为什么印度和中国的人口数量会大幅领先于其他国家地区？
正文翻译
Why do India and China have drastically higher populations?
为什么印度和中国的人口数量大幅领先？
为什么印度和中国的人口数量大幅领先？
India and China are the top 2, and USA 3rd. But the difference between China or India and the USA is a whole 1 billion people. It's not even close. Just wondering why the difference is so huge?
印度和中国位居前两位，美国位居第三。但中国或印度与美国之间的差距是整整 10 亿人。差得太远了。我非常想知道为什么差距会这么大？
印度和中国位居前两位，美国位居第三。但中国或印度与美国之间的差距是整整 10 亿人。差得太远了。我非常想知道为什么差距会这么大？
评论翻译
Account suspended
asamulya
I think the answer to this question lies is a summation of the following facts (and probably some more than what I have been able to think of):
In 18th century when U.S. was becoming a nation, the population of this region was around 2-3 million. When you contrast it to China which was 170 million and India at 160 million you can see how much exponential growth was required to get to where these countries are right now.
Most of the Indian and Chinese population lives in historically the ideal conditions for a human being to survive. The climate, soil, availability of water and other fauna etc. This has allowed population in these regions to thrive far more than any other in the world.
India and China were really struggling in terms of child mortality and diseases until the middle of the 20th century. This led to people having more kids so that some of them would survive into adulthood. This practice didn’t really change until AIDS epidemic when availability of protection became a thing and contraceptives became available as well. China went a step further by mandating the one child policy. Indian politicians implicitly encouraged the same thing. But that’s another story.
US during this time had already become a developed nation with nuclear families and availability of medical help. This meant people were more concerned about their lifestyle choices compared to India and China.
我认为这个问题的答案是以下事实的总和（可能还有一些我想不到的事实）：
1. 18 世纪美国建国之初，该地区的人口约为 200 万至 300 万。对比中国的 1.7 亿人口和印度的 1.6 亿人口，你就会知道这些国家要达到现在的水平需要多少指数级的增长。
2. 印度和中国的大部分人口都生活在人类历史上最理想的生存环境中。气候、土壤、水源和其他动物等等。这使得这些地区的人口比世界上任何其他地区的人口都要繁盛得多。
3. 直到 20 世纪中叶，印度和中国在儿童死亡率和疾病方面仍在苦苦挣扎。这导致人们生育更多的孩子，以便其中一些能够活到成年。这种做法直到艾滋病流行后才真正改变，因为那时人们开始有了保护措施，也可以使用避孕药具。中国则更进一步，强制推行独生子女政策。印度的政治家们也暗中鼓励独生子女政策。但这是另一个故事。
这一时期的美国已经成为一个拥有核心家庭和医疗服务的发达国家。这意味着与印度和中国相比，人们更关注自己的生活方式选择。
asamulya
I think the answer to this question lies is a summation of the following facts (and probably some more than what I have been able to think of):
In 18th century when U.S. was becoming a nation, the population of this region was around 2-3 million. When you contrast it to China which was 170 million and India at 160 million you can see how much exponential growth was required to get to where these countries are right now.
Most of the Indian and Chinese population lives in historically the ideal conditions for a human being to survive. The climate, soil, availability of water and other fauna etc. This has allowed population in these regions to thrive far more than any other in the world.
India and China were really struggling in terms of child mortality and diseases until the middle of the 20th century. This led to people having more kids so that some of them would survive into adulthood. This practice didn’t really change until AIDS epidemic when availability of protection became a thing and contraceptives became available as well. China went a step further by mandating the one child policy. Indian politicians implicitly encouraged the same thing. But that’s another story.
US during this time had already become a developed nation with nuclear families and availability of medical help. This meant people were more concerned about their lifestyle choices compared to India and China.
我认为这个问题的答案是以下事实的总和（可能还有一些我想不到的事实）：
1. 18 世纪美国建国之初，该地区的人口约为 200 万至 300 万。对比中国的 1.7 亿人口和印度的 1.6 亿人口，你就会知道这些国家要达到现在的水平需要多少指数级的增长。
2. 印度和中国的大部分人口都生活在人类历史上最理想的生存环境中。气候、土壤、水源和其他动物等等。这使得这些地区的人口比世界上任何其他地区的人口都要繁盛得多。
3. 直到 20 世纪中叶，印度和中国在儿童死亡率和疾病方面仍在苦苦挣扎。这导致人们生育更多的孩子，以便其中一些能够活到成年。这种做法直到艾滋病流行后才真正改变，因为那时人们开始有了保护措施，也可以使用避孕药具。中国则更进一步，强制推行独生子女政策。印度的政治家们也暗中鼓励独生子女政策。但这是另一个故事。
这一时期的美国已经成为一个拥有核心家庭和医疗服务的发达国家。这意味着与印度和中国相比，人们更关注自己的生活方式选择。
[dexed]
Great synopsis. I watched something a long time ago that also said that these countries with high populations tend to eat rice as their primary grain. Most of the rest of the world eats corn or wheat as their primary grains. Rice, compared to wheat or corn, is both much more nutrient dense and the calories that can be produced per acre is much, much higher with rice than those other staples, allowing these countries to sustain drastically higher populations.
