By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Chinese invented many things but they failed at improving/upgrading those things?
I am trying to understand why China was invaded countless times by so many different foreign powers during its history aside from the usual reasons like poor leadership, corrupted army or ongoing civil wars.
I mean let's face it some very useful things that were used through history to improve every civilizations came from China, but it looks like they forgot to upgrade those things while other countries borrowed those inventions from China and improved them to the extreme, they basically often had the final versions while China was still using the beta 0.0.1 for centuries.
Chinese are good at creating new things but awful at updating already existing things? Is this a consequence of Confucianism and its "only do what's absolutely necessary to survive" mindset?
The printing press and gunpowder were indeed invented in China. The printing press was immediately improved by Koreans, and adopted by Europeans a few centuries later. And though China did introduce gunpowder and primitive powder weapons to the West, it wasn't ready when those nations came back with real guns.
While Western European countries were competing against each other in their refinement of science, technology, weaponry, warfare, philosophy, art, literature and lovemaking, China was just sitting there content in its own unassailable importance as the "Middle Kingdom". A lack of stimulation results in stagnation. Which is why China achieved less in its entire "50 million years of perpetual awesomeness" (or however that saying goes) than Western Europe did during the Renaissance.
I think your point is a very interesting one. Particularly as Chinese people love making speeches about innovation. Regarding China's contributions to the world, I think that China simply loves claiming to have invented things (with the insinuation that we all owe China praise for the rest of time).
As an example, China claims the lodestone amongst its great and world-changing inventions. In reality, the lodestone was discovered independently by a number of ancient cultures, and existed at least two centuries earlier in Greece. But, like the pizza*, clearly we are in China's debt.
* Flat bread with savoury toppings existed in almost all ancient societies. Italians made the only memorable one. Chinese pizza is not comparable to Western pizza; it is comparable to excrement.
While important inventions from ancient times were spread across a number of civilisations, China seems inordinately proud of a small number of contributions. While playing up (and often making up) their significance in history, they seem to have forgotten about the invention of cars, trains, planes, electricity, light, heating, science, computers, the internet, modern medicine, space travel (I mean... holy fuck) and the iPhone 6. Oh, and public sanitation.
Compared to the West, China has invented about 0.01% of things.
I have a friend from Morocco who remarked that people from Islamic cultures, just like people from China, love talking up the proud accomplishments of their ancient societies because they have nothing to boast about now. I love this guy.
to quote the film "The Third Man"
“You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
Conflict motivates innovation
Technologically, civilizations do good jobs in finding ways to invent things, and make life better, easier, or more splendid and grandeur. We can cite many an example when looking upon any civilization about the wonders, both simplistic and great, which they have created. What begin as simple innovations in every day technology can obviously become weaponized counterparts for battlefield use. Weapons themselves need a driving force, and that force (as Sorell put it) seems to be war. However, I'd like to take it back even one more step. War itself is not so good as a driving factor to make people think of more devious ways of weapons. China had many a war, and many periods of instability. It still did not see much innovation in terms of weaponry.
So, it is not war itself that drives a technology race on the battlefield. It is the lack of security itself that does it. War may exist, but that doesn't mean you will feel a lack of security from it. China in most of history was the most badass empire in the four seas - it couldn't possibly feel itself threatened by outside forces, whether it was at war or not. China's great sense of security meant that it did not have to push itself to change to meet security threats from outside. Geographically, China has features which make it a hard nation to conquer. Obviously, it has always had other special characteristics, like a huge population available for large work forces and huge armies.
China has not had much a reason to feel threatened - even if war was at hand - It could seemingly already handle these things using the present level of technology available.
Technology is one of the few things that can even the battlefield disadvantage when numerical superiority isn't present. If the Rennaisance era armies of Europe met China when their gun technology was still in a feeble stage of development, they would have likely been massacred. And it wouldn't be close. China would have mocked those silly instruments of war instead of made use of them later.
Now, show them a more advanced gun with an army that can reload and fire with aim and discipline, and those funny devices turn into impressive and effective weapons. That is when the imperial army decides these are useful things and not toys.
