[二]为什么中国在发明火药、印刷术、造纸术、指南针和远洋航行船后，没有比西方更早成为世界超级大国?
正文翻译
Why didn't China become a world superpower when it first invented gunpowder, printing, paper, the compass, and great ocean sailing ships, before the West did?
为什么中国在发明火药、印刷术、造纸术、指南针和远洋航行船后，没有比西方更早成为世界超级大国?
Why didn't China become a world superpower when it first invented gunpowder, printing, paper, the compass, and great ocean sailing ships, before the West did?
为什么中国在发明火药、印刷术、造纸术、指南针和远洋航行船后，没有比西方更早成为世界超级大国?
评论翻译
Charlie Li
Your assessment is somewhat fair. But too harsh and somewhat fits the vogue “China was never great” narrative that seems to dominate some circles.
The glassware part is true. It was a major hinderance. We had ceramics, which became important much later on, but by that I mean more close to today.
The part about not having scientific method is quite hazy, as ancient Chinese math was quite on par with the rest of the world or better. I have personally read some ancient Chinese manuals and guides for science and engineering and they were surprisingly scientific (I am an engineer by trade, I would know). HOWEVER! The official “state philosophy (not even mysticism)” heavily disregarded the natural sciences as nothing more than mere tricks, which was a major setback. Even great works of geography did not have a super high standing, though it is still well remembered. Even today, when studying Chinese classics, the more STEM oriented ones are almost never the main focus.
Chinese mathematics - Wikipedia
Commentary on the Water Classic - Wikipedia
Classic of Mountains and Seas - Wikipedia
你的评价还算公正，但过于严厉，在某种程度上也符合“中国从来不伟大”的流行说法，这种说法似乎主导了某些圈子。
玻璃器皿部分是对的，这是一个主要的障碍。
关于（中国）没有科学方法的部分是相当模糊的，因为中国古代数学与世界其他地方相当，甚至更好。我个人读过一些古代中国的科学和工程手册和指南，它们是惊人的 (我是一名工程师，我知道)。然而，官方的“哲学(甚至不是神秘主义)”严重地忽视了自然科学，认为它只不过是一种把戏，这是重大挫折。即使是伟大的地理著作，也没有超高的地位，尽管它仍然被很好地保留了下来。即使在今天，在学习中国古典文学的时候，以科学、技术、工程、数学为导向的古典文学几乎从来都不是主要的关注点。
链接：《中国数学史》、《水经注》、《山海经》——维基
Your assessment is somewhat fair. But too harsh and somewhat fits the vogue “China was never great” narrative that seems to dominate some circles.
The glassware part is true. It was a major hinderance. We had ceramics, which became important much later on, but by that I mean more close to today.
The part about not having scientific method is quite hazy, as ancient Chinese math was quite on par with the rest of the world or better. I have personally read some ancient Chinese manuals and guides for science and engineering and they were surprisingly scientific (I am an engineer by trade, I would know). HOWEVER! The official “state philosophy (not even mysticism)” heavily disregarded the natural sciences as nothing more than mere tricks, which was a major setback. Even great works of geography did not have a super high standing, though it is still well remembered. Even today, when studying Chinese classics, the more STEM oriented ones are almost never the main focus.
Chinese mathematics - Wikipedia
Commentary on the Water Classic - Wikipedia
Classic of Mountains and Seas - Wikipedia
你的评价还算公正，但过于严厉，在某种程度上也符合“中国从来不伟大”的流行说法，这种说法似乎主导了某些圈子。
玻璃器皿部分是对的，这是一个主要的障碍。
关于（中国）没有科学方法的部分是相当模糊的，因为中国古代数学与世界其他地方相当，甚至更好。我个人读过一些古代中国的科学和工程手册和指南，它们是惊人的 (我是一名工程师，我知道)。然而，官方的“哲学(甚至不是神秘主义)”严重地忽视了自然科学，认为它只不过是一种把戏，这是重大挫折。即使是伟大的地理著作，也没有超高的地位，尽管它仍然被很好地保留了下来。即使在今天，在学习中国古典文学的时候，以科学、技术、工程、数学为导向的古典文学几乎从来都不是主要的关注点。
链接：《中国数学史》、《水经注》、《山海经》——维基
“The Chinese had compass, but they used it on religious rituals and feng shui rather than geographic exploration and navigation at sea. They never understood the connection between trigonometry, time and navigation and they never divided the compass rose on 360 degrees.”
The compass is called “South pointing pin” in Chinese. I think it implies navigation. It has been documented to be used for navigation.
History of the compass - Wikipedia
As for the phonetic alphabet… thats where a major problem comes in. Too many words sound the same in Chinese. It just wouldn’t work.
On gunpowder:
“it becomes merely a poof powder, and much more a psychological weapon and an incendiary rather than a projectile propellant or explosive.”
Rocket History - (nasa.gov)
China also made extensive use of cannons too. During the Imjin war, Chinese cannons outranged the Japanese and helped secure victory.
“中国人有指南针，但他们把它用于宗教仪式和风水，而不是地理探索和海上航行。他们从来没有理解过三角学、时间和航海之间的联系，他们从来没有把罗盘分为360度。”
这种指南针在汉语中被称为“指南针”，它已被记录用于导航。链接：《指南针的历史》——维基
至于音标，这是一个大问题。中文里有太多的词听起来都一样。
至于火药，“它只是一种粉末，更像是一种心理武器和燃烧弹，而不是抛射推进剂或炸药。”链接：《火箭史》——NASA
中国也大量使用大炮。在临津江战争（万历朝鲜战争）中，中国大炮的射程超过了日本人，从而确保了胜利。
“According to Turnbull, "Chinese field artillery and siege cannon were the finest in the region".[105] Chinese artillery was made from cast iron, and were divided into several types, the most important were the "great general gun" and the folang zhi (佛朗支), the latter being breech-loaded artillery guns.[105]”
The compass is called “South pointing pin” in Chinese. I think it implies navigation. It has been documented to be used for navigation.
History of the compass - Wikipedia
As for the phonetic alphabet… thats where a major problem comes in. Too many words sound the same in Chinese. It just wouldn’t work.
On gunpowder:
“it becomes merely a poof powder, and much more a psychological weapon and an incendiary rather than a projectile propellant or explosive.”
Rocket History - (nasa.gov)
China also made extensive use of cannons too. During the Imjin war, Chinese cannons outranged the Japanese and helped secure victory.
“中国人有指南针，但他们把它用于宗教仪式和风水，而不是地理探索和海上航行。他们从来没有理解过三角学、时间和航海之间的联系，他们从来没有把罗盘分为360度。”
这种指南针在汉语中被称为“指南针”，它已被记录用于导航。链接：《指南针的历史》——维基
至于音标，这是一个大问题。中文里有太多的词听起来都一样。
至于火药，“它只是一种粉末，更像是一种心理武器和燃烧弹，而不是抛射推进剂或炸药。”链接：《火箭史》——NASA
中国也大量使用大炮。在临津江战争（万历朝鲜战争）中，中国大炮的射程超过了日本人，从而确保了胜利。
“According to Turnbull, "Chinese field artillery and siege cannon were the finest in the region".[105] Chinese artillery was made from cast iron, and were divided into several types, the most important were the "great general gun" and the folang zhi (佛朗支), the latter being breech-loaded artillery guns.[105]”
folang zhi is actually imported/westernized cannons.