很好的概述。很久以前我看过一篇文章，其中也提到这些人口众多的国家往往以大米为主要谷物。而世界上其他大多数国家的主要谷物是玉米或小麦。与小麦或玉米相比，大米的营养密度要高得多，而且每英亩可生产的卡路里也比其他主食高得多，这使得这些国家能够维持急剧增加的人口
Great synopsis. I watched something a long time ago that also said that these countries with high populations tend to eat rice as their primary grain. Most of the rest of the world eats corn or wheat as their primary grains. Rice, compared to wheat or corn, is both much more nutrient dense and the calories that can be produced per acre is much, much higher with rice than those other staples, allowing these countries to sustain drastically higher populations.
很好的概述。很久以前我看过一篇文章，其中也提到这些人口众多的国家往往以大米为主要谷物。而世界上其他大多数国家的主要谷物是玉米或小麦。与小麦或玉米相比，大米的营养密度要高得多，而且每英亩可生产的卡路里也比其他主食高得多，这使得这些国家能够维持急剧增加的人口
asamulya
Actually only southern India eats rice a lot more. Northern Indian around the Ganges plain (also India and Pakistan on the Indus Valley plain) typically eat Wheat and Rice both with Wheat being the primary diet staple.
And if you look at any population density map you’ll see that Indian and Pakistani populations live around these two rivers the most.
The soil around these two Himalayan rivers is so nutrient rich that farmers have typically been able to have 3 crops in a year. Which allows far more sustenance than anywhere else in the world.
事实上，印度只有南部的人更多地食用大米。恒河平原周围的北印度（以及印度河谷平原的印度和巴基斯坦）通常吃小麦和大米，其中小麦是主要的主食。
如果你看一下任何人口密度地图，你会发现印度和巴基斯坦人口最多地居住在这两条河流周围。
喜马拉雅山脉这两条河流周围的土壤养分丰富，农民通常一年能种三季庄稼。这比世界上任何其他地方都能提供更多的食物。
Actually only southern India eats rice a lot more. Northern Indian around the Ganges plain (also India and Pakistan on the Indus Valley plain) typically eat Wheat and Rice both with Wheat being the primary diet staple.
And if you look at any population density map you’ll see that Indian and Pakistani populations live around these two rivers the most.
The soil around these two Himalayan rivers is so nutrient rich that farmers have typically been able to have 3 crops in a year. Which allows far more sustenance than anywhere else in the world.
事实上，印度只有南部的人更多地食用大米。恒河平原周围的北印度（以及印度河谷平原的印度和巴基斯坦）通常吃小麦和大米，其中小麦是主要的主食。
如果你看一下任何人口密度地图，你会发现印度和巴基斯坦人口最多地居住在这两条河流周围。
喜马拉雅山脉这两条河流周围的土壤养分丰富，农民通常一年能种三季庄稼。这比世界上任何其他地方都能提供更多的食物。
jedrevolutia
The same can be said about China. I learned from one of my online courses about China that northern China mainly cultivated wheat and southern China mainly cultivated rice. That also explains the height difference between people from northern China and southern China.
中国也是如此。我从一门关于中国的在线课程中了解到，中国北方主要种植小麦，南方主要种植水稻。这也解释了中国北方人和南方人之间的身高差异。
The same can be said about China. I learned from one of my online courses about China that northern China mainly cultivated wheat and southern China mainly cultivated rice. That also explains the height difference between people from northern China and southern China.
中国也是如此。我从一门关于中国的在线课程中了解到，中国北方主要种植小麦，南方主要种植水稻。这也解释了中国北方人和南方人之间的身高差异。
NoOne_143
Nah. It's genes and lifestyle. Punjabis are tall and but other wheat eating people are short in Idnia.
不。这是基因和生活方式造成的。旁遮普人很高，但同在印度，其他吃小麦的人却很矮。
Nah. It's genes and lifestyle. Punjabis are tall and but other wheat eating people are short in Idnia.
