Their civilization were more advanced than Europe in most regards for the whole Medieval period.
 
  • #12
Trying to get away from the racism and back to the original question, my explanation is culture. It was the oppressive culture of the Middle Ages (both religion and government) that kept Europe from progressing and the enlightened culture of the Rennasaince that led to the scientific age. Chinese culture enabled scientific progress up to a certain point, but did not allow for the most important advance: industrialization.
 
  • #13
I think the fall back, which was after all temporary, had nothing to do with persistent qualities like IQ or even traditional culture, butwas due to repeated invasions from the North. The Mongols and Manchus who ruled for much of the second half of the last millennium had an anti-intellectual streak that permitted Confucian "family values" administration but suppressed technological novelty. There's a lesson there for us all.
 
  • #14
selfAdjoint said:
I think the fall back, which was after all temporary, had nothing to do with persistent qualities like IQ or even traditional culture, butwas due to repeated invasions from the North. The Mongols and Manchus who ruled for much of the second half of the last millennium had an anti-intellectual streak that permitted Confucian "family values" administration but suppressed technological novelty. There's a lesson there for us all.

Nah, I don't think anyone could stop innovation at this point, even an oppressively evil Republican regime that stressed "family values." It's too easy today to simply leave and conduct your research elsewhere. If you have a useful idea, you'll find funding to investigate it somewhere, even if not from the Bush administration. The medieval Chinese didn't have this option.
 
  • #15
Scientific Method said:
Virtually all of the sciences were invented by a small handful of creative high IQ Europeans. Just open up a chemistry or physics book: every equation was invented by someone of European descent. successful.

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.
 
  • #16
chound said:
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.

No, there really was a decline East of the Urals after about 1300. Maybe the black death triggered it, or whatever, but the new ideas from about 1350 were coming out of Europe, not Asia, and they were good ideas, too. It wasn't just hegemony that spread them, science works!
 
  • #17
selfAdjoint said:
No, there really was a decline East of the Urals after about 1300. Maybe the black death triggered it, or whatever, but the new ideas from about 1350 were coming out of Europe, not Asia, and they were good ideas, too. It wasn't just hegemony that spread them, science works!

Yes.The invention of the canon and its first use in the battle of Crécy (Britt-->French) in 1344...
:rolleyes:

Daniel.
 
  • #18
Since the subject matter is related with technological advancements, I would say that >>>SOME<<< factors include: wars (both civil/global), environment (culture, provisions, available education, geography), the need for the technology, etc...

I believe that every HUMAN has the potential to gain a high IQ. It is very bias to generalize that the lack (or upsurge) of technological advancements are based primarily on an average IQ that was gathered from sources to represent the entire population of any culture.

My example: A person with an idea could get killed before the idea is presented.
 
  • #19
I think it was luck. Technology breeds further technology. Any slight fluctuation caused by random events could have given Europe the edge. The advantage clearly started off extremely small and cascaded.

I don't think Europe did anything right and I don't think China did anything wrong. Some Europeans like to think they are the superior race, but the truth is that the tables turn naturally every few centuaries. At the moment it is America's turn. If you need to feel inferior as a European, go on holiday to the states. They are the only superpower.
 
  • #20
Ignoring the genetic aspects, I should also mention that Communism held china back in terms of economic success, but now that capitalism is growing there, they now have the fastest growing economy in the world.
 
  • #21
jackle said:
the truth is that the tables turn naturally every few centuaries. At the moment it is America's turn.

But it is also true the people learn from history, and America has learned from history that "tables turn naturally every few centuries" so they are taking action to ensure that America's table never turns. One way they are doing this is by invading and economically manipulating any nation that enter a trend towards world-power status. Consider China: the Neo-Cons are already creating economic impedements for them. Also, the Pentagon is not speaking to Israel at the moment because Israel sold advanced technology to China, specifically drone planes. Basically, procedures are being carried out to ensure that China fails.

And of course, if America does ever fall, the family line of elites who own America will simply move to a new country and continue with their success.
 
  • #22
Europeans invaded China in the masses when they were the superpower. They even stole Hong Kong in exchange for drugs (no they never really intended to give it back, I'm sure.). And look at what they did to the rest of the world. The British empire was enormous, and let's just say that they certainly didn't convict their soldiers for human rights issues.

None of their efforts made any difference.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
jackle said:
Europeans invaded China in the masses when they were the superpower. They even stole Hong Kong in exchange for drugs (no they never really intended to give it back, I'm sure.). And look at what they did to the rest of the world. The British empire was enormous, and let's just say that they certainly didn't convict their soldiers for human rights issues.