“ They knew they were not superior, and they were constantly under attack - seaborne barbarians in North, horse nomads in the East, Islam from South - and there was a vast ocean in the West. In order not to get crushed, they were willing to learn from foreigners and carry their ideas and innovations even further “
This was actually the case for the Ming dynasty. They were willing to learn from Europeans too, as shown by the cannons used.
I personally believe one of the biggest problems was at some point in ancient Chinese history, life became too easy and the state philosophy became so ossified so they were unwilling to learn. (Mid - Late Qing dynasty)
据特恩布尔的说法，“中国野战炮和攻城炮是该地区最好的”。 中国大炮是由铸铁制成，被分成几种类型, 最重要的是“伟大将军枪”（great general gun）和佛朗支。佛朗支实际上是进口/西方化的大炮。
“他们（欧洲）知道自己并不优越，而且不断受到攻击——北方是海上的野蛮人，东方是游牧民族，南方是伊斯兰教，西方有一片广阔的海洋。为了不被压垮，他们愿意向外国人学习，并进一步发扬他们的思想和创新”
明朝就是这样。他们也愿意向欧洲人学习，这从他们使用的大炮就可以看出。我个人认为，最大的问题之一是在中国古代历史的某个时刻，生活变得太容易，官派哲学变得如此僵化，所以他们不愿学习。（清朝中晚期）
“ They knew they were not superior, and they were constantly under attack - seaborne barbarians in North, horse nomads in the East, Islam from South - and there was a vast ocean in the West. In order not to get crushed, they were willing to learn from foreigners and carry their ideas and innovations even further “
This was actually the case for the Ming dynasty. They were willing to learn from Europeans too, as shown by the cannons used.
I personally believe one of the biggest problems was at some point in ancient Chinese history, life became too easy and the state philosophy became so ossified so they were unwilling to learn. (Mid - Late Qing dynasty)
据特恩布尔的说法，“中国野战炮和攻城炮是该地区最好的”。 中国大炮是由铸铁制成，被分成几种类型, 最重要的是“伟大将军枪”（great general gun）和佛朗支。佛朗支实际上是进口/西方化的大炮。
“他们（欧洲）知道自己并不优越，而且不断受到攻击——北方是海上的野蛮人，东方是游牧民族，南方是伊斯兰教，西方有一片广阔的海洋。为了不被压垮，他们愿意向外国人学习，并进一步发扬他们的思想和创新”
明朝就是这样。他们也愿意向欧洲人学习，这从他们使用的大炮就可以看出。我个人认为，最大的问题之一是在中国古代历史的某个时刻，生活变得太容易，官派哲学变得如此僵化，所以他们不愿学习。（清朝中晚期）
MagicMonster
From what I know, throughout China’s long history the theme of valuing peace and security often trumped all.
War and internal disintegration are a terrible disruption for a very large agricultural population. And much of China’s longevity as a singular culture and civilisation seems to be because China hated disorder and disintegration. With good reason. It almost destroyed them a number of times.
I see it as probably the most practical civilisation that has ever existed. If it doesn’t have a clear use for the greater benefit of society, it’s a risky pipe dream. And it was always practicality before risk. Capitalism and war are inherently risky.
据我所知，在中国悠久的历史中，重视和平与安全的主题往往压倒一切。
战争和内部瓦解对一个庞大的农业人口来说是一个可怕的破坏。中国作为一个独特的文化和文明能够长久存在，很大程度上似乎是因为中国厌恶无序和解体。这是很好的理由，毕竟有好几次差点就毁了他们。
我认为它可能是有史以来最实用的文明。如果它对社会的更大利益没有明确的用途，那它就是一个危险的白日梦，而且总是实用性高于风险。而资本主义和战争天生就有风险。
From what I know, throughout China’s long history the theme of valuing peace and security often trumped all.
War and internal disintegration are a terrible disruption for a very large agricultural population. And much of China’s longevity as a singular culture and civilisation seems to be because China hated disorder and disintegration. With good reason. It almost destroyed them a number of times.
I see it as probably the most practical civilisation that has ever existed. If it doesn’t have a clear use for the greater benefit of society, it’s a risky pipe dream. And it was always practicality before risk. Capitalism and war are inherently risky.
据我所知，在中国悠久的历史中，重视和平与安全的主题往往压倒一切。
战争和内部瓦解对一个庞大的农业人口来说是一个可怕的破坏。中国作为一个独特的文化和文明能够长久存在，很大程度上似乎是因为中国厌恶无序和解体。这是很好的理由，毕竟有好几次差点就毁了他们。
我认为它可能是有史以来最实用的文明。如果它对社会的更大利益没有明确的用途，那它就是一个危险的白日梦，而且总是实用性高于风险。而资本主义和战争天生就有风险。
Charlie Li
Yes, even today the many -isms are seen as impractical.
The so called “middle road” by Confucius actually refers to “whatever way that works”
是的，即使在今天，许多主义仍被（中国人）视为不切实际。
孔子所说的“中间道路”实际上是指“只要可行就行”。
Yes, even today the many -isms are seen as impractical.
The so called “middle road” by Confucius actually refers to “whatever way that works”
是的，即使在今天，许多主义仍被（中国人）视为不切实际。
孔子所说的“中间道路”实际上是指“只要可行就行”。
Frank Lazar
If the Chinese Emporer of the 15th century hadn’t ordered the Exploration Navy halted and burned… we’d probably all be speaking Mandarin now.
如果15世纪的中国皇帝没有下令停止海军的探索并将其焚毁，我们现在可能都在说普通话了。
If the Chinese Emporer of the 15th century hadn’t ordered the Exploration Navy halted and burned… we’d probably all be speaking Mandarin now.
如果15世纪的中国皇帝没有下令停止海军的探索并将其焚毁，我们现在可能都在说普通话了。
Susanna Viljanen
I doubt. The Chinese could have crossed the oceans, but not return home. They lacked the required secondary powers to develop oceanic navigation.
对此我表示怀疑。中国人可以漂洋过海，但不会回国。
他们缺乏发展海洋航行所必需的次级力量。
I doubt. The Chinese could have crossed the oceans, but not return home. They lacked the required secondary powers to develop oceanic navigation.
对此我表示怀疑。中国人可以漂洋过海，但不会回国。
他们缺乏发展海洋航行所必需的次级力量。
Frank Lazar
I read your “secondary power” list. It’s a Eurocentric list of bullshit. The Chinese empire boasted great centers of learning and thought but expressed in an Oriental fashion, not a Euro-Latin one.
The main failing of the Chinese Empire was ironically it’s own success. It encouraged an inward-looking mentality. When those ships were burned it was from the collective sense that “Why look for anything beyond what we possess here in The Middle Kingdom?” From China’s viewpoint at the time the only thing the outside world offered was hordes of uncouth invading barbarians.