So I think it all has to do with the existence of a real threat. If one feels threatened, they will seek to bridge that gap of insecurity. By doing so, they must make changes - employing different offensive and defensive mechanisms that help make them a stronger force. Barbarians have never threatened China because they have always been more primitive. Obviously Ghengis Khan and the horseback archer is an exception to this statement.
RiriRiri:
Your statement is based on a huge huge huge inaccuracy.
Barbarians have constantly threatened China throughout history. From every corner.
I mean, seriously, they build a wall for that purpose...
But even when China lost, China won because barbarians usually ended up accustoming themselves to the Chinese ways and lifestyle, and not the other way around.
jetfire9000:
I believe my statement takes your statement into account. China must have felt a threat from the outside, in order to go about with the massive construction of the Great Wall. In other words, only a threat from the outside was enough to compel them to adopt such a strong engineering feat. Without that threat, can you possibly conceive that they would have built such a giant wall? Existence and recognition of threat = impetus for change.
Edit*
I realized you are suggesting that barbarians have always posed a major "threat "to China. That's true, and nothing I said is in contradiction with that. But you did not mention, just how big of a threat? Enough to spur innovation in military tech? Read one of my statements I made in the post - something along the lines of: War and threat of war has always existed, but these were not enough to demand innovation, because "they could be handled with the current level of technological means and tactics at the time being"
I listed mongols as a huge exception to the rule simply because they were a very brilliant and fearsome example in history of a nomadic army adopting all kinds of technological innovations from different cultures and using them to conquer nearly the whole continent. My main point is that security isn't stagnant. It always changes. The reason people build huge walls such as The Great Wall is to increase their security. That's where my argument takes effect. When a certain level of security is achieved, the need for military innovation goes down. (People feel satisfied, and there's no more drive to up the ante. IE, Constructing a Great Wall is a very taxing process, you better have a fundamental reason to do it.)
If your opponent is sporting superior weapons and tactics than you, then the need for you to get your own superior weapons goes up. China had periods where they had to make changes, but those were exceptions and not the norm.
Today's security dilemma that exists between China and the world is unprecedentedly huge (And china is therefore developing its military at an unprecedented rate!)
We could write whole books about that.
My take - and don't quote me on this, I am not a historian so this is more of an intuition, a theory that I would use should I begin researching - is that China had two main drive forces and two main obstacles to the late development/upgrading of their innovations.
Drive forces :
- Threats from the outside, barbaric and nomadic hoards from the north and west.
- A true obsession with spirituality and afterlife (or ever lasting life). Whole sea expeditions have been financed and manned on that sole purpose.
Obstacles :
- Confucianism and everything that ever derived from this nefarious school of thought. Forcing mentalities to look backwards instead of forward, imposing a vertical and rigid society. China has had plenty of different schools of thoughts that could have shaped its being, but somehow this one ended up taking the first place, shriking and growing but somehow always present.
- The second is the intrinsically hedonistic nature of the Chinese society, which is by the way the source of all paradoxes we can see today: a productivity/optimization oriented state of mind being shoved down the throat of a society that's only ever wanted enjoyment and passivity.
Actually Samsara threw the baby out with the dishwater. China from Qin to Early Ming was either superior, or on a par to the west in technology, economy, and military power. It was an amazing accomplishment to run such a large empire, for so long.
-Sadly, from Late Ming to Qing, to Modern PRC China became a backward, introspective, xenophobic place, that is seeming to go backwards under Xi Jin Pig.
-China has had literature, art, music, fine food, clothing, and all the elements of culture. The May 4th movement shows that Modern Literature was possible in China. Mao really messed this place up.
Eorthisio:
To me Mao gave the coup de grace to a country that was already in turmoil and going backward long before his birth. And I don't see today's China becoming a beacon of civilization for the rest of the world, especially since Xi came to power.
rasklnik:
China (Korea, Japan, Singapore) are the model of the corporate state, where economic reality, and wealth of the few, is the highest good. The world seems to be leaning this direction, where if you can't put a price on it, it isn't worth anything.
Samsara:
I'm not denying that China used to be a culturally richer and more civilised nation than it is today. But this is a nation that glorifies and mythicises its past.