None of their efforts made any difference.

Didn't the English build the city of Hong Kong with all those tall buildings? So without the English, could China have created such a city by themselves?

The English seem to have an affinity for building tall buildings, look at all the offshoots of the English expansion and the cities they have built in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Scientific Method said:
Didn't the English build the city of Hong Kong with all those tall buildings? So without the English, could China have created such a city by themselves?

China had every right to plunder Britian's tall buildings because Britian signed a contract saying they would hand it all over in the distant future, feeling sure that the time would never actually come round and when it did, nobody would reasonably expect them to hand it all over after such a long time.

The mistake the British made was that they arrogantly thought the gap between Britian and China would grow indefinately but long before 1997, their empire had crumbled, a defense of Hong Kong was impossible and Hong Kong's infrastructure was completely dependent on main land China. If Britian didn't give it back, the Chinese could have simply stopped Hong Kong's water supply and then taken it by force.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
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.
 
  • #26
Integral said:
The Japanese on the other hand... when Europeans showed up, they were open to what they had to offer.
They were?

Microsoft Encarta said:
The arrival of a United States gunboat expedition led by Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry in 1853 threw Japan’s leadership into turmoil. The United States had become interested in opening Japan to normal trading and diplomatic relationships in the 1840s, largely in order to secure good treatment for U.S. whalers plying the northwest Pacific and U.S. merchants involved in the China trade. Now Perry used the implied threat of his warships to pressure the shogunate to sign a treaty of friendship with the United States. Failing to achieve consensus after unprecedented consultations with the daimyo, the shogunate reluctantly agreed to sign the treaty in 1854.

[ ... ]

The opening of the country under foreign pressure undermined the authority and legitimacy of the Tokugawa shogunate. The Tokugawa leaders had shown themselves to be too weak to fend off the “Western barbarians,” and they had defied the wishes of the emperor at Kyoto, who opposed the 1858 trade treaty. In the late 1850s and early 1860s, antiforeign sentiments swept through the samurai class. Antiforeign activists sought to rally the country around the emperor under the slogan “Revere the emperor, expel the barbarians” (sonno joi). Foreign residents in the newly opened ports were attacked, and in 1863 the domain of Choshu fired on foreign vessels sailing through the Straits of Shimonseki. Although it was obvious that the Westerners could not be expelled by military force, this did not prevent the antiforeign movement from further eroding the position of the shogunate.

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
 
  • #27
What is the point of talking about IQ in regards to technological development

Integral said:
Whats the point of talking IQ?
IQ is used as a proxy for g. If national economic performance in an absence of proportionate natural resources can be taken, in turn, as a proxy for national technological development, then regarding the importance of national g to national technological development, Arthur Jensen had this to say:

Adam Smith's dictum that a nation's wealth depends on the developed abilities of its people is the basis of the public concern in this technological era that we have a well-educated work force. In the information age, a nation's most important resource in the modern world is not its material natural wealth but its human capital, that is, the overall level of its population's developed abilities that are in demand in a free market. The economic value of g, therefore, is a function of the particular knowledge and skills in which it is most highly loaded, and in which proficiency depends upon education, training, and experience. Developed ability, in other words, is a product of g × education — education that inculcates the knowledge and skills that are productively relevant to the culture and the times.
(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. pp563-564.)


In other words, the technological proficiency of a society is largely a function of its g. This has also been found to be the case by Raymond Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Richard Lynn, Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, and others.
 
  • #28
jackle said:
I
I don't think Europe did anything right and I don't think China did anything wrong. Some Europeans like to think they are the superior race, but the truth is that the tables turn naturally every few centuaries. At the moment it is America's turn. If you need to feel inferior as a European, go on holiday to the states. They are the only superpower.


Some chinese like to think they are the superior race, and you can say the same about blacks, japanese, arabs, turks, and any subrace you care to mention. There are bigots of every race, not just europeans, which some people would like you to believe.

The USA culture descended from european culture, and for most of its history was populated by europeans, and a smaller number of africans - who did not really have a say in things.

I fail to see how Europe should feel inferior to USA. The GDP per capita of west europe is about the same as USA. They are less united on political matters, and this means that they do not play such a large role on the world wide scene, but this lack of unity is not necessarily a bad thing as they for the most part do not want to become a United States of Europe.
This is similar to saying that a resident of Wisconsin should feel inferior to a resident of California because there are more people there.
 