我读了你关于“次级力量”的观点。
这是一份以欧洲为中心的清单，没什么价值。中华帝国以拥有伟大的学术和思想中心而自豪，但却是以东方的方式表达的，而不是欧洲的拉丁式。
具有讽刺意味的是，中华帝国的主要失败在于它自己的成功。它鼓励了一种内向的心态。当这些船被烧毁的时候，人们的集体意识是:“为什么要寻找我们在中国以外的东西呢?”
在当时的中国看来，外部世界所能提供的唯一的东西就是成群的野蛮人入侵。
I read your “secondary power” list. It’s a Eurocentric list of bullshit. The Chinese empire boasted great centers of learning and thought but expressed in an Oriental fashion, not a Euro-Latin one.
The main failing of the Chinese Empire was ironically it’s own success. It encouraged an inward-looking mentality. When those ships were burned it was from the collective sense that “Why look for anything beyond what we possess here in The Middle Kingdom?” From China’s viewpoint at the time the only thing the outside world offered was hordes of uncouth invading barbarians.
我读了你关于“次级力量”的观点。
这是一份以欧洲为中心的清单，没什么价值。中华帝国以拥有伟大的学术和思想中心而自豪，但却是以东方的方式表达的，而不是欧洲的拉丁式。
具有讽刺意味的是，中华帝国的主要失败在于它自己的成功。它鼓励了一种内向的心态。当这些船被烧毁的时候，人们的集体意识是:“为什么要寻找我们在中国以外的东西呢?”
在当时的中国看来，外部世界所能提供的唯一的东西就是成群的野蛮人入侵。
Susanna Viljanen
Please prove with factual arguments why my list of those required powers is bullshit. Remember I am an INTJ, and as such, immune to emotional language and arguments.
Of course complacence can stultify any kind of progress, but so will lacking in foundations. Ever wondered why ‘qi’ (氣) is so omnipresent in the Chinese philosophy?
请用事实证明，为什么我列出的那些次级力量清单都是胡扯。记住，我是一个INTJ，因此，对于情绪化的语言和争论我是免疫的。
当然，自满会阻碍任何一种进步，但缺乏基础也是如此。有没有想过为什么“气”在中国哲学中无处不在?
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Please prove with factual arguments why my list of those required powers is bullshit. Remember I am an INTJ, and as such, immune to emotional language and arguments.
Of course complacence can stultify any kind of progress, but so will lacking in foundations. Ever wondered why ‘qi’ (氣) is so omnipresent in the Chinese philosophy?
请用事实证明，为什么我列出的那些次级力量清单都是胡扯。记住，我是一个INTJ，因此，对于情绪化的语言和争论我是免疫的。
当然，自满会阻碍任何一种进步，但缺乏基础也是如此。有没有想过为什么“气”在中国哲学中无处不在?
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Frank Lazar
I don’t have to.. your presentation of these things as being a magical list of properties unique to Europeans is typical racist trash. Marco Polo reports a culture that was in a rapid process of reinventing itself from it’s status as a collection of the barbaric consolidation of Genghis Khan to a strong push for cultural innovation by his son Kublai Khan which is very reminiscent of the same kind of push made by the Peter of Russia during his time as Czar.
Now the mindset of China at the time was different culturally but they still had their periods of advancement and scientific inquiry. They just went about things differently because of the differences in culture.
The cropping most important part of what held things back was China’s crippling authoritarianism. We’re actually seeing that here in America as most of the anti-science brigade comes from a culture that reveres the kind of authoritarianism that took over China back then and rules over countries like Russia and North Korea now.
我不需要证明。你把这些东西说成是欧洲人独有的神奇清单，这是典型的种族主义废话。
马可·波罗说过，一种文化正处于一个快速的重塑过程中，从成吉思汗野蛮统一，到他的儿子忽必烈大力推动文化创新。这让人想起了俄国沙皇彼得在他执政期间所做的同样的努力。
当时的中国在文化上的心态是不同的，但他们仍然有自己的进步和科学探索时期。他们只是因为文化的不同而行事不同。
阻碍经济增长的最重要因素是中国严重的威权主义。我们实际上看到，在美国，大多数反科学团体都来自一种崇尚威权主义的文化，这种威权主义当时接管了中国，现在也主导着俄罗斯和朝鲜等国家。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I don’t have to.. your presentation of these things as being a magical list of properties unique to Europeans is typical racist trash. Marco Polo reports a culture that was in a rapid process of reinventing itself from it’s status as a collection of the barbaric consolidation of Genghis Khan to a strong push for cultural innovation by his son Kublai Khan which is very reminiscent of the same kind of push made by the Peter of Russia during his time as Czar.
Now the mindset of China at the time was different culturally but they still had their periods of advancement and scientific inquiry. They just went about things differently because of the differences in culture.
The cropping most important part of what held things back was China’s crippling authoritarianism. We’re actually seeing that here in America as most of the anti-science brigade comes from a culture that reveres the kind of authoritarianism that took over China back then and rules over countries like Russia and North Korea now.
我不需要证明。你把这些东西说成是欧洲人独有的神奇清单，这是典型的种族主义废话。
马可·波罗说过，一种文化正处于一个快速的重塑过程中，从成吉思汗野蛮统一，到他的儿子忽必烈大力推动文化创新。这让人想起了俄国沙皇彼得在他执政期间所做的同样的努力。
当时的中国在文化上的心态是不同的，但他们仍然有自己的进步和科学探索时期。他们只是因为文化的不同而行事不同。
阻碍经济增长的最重要因素是中国严重的威权主义。我们实际上看到，在美国，大多数反科学团体都来自一种崇尚威权主义的文化，这种威权主义当时接管了中国，现在也主导着俄罗斯和朝鲜等国家。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Susanna Viljanen
In other words, you cannot prove me wrong with factual arguments.
That is why you resort to emotional argumentation and insisting factual arguments as “racistic trash”. Yet those bullet points which I presented are the pre-requisites to evolve to higher stage on cultural evolution, and they are same for all civilizations, Western or Eastern. Without fulfilling those, no further evolution will happen.
Of course China has had periods of advancement and scientific inquiry. They just did not advance any further because of those lacking secondary powers. But our material universe, the scientific facts and the natural laws are obxtive; they do not care if they are observed by an Easterner or a Westerner. The differences in culture prevented attaining those secondary powers.
不需要证明换言之你没法用事实证明我的论点是错的。
这就是为什么你诉诸情绪化的争论，并坚持事实性的论点，认为这是“种族主义废话”。 然而，我提出的这些要点是进化到文化更高阶段的先决条件，它们对所有文明都是一样的，无论是西方还是东方。没有实现这些，就不会发生进一步的进化。
当然，中国也有过进步和科学探索的时期。他们只是没有进一步发展，因为他们没有次级力量。但我们的物质世界、科学事实和自然规律是客观的；它们不关心它们是否被一个东方人或西方人观察。文化上的差异阻止了这些次级力量的获取。
In other words, you cannot prove me wrong with factual arguments.
That is why you resort to emotional argumentation and insisting factual arguments as “racistic trash”. Yet those bullet points which I presented are the pre-requisites to evolve to higher stage on cultural evolution, and they are same for all civilizations, Western or Eastern. Without fulfilling those, no further evolution will happen.