不。这是基因和生活方式造成的。旁遮普人很高，但同在印度，其他吃小麦的人却很矮。
BoiImStancedUp
Rice being more nutrient dense I think is a slight inaccuracy. It's more calorie dense, which is ultimately what we need to survive. However, other grains have higher protein content
我认为说大米营养更丰富有点不准确。它的卡路里含量更高，这正是我们生存所需要的。然而，其他谷物的蛋白质含量更高
Rice being more nutrient dense I think is a slight inaccuracy. It's more calorie dense, which is ultimately what we need to survive. However, other grains have higher protein content
我认为说大米营养更丰富有点不准确。它的卡路里含量更高，这正是我们生存所需要的。然而，其他谷物的蛋白质含量更高
fiendishrabbit
Although rice does contain 8 out of 9 essential amino acids (with brown rice having a protein profile that's fairly well balanced for human consumption) while wheat has historically been lacking in threonine, methionine and most importantly lysine (although newer wheat varieties tend to have a higher lysine content).
然而大米确实含有人体必需的 9 种氨基酸中的 8 种（糙米的蛋白质含量相当均衡），但小麦历来缺乏苏氨酸、蛋氨酸，最重要的是赖氨酸（尽管较新的小麦品种往往赖氨酸含量较高）。
Although rice does contain 8 out of 9 essential amino acids (with brown rice having a protein profile that's fairly well balanced for human consumption) while wheat has historically been lacking in threonine, methionine and most importantly lysine (although newer wheat varieties tend to have a higher lysine content).
然而大米确实含有人体必需的 9 种氨基酸中的 8 种（糙米的蛋白质含量相当均衡），但小麦历来缺乏苏氨酸、蛋氨酸，最重要的是赖氨酸（尽管较新的小麦品种往往赖氨酸含量较高）。
cinereoargenteus
I've always heard it's because they drank tea long before anyone else. You have to boil water to make tea which kills germs.
我一直听说这是因为他们喝茶的时间比其他人都早。你必须烧开水才能泡茶，而这样可以杀死细菌。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I've always heard it's because they drank tea long before anyone else. You have to boil water to make tea which kills germs.
我一直听说这是因为他们喝茶的时间比其他人都早。你必须烧开水才能泡茶，而这样可以杀死细菌。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
JagmeetSingh2
Another big factor people don’t seem to understand is that India and China are like the EU, they are made of of very culturally diverse peoples and countries who were historically fighting each other more often than not. Imagine if the Middle East was one country or all of the EU was one country, that is what India and China are.
人们似乎不明白的另一个重要因素是，印度和中国就像欧盟一样，是由文化非常多元的民族和国家组成的，而这些民族和国家在历史上经常相互争斗。想象一下，如果中东是一个国家，或者整个欧盟是一个国家，这就是印度和中国。
Another big factor people don’t seem to understand is that India and China are like the EU, they are made of of very culturally diverse peoples and countries who were historically fighting each other more often than not. Imagine if the Middle East was one country or all of the EU was one country, that is what India and China are.
人们似乎不明白的另一个重要因素是，印度和中国就像欧盟一样，是由文化非常多元的民族和国家组成的，而这些民族和国家在历史上经常相互争斗。想象一下，如果中东是一个国家，或者整个欧盟是一个国家，这就是印度和中国。
SnooOpinions5738
My initial reaction to this was "i dunno, China and India have historically had empires that united them as a single nation". But then I guess Europe had the Roman Empire and the Middle East had a variety of wide-reaching Empires as well (Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Umayyad Caliphate, etc), so it checks out
我对此的最初反应是“我不知道，中国和印度在历史上都曾有过将其统一为一个国家的帝国”。但后来我想，欧洲有罗马帝国，中东也有各种影响广泛的帝国（阿契美尼德王朝、帕提亚王朝、萨珊王朝、倭马亚哈里发王朝等），所以这一点是成立的。
My initial reaction to this was "i dunno, China and India have historically had empires that united them as a single nation". But then I guess Europe had the Roman Empire and the Middle East had a variety of wide-reaching Empires as well (Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Umayyad Caliphate, etc), so it checks out
我对此的最初反应是“我不知道，中国和印度在历史上都曾有过将其统一为一个国家的帝国”。但后来我想，欧洲有罗马帝国，中东也有各种影响广泛的帝国（阿契美尼德王朝、帕提亚王朝、萨珊王朝、倭马亚哈里发王朝等），所以这一点是成立的。
Guilty_Wealth_1236
India exists because the Brits found it easier to manage them if they were one country.
印度之所以存在，是因为英国人发现如果他们是一个国家，管理起来会更容易。
India exists because the Brits found it easier to manage them if they were one country.
印度之所以存在，是因为英国人发现如果他们是一个国家，管理起来会更容易。
Zwaft
So basically the concept of India was created by the British?