  • #29
chound said:
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.

There were a few inventions not made by Europeans, and these are pointed out by people like yourself to try and take away respect from the Europeans. To deny the leaps in technology and civilisation due to the hard work and intellect of the European people is a sin.
 
  • #30
plus said:
There were a few inventions not made by Europeans, and these are pointed out by people like yourself to try and take away respect from the Europeans. To deny the leaps in technology and civilisation due to the hard work and intellect of the European people is a sin.

As our graduate math and physics departments fill up with asians, and our programming jobs are outsourced to India, it's fair to ask: What has Europe done for the world lately?
 
  • #31
plus said:
Some chinese like to think they are the superior race, and you can say the same about blacks, japanese, arabs, turks, and any subrace you care to mention. There are bigots of every race, not just europeans, which some people would like you to believe.

This is absolutely true.

plus said:
The USA culture descended from european culture, and for most of its history was populated by europeans, and a smaller number of africans - who did not really have a say in things.

I think we can say that they have broken away. The USA are very very proud of their culture and they don't see themselves as European.

plus said:
I fail to see how Europe should feel inferior to USA...
Should China feel inferior to Europe? What if I suggested that the Americans had evolved to become genetically more advanced than mere Europeans? Would that offend you?
 
  • #32
selfAdjoint said:
As our graduate math and physics departments fill up with asians, and our programming jobs are outsourced to India, it's fair to ask: What has Europe done for the world lately?

Well, even if this may be off topic, maybe Europe's biggest achievements lately has been in other fields than science and technology. The European Union is quite a unique piece of social construction and in many ways, so are the welfare-states in the Nordic countries. Surely, they may just be different ways of doing the same thing, but maybe they are results of real advancement, just like when the Asians crowd math departments around the world?
 
  • #33
Joel said:
Well, even if this may be off topic, maybe Europe's biggest achievements lately has been in other fields than science and technology. The European Union is quite a unique piece of social construction and in many ways, so are the welfare-states in the Nordic countries. Surely, they may just be different ways of doing the same thing, but maybe they are results of real advancement, just like when the Asians crowd math departments around the world?

Oh, I am sure others are going to jump on you for those statements. We have Europeans, including Swedes, posting here. And all is not socialism-lite perfection there as you assume.
 
  • #34
selfAdjoint said:
Oh, I am sure others are going to jump on you for those statements. We have Europeans, including Swedes, posting here. And all is not socialism-lite perfection there as you assume.

Hehe, maybe the Swedes will jump me, but that's only because we, the Finns are better at icehockey. :biggrin:

Seriously, you know there is a difference between social democracy and socialism. And non of them are of course flawless. My point being thou, that both the EU and the welfare states are new forms of governance, not tried before or elsewhere. And assuming advancement is possible in that field, then those would represent it.

And I think you said it yourself, the jury is still out on the welfare states. :wink:
 
  • #35
jackle said:
What if I suggested that the Americans had evolved to become genetically more advanced than mere Europeans? Would that offend you?


If you could prove it then I would accept it, although I would not be too pleased. Maybe though it would be the lazy germans/swedes on the welfare state causing the inferior genes to be passed on to the next generation.

I think that we can safely say that the welfare state is not the best form of government. It is causing many problems in Germany, wheras Britain/ Ireland which do encourage businesses and have less welfare are improving economically a lot. France is already planning to change its ludicrous 35 hour week back. The welfare state is nothing less than taking from the intelligent/charismatic/hard working and handing it back to the retarded/ criminal and lazy.

With regards to the eugenics program, I do support this also. It causes a much more efficient and happier world. The comment about the IQ stabilising at 200 is probably not accurate, as I see no reason for IQ to increase and increase and increase. 6-7 generations seems a bit quick for the IQ to increase to 200. I see no reason why if some woman is on welfare that she should be able to have a child with a father with a low IQ, which will be supported on welfare.

I recognise the high Asian (Chinese) mathematical skills, and appaud them for it.
 
  • #37
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. :approve: Okay, okay... Bad joke. :rolleyes:

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #39
I stitched things up for you, Joel. Enjoy!
 
  • #40
hypnagogue said:
I stitched things up for you, Joel. Enjoy!
Thank you very much! I will.

And again, really sorry. :redface:
 
  • #41
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.
 
  • #42
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
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
 
  • #44
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.
 
  • #45
Aquamarine said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Joel said:
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.
 
  • #47
Joel said:
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.
 
  • #48
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.
 
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
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!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top