Of course China has had periods of advancement and scientific inquiry. They just did not advance any further because of those lacking secondary powers. But our material universe, the scientific facts and the natural laws are obxtive; they do not care if they are observed by an Easterner or a Westerner. The differences in culture prevented attaining those secondary powers.
不需要证明换言之你没法用事实证明我的论点是错的。
这就是为什么你诉诸情绪化的争论，并坚持事实性的论点，认为这是“种族主义废话”。 然而，我提出的这些要点是进化到文化更高阶段的先决条件，它们对所有文明都是一样的，无论是西方还是东方。没有实现这些，就不会发生进一步的进化。
当然，中国也有过进步和科学探索的时期。他们只是没有进一步发展，因为他们没有次级力量。但我们的物质世界、科学事实和自然规律是客观的；它们不关心它们是否被一个东方人或西方人观察。文化上的差异阻止了这些次级力量的获取。
The best thing ever to happen to China was the Xinhai revolution of 1911. Suddenly China opened itself, absorbed foreign knowledge and stuff and attained those required secondary powers. That opened up the way to scientific advancement, and even the Moon is no more a limit for the Chinese innovativiness and inquiry. It was if a cork had been pulled off the bottle.
Of course an Authoritarian society and Authoritarian mindset can stultify any kind of cultural evolution. Add there lack of competition and lack of curiosity, and a blissful complacency is almost guaranteed. But that is a value-based choice, not one of material factors, and every religion creates a society of its image. The reason is simple: the religion is the source for the value set hegemonic to the society, and it dictates how people relate to the society and to the state. Already Max Weber observed this and explained well why Capitalism evolved just in the Protestant Europe.
China is today in the same situation as the Roman empire in the early and middle imperial era. The old Polytheism is dead as a doornail, and the domain is a venue of various wildly competing religions. The future will see which will be the winner - and how it and its value basis will form the Chinese society in the future.
发生在中国的最好的事情是辛亥革命。突然之间，中国开放了，吸收了外国的知识，获得了所需的次级力量。这为科学进步开辟了道路，甚至月球也不再是中国创新和探索的限制。就像把瓶塞从瓶子上拔下来一样。
当然，威权社会和威权心态会使任何一种文化进化变得迟钝。再加上缺乏竞争和好奇心，自满几乎是必然的。但这是一种基于价值的选择，而不是物质因素，每一种宗教都创造了一个其形象的社会。原因很简单:宗教是社会霸权价值观的来源，它决定了人们与社会和国家的关系。马克思·韦伯已经注意到了这一点，并很好地解释了为什么资本主义只在新教的欧洲发展。
今天的中国与罗马帝国早期和中期的处境相同。古老的多神教已如死寂，而这片土地成了各种宗教激烈竞争的场所。未来将会看到谁是赢家，以及它和它的价值基础将如何塑造未来的中国社会。
Of course an Authoritarian society and Authoritarian mindset can stultify any kind of cultural evolution. Add there lack of competition and lack of curiosity, and a blissful complacency is almost guaranteed. But that is a value-based choice, not one of material factors, and every religion creates a society of its image. The reason is simple: the religion is the source for the value set hegemonic to the society, and it dictates how people relate to the society and to the state. Already Max Weber observed this and explained well why Capitalism evolved just in the Protestant Europe.
China is today in the same situation as the Roman empire in the early and middle imperial era. The old Polytheism is dead as a doornail, and the domain is a venue of various wildly competing religions. The future will see which will be the winner - and how it and its value basis will form the Chinese society in the future.
发生在中国的最好的事情是辛亥革命。突然之间，中国开放了，吸收了外国的知识，获得了所需的次级力量。这为科学进步开辟了道路，甚至月球也不再是中国创新和探索的限制。就像把瓶塞从瓶子上拔下来一样。
当然，威权社会和威权心态会使任何一种文化进化变得迟钝。再加上缺乏竞争和好奇心，自满几乎是必然的。但这是一种基于价值的选择，而不是物质因素，每一种宗教都创造了一个其形象的社会。原因很简单:宗教是社会霸权价值观的来源，它决定了人们与社会和国家的关系。马克思·韦伯已经注意到了这一点，并很好地解释了为什么资本主义只在新教的欧洲发展。
今天的中国与罗马帝国早期和中期的处境相同。古老的多神教已如死寂，而这片土地成了各种宗教激烈竞争的场所。未来将会看到谁是赢家，以及它和它的价值基础将如何塑造未来的中国社会。
Florence Xiang
Wow, an excellent analysis!
The Chinese suffered from a historic mindset of believing theirs was the superior culture, and thus refusing to learn from other peoples. There is a difficult balance that must be maintained, wherein a nation must be true to its own unique origins and traditions, yet retain a judicious contact with the outside world to allow for the exchange of new trade, ideas, etc. Otherwise they run the risk of stagnation and ossification, which, sadly, was the case for China.
I do not mean to sound racist here (especially since I myself am of full Chinese heritage), but I think you hit the nail on the head in portraying the major differences between “Western" and “Chinese" civilization. This is a huge generalization, of course, but I think history bears out the statement that in general, while both are indisputably highly intelligent peoples, the Chinese lack a certain “something" in their thinking that put them at a disadvantage when compared with their European counterparts. You can call this “something" innovative thought, forward-thinking, “outside-of-the-box" thinking, ability to extrapolate, intuition, scientific precision, inquisitiveness, or whatnot--but whatever it is, Chinese in general do not possess it in great quantity. Whether this is due to their historic philosophical upbringing of “don't rock the boat" or a deeper, possibly genetic factor, I cannot say.
一篇优秀的分析文！
中国人有一种历史心态，认为自己的文化是优越的，因此拒绝向其他民族学习。一个国家必须忠实于自己独特的起源和传统，同时与外部世界保持明智的联系，以便进行新的贸易、思想等的交流，这是一种难以维持的平衡。若非如此，它们将面临停滞和僵化的风险，遗憾的是，中国正是如此。
我并不是有意在这里听起来种族主义(尤其是我自己是完全的中国血统)，但我认为你在描述“西方”和“中国”文明之间的主要差异时，一针见血。当然，这种概括过于简化，但我认为历史证明了这样一种说法，即总的来说，尽管两方都是无可争议的高智商人群，中国人的思维中缺少某种“东西”，与欧洲人相比，他们处于劣势。
你可以把这个“东西”称为创新思维、前瞻性思维、“打破常规”的思维、推断能力、直觉、科学精确度、好奇心等等——但不管它是什么，一般来说，中国人并不大量拥有它。这究竟是由于他们“不要惹是生非”的历史哲学教育，还是更深层次的，可能是遗传因素，我不知道。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Wow, an excellent analysis!
The Chinese suffered from a historic mindset of believing theirs was the superior culture, and thus refusing to learn from other peoples. There is a difficult balance that must be maintained, wherein a nation must be true to its own unique origins and traditions, yet retain a judicious contact with the outside world to allow for the exchange of new trade, ideas, etc. Otherwise they run the risk of stagnation and ossification, which, sadly, was the case for China.
