Third Question [Lofthouse]:
In your book trailer, you claim that China has nothing to offer the world culturally and in a stereotyped blanket statement say that the Confucian hierarchy of China’s culture causes businesses and industries to have a rigid chain of command that exerts total control over the people below them. Due to this, you say it leads to inefficiency and a lack of coordination.
However, how do you explain that under the same collective, cultural Confucian hierarchy you criticize, China was the wealthiest, most powerful and technologically advanced nation on the planet for more than two thousand years until the 19th century?
Answer [Parfitt]:
In addition to directing the reader toward a particular conclusion, begging-the-question language assumes a premise has already been established. However, it hasn’t been established that China was the world’s greatest nation from the Qin (221 BCE) to 1800. Was China really wealthier, more powerful, and more technologically advanced than the Roman Empire (44 BCE – 1453 CE)? Says who?
Most cultures devise a gilded-age myth. Conspicuously, China’s gilded-age spans two millennia, from the First Emperor to the Opium Wars. It speaks to patriotism and victimization, and is a Communist Party fabrication. An eighth-grade social science textbook begins, “Our motherland… was once an advanced and great nation… but after the invasions of the… capitalist powers, a profound national crisis occurred.”
Specious and hyperbolic declarations only obscure a reasoned analysis of China’s contributions. A relevant example is Gavin Menzies’s 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. China’s 15th-century age-of-exploration is truly remarkable, but Menzies overreaches to where the Chinese built a Danish granary in America and a Loyalist farm in Canada. Like many Sinophiles, he specializes in mythomania. The Cambridge scientist Joseph Needham (1900–1995) is guilty of overstatement, too. Needham accurately noted China had made contributions to science never documented, but he grossly inflated their scope and importance, explicating that the Chinese had invented virtually everything – only to forget it all just before the Europeans arrived.
In Jonathan Spence’s The Search for Modern China, no gilded-age appears and European presence is not treated as the prevailing theme. Chinese civilization is portrayed as highly complex but infinitely troubled, by poverty, lawlessness, chaos, violence, warlordism, rebellion, warfare, despotism, etc. Spence, the foremost China scholar, does not indicate China represented the most advanced nation, nor does he propose its achievements were the result of Confucian values.
China’s achievements have occurred despite Confucian values. Overwhelmingly, Confucianism works only to stifle creativity, stymie critical thinking, and nullify questioning. It is a form of authoritarianism, tyranny of the mind and soul. If the Chinese wish to genuinely advance, they must scrutinize this antediluvian rubric. They must ask if it has served to advance them, or kept them subjugated.
Response [Lofthouse]:
Spence is not “the” foremost China scholar. At best, he is widely recognized as “a” leading scholar of Chinese history, among “many” others.
As for China’s Han Dynasty being superior to Rome during Emperor Marcus Aurelius time (161- 180 AD), Discovery Channel’s Neville Gishford and Archaeologist Charles Higham, a world famous authority on ancient Asia, sets the record straight in Xi’an (Chang’ an).
In ‘The Indiscreet Charm of Tyranny’, Buruma writes, “Confucius, and especially Mencius, believed in the people’s right to rebel against corrupt rulers,” and the Chinese people are aware, explaining The Mandate of Heaven.
In addition, “Ancient Chinese Inventions” published by Cambridge University Press reveals that China gave birth to numerous scientific and technological inventions, and for centuries led the world in such innovations.
In conclusion, Spence explored ‘Why Confucius Counts’ and said, “In the hands of major current thinkers it (Confucianism) is neither farce nor fraud.”
Final Word [Parfitt]:
Whether the Han dynasty was “greater” than Marcus Aurelius’s Rome has nothing to do with the claim that China represented the greatest civilization on Earth.
I don’t deny China’s scientific achievments; I have read about them and Science and Civilisation in China, the pertinent, authoritative work. Chinese innovations should not be disregarded. However, it must be asked why so few have appeared in modern history. Of the 976 Nobel laureates to date, only 1 has been a citizen of China: Liu Xiaobo, awarded the 2010 Peace Prize while in prison for subversion.