那么印度这个概念基本上是英国人创造的？
So basically the concept of India was created by the British?
那么印度这个概念基本上是英国人创造的？
Guilty_Wealth_1236
Basically, yes. India was made up of dozens of smaller kingdoms that have been conquered at various points in history. But the Brits took over it all and left a governor in charge.
基本上是的。印度由几十个小王国组成，在历史上的不同时期都曾被征服过。但英国人接管了这一切，并留下一位总督负责管理。
Basically, yes. India was made up of dozens of smaller kingdoms that have been conquered at various points in history. But the Brits took over it all and left a governor in charge.
基本上是的。印度由几十个小王国组成，在历史上的不同时期都曾被征服过。但英国人接管了这一切，并留下一位总督负责管理。
[dexed]
India has been unified several times without the Brits. What you're saying is akin to claiming that Greece wouldn't exist as a unified nation-state without Persia.
没有英国人，印度也曾多次统一。你的说法无异于宣称没有波斯，希腊就不会作为一个统一的民族国家存在。
India has been unified several times without the Brits. What you're saying is akin to claiming that Greece wouldn't exist as a unified nation-state without Persia.
没有英国人，印度也曾多次统一。你的说法无异于宣称没有波斯，希腊就不会作为一个统一的民族国家存在。
Zwaft
Interesting. How come it hasn’t fallen apart in civil war, then, like so many African states/ Middle East countries
有意思。那么，它为什么没有像许多非洲国家/中东国家一样在内战中崩溃呢
Interesting. How come it hasn’t fallen apart in civil war, then, like so many African states/ Middle East countries
有意思。那么，它为什么没有像许多非洲国家/中东国家一样在内战中崩溃呢
Ask_for_me_by_name
I don't know why the previous responder has been upvoted so much. The British essentially supplanted the Mughal Empire which initially ruled the sub-continent and I believe they did this by partially playing off regional anti-Mughal sentiments until they themselves were the dominant power.
It's also why Pakistan and India have such a beef because the Muslim Pakistanis think they should restore Islamic Mughal rule.
我不知道为什么前一位回答者的点赞数如此之高。英国人从根本上取代了最初统治次大陆的莫卧儿帝国，我相信他们是通过部分利用地区性的反莫卧儿情绪来实现这一目标的，直到他们自己成为统治者。
这也是为什么巴基斯坦和印度有如此大的矛盾，因为巴基斯坦穆斯林认为他们应该恢复伊斯兰莫卧儿王朝的统治。
I don't know why the previous responder has been upvoted so much. The British essentially supplanted the Mughal Empire which initially ruled the sub-continent and I believe they did this by partially playing off regional anti-Mughal sentiments until they themselves were the dominant power.
It's also why Pakistan and India have such a beef because the Muslim Pakistanis think they should restore Islamic Mughal rule.
我不知道为什么前一位回答者的点赞数如此之高。英国人从根本上取代了最初统治次大陆的莫卧儿帝国，我相信他们是通过部分利用地区性的反莫卧儿情绪来实现这一目标的，直到他们自己成为统治者。
这也是为什么巴基斯坦和印度有如此大的矛盾，因为巴基斯坦穆斯林认为他们应该恢复伊斯兰莫卧儿王朝的统治。
zorniy2
China's population trebled during the Qing Dynasty which was the last Imperial Dynasty. From 100 million to 400 million. Partly because corn and sweet potatoes were introduced from the Americas.
中国的人口在最后一个王朝清朝时期增长了三倍。从 1 亿增加到 4 亿。部分原因是玉米和红薯从美洲传入。
China's population trebled during the Qing Dynasty which was the last Imperial Dynasty. From 100 million to 400 million. Partly because corn and sweet potatoes were introduced from the Americas.
中国的人口在最后一个王朝清朝时期增长了三倍。从 1 亿增加到 4 亿。部分原因是玉米和红薯从美洲传入。
alfred-the-greatest
There's also a key factor that India and China have been civilized societies for far longer than Europe, Africa or the Americas. They were already established urban societies when the Roman Republic was just getting started.
还有一个关键因素是，印度和中国成为文明社会的时间远远长于欧洲、非洲或美洲。当罗马共和国刚刚起步时，它们就已经是成熟的城市社会了。
There's also a key factor that India and China have been civilized societies for far longer than Europe, Africa or the Americas. They were already established urban societies when the Roman Republic was just getting started.