I do not mean to sound racist here (especially since I myself am of full Chinese heritage), but I think you hit the nail on the head in portraying the major differences between “Western" and “Chinese" civilization. This is a huge generalization, of course, but I think history bears out the statement that in general, while both are indisputably highly intelligent peoples, the Chinese lack a certain “something" in their thinking that put them at a disadvantage when compared with their European counterparts. You can call this “something" innovative thought, forward-thinking, “outside-of-the-box" thinking, ability to extrapolate, intuition, scientific precision, inquisitiveness, or whatnot--but whatever it is, Chinese in general do not possess it in great quantity. Whether this is due to their historic philosophical upbringing of “don't rock the boat" or a deeper, possibly genetic factor, I cannot say.
一篇优秀的分析文！
中国人有一种历史心态，认为自己的文化是优越的，因此拒绝向其他民族学习。一个国家必须忠实于自己独特的起源和传统，同时与外部世界保持明智的联系，以便进行新的贸易、思想等的交流，这是一种难以维持的平衡。若非如此，它们将面临停滞和僵化的风险，遗憾的是，中国正是如此。
我并不是有意在这里听起来种族主义(尤其是我自己是完全的中国血统)，但我认为你在描述“西方”和“中国”文明之间的主要差异时，一针见血。当然，这种概括过于简化，但我认为历史证明了这样一种说法，即总的来说，尽管两方都是无可争议的高智商人群，中国人的思维中缺少某种“东西”，与欧洲人相比，他们处于劣势。
你可以把这个“东西”称为创新思维、前瞻性思维、“打破常规”的思维、推断能力、直觉、科学精确度、好奇心等等——但不管它是什么，一般来说，中国人并不大量拥有它。这究竟是由于他们“不要惹是生非”的历史哲学教育，还是更深层次的，可能是遗传因素，我不知道。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Martin Ivers
China is, and has been a large society. Your success in society does not depend on the inherent value of your ideas, but on how good you are at making others multiply them, and the more so, the bigger it is. It’s not about the product, it’s about the marketing, we see this everyday in academia and internet debates.
Furthermore, to be a successful business owner it is enough to design your product based on guesswork, trial and error and copying someone else’s intellectual property. In most trades, you need practicality and effort rather than deep theoretical understanding. Even mathematics and equations in mechanical engineering are something you can just memorize and learn how to apply, without truly understanding the deeper principles. I’ve met many STEM professionals who really cannot think outside of the box. You recognize those because when asked to explain their field to a layman, they will let off a torrent of unstructured details.
中国现在是，而且一直是一个庞大的社会。你在社会上的成功并不取决于你的想法的内在价值，而是取决于你有多擅长让别人复制你的想法，而且越擅长，你的想法就越大。这不是关于产品，而是关于营销，我们每天都在学术界和互联网辩论中看到这一点。
此外，要想成为一个成功的企业所有者，就必须基于猜测、反复试验和复制他人的知识产权来设计你的产品。在大多数交易中，你需要的是实用性和努力，而不是深刻的理论理解。即使是机械工程中的数学和方程，你只需要记住并学习如何应用，而不需要真正理解更深层次的原理。我遇到过很多理工科专业人士，他们真的无法跳出框框思考。你能认出他们，是因为当被要求向外行解释他们的领域时，他们会滔滔不绝地说出一些毫无条理的细节。
China is, and has been a large society. Your success in society does not depend on the inherent value of your ideas, but on how good you are at making others multiply them, and the more so, the bigger it is. It’s not about the product, it’s about the marketing, we see this everyday in academia and internet debates.
Furthermore, to be a successful business owner it is enough to design your product based on guesswork, trial and error and copying someone else’s intellectual property. In most trades, you need practicality and effort rather than deep theoretical understanding. Even mathematics and equations in mechanical engineering are something you can just memorize and learn how to apply, without truly understanding the deeper principles. I’ve met many STEM professionals who really cannot think outside of the box. You recognize those because when asked to explain their field to a layman, they will let off a torrent of unstructured details.
中国现在是，而且一直是一个庞大的社会。你在社会上的成功并不取决于你的想法的内在价值，而是取决于你有多擅长让别人复制你的想法，而且越擅长，你的想法就越大。这不是关于产品，而是关于营销，我们每天都在学术界和互联网辩论中看到这一点。
此外，要想成为一个成功的企业所有者，就必须基于猜测、反复试验和复制他人的知识产权来设计你的产品。在大多数交易中，你需要的是实用性和努力，而不是深刻的理论理解。即使是机械工程中的数学和方程，你只需要记住并学习如何应用，而不需要真正理解更深层次的原理。我遇到过很多理工科专业人士，他们真的无法跳出框框思考。你能认出他们，是因为当被要求向外行解释他们的领域时，他们会滔滔不绝地说出一些毫无条理的细节。
China is obsessed over social status. You can’t blame them, it is indespensable for physical survival. Social death is basically the same as physical death. This is true in any society. Only in a very legalistic justice state you can afford to be an outsider. But China is very concerned with the here and now, rather than otherworldly stuff and the afterlife. What’s right and what’s wrong is defined by what is approved of by your family and social circles, whereas the European ethical ideas are based on an absolute metaphysical groundwork. The Chinese mindset is thus not very approving of exploration of abstract ideas and hypotheticals. Truth only matters to them if it can be applied in a practical way, not for it’s own sake. But mostly, it’s the scale effect. Every society will evolve into a China because the socially savy rise to the top, and make-believe prevails.
I hope I am not racist here, I think these are anthropological constants.
中国非常重视社会地位。你不能责怪他们，这对生存是必不可少的。社会死亡和肉体死亡基本上是一样的。在任何社会中都是如此。只有在一个法律公正的国家，你才有资格做一个局外人。但中国非常关注当下，而不是超凡脱俗的东西和来世。
什么是对的，什么是错的，是由你的家庭和社交圈来认可，而欧洲的伦理观念是建立在绝对的形而上学基础之上的。因此，中国人的思维方式不太赞成对抽象概念和假设的探索。真理对他们来说重要的是它能以实际的方式被应用，而不是它本身。但最重要的是规模效应。每个社会都会发展成一个中国，因为社会精明的人会上升到顶端，而假装盛行。我希望我不是种族主义者，我认为这些是人类学的常量。
I hope I am not racist here, I think these are anthropological constants.
中国非常重视社会地位。你不能责怪他们，这对生存是必不可少的。社会死亡和肉体死亡基本上是一样的。在任何社会中都是如此。只有在一个法律公正的国家，你才有资格做一个局外人。但中国非常关注当下，而不是超凡脱俗的东西和来世。
什么是对的，什么是错的，是由你的家庭和社交圈来认可，而欧洲的伦理观念是建立在绝对的形而上学基础之上的。因此，中国人的思维方式不太赞成对抽象概念和假设的探索。真理对他们来说重要的是它能以实际的方式被应用，而不是它本身。但最重要的是规模效应。每个社会都会发展成一个中国，因为社会精明的人会上升到顶端，而假装盛行。我希望我不是种族主义者，我认为这些是人类学的常量。
Sam Arora
In my view: China is/was very peace loving country, they still believe and believed in living and let live. They did not have big ambitions, China is/was great civilization well advanced far more than rest of the ancient world, in my primary school in India our teachers used to tell us when rest of the world was living in caves China was making calendar/s and studying astronomy.