If Confucius had focused more on reasoned thinking than tautology, and encourged his compatriots to question and investigate rather than imitate and obey, the Chinese might not have a government working under the directive of an inanimate entity with a dubious existence. The Mandate of Heaven is no more meaningful than the Mandate of Earth, Wind, or Fire.
Continued on December 1, 2011 in Discussion with Troy Parfitt, the author of “Why China Will Never Rule the World – Travels in the Two Chinas” – Part 5 or return to Part 3.
See Discovering Intellectual Dishonesty – Part 1
______________
Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too. This is the love story Sir Robert Hart did not want the world to discover.
Subscribe to “iLook China”
Sign up for an E-mail Subscription at the top of this page.
iLook China 
Well, if Thomas friedman NicholasKristof are to be trusted, then China’s education system does produce better students on average.
Mr. parfitt points to a disconnect in my argument which I will attempt to clarify.
I stand by what I say when I say that China’s education system is still in a developing process.
You claim that China’s education system is substandard as they have failed to produce top researchers and scientists. I quoted the findings from those multi-national agencies merely to point out that there is more than one way to gauge an education system. It seems as if you conveniently choose to gauge education systems in a way to make China appear ‘substandard’.
Terry,
So, on the one hand, you say:
“China’s education system is still a developing one.”
and
“I think we should wait at least 20 more years or so before making a final decision on how successful China’s education system is.”
And on the other, you say:
“According to multi-national tuition agencies, China’s student’s are the best in the world.”
Care to clarify?
Also, what’s a multi-national tuition agency? And are such agencies recognized as being sound evaluators of national education systems, student development, etc.?
Thank you
Terry,
The results of the 2009 International PISA test validate that China’s educational system is developing in the right direction. Fifteen-year-old students in Shanghai China placed first in every category of the test while the US placed way down the list in every category. No country came close—even Finland and Singapore, which usually places in the top five for every category.
http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_46567613_1_1_1_1,00.html
In addition, China’s central government was quick to reply to this impressive first showing by Chinese students when Beijing pointed out that Shanghai’s schools were on the cutting edge of the developing education system in China and that it would be some time before these innovative educational changes would reach the rest of the country since China is finding it challenging to educate enough teachers to staff every school in urban and rural China where more than 100 million public school students are taught.
Another challenge China faces is that many of these newly educated teachers do not want to live in rural China where most of the students live. They want to stay in China’s urban environment where the standard of living is better since China spent the last thirty years modernizing its cities to improve life there first and only in the last few years has shifted more of the modernization focus on rural China.
You opinion that we may have to wait twenty years to see the overall results is correct. After all, China is still s developing country and what they have accomplished since 1949 has not been unmatched anywhere in the world ever.
For example, in the late 19th century in the US only 2% of the population was graduating from high school and the country was already two hundred years old by then. Then in the 20th century, graduation rates went from 6% early in the century to where they are today close to 70% annually. The highest graduation rate in US history was 77% in 1969 and it has gone downhill from there as more and more students with a high sense of self-esteem chase their dreams instead of a job that will lead somewhere.
If it took the US far longer than thirty years to develop its still evolving educational system, then China still has time to catch up and surpass the US in the next twenty or thirty years, which I predict it will do since Confucian values guides China’s students instead of parents telling their children to follow their dreams while stuffing the child’s head with self-esteem.
In fact, as a public school teacher in the US for thirty years, I witnessed parents telling their children in front of me that they didn’t have to cooperate with me if they didn’t want to—something that would be almost unthinkable in China where education is actually valued.
In addition, facts show that this self-esteem boosting attitude toward education in the West is leading to a shipwreck. The only thing keeping the US ahead of the curve on innovation is the fact that so many highly educated foreigners immigrate to the US and go to work in its research institutions. If the US had to rely on its own educated citizens to innovate, America would soon be a third-rate country quickly falling behind countries such as India and China where working hard to earn an education and find a secure job is more important than following your dream is.
As a teacher, my best students always came from countries in Asia influenced by Confucianism. They were respectful and worked harder than the rest moving on to become the scientists and doctors that keep America moving forward. Without them, the US would not be where it is today.