Considering the number of Chinese people I've talked to who actually believe China used to have warriors with mystical abilities, and that the Chinese people of yore were pure, noble, and selfless, I take most portrayals of the wondrous Ancient China with a grain of salt.
History was complex, violent and dirty.
rasklnik:
The modern chinese know less about 'China' than the Orientalists in the West, that's for sure. I mean the most famous Sinologist at Yale isn't allowed in the PRC. The party doesn't want people to know the real history. T
ScotsAlan:
That may be the case Eorthisio. But is it holding back innovation and invention? Nope. Because the smart people are learning to innovate to stay a step ahead.
If you look at the Industrial revolution, it is littered with examples of daft ideas, failures, copies and corruption. Who got the patent for the telephone for example? And how did he get it.
James Watt, the commonly assumed father of steam, actually stunted the growth of the steam engine by making up horror stories about his rival's high pressure steam theories ( Richard Trevithick). Remember, Watt did not invent the steam engine. That was a guy called Newcomen. And even that can be debated.
All we are seeing in China is an alternative industrial revolution. There will be a lot on failures on the way, a lot of wrong directions, but the misconception that Chinese engineers are not capable of innovation is being blown out of the water.
rasklnik:
Actually no...China has not engineered a single military system without extensive IP theft. Both Russia and the US have mentioned this repeatedly.
-So can they make a damn good copy, yes, and a copy of the AK-47 will still work just fine. A copy of a Su-52...maybe ok. None of this military gear has been used in combat. It may work, DF missiles may really be the carrier killer it claims, or maybe not. We will have to see.
I saw a theory on a tv show once that said the development pretty much stagnated because the Chinese boilded water to make tea rather than brewed it or fermented it to make beer/wine. The idea goes on to say that because they did not need to store wine they did not develop glass technology. And of course, glass technology leads to microscopes and telescopes.
My own theory is connected to the above, but in my case I put it down to the lack of alcohol. Beer drinking does wonders for coming up with whacky ideas.
Also, another reason I considered was the availability of bamboo. Bamboo is pretty much a wonder material. It is light, as strong as steel under certain loading and freely available. Because there was so much bamboo available there was no drive to develop iron or steel working skills.
Maybe a better way to think of it is " Why did the industrial revolution start". The way I see it, the industrial revolution was kick started by a few individuals in Britain. If it had not started would we all still be in the middle ages?
If the Earl of Bridgewater had not bulit his canal to transport his coal to Manchester, would Abraham Darby have had need to build his foundry in Coalbrookdale? The industrial revolution cascaded from humble beginnings.
I think the real reason for the rapid development of the west was because people could make money and could keep it. That drove them to find more ways to make money. China never had this, because it was stuck in a fuedal system where the Lord owned everything and the Emperor owned the Lords. There was no incentive to make money, because Emperor would just claim it for himself.
But, now that Chinese can earn money and keep it, innovation and the desire for it is growing rapidly.
bill8899:
They definitely desire money. That's all my students think about.
Eorthisio:
Many Chinese still fear that the government will take (again) the people's money from the banks in case of economic slowdown, that's why most Chinese prefer cash, they can hide it. Also they can keep money only if they pay massive bribes to the right officials, often amounting up to half of what they earn when they have a successful business.
ScotsAlan:
That's for sure bill 
.
But you know, I am starting to see Chinese owned companies that started out copying and are now innovating. For example a company in Shenzhen called Yongnuo started out making copy flash guns for cameras. But now they are innovating with wireless flash control systems. Not only are they cheap, but the products have features the mainstream companies don't offer. They are actually starting to offer better specified products than the companies they started out copying. As always, there are reliability issues, but these companies are getting better all the time.
laowaigentleman:
@bill
Same here, it's why I quit the university to teach little kids. Hell, they're pretty much on the same level except the kids are more receptive to hearing about another culture because I've gotten to them before the brainwashing about how great China is compared to the rest of the world evidently hasn't hit them yet.
I tried to teach the uni students about the romantic movement. I spent ages on my presentations trying to draw parallels between industrial revolution Britain and China post 1978. Zero appreciation. One guy asked how knowing this stuff can help him to make money. Another girl just wanted to talk about Brad Pitt, Nicole Kidman and Johnny Depp.