1. Under such conditions fully advanced civilization, the question is: why on earth will attack other human beings and take over rest of the uncivilized world, as a liability, educate them, feed them and train them?
2. Lord Buddha preached total peace, nonviolence, family values, and Karma. Present young generation of Chinese may not know it, I being Indian and during my recent visit. I saw and felt more reverence to these peace loving principals practiced by Chinese in day to day life, because for thousands of years, it has become part of their permanent habits, without any efforts to show off.
3. Chinese being incredibly hard working people themselves born and brought up in the same land, so they did not have to adjust to high/low temperatures. And China being an agriculture based economy, they believed in big families, they had enough workforce of their own, they had no curiosity to bring outside help to work in their fields, and again this illiterate, more or less uncivilized human resources could have been a burden to them.
4. In short, China was self-sufficient, advanced, and by nature, they are very content in themselves and due to a religious conviction of total peace and harmony. There were no ambitions, to become a world power, I felt, and sincere belief in these thoughts, during my first recent trip to China, next one is coming soon.
5. Chinese as I see them through my lot of dealings with them in Canada, and visits to China, convinced me one thing, Chinese do not play politics, and they have very well balanced lives. Usually, most of them do not want to catch up with Jones. For example, every ethnicity in Canada got in the Canadian parliament, except Canadian Chinese, because they have a very gentle way of living. They are model citizens where ever they go across the globe, hardly the Chinese ever involve any crime, education is number 1, and they mind their own business, that is their culture and training, they respect their teachers, parents, and worship their grandparents.
6. whether they and some others like it or not now China is a super power when the world owes them trillions of dollars, and they are investing around the globe, without fighting, sending any soldier across the border, that in fact are Super Power, now, and this is only the start.
With best regards.
Sam
在我看来:中国是一个非常热爱和平的国家，他们仍然相信生活，也让别人生活。他们没有大的野心，中国是伟大的文明，比其他古代世界先进得多，在我在印度上小学的时候，我们的老师告诉我们，当世界其他地方还住在洞穴里的时候，中国在制作日历和学习天文学。
1. 在这种完全先进的文明条件下，问题是: 究竟为什么要攻击其他人类，并接管其他未开化的世界，作为一种责任，教育他们，养活他们，训练他们?
2. 佛陀宣扬全面和平、非暴力、家庭价值观和因果报应。现在的年轻一代中国人可能不知道。我在最近的旅行中，看到和感受到中国人在日常生活中所践行的这些爱好和平的原则，因为几千年来，它已经成为他们永久习惯的一部分，没有任何炫耀的感觉。
3. 中国人在同一块土地上出生和长大，所以他们不需要适应高温或低温。中国是一个以农业为基础的经济体，他们相信大家庭。他们自己有足够的劳动力，他们没有兴趣在自己的领域里寻求外界的帮助，同样，这种不识字的，或多或少不文明的人力资源对他们来说可能是一种负担。
4. 总之，中国是自给自足的，先进的，他们对自己非常满意，并追随宗教信仰中的全面和平与和谐。在我最近的第一次中国之旅中，我感到中国并没有成为世界强国的雄心，我真诚地相信这些想法，下一次中国之旅很快也会成行。
5. 通过我在加拿大和华人的交往，以及对中国的访问，我相信一件事，中国人不玩政治，他们的生活很平衡。通常，他们中的大多数人都不想赶上“琼斯”。例如，加拿大的每个种族都会进入加拿大议会，除了加拿大华人，因为他们的生活方式非常温和。无论他们走到哪里，他们都是模范公民，中国人很少犯罪，教育是第一位的，他们只关心自己的事情，那是他们的文化和规训，他们尊敬他们的老师，父母，崇拜他们的祖父母。
6. 无论他们自己以及其他人是否想要或者喜欢，如今中国都是一个超级大国，全世界都欠了中国数万亿美元，他们在全球投资、不打仗也没有派遣士兵越过边界，然而实际上他们是超级大国。现在是，而且这只是开始。
谨致问候。
In my view: China is/was very peace loving country, they still believe and believed in living and let live. They did not have big ambitions, China is/was great civilization well advanced far more than rest of the ancient world, in my primary school in India our teachers used to tell us when rest of the world was living in caves China was making calendar/s and studying astronomy.
1. Under such conditions fully advanced civilization, the question is: why on earth will attack other human beings and take over rest of the uncivilized world, as a liability, educate them, feed them and train them?
2. Lord Buddha preached total peace, nonviolence, family values, and Karma. Present young generation of Chinese may not know it, I being Indian and during my recent visit. I saw and felt more reverence to these peace loving principals practiced by Chinese in day to day life, because for thousands of years, it has become part of their permanent habits, without any efforts to show off.
3. Chinese being incredibly hard working people themselves born and brought up in the same land, so they did not have to adjust to high/low temperatures. And China being an agriculture based economy, they believed in big families, they had enough workforce of their own, they had no curiosity to bring outside help to work in their fields, and again this illiterate, more or less uncivilized human resources could have been a burden to them.
4. In short, China was self-sufficient, advanced, and by nature, they are very content in themselves and due to a religious conviction of total peace and harmony. There were no ambitions, to become a world power, I felt, and sincere belief in these thoughts, during my first recent trip to China, next one is coming soon.
5. Chinese as I see them through my lot of dealings with them in Canada, and visits to China, convinced me one thing, Chinese do not play politics, and they have very well balanced lives. Usually, most of them do not want to catch up with Jones. For example, every ethnicity in Canada got in the Canadian parliament, except Canadian Chinese, because they have a very gentle way of living. They are model citizens where ever they go across the globe, hardly the Chinese ever involve any crime, education is number 1, and they mind their own business, that is their culture and training, they respect their teachers, parents, and worship their grandparents.
6. whether they and some others like it or not now China is a super power when the world owes them trillions of dollars, and they are investing around the globe, without fighting, sending any soldier across the border, that in fact are Super Power, now, and this is only the start.
With best regards.
Sam
在我看来:中国是一个非常热爱和平的国家，他们仍然相信生活，也让别人生活。他们没有大的野心，中国是伟大的文明，比其他古代世界先进得多，在我在印度上小学的时候，我们的老师告诉我们，当世界其他地方还住在洞穴里的时候，中国在制作日历和学习天文学。
1. 在这种完全先进的文明条件下，问题是: 究竟为什么要攻击其他人类，并接管其他未开化的世界，作为一种责任，教育他们，养活他们，训练他们?