Once developing countries such as India and China catch up to the US and Europe and are no longer developing, then there will be fewer reasons for the educated that leave those countries for a better standard of living in the US or Europe to leave and then there will be fewer or no highly educated foreign brains flowing and staying in the US to prop up a decaying culture and its lazy self-esteem driven, follow your dream to poverty citizens who think so highly of themselves while spending hours each day on a couch watching reality TV.
Mr. Parfitt,
The point I was trying to make is that China’s education system is still a developing one.
I would like to know why you consider China’s education system as substandard. While China has failed to produce any nobel prize winners, the general standard of the Chinese students is extremely high. According to multi-national tuition agencies, China’s student’s are the best in the world.
Aussie in China,
What do you mean by “Yes, there is some validity to that the CCP have been instigators – but only over the last 90 years”?
How could the CCP have been instigators (or been anything at all) before that? It didn’t exist before that. The CCP is 90 years old.
Re, Sun Zhong Shan (Sun Yat-sen 1886-1925), are you arguing that by ignoring Sun Yat-sen (around 1912), the United States, England, and France (the countries he petitioned, as a man with no authority or title) are responsible for China’s substandard education system, and, by extension, China’s critical thinking issues in 2011?
“The victor’s version of history normally prevails.” Do you know what a platitude is?
Terry,
“Give China some time to develop its education system! I think we should wait at least 20 more years or so before making a final decision on how successful China’s education system is.”
So, one should suspend judgment of Chinese education until the year 2031? At that time, one can make a “final decision?” No decisions can be made after 2031?
I fail to see the logic here.
Lloyd said,
‘This is a “flippant” comment that does nothing to further the conservation.’
Do you mean it’s a “flippant” comment, or a flippant comment? They’re different you know. Quotation marks change the meaning. Which one do you mean?
I used the quotation marks to put emphasis on the word not to change its meaning to something else. Rules of grammar are only set in stone by anal retentitive individuls that are inflexible. (Note, I didn’t have the time to run this through a spell or grammar check)
Mr.Parfitt you wrote:
“Most cultures devise a gilded-age myth. Conspicuously, China’s gilded-age spans two millennia, from the First Emperor to the Opium Wars. It speaks to patriotism and victimization, and is a Communist Party fabrication.”
Maybe I’ve missed the context of this sentence but I replied
with the assumption that you were suggesting that the CCP has
fabricated two millennia of Chinese History.
Again you wrote
“Re, Sun Zhong Shan (Sun Yat-sen 1886-1925), are you arguing that by ignoring Sun Yat-sen (around 1912), the United States, England, and France (the countries he petitioned, as a man with no authority or title) are responsible for China’s substandard education system, and, by extension, China’s critical thinking issues in 2011?”
Well, perhaps I took it a bit far there and maybe should have
argued that the failure of the west to constructively engage
with China in 1911 and again in 1949 forced the new China
to turn to the Soviets and adopt the Soviet education model as
a paradigm to mould the Chinese education system.
My argument that things may have panned out differently in
education if the west had not put China in purgatory until 1972 is purely hypothetical and as such contributes little to the debate..
However, I would argue that the ability to think critically is acquired knowledge and not an innate one. Unfortunately,critical thinking was not a prominant feature of Soviet education at the time as it was in western pedogogy.
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi
“Maybe I’ve missed the context of this sentence but I replied
with the assumption that you were suggesting that the CCP has
fabricated two millennia of Chinese History.”
The CCP doesn’t fabricate two millennia of Chinese history so much as distill it a very simple idea, a take-away message: For 2,000 years, China represented the greatest, most advanced civilization on Earth. This ended with the Opium Wars, which kicked off the Century of Shame. The balance and greatness was restored by the CCP in 1949. True, Mao made some mistakes, but he was fundamentally good, and Deng rectified things completely, and it’s been stability and material progress ever since. The future is bright, just like our glorious, harmonious, and peaceful past.
That’s it in a nutshell, where, as the saying goes, it belongs. It has to be simple, otherwise: How can your average person remember and repeat it?
“Well, perhaps I took it a bit far there and maybe should have
argued that the failure of the west to constructively engage
with China in 1911 and again in 1949 forced the new China
to turn to the Soviets and adopt the Soviet education model as
a paradigm to mould the Chinese education system.”