还有一个关键因素是，印度和中国成为文明社会的时间远远长于欧洲、非洲或美洲。当罗马共和国刚刚起步时，它们就已经是成熟的城市社会了。
xiaob0t
This statement is completely incorrect. You are literally ignoring all the copper, bronze and iron ages and all the civilisations that originated in those times. Hell even the Olmecs in the Americas dated at around 1000 bce.
Urban society originated in Europe, middle east and north Africa during the copper age which started at around 6000 bce. Proper cities are estimated to be already created in those zones by the start of the bronze age, at around 4000 bce.
这种说法是完全错误的。你实际上忽略了所有铜器、青铜器和铁器时代以及起源于那个时代的所有文明。甚至美洲的奥尔梅克人的历史也可以追溯到公元前 1000 年左右。
城市社会起源于公元前6000年左右的铜器时代的欧洲、中东和北非。据估计，在公元前 4000 年左右的青铜时代开始时，这些地区就已经建立了适当的城市。
This statement is completely incorrect. You are literally ignoring all the copper, bronze and iron ages and all the civilisations that originated in those times. Hell even the Olmecs in the Americas dated at around 1000 bce.
Urban society originated in Europe, middle east and north Africa during the copper age which started at around 6000 bce. Proper cities are estimated to be already created in those zones by the start of the bronze age, at around 4000 bce.
这种说法是完全错误的。你实际上忽略了所有铜器、青铜器和铁器时代以及起源于那个时代的所有文明。甚至美洲的奥尔梅克人的历史也可以追溯到公元前 1000 年左右。
城市社会起源于公元前6000年左右的铜器时代的欧洲、中东和北非。据估计，在公元前 4000 年左右的青铜时代开始时，这些地区就已经建立了适当的城市。
NoOne_143
No prehistoric or protohistoric cities match Harappan cities in town planning.
在城市规划方面，没有任何史前或原史城市能与哈拉帕城市相媲美。
No prehistoric or protohistoric cities match Harappan cities in town planning.
在城市规划方面，没有任何史前或原史城市能与哈拉帕城市相媲美。
HST2345
I got downvotes when I mentioned India and China have climate advantage in another sub. Consider 1000s of years ago, Human Population always migrate from one place to another, basically China and India have added especially Climate and if you notice both these countries have high vegetarian population or vegetables are main diet. The climatic conditions suits more agricultural environment thus creates these countries have more Agrarian economy. Also Earlier days China and India are the highest GDP nations in the history... Overall, climatic conditions allowed India and China to have high population.
我在另一个分论坛上提到印度和中国有气候优势时，遭到了反对。想想 1000 年前，人类总是从一个地方迁徙到另一个地方，基本上中国和印度的气候优势尤为明显，如果你注意到这两个国家都有大量的素食人口或以蔬菜为主食。气候条件更适合农业环境，因此这两个国家的农业经济更发达。此外，中国和印度是历史上 GDP 最高的国家...... 总之，气候条件使印度和中国拥有大量人口。
I got downvotes when I mentioned India and China have climate advantage in another sub. Consider 1000s of years ago, Human Population always migrate from one place to another, basically China and India have added especially Climate and if you notice both these countries have high vegetarian population or vegetables are main diet. The climatic conditions suits more agricultural environment thus creates these countries have more Agrarian economy. Also Earlier days China and India are the highest GDP nations in the history... Overall, climatic conditions allowed India and China to have high population.
我在另一个分论坛上提到印度和中国有气候优势时，遭到了反对。想想 1000 年前，人类总是从一个地方迁徙到另一个地方，基本上中国和印度的气候优势尤为明显，如果你注意到这两个国家都有大量的素食人口或以蔬菜为主食。气候条件更适合农业环境，因此这两个国家的农业经济更发达。此外，中国和印度是历史上 GDP 最高的国家...... 总之，气候条件使印度和中国拥有大量人口。
cozidgaf
Any idea why this is not the case for African countries? They also have similar climate, abundance of resources but don't have similar population?
你知道为什么非洲国家不是这种情况吗？它们也有相似的气候和丰富的资源，但却没有相似的人口？
Any idea why this is not the case for African countries? They also have similar climate, abundance of resources but don't have similar population?
你知道为什么非洲国家不是这种情况吗？它们也有相似的气候和丰富的资源，但却没有相似的人口？
YuviManBro
Mosquitos and tropical diseases are killer in Africa, plus most arable areas in Africa don’t have very fertile soils which could support multiple harvests a year (I believe)
蚊子和热带疾病是非洲人口的杀手，而且非洲大多数可耕地区的土壤并不肥沃，无法支持一年多次的收成（我相信）
Mosquitos and tropical diseases are killer in Africa, plus most arable areas in Africa don’t have very fertile soils which could support multiple harvests a year (I believe)
蚊子和热带疾病是非洲人口的杀手，而且非洲大多数可耕地区的土壤并不肥沃，无法支持一年多次的收成（我相信）
TokkiJK
True. We often forget that foreigners/colonizers essentially wiped out indigenous tribes and rapidly moved into North America as opposed to countries where there was already a stable population.