2. 佛陀宣扬全面和平、非暴力、家庭价值观和因果报应。现在的年轻一代中国人可能不知道。我在最近的旅行中，看到和感受到中国人在日常生活中所践行的这些爱好和平的原则，因为几千年来，它已经成为他们永久习惯的一部分，没有任何炫耀的感觉。
3. 中国人在同一块土地上出生和长大，所以他们不需要适应高温或低温。中国是一个以农业为基础的经济体，他们相信大家庭。他们自己有足够的劳动力，他们没有兴趣在自己的领域里寻求外界的帮助，同样，这种不识字的，或多或少不文明的人力资源对他们来说可能是一种负担。
4. 总之，中国是自给自足的，先进的，他们对自己非常满意，并追随宗教信仰中的全面和平与和谐。在我最近的第一次中国之旅中，我感到中国并没有成为世界强国的雄心，我真诚地相信这些想法，下一次中国之旅很快也会成行。
5. 通过我在加拿大和华人的交往，以及对中国的访问，我相信一件事，中国人不玩政治，他们的生活很平衡。通常，他们中的大多数人都不想赶上“琼斯”。例如，加拿大的每个种族都会进入加拿大议会，除了加拿大华人，因为他们的生活方式非常温和。无论他们走到哪里，他们都是模范公民，中国人很少犯罪，教育是第一位的，他们只关心自己的事情，那是他们的文化和规训，他们尊敬他们的老师，父母，崇拜他们的祖父母。
6. 无论他们自己以及其他人是否想要或者喜欢，如今中国都是一个超级大国，全世界都欠了中国数万亿美元，他们在全球投资、不打仗也没有派遣士兵越过边界，然而实际上他们是超级大国。现在是，而且这只是开始。
谨致问候。
Geoffrey Widdison
That's actually a fascinating question. The history behind it is pretty complex, but I tend to look for a set of simple, causal reasons. Other answers about Chinese culture and the limitations of Chinese technology are fine, as far as they go, but cultures tend to evolve the way they do for a reason. In Europe, there were plenty of peace-loving philosophies, but more warlike groups general rolled over and knocked that tendency right out of them. Why didn't it happen in China?
The theory I find the most compelling (apparently espoused in Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers") is that it was driven by geographical differences between Europe and the rest of Eurasia. He argues that Europe is particularly shot through with natural barriers, like lakes, rivers, forests and mountain ranges, that are inconvenient but never impassable. That meant that Europe was highly politically fragmented (even now, you can see the large numbers of small countries that continue to exist), but none of those kingdoms was ever safe from conquest by a neighbor. That led to a condition where European powers were either at war or at risk of war, all the time. The consequence was an evolutionary process in which you had to advance quickly or risk being destroyed. That led to rapid weapons development, but also to scientific and economic advances, because a kingdom that couldn't afford to hire gunsmiths and mercenaries would be at risk. If a kingdom didn't support its craftsmen and merchants enough, they could pack up and move to the next country. If a nation-state tried to cut itself off from trade, then the countries around it would do all the trading and leave them behind, economically. There were plenty of leaders who were dumb or short-sighted, and plenty who were peace-loving and trusting, but those didn't tend to last so long.
By contrast, empires like the Ottomans and the Ming Dynasty could pretty easily rule territory to their natural limits of conquest. Within that area, they were fairly safe from outside conquests, which meant they could rule as they liked. If an emperor issued a decree that turned out to hold back progress, for any reason, the empire could still survive, their need to advance was far less urgent. The decisions of a single leader had a huge effect over the fortunes of the whole empire, instead of a lot of things being tried at once.
In short, the effects of direct and driving competition within Europe could very well have driven them to advance their technology (particularly, but not limited to, military technology), faster than anyone else in Eurasia. Such competition is harsh, but it's hard to argue with results.
这个问题很有意思。这背后的历史是相当复杂的，但我倾向于寻找一组简单的因果原因。其他关于中国文化和中国技术局限性的答案都不错，但文化倾向之所以以这样的方式发展是有原因的。在欧洲，有很多爱好和平的哲学，但更多好战的团体推翻了这一倾向。为什么它没有发生在中国?
我认为最令人信服的理论(显然在保罗·肯尼迪(Paul Kennedy)的《大国兴衰》(The Rise and Fall of Great Powers)中得到了支持)是，欧洲和欧亚大陆其他地区之间的地理差异推动了这一理论。他认为，欧洲到处都是自然屏障，如湖泊、河流、森林和山脉，虽然不方便，但并非不可逾越。这意味着欧洲在政治上是高度分裂的(即使是现在，你还可以看到大量的小国继续存在)，但没有一个王国能幸免于邻国的征服。
这导致欧洲列强要么处于战争状态，要么一直处于战争风险之中。结果是一个进化过程，在这个过程中，你必须快速进步，否则就有被摧毁的风险。这导致了武器的快速发展，同时也促进了科学和经济的发展，因为一个王国如果不能支付雇佣军械工匠和雇佣兵的费用，就会处于危险之中。如果一个王国不能支持足够的工匠和商人，他们会收拾行囊搬到另一个国家。如果一个民族国家试图切断自己的贸易，那么它周围的国家就会揽下所有的贸易，在经济上把他们甩在后面。有很多领导人要么愚蠢要么目光短浅，也有很多热爱和平、信任他人，但他们往往不会持续太久。
相比之下，像奥斯曼帝国和明朝这样的帝国可以很容易地将领土统治到他们自然征服的极限。在这个地区，他们可以免受外来征服，这意味着他们可以随心所欲地统治。如果皇帝颁布了一项阻碍进步的法令，不管出于什么原因，帝国仍然可以生存，他们进步的需要就不那么紧迫了。一个领导人的决定对整个帝国的命运有着巨大的影响，而不是同时尝试很多事情。
简而言之，欧洲内部直接竞争的影响很可能促使他们比欧亚大陆的任何国家更快地发展技术(特别是但不限于军事技术)。这样的竞争是残酷的，但结果也很难去争论。
That's actually a fascinating question. The history behind it is pretty complex, but I tend to look for a set of simple, causal reasons. Other answers about Chinese culture and the limitations of Chinese technology are fine, as far as they go, but cultures tend to evolve the way they do for a reason. In Europe, there were plenty of peace-loving philosophies, but more warlike groups general rolled over and knocked that tendency right out of them. Why didn't it happen in China?
The theory I find the most compelling (apparently espoused in Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers") is that it was driven by geographical differences between Europe and the rest of Eurasia. He argues that Europe is particularly shot through with natural barriers, like lakes, rivers, forests and mountain ranges, that are inconvenient but never impassable. That meant that Europe was highly politically fragmented (even now, you can see the large numbers of small countries that continue to exist), but none of those kingdoms was ever safe from conquest by a neighbor. That led to a condition where European powers were either at war or at risk of war, all the time. The consequence was an evolutionary process in which you had to advance quickly or risk being destroyed. That led to rapid weapons development, but also to scientific and economic advances, because a kingdom that couldn't afford to hire gunsmiths and mercenaries would be at risk. If a kingdom didn't support its craftsmen and merchants enough, they could pack up and move to the next country. If a nation-state tried to cut itself off from trade, then the countries around it would do all the trading and leave them behind, economically. There were plenty of leaders who were dumb or short-sighted, and plenty who were peace-loving and trusting, but those didn't tend to last so long.