Re 1911, China’s not Cuba. It wasn’t like a delegation went to Washington with handshakes and smiles only to be rebuffed. To put it mildly, there wasn’t a stable enough government in China for the Americans to deal with, and America didn’t deal with distant governments at that point in history like it (and other countries did) until after WWII. The Nationalists formed a government, but they couldn’t agree on anything, and the real power lay with the warlords, especially Yuan Shikai. After Yuan’s death, the Nationalists enlisted Soviet support to train a military to crush the warlords (or buy them off) and “unite the country.” You’ve probably read about this: the training facility at Whompoa (Huangpu), Mao’s working with the Nationalists (as part of the United Front; that’s where Mao learned about the power of propaganda), the Northern Expedition, the crackdown in Shanghai, etc. Mao escaped, fled to Jiangsu, had his “long march,” and lived to see another day.
Re 1949, perhaps America should have negotiated with China, but China attacked UN forces in a neighbouring country a couple years later. And, as you know, those were different times. I’m not saying America did the right thing, but they had negotiated with the Reds before. They arranged for Chiang and Mao to meet and rekindle the United Front, but it came to nothing because The Nationalists and the Communists both began double dealing one another soon after the meeting was over. That’s not the West’s fault.
“the west had not put China in purgatory until 1972”
Not really. America ignored China (and supported Nationalist raids on it, etc.) from ’49 to ’72, but remember, the West, especially the US, supported China during WWII. In fact, the leader of China, Chiang Kai-shek, was made Supreme Allied Commander in China, though the title was a bit tokenistic and he was assigned an American general (Joseph Stillwell) to keep an eye on things.
The West has meddled with China a lot. The Opium Wars were disgraceful and Western interference from the mid-nineteenth century up to where the Japanese took over Shanghai is pronounced. If you want to read a great book about all the rotten things the West did to China, I suggest Sterling Seagrave’s Dragon Lady. It’s an eye opener.
It’s important to know about that era, but it’s much more complicated than the history the CCP presents. For example, the CCP claims emigration in China started with the Opium Wars and ended when China was liberated in 1949. But the history of Chinese emigration (like any history) is infinitely more complicated than that.
China needs to move on. It can seem that every third museum in China is a shrine to Communist Party rule and a reminder about the foreign perpetrated injustices of the past. This is not useful. The problems that Westerners have caused China pale in comparison to the problems the Chinese have caused China. But it’s much easier, for example, to blame the US for not being there during the chaos of the 1910s and ‘20s than it is to, say, ask why it’s been 62 years since liberation but the country jails more journalists than any other.
This profound lack of introspection derives from face, false pride, and an ingrained sense of denial. It’s human nature to not want to take a good long look in the mirror, but this is especially so within Chinese culture.
Mr. Parfitt,
While I would agree that Confucianism does stifle creativity to a certain extent, I think it would be ridiculous to say that all the inventions made by the Ancient Chinese were made “in spite” of Confucianism.
You mentioned the fact that chinese have not won any nobel prizes(aside from liu xiaobo who was given the prize by the nobel peace committee to anger the CCP). I agree with you that this is largely due to China’s current education system. However, you should keep in mind that China’s education system is extremely new. As bill gates said recently on the Fareed Zakaria show, the lack of top researchers is inevitable for every new education system. Give China some time to develop its education system! I think we should wait at least 20 more years or so before making a final decision on how successful China’s education system is.
“Unfortunately, deep explanations do not lend themselves to being succinct in most cases.”
Oh? And who told you your explanations were deep?
“Our ancestors began to epitomize this pattern after nearly being eliminated by the explosion of Mt. Toba,”
Thank you. I was just thinking, ‘You know? Mt. Toba really doesn’t come up enough in the China debate, and it ought to,’ and then you go and mention it. Well done. You round out this conversation perfectly.
Mr. Parfitt,
“Oh? And who told you your explanations were deep?” This is a “flippant” comment that does nothing to further the conservation. I have read Koratsky’s book on “Living With Evolution” and it is written at a university graduate level. Before issuing “flippant” comments, I suggest reading the book first and see if you can get through it and understand what it teaches.