真的。我们常常忘记，与人口已经稳定的国家相比，外国人/殖民者基本上消灭了土著部落，并迅速迁入北美。
True. We often forget that foreigners/colonizers essentially wiped out indigenous tribes and rapidly moved into North America as opposed to countries where there was already a stable population.
真的。我们常常忘记，与人口已经稳定的国家相比，外国人/殖民者基本上消灭了土著部落，并迅速迁入北美。
Guilty_Wealth_1236
America has more arable land than China or India.
美国的可耕地比中国和印度都多。
America has more arable land than China or India.
美国的可耕地比中国和印度都多。
Noo_Problems
But not fertile enough or received sunlight for 3 batches of crop a year.
And the native Americans societies were had poor technology and there were barely any cities in the US before being colonised by Europe.
India and China were also technologically leading until the 1500s when Europe took over.
但是，这里不够肥沃，也没有足够的阳光来一年种植三批作物。
而且美国土著社会的科技水平很低，在被欧洲殖民之前，美国几乎没有任何城市。
印度和中国在 15 世纪被欧洲超越之前，在技术上也处于领先地位。
But not fertile enough or received sunlight for 3 batches of crop a year.
And the native Americans societies were had poor technology and there were barely any cities in the US before being colonised by Europe.
India and China were also technologically leading until the 1500s when Europe took over.
但是，这里不够肥沃，也没有足够的阳光来一年种植三批作物。
而且美国土著社会的科技水平很低，在被欧洲殖民之前，美国几乎没有任何城市。
印度和中国在 15 世纪被欧洲超越之前，在技术上也处于领先地位。
Hashslingingslashar
It’s crazy how the US is the third largest country by population, but you could triple the population and it would still be third.
美国是人口第三大国，但你可以把人口增加两倍，它仍然是第三，这太疯狂了。
It’s crazy how the US is the third largest country by population, but you could triple the population and it would still be third.
美国是人口第三大国，但你可以把人口增加两倍，它仍然是第三，这太疯狂了。
ThePeasantKingM
You could quadruple it and still fall almost a hundred million people short of the second place
你可以将这个数字翻四倍，但仍然落后第二名近一亿人
You could quadruple it and still fall almost a hundred million people short of the second place
你可以将这个数字翻四倍，但仍然落后第二名近一亿人
Seraphon86
High standard of living will do that. We mostly stopped having like 6 kids 100 years ago.
生活水平高造就了这一点。早在 100 年前，我们就不再生育 6 个孩子了。
High standard of living will do that. We mostly stopped having like 6 kids 100 years ago.
生活水平高造就了这一点。早在 100 年前，我们就不再生育 6 个孩子了。
tiredmummyof2
I am an Indian woman, historically people had many kids because they were primarily dependent on agriculture which was extremely labour intensive. Also, maternal and infant mortality rates were extremely high. When I hear my father tell stories of his childhood the thing that strikes me the most is the number of deaths that these people saw. Every other year someone or the other in the extended family passed away, also there were no means of contraception. My paternal grandmother had 8 kids out of which 5 survived to adulthood, mind you this is when they already had access to vaccines and medicines and things had started to improve. Our grandparents’ generation saw a massive boom in the population because people were having kids at the same rate as before, but more children were surviving. The population growth rate is slowing down however. In my parents generation, very few people had more than 3 kids, (in our extended family). I have two kids, my sister has two, my brother one. Most of my friends and colleagues have only one. A significant number of my female colleagues are unmarried or don’t want kids. But certain sections are still having lots of kids.