By contrast, empires like the Ottomans and the Ming Dynasty could pretty easily rule territory to their natural limits of conquest. Within that area, they were fairly safe from outside conquests, which meant they could rule as they liked. If an emperor issued a decree that turned out to hold back progress, for any reason, the empire could still survive, their need to advance was far less urgent. The decisions of a single leader had a huge effect over the fortunes of the whole empire, instead of a lot of things being tried at once.
In short, the effects of direct and driving competition within Europe could very well have driven them to advance their technology (particularly, but not limited to, military technology), faster than anyone else in Eurasia. Such competition is harsh, but it's hard to argue with results.
这个问题很有意思。这背后的历史是相当复杂的，但我倾向于寻找一组简单的因果原因。其他关于中国文化和中国技术局限性的答案都不错，但文化倾向之所以以这样的方式发展是有原因的。在欧洲，有很多爱好和平的哲学，但更多好战的团体推翻了这一倾向。为什么它没有发生在中国?
我认为最令人信服的理论(显然在保罗·肯尼迪(Paul Kennedy)的《大国兴衰》(The Rise and Fall of Great Powers)中得到了支持)是，欧洲和欧亚大陆其他地区之间的地理差异推动了这一理论。他认为，欧洲到处都是自然屏障，如湖泊、河流、森林和山脉，虽然不方便，但并非不可逾越。这意味着欧洲在政治上是高度分裂的(即使是现在，你还可以看到大量的小国继续存在)，但没有一个王国能幸免于邻国的征服。
这导致欧洲列强要么处于战争状态，要么一直处于战争风险之中。结果是一个进化过程，在这个过程中，你必须快速进步，否则就有被摧毁的风险。这导致了武器的快速发展，同时也促进了科学和经济的发展，因为一个王国如果不能支付雇佣军械工匠和雇佣兵的费用，就会处于危险之中。如果一个王国不能支持足够的工匠和商人，他们会收拾行囊搬到另一个国家。如果一个民族国家试图切断自己的贸易，那么它周围的国家就会揽下所有的贸易，在经济上把他们甩在后面。有很多领导人要么愚蠢要么目光短浅，也有很多热爱和平、信任他人，但他们往往不会持续太久。
相比之下，像奥斯曼帝国和明朝这样的帝国可以很容易地将领土统治到他们自然征服的极限。在这个地区，他们可以免受外来征服，这意味着他们可以随心所欲地统治。如果皇帝颁布了一项阻碍进步的法令，不管出于什么原因，帝国仍然可以生存，他们进步的需要就不那么紧迫了。一个领导人的决定对整个帝国的命运有着巨大的影响，而不是同时尝试很多事情。
简而言之，欧洲内部直接竞争的影响很可能促使他们比欧亚大陆的任何国家更快地发展技术(特别是但不限于军事技术)。这样的竞争是残酷的，但结果也很难去争论。
Julian Stoev
Actually China did solve its own problems sometime much better than Europe.
For example current day China is equivalent to certain degree to EU. This may sound shocking, but please consider this - the differences between languages, religions and traditions inside China are at least as big, as they are inside Europe. And we see how divided and ineffective is Europe even nowadays. China managed to unite in one centralized state all these people - something Europe is not sure to accomplish ever. Such unification in Europe was many times on the horizon, but it never happened. The last two appear to be Hitler and Napoleon. China finished these tasks long time ago - also in extremely bloody way.
Also the question what exactly is superpower is not very clear. There was/is Great Britain. IT was a superpower for sure. Is it now? Probably not. Same for France, Spain…. Rome…. Greece. Same will be for Russia. There is USA. It is a superpower now, but will it be after 10,20,50 years? Nothing is forever.
I remember also reading that in all human history, except for the last 200 years, that living standard of the average Chinese was higher that the average European. They were living longer, eating better. Is is this not a superpower?
Based on this, China looks actually very comparable to any other superpower, whatever this is.
事实上，中国有时确实比欧洲更好地解决了自己的问题。
例如，今天的中国在一定程度上相当于欧盟。这听起来可能令人震惊，但请考虑一下——在中国，语言、宗教和传统之间的差异至少和在欧洲一样大。即使在今天，我们也能看到欧洲是多么分裂和低效。中国成功地将所有这些人统一为一个中央集权的国家——这是欧洲永远不可能做到的。这样的统一曾多次出现在欧洲的地平线上，但从未发生。最后两个似乎是希特勒和拿破仑。中国很久以前就完成了这些任务，而且是以极其血腥的方式。
另外，如何定义“超级大国”也不是很清楚。过去/现在是英国，毫无疑问，它曾是一个超级大国。至于现在?可能不是。法国、西班牙也是如此，还有罗马和希腊。俄罗斯也是如此。还有美国，后者现在是一个超级大国，但10年、20年、50年后呢?没有东西是永恒的。
我还记得在整个人类历史上，除了过去200年，中国人的平均生活水平高于欧洲人。他们活得更长，吃得更好。这不是超级大国吗? 基于此，中国看起来和其他超级大国差不多，不管这是什么。
Actually China did solve its own problems sometime much better than Europe.
For example current day China is equivalent to certain degree to EU. This may sound shocking, but please consider this - the differences between languages, religions and traditions inside China are at least as big, as they are inside Europe. And we see how divided and ineffective is Europe even nowadays. China managed to unite in one centralized state all these people - something Europe is not sure to accomplish ever. Such unification in Europe was many times on the horizon, but it never happened. The last two appear to be Hitler and Napoleon. China finished these tasks long time ago - also in extremely bloody way.
Also the question what exactly is superpower is not very clear. There was/is Great Britain. IT was a superpower for sure. Is it now? Probably not. Same for France, Spain…. Rome…. Greece. Same will be for Russia. There is USA. It is a superpower now, but will it be after 10,20,50 years? Nothing is forever.
I remember also reading that in all human history, except for the last 200 years, that living standard of the average Chinese was higher that the average European. They were living longer, eating better. Is is this not a superpower?
Based on this, China looks actually very comparable to any other superpower, whatever this is.
事实上，中国有时确实比欧洲更好地解决了自己的问题。
例如，今天的中国在一定程度上相当于欧盟。这听起来可能令人震惊，但请考虑一下——在中国，语言、宗教和传统之间的差异至少和在欧洲一样大。即使在今天，我们也能看到欧洲是多么分裂和低效。中国成功地将所有这些人统一为一个中央集权的国家——这是欧洲永远不可能做到的。这样的统一曾多次出现在欧洲的地平线上，但从未发生。最后两个似乎是希特勒和拿破仑。中国很久以前就完成了这些任务，而且是以极其血腥的方式。
另外，如何定义“超级大国”也不是很清楚。过去/现在是英国，毫无疑问，它曾是一个超级大国。至于现在?可能不是。法国、西班牙也是如此，还有罗马和希腊。俄罗斯也是如此。还有美国，后者现在是一个超级大国，但10年、20年、50年后呢?没有东西是永恒的。
我还记得在整个人类历史上，除了过去200年，中国人的平均生活水平高于欧洲人。他们活得更长，吃得更好。这不是超级大国吗? 基于此，中国看起来和其他超级大国差不多，不管这是什么。
很赞 6
收藏