“Deep” may be translated to mean a literacy level so high that most readers in the US with the average being a fifth grade literacy level would never understand the content of the book. In addition, since half of Americans never read a book and are still allowed to vote, this may transalte into ignorant people being given the right to vote in important elections that decide the fate of a nation. I know I’m getting off track, but I’m attempting to make a point for the readers that visit this Blog.
Another example: In India, almost 40% of the population [more than four hundred million people] lives in severe poverty and is illiterate yet they are allowed to vote in democratic elections with little or no understanding of the issues at stake. Literacy and the ability to read books such as Koratsky’s are essential to a democracy.
Troy Parfitt says:
December 1, 2011 at 15:18
“Unfortunately, deep explanations do not lend themselves to being succinct in most cases.”
Oh? And who told you your explanations were deep?
Reply
*
Troy Parfitt says:
December 1, 2011 at 15:26
“Our ancestors began to epitomize this pattern after nearly being eliminated by the explosion of Mt. Toba,”
Thank you. I was just thinking, ‘You know? Mt. Toba really doesn’t come up enough in the China debate, and it ought to,’ and then you go and mention it. Well done. You round out this conversation perfectly.
Mr. Parfitt,
In just two statements you have strongly confirmed the lack of substance of your arguments, as otherwise evidenced in your cherry-picking that others have pointed out. For you have used two time-testing debating tactics to steer the conversation away from it: (1) A personal attack, and (2) Taking a point out of context, or, I should say, neglecting the context altogether.
Perhaps next you will throw in a bit of unfalsifiable logic to round it out?
You asked me to explain how China might conquer the West, step by step? I could have simply asked you to review any atlas of world history, to take note on how human civilizations have consistently and reliably risen and fallen. They rise upon gathering increasing economic and military might. They fall when they start resting on their laurels, get soft, and allow rivals to surpass them in economic and military might. With minor selection pressure the weak become eliminated by stronger rivals slowly. With major pressure they can disappear in an instant.
The fact that China is in the midst of a rapid rise in all related measures, while the West is following the template for declining civilizations, is equally apparent.
So I pieced together a brief history of events for you to show, not only why at a fundamental level this has occurred for humankind, but why the same pattern has existed for all kinds (of species). And by using the same principles that have defined past events, which have produced evolutionary winners and losers, we can extend these same evolutionary trend lines (which I call Selection Vector Universals) to make generally accurate predictions regarding the characteristics surviving species will possess in the future, including the human species.
Considering I describe how all the pieces of this existential puzzle fit together from the bottom up–i.e. from quarks and gluons to culture and ideas–and from the Big Bang to the termination of our universe, the subject matter does not get much deeper. If you cannot recognize this, you may want to stay in the shallows where it is a bit safer.
K.D. Koratsky
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com/blog
As the author of “Living With Evolution or Dying Without It: A Guide to Understanding Humanity’s Past, Present, and Future”, I can offer an alternative, deeper, and longer view to this debate–one founded in universal principles that account for why, where, and when some civilizations have been more successful than others; and for that matter, why, where, and when some species have been more successful than others.
With regard to Confucius (551-479 BCE), his philosophical insights were far ahead of their time, as he predated Plato (424-348 BCE) considerably. Both conceived that reason-based philosophy, as opposed to gods and spirits, should be depended upon to construct and facilitate the operation of civil society. Indeed, it is arguable that Confucius advanced the cause of enlightenment beyond the point that Plato did while living at an earlier time.
And it is also worth noting, that while Jesus is typically credited with founding the “golden rule,” Confucius was recorded as stating the precept more or less verbatim–predating Jesus by more than half a millennium. Of course, just as John the Baptist used similar terminology, this does not necessarily mean that Confucius was its originator. But, whatever the case, in both philosophical and moral standards as it relates to the cutting-edge social technology of the age, much can be credited to the Chinese.
And as touched upon by Mr. Lofthouse, including with regard to the Mandate of Heaven, the Chinese were far ahead of others in terms of generally embracing the standard of merit in placing talent within society. And Confucius was very integral in developing its applications. Indeed, the Chinese can claim the invention of formal aptitude testing, offering upward mobility to those from any class who could distinguish themselves, by showing their mastery of the Five Classics.