我是一名印度女性，在历史上，人们有很多孩子，因为他们主要依赖于农业，而农业的劳动强度极大。此外，母婴死亡率也非常高。当我听父亲讲述他童年的故事时，最让我印象深刻的是这些人的死亡人数。大家族里每隔一年就会有人或其他人去世，而且当时也没有避孕措施。我的外祖母有八、九个孩子，其中只有五个活到了成年。
你要知道，那时他们已经有了疫苗和药物，情况也开始好转。我们的祖父母那一代人口激增，因为人们生孩子的速度和以前一样，但活下来的孩子更多了。然而，人口增长速度正在放缓。在我父母那一代，很少有人有超过 3 个孩子（在我们的大家族中）。我有两个孩子，我姐姐两个，我弟弟一个。我的大多数朋友和同事都只有一个孩子。我的很多女同事都未婚或不想要孩子。但某些人仍然有很多孩子。
I am an Indian woman, historically people had many kids because they were primarily dependent on agriculture which was extremely labour intensive. Also, maternal and infant mortality rates were extremely high. When I hear my father tell stories of his childhood the thing that strikes me the most is the number of deaths that these people saw. Every other year someone or the other in the extended family passed away, also there were no means of contraception. My paternal grandmother had 8 kids out of which 5 survived to adulthood, mind you this is when they already had access to vaccines and medicines and things had started to improve. Our grandparents’ generation saw a massive boom in the population because people were having kids at the same rate as before, but more children were surviving. The population growth rate is slowing down however. In my parents generation, very few people had more than 3 kids, (in our extended family). I have two kids, my sister has two, my brother one. Most of my friends and colleagues have only one. A significant number of my female colleagues are unmarried or don’t want kids. But certain sections are still having lots of kids.
我是一名印度女性，在历史上，人们有很多孩子，因为他们主要依赖于农业，而农业的劳动强度极大。此外，母婴死亡率也非常高。当我听父亲讲述他童年的故事时，最让我印象深刻的是这些人的死亡人数。大家族里每隔一年就会有人或其他人去世，而且当时也没有避孕措施。我的外祖母有八、九个孩子，其中只有五个活到了成年。
你要知道，那时他们已经有了疫苗和药物，情况也开始好转。我们的祖父母那一代人口激增，因为人们生孩子的速度和以前一样，但活下来的孩子更多了。然而，人口增长速度正在放缓。在我父母那一代，很少有人有超过 3 个孩子（在我们的大家族中）。我有两个孩子，我姐姐两个，我弟弟一个。我的大多数朋友和同事都只有一个孩子。我的很多女同事都未婚或不想要孩子。但某些人仍然有很多孩子。
YoungDiscord
And there's your answer to OP's question
Both China and India have extremely traditionalistic cultures, cultures that still see havinng many children as a good thing.
这就是对楼主问题最好的回答
中国和印度都有极其传统的文化，这些文化仍然认为多生孩子是一件好事。
And there's your answer to OP's question
Both China and India have extremely traditionalistic cultures, cultures that still see havinng many children as a good thing.
这就是对楼主问题最好的回答
中国和印度都有极其传统的文化，这些文化仍然认为多生孩子是一件好事。
Seraphon86
I mean, not China anymore. But yes, farming societies usually have a lot of kids.
中国不再是这样了。但没错，农耕社会通常会有很多孩子。
I mean, not China anymore. But yes, farming societies usually have a lot of kids.
中国不再是这样了。但没错，农耕社会通常会有很多孩子。
Zwaft
Not even India. Their fertility rate is below replacement levels
连印度也不是了。他们的生育率低于更替水平
Not even India. Their fertility rate is below replacement levels
连印度也不是了。他们的生育率低于更替水平
listenyall
There's a nice summary here about why those regions are good for human beings: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pc651/why_do_china_and_india_have_such_large_populations/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pc651/why_do_china_and_india_have_such_large_populations/
I think the real question is how and why India and China never split into multiple countries.
这里有一个关于为什么这些地区有利于人类增长的很好的总结：
我认为真正的问题是印度和中国如何以及为何从未分裂成多个国家。
There's a nice summary here about why those regions are good for human beings: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pc651/why_do_china_and_india_have_such_large_populations/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pc651/why_do_china_and_india_have_such_large_populations/
I think the real question is how and why India and China never split into multiple countries.
这里有一个关于为什么这些地区有利于人类增长的很好的总结：
我认为真正的问题是印度和中国如何以及为何从未分裂成多个国家。
Ragewind82
Well, China was not always unified and has repeatedly split into multiple kingdoms in their history (Romance of three kingdoms, exc), and India was divided similarly when the British showed up.
China was/is a continental empire has 52 different ethnicities, it's not entirely wrong to think about it in terms of the Roman empire or Napoleon's French empire, had either of those two lasted into the modern day.
中国并不总是统一的，在历史上曾多次分裂为多个王国（比如《三国演义》），而印度在英国人出现时也同样分裂。
中国过去/现在都是一个拥有 52 个不同民族的大陆帝国，从罗马帝国或拿破仑的法兰西帝国的角度来思考中国也不完全错误，如果这两个帝国中的任何一个能延续到现代的话。
Well, China was not always unified and has repeatedly split into multiple kingdoms in their history (Romance of three kingdoms, exc), and India was divided similarly when the British showed up.
China was/is a continental empire has 52 different ethnicities, it's not entirely wrong to think about it in terms of the Roman empire or Napoleon's French empire, had either of those two lasted into the modern day.
