

“Without Haste, Without Fear. We Will Conquer the World” - blasdel
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/00bb2890-5c54-11de-aea3-00144feabdc0.html

======
tokenadult
Joseph Needham did gather a lot of interesting source material from ancient
Chinese literature on developments in science and technology in China. I
studied Chinese and sinology as his lengthy book series was published, and
have read many hundreds of pages of his books. The general view of the
historians of China whom I know best is that Needham did a fair amount of axe-
grinding with his primary sources to prove ideological points and bolster his
theory of history that other historical sources would not support. The primary
historical literature in Chinese (literary Chinese) is VAST--the usual
statement is that ancient Chinese literature outnumbers all other ancient
literature from all other world cultures combined in word count by a
considerable margin.

What I find most disappointing in Needham's work is his too Marxist
explanation for what historians of technology think is what is most remarkable
about the historical comparison between China and the West. Until the late
Western middle ages, China was plainly ahead of the West in technology, and
arguably very much ahead in science. Historians of technology refer to the
West in those days as having "precocious technology" that couldn't be
explained at all by Western science of that day. But as the Western middle
ages gave way to the Renaissance, there was an explosive growth of science in
the West, and ever since the West has been ahead of China in both science and
technology, for reasons that I don't think Needham explains adequately. And of
course the development of political freedom in the West in the same period has
very much been world-leading all that while.

~~~
jacquesm
The west is still ahead of China in both Science and Technology, but they're
moving fast and we're slowing down.

I would not be surprised if in another four or five decades the situation is
going to be reversed.

China has it's problems, but it has one thing that the west does not have,
which is the power to make very bold decisions and to realize them. No such
thing as turf wars between parties or coalition building to dilute any plans.

~~~
aswanson
But what if the bold decisions are idiotic and destructive?

Turf wars and parties seem to be what gave Europe its advantage, as the
grandparent states the rise of freedom was concurrent with the rise in
technology. So perhaps more distributed competitive decision making results in
better outcomes, and the reason you stated will be precisely the reason China
will not achieve its potential.

[EDIT: Corrected incongruent verb tenses in last sentence.]

~~~
jacquesm
There is a 'stereotypical' China, the communist country which just like Russia
is soon going to implode and there is the real China, a very large country
with a set of unique challenges and a very large amount of energy to try to
overcome those challenges.

Modern China is not to be compared with the country that it was 30 (or even
20) years ago, it is evolving rapidly and it has a very good shot at becoming
the dominant power in the next couple of decades.

It is by no means a certainty, but while western politics are centered around
special interest groups and their lobbyists China is working very hard at
becoming if not top dog then at least an equal.

A friend of mine has just emigrated to China and the stories he tells me about
life there and the level of economic and social change in the last 10 years
alone are almost incredible. If they can keep that up they will be very
powerful indeed.

~~~
tokenadult
_western politics are centered around special interest groups_

Currently internal politics in China is centered around a much smaller segment
of the country's population. The masses and their concerns are largely
ignored. I don't think that is good for the future of China, as the future is
with the masses.

~~~
gjm11
"If there is hope, it lies with the proles." -- Winston Smith, in George
Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_

------
ggchappell
Nice article.

One note:

> ... [The new National Library] has at its centre what looks like a vast
> opencast mine, hundreds of feet deep, with scholars and readers at rows of
> desks on every level, hemmed in by walls of volumes.

That sounded incredibly impressive, until I found pictures:

[http://images2.sina.com/english/china/2008/0909/U99P200T1D18...](http://images2.sina.com/english/china/2008/0909/U99P200T1D185180F8DT20080909070804.jpg)

[http://www.architecture-
page.com/assets/images/content/prj_k...](http://www.architecture-
page.com/assets/images/content/prj_ksp_nati/3.jpg)

I think he exaggerates a bit.

~~~
cdr
Those look like artistic renderings, from before it opened - not pictures.

I don't doubt it's much more impressive in person, also.

~~~
ggchappell
Perhaps, but it pretty clearly is _not_ "hundreds of feet deep".

------
lionhearted
Communism set China back so much. The Cultural Revolution and one-child policy
especially. This is a country with a tradition of great scientists, statesmen,
inventors, engineers, traders, and so on - and they suppressed it all for...
what exactly? Forced labor camps so that everyone is equal, except for the
Party leaders who are more equal? If China had even a semblance of classical
liberalism, human rights, and free trade, they'd probably be the strongest
nation in the world. Lots of natural resources, a large population, strong
family ties and loyalty, and an unreal work ethic.

That said, the one child policy hurt the country _a lot_. Countries where the
old outnumber the young vastly tend to go in heavy decline, and that's going
to bite China pretty hard in the coming years. Also, the male:female ratio is
getting to a crazy point. Historically, wars break out when the men outnumber
the women so much. I could see China fighting a pretty brutal war in Asia at
some point in the next 30 years.

That's if there isn't a civil war first. They're built as a highly centralized
empire where the Han Chinese have basically all the power, and the other
groups - Xianjianese, Chen Chinese, Hong Kongese, Taiwanese, Macanese, and
Tibetans all have no power and basically don't want to be part of China.
Historically that produces civil wars. I think as soon as one of the areas
pushes hard for independence, others will follow. It happened to the English,
Spanish, French, and Dutch at various periods, happened to the Greeks and
Romans, happened basically everywhere. The only way an empire holds itself
together with diverse groups is through decentralization of power, and
representation of all groups in the central government. To truly bond a
nation, you need to mix blood and local groups so it's diverse. That means
encouraging movement and mixing of people, but the Chinese are pretty
outwardly racist (and it's not really seen as a bad thing there - there's not
the same moral judgment about it was have in the West). Talking down and
making racist jokes about people from lesser provinces or areas of China, and
especially China's neighbors is par for the course. People do it at formal
dinners and nobody really bats an eye unless the person goes too far with it.

I see China being a world power over the next 50-100 years, but they do have
some bad things coming up on them: The male:female ratio imbalance, the
old/young ratio, and the lack of representation under a powerful central
government and oppression/conquest of minority groups and parts of the nation
are going to be a problem. If China can liberalize (in the classical sense,
not the modern - basic individual rights) and grant representation and bring
the distant parts of their nation willing into the fold, they can probably
weather the storm. Or who knows - perhaps the conquer parts of India or
Russia, or find a pretense to "stabilize" North Korea after it starts falling
apart, or invade Japan if it loses its status as an American protectorate
(perhaps because the US goes bankrupt and needs to cut foreign military bases
- improbable but possible).

Interesting to look at that part of the world. They have the potential to be
the dominant world power and set the pace for the world, but they face a lot
of problems. If they sort their house out and move away from Communism and the
Party fast enough, the nation could have the influence over the next 50-100
years of the world that America has had over the last 50-100.

~~~
sethg
I took a class on "Revolution in the 20th Century" as an undergrad, and the
professor there pointed out that Chinese agriculture is built on marginally-
fertile land; they absolutely depend on large irrigation networks and on using
human waste from the cities to fertilize the countryside. And those networks
require a large centralized government to maintain them. Which is why China
has _had_ large centralized government, of one form or another, for so many
centuries (although not continuously).