In fact, while Chingis Khan is rarely recognized as a meritocracy buff, even this barbarian to the north was extremely keen on the standard of merit, which was central to his success in uniting the disparate tribes of Mongolia.
Meanwhile, it wasn’t until the European Enlightenment that the standard of merit was taken as seriously by the West, dismantling the standard of royalty and nobility for societal talent placement–stemming from the concept of divine and/or superior blood lineage.
From here it was both central to Napolean’s success, and of course was taken to an entirely new level by the American Founders.
While it is true that communism defied the standard of merit that has been embraced by Chinese leadership throughout much of its history, this period has been rather brief in the grand scheme of things.
On the other hand, there have been times of great oppression in China where the standard of merit has been tamped down, likely because Chinese history has been rife with physical cataclysms (especially floods), which prompt rampant malnutrition, disease, combat and infection–none of which is conducive to societal stability. And no matter how frequently they occur, drastic times call for drastic measures.
But most important here is that it is the adherence to the standard of merit that will continue to dictate the success or failure of nations as natural selection marches on; just as the standard of merit, as it relates to all things related to survivability, will continue to dictate the success or failure of species at large. And for groups, there have been times when collective merit is best served by using a strong hand and restricted freedoms to keep a society from disintegrating, thereby allowing freedoms to expand when threats subside.
Hence, as the communist leadership in China has increasingly embraced capitalistic principles in recent decades, while the West has increasingly embraced socialistic principles over that last seven decades, the Chinese will conquer the West economically, and likely militarily as well somewhere along the line, if the policy trends and their results continue. It does not matter what belief structure, philosophy, or scientific underpinning policies have, it will be the policies that promote the standard of merit that will stand the test of time, along with the beings that live by them.
This being said, it has yet to be seen if the Chinese leadership will allow the standard of merit to be applied to government leadership as well vis a vis democratic republicanism. But considering that the West may soon find itself on an irreversible course toward totalitarianism, even a China that practices “state capitalism,” noting the oxymoron, may have a serious leg up on its Western competition.
In closing, as we assess Mao’s legacy, while it may be difficult to see him as a benevolent dictator, functional and oppressive authoritarianism can often work out better than dysfunctional democracy in terms of securing national survival. This has typically been the case worldwide in tough times, as well as the case if a population lacks the sophistication and infrastructure required for self-rule.
Indeed, even leading Western nations may not be capable of perpetuating their Western ideals at this point, especially during tough times. The next several years will show if more biocultural coevolutionary development is required for even populations with the best of social technology to practice republicanism through thick and thin.
K.D. Koratsky
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com/blog
Mr. Kortsky,
Where is the thesis statement here?
You say, “the Chinese will conquer the West economically, and likely militarily as well somewhere along the line, if the policy trends and their results continue.”
Could you relate this claim to your thesis statement – succinctly – and could you provide a possible outline of how China might conquer the West militarily? Could you outline the steps?
Do you believe it’s China’s goal to conquer the world militarily? Would you kindly provide us with a, as you put it “deeper”, view as to what such a world might resemble?
Thank you.
Unfortunately, deep explanations do not lend themselves to being succinct in most cases. And this is certainly true with regard to evolution theory. Moreover, the concepts tend to require illustrations to show proper context.
Evolution by way of natural selection places great pressure on all species to maximize their representation to the greatest degree possible geographically. For large-scale, generalist species this pattern became evident with regard to continental conquest during the age of the dinosaur. And along the way, more advanced and superior types displaced and/or eliminated the older, less advanced, and inferior forms.
The same occurred for mammals when the non-avian dinosaurs suffered extinction with the K-T asteroid impact, allowing the once-repressed, smaller-scale mammalian upstarts to fully demonstrate the superiority of their new-age, homeothermic (warm-blooded) biotechnology. Yet the cooling globe was already leading to decreasing numbers of dinosaurs before the impact. In any event, there were once at least eight major variations of mammals, of which only three are left: the placentals, the marsupials, and the monotremes ( for the latter, only the duckbill platypus and the echidna are left, in Aus). Of the three, the placentals are the most advanced and superior, and were driving all competitors to extinction by around 60 million years ago. It is likely that the marsupials and monotremes were have been totally eliminated had it not been been for the break up of Pangaea that allowed the weaker types refuge at the time.