中国并不总是统一的，在历史上曾多次分裂为多个王国（比如《三国演义》），而印度在英国人出现时也同样分裂。
中国过去/现在都是一个拥有 52 个不同民族的大陆帝国，从罗马帝国或拿破仑的法兰西帝国的角度来思考中国也不完全错误，如果这两个帝国中的任何一个能延续到现代的话。
[dexed]
Also the concept of "country" is a new one. Most countries are just separately governed regions agreeing together that they belong to the same country. We only see ourselves as a coherent country because of improvements in communication and education to tell us that we are a single country.
此外，“国家”也是一个新概念。大多数国家都是各自为政的地区共同认为自己属于同一个国家。我们之所以认为自己是一个统一的国家，是因为通讯和教育的进步告诉我们，我们是一个统一的国家。
Also the concept of "country" is a new one. Most countries are just separately governed regions agreeing together that they belong to the same country. We only see ourselves as a coherent country because of improvements in communication and education to tell us that we are a single country.
此外，“国家”也是一个新概念。大多数国家都是各自为政的地区共同认为自己属于同一个国家。我们之所以认为自己是一个统一的国家，是因为通讯和教育的进步告诉我们，我们是一个统一的国家。
roguedigit
Also, every time China fragments there's an implicit understanding that it unites eventually - if said Emperor wasn't worthy, the cycle repeats again. This concept more or less started with the Qin (221 BC).
Comparatively, the first time India was 'united' was in the 1500s. Before the Mughal Empire, our modern idea of 'India' as we know it was not really a thing.
此外，中国每次分裂都有一个隐含的共识，即中国最终会统一--如果皇帝不称职，循环就会再次重演。这一概念或多或少始于秦朝（公元前 221 年）。
相比之下，印度第一次“统一”是在 15 世纪。在莫卧儿帝国之前，我们所知的现代“印度 ”概念其实并不存在。
Also, every time China fragments there's an implicit understanding that it unites eventually - if said Emperor wasn't worthy, the cycle repeats again. This concept more or less started with the Qin (221 BC).
Comparatively, the first time India was 'united' was in the 1500s. Before the Mughal Empire, our modern idea of 'India' as we know it was not really a thing.
此外，中国每次分裂都有一个隐含的共识，即中国最终会统一--如果皇帝不称职，循环就会再次重演。这一概念或多或少始于秦朝（公元前 221 年）。
相比之下，印度第一次“统一”是在 15 世纪。在莫卧儿帝国之前，我们所知的现代“印度 ”概念其实并不存在。
Hefty-Owl6934
The Mughals and the Mauryans were the only ones who managed to unite most of India before the arrival of the British. Of course, the British also contributed to some painful divisions.
在英国人到来之前，只有莫卧儿人和孔雀王朝成功地统一了印度大部分地区。当然，英国人也造成了一些痛苦的分裂。
The Mughals and the Mauryans were the only ones who managed to unite most of India before the arrival of the British. Of course, the British also contributed to some painful divisions.
在英国人到来之前，只有莫卧儿人和孔雀王朝成功地统一了印度大部分地区。当然，英国人也造成了一些痛苦的分裂。
TokkiJK
True. I see India like it’s a continent on its own lol. This one country has tons of different ethnic groups and many climates. Like the way Europe is. India could have so many different countries within.
真的。在我眼中，印度就像一个独立的大陆。这个国家有数不清的不同民族和多种气候。就像欧洲一样。印度内部本可以有很多不同的国家。
True. I see India like it’s a continent on its own lol. This one country has tons of different ethnic groups and many climates. Like the way Europe is. India could have so many different countries within.
真的。在我眼中，印度就像一个独立的大陆。这个国家有数不清的不同民族和多种气候。就像欧洲一样。印度内部本可以有很多不同的国家。
Moogatron88
China can and has split into multiple countries numerous times.
(古代)中国可以而且已经多次分裂成多个国家。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
China can and has split into multiple countries numerous times.
(古代)中国可以而且已经多次分裂成多个国家。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
alfred-the-greatest
It has always quickly united again though. That is what you get when you have a massive central plain, virtually no peninsulars and no natural borders between the main river systems.
不过，它总是很快又统一起来。这就是当你拥有一个巨大的中央平原，几乎没有半岛，主要河流水系之间也没有自然边界时的结果。
It has always quickly united again though. That is what you get when you have a massive central plain, virtually no peninsulars and no natural borders between the main river systems.
不过，它总是很快又统一起来。这就是当你拥有一个巨大的中央平原，几乎没有半岛，主要河流水系之间也没有自然边界时的结果。
很赞 17
收藏