The owners of the malls out here are licking their chops at the prospect of new lambs to their slaughterhouse. The problem is I've no idea who would employ any of them.
Do any of you have knowledge of Leibniz? I heard (read on wikipedia) that his ideas were influenced by reading Confucius.
I'm puzzled as to how because from my understanding of it, Confucianism is just a dogmatic prescriptive philosophy rather than any kind of systematic explanation of the function of the world like Taoism is. I think someone was just trying to get attention, but I could be wrong. Any takers?
Samsara:
I have never heard of any connection between Leibniz and Confucius, and I am sure that none exists.
There are organised Chinese history-modifiers at work on wikipedia. I've noticed this numerous times in the last two years. Attributions to China (like this one) have been popping up, and critical (specific and referenced) information has been disappearing. A few times I've gone back to articles that I bookmarked, to get a quote, and found that they no longer had any specific information.
For example:
After the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, the Red Cross Society of China received over $200,000,000 (US) in foreign donations. Almost every cent disappeared into "management fees". Thousands of poor people died of exposure while the owners of the Red Cross Society spent all the money buying presents for themselves.
This was a well-documented scandal, and came to light again after the Guo Meimei thing (once again revealing that rich fat people were living extremely wealthy lifestyles on charity donations). All of this information (numbers and everything) used to be in the wikipedia entry for the Red Cross Society of China, and now it isn't.
China is using wikipedia (like it uses the Confucius Institute) to insert pro-Chinese credits into history and censor information. Frustrating, but that's how China is. We all have to live with them.
laowaigentleman:
@samsara
I guessed it would be you to answer this given your name 
You're probably more familiar with the doctrines of Confucius than I am. I only have a broad understanding of Confucius and Mencius. I can't even make relevant comparisons of the two men's relationship compared with western thinkers - say Plato and Aristotle or Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
It is true that Confucius's philosophy is simply a set of arbitrary edicts with which to live by, isn't it? He didn't try to justify his ethical doctrines by grounding them in nature, he merely conceived it on utilitarian grounds without analyzing them very deeply. I think even in China, he's viewed as a teacher and a founder of a school, rather than a philosopher like Leibniz.
I think your summation is the most likely explanation. If Leibniz stood on the shoulders of Confucius, there would have been a squish. 
DrMonkey:
Leibniz was interested by Chinese culture, most notably the language and the writing system, which might have inspired his concept of monads, that is close to what a Chinese ideogram represents. For his philosophy works, Leibniz who go to great length to explain his ideas, trying to demonstrate, along the Greek & Renaissance schools ideas : Liebniz try to leave as little room as possible to interpretation. It's like mathematical theorems, ambiguity is chased away. Confucius works are long lists of short quotes, that are left to the reader's interpretation, which is spacious. Lao Zi works are famous for the room to interpretation they leave...
WOW!!, you guys/gals are deep...who put cork in a baseball bat? what about the dimples on a golf ball? who did that? what wood is best for a hockey stick or a lacrosse stick... or should it be some composite fiber thing. what is the best "skin" for a football. is cat gut/ sinews really good, to use for a tennis racquet, what about a badminton racquet. chicken feathers or eagle feathers for simulated flight?
Is War the best conflict for innovation? or is, maybe, a sporting conflict better. My arrow/bullet is better than yours and I can prove it.... see you on the battlefield. Gold Silver or Bronze. I'll kick your ass!!!
jetfire9000:
Lol. Most sports are organized, civilized, bloodless versions of war. American football ironically represents the classic vision of a battlefield, where two imposing armies decked in armor march towards one another... forming a type of defensive trench in the front, in which both sides try to break through to the detriment of the other side. At the same time, we have marching bands representing their individual team doing their best to pump up the participants of the contest, to make them thirstier for blood! And the more contact the better. We all love us some good contact in a sport. American football, rugby, hockey. Even soccer has some contact in it.. even though it gets mocked in view of the other three. Finally, Golf = boring.
another thought... I have beer again today.... week without ... I think mind altering, natural substances are pretty good for innovation and of course for stagnation...... hmmmmm, which will it be today.... alcohol, opium?, hemp, have they contributed to innovation?