As for human ancestors, over the last 7 million years there have been any number of hominin (bipedal ape) species traversing the African, European, and/or Asian continents. In some cases, a species has survived by becoming a specialist, in others by becoming a generalist. The latter would become increasingly adept at colonizing foreign lands. Our ancestors began to epitomize this pattern after nearly being eliminated by the explosion of Mt. Toba, a supervolcanic eruption on Sumatra that took our ancestral line down to as few as 3,000 breeding females according to Mitochondrial DNA evidence. But this cataclysm, sparking the typical scenario in which a physical catastrophe leads to widespread malnutrition, disease, combat, and infection, left standing the most capable hominin line in history by far. Leaving Africa around 60,000 years ago, they had eliminated their northern neanderthal and Asian Homo Erectus rivals who escape the worst effect of Toba in their entirety by 28,000 years ago.
After this, humankind began to envelop the world, becoming the first globally represented species in the earth’s history. This was made possible via its higher intelligence and the increasing ability to use manmade technologies to alter the environment to suit its needs.
Yet, as is the case within all other species, families within species are also in competition for survival, and for humans, the greatest threat to any particularly tribes was other tribes. While during good times, with plenty of resources to go around, violence would be limited in its scale. But during difficult times, bloodbaths would erupt wherever and to what degree they occurred. It would be common for entire groups to be wiped out.
On average, the survivors would be those most able and willing to kill their rivals when there wasn’t enough to go around. And as strength in numbers was the greatest decider of which populations made the cut, human history has been predominated by a strength-in-numbers arms race. This is what, I submit, gave rise both to the first tribal mergers in Mesopotamia (with China and India to follow by a few centuries one after the other) and the Axial Age of religious development that give rise to the first universal monotheistic religions.
From these first tribal mergers would develop the first chiefdoms, the first states, and then the first empires. While increasingly, technology has replaced strength in numbers as the most important factor in human group survival,
All along the way, i.e., for all species, survival is achieved by having the best in economic and combat technology. The former supports the latter, and the latter protects to former, in feedback fashion. And the inevitable outcome will be the long term survival of those who perform best in these basic functions.
Hence, as China rises in economic performance, it will pursue economic dominance if it can. And it will be this superior economic performance that will increasingly be converted to superior military performance. This is already occurring, as indicated by their new aircraft, ship, and missile technologies.
And yes, there is little point for them to attack the U.S., or others in the West, in the near future, but when the next ice age sets in, and food becomes very short, history will repeat itself.
As far as imperial aspiration, while it is true that the Chinese have not advertised such an intent, there are other who have done so resolutely. Both the Islamists and the Marxists have made their goals of global domination clear. Indeed, the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood has this spelled out in their charter visible on the Internet, until it was recently taken off due to unhelpful attention.
However, such movements cannot be blamed, for they too are the product of natural selection that strongly rewards proliferation and domination over time. Those who maintain the related characteristics tend to survive the test of time, those who do not maintain such characteristics do not. The modern perception that the difficult times which predominate earth’s history and lead to mass extinctions are a thing of the past will prove fatal to those who posses it.
This is not to say that all nations must similarly aspire to global conquest, but they must be prepared to defend against it, for it will continually arise, especially if not strongly quashed, just like the criminal element within societies. And it is with the anticipation of tough times that will occur with considerable regularity, the only way to maximize one’s changes for survival is to maximize productivity, efficiency, innovation, and advancement forever.
As far as what the world would resemble with Chinese conquest. it would resemble the world as it has been from it beginnings. A platform for the advancement of species in which those with the greatest survivability endure at any given time and in any given place. And as economic and military performance will be maximized based on the policies that promote it, those with the policies that most promote these capacities will be favored. And as policies extend from the principles humans embrace, these principles are also subject to be naturally selected for in reverse.
In short, those who fully understand and embrace the realities of the evolutionary perspective will be the last ones standing as the laws of nature run their course.
As it turns out, the European Enlightenment thinkers, and especially the U.S. Constitutional framers, were exceptionally successful in creating a formula for success from the evolutionary perspective, as the free market will replicate the dynamics of natural selection in driving maximal societal performance. The problem is that, why this was destined to work so well remains misunderstood. And as humans have increasingly come to perceive that they transcend the laws of nature, they have come to think that they make the world whatever they want it to be (the postmodern ideal), which amount to a suicide pact, as such harm mutations will not be smiled upon by natural selection, especially when the s^*& hits the fan. This is when all get back to basic–I.e., what works in the realm of survival.
K.D. Koratsky
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com/blog
Mr. Koratsky,
I may be starting another comment string here but you did mention they “eliminated their northern neanderthal and Asian Homo Erectus rivals.”
You may want to read the Stanford Farm Report “Stone Age Gene Swap”
http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=45309
To summarize: “When the Neanderthals and other prehistoric human cousins went extinct around 30,000 years ago, they didn’t disappear completely. A little part of them lives on in many of us. In 2010, scientists revealed that sporadic couplings (sexual intercourse) between our ancestors and the Neanderthals left many of us with traces of their DNA in our genomes.”
And those “couplings” may have saved many lives in the following 30,000 or so years.
Mr. Lofthouse,
Thanks for that addition. I am aware of it. There have been a number of related gene studies over the last decade. Most have shown no hybridization between neanderthals and Cro magnons. A couple of recent studies, like the one you mention, show traces of what could be neanderthal DNA in our species. Though, from what I have read, they figure it would have been from interactions tens of thousands of years before the neanderthals went out of existence 28,000 years ago, a date that seems reliable based on archeological discoveries. Of course, new assessments will be due as the verifiable data continue to come in.
K.D. Koratsky
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com
http://www.LivingWithEvolution.com/blog
Mr. Parfitt a couple of observations to fill in my day
cultural myths.
Yes, there is some validity to that the CCP have been instigators – but only over the last 90 years and not so much by fabrication but by omission and supression of certain events. As to preceding dynasties, most probably. The victor’s version of history normally prevails. Apparently, the works of Confucious went through a major re-write during the Song Dynasty.
Gavin Menzies
I would think that Menzie’s revelation that Zheng He’s exploits reached the shores of North America raised a few eyebrows even among serious Chinese scholars.
Nobel Prizes
True, but a couple of things should be kept in mind. One is that China is still a developing country. Another is that the technological superiority of the west is firmly rooted in Europe and the Industrial Revolution.
Critical thinking
The west and particularly the US serioiusly bombed out here when they ignored Sun Zhong Shan’s help to establish a Republic based on western style democracy and Confucian values which may or may not have embraced the western methods of education and free thinking resulting in the present education system based predominately on the Russian system albeit with Chinese characteristics.
Confucian values.
I think that even The Great Helmsman would agree with you there.
Alessandro.
You’re absolutely right. Giving you a grammar tip was pedantic and childish, especially in light of my sometimes poor spelling. Please accept my sincere apology.
Thank you.
And then I go and write ‘aweful.’ Well done me. (I can only help you with grammar, not spelling.)
Oh, right, when u want some history lesson let me know…
“Thanks for you ever-cheery and polite responses.”
Ahahah, another tactic of people with no arguments at all…cry out the opponent is bad and rude. So childish of you.
Btw, correcting minor spelling errors of a foreigner writing in ur native language to correct ur gross historical mistakes (if you don’t know history, it’d be better not to talk about that..wouldn’t u think?) is a behavior I’ve only seen in children, children that can’t admit when they’re wrong…If that’s the image u want to give of urself…well, be my guest.
Ignorance of historical facts is a much more serious problem for someone pretending to speak about history, and make historical comparisons….
It’s actually ‘a historical.’ We use ‘an’ when the following word’s first letter/sound is a vowel sound, as in ‘an hour,’ ‘an aweful time,’ etc. The ‘h’ in ‘history’ and ‘historical’ don’t represent vowels sounds, therefore we use ‘a’.
The first grammar lesson is free. I charge for additional ones. 😉
Mr. Parfitt correct spell to try and mock the opponent is the last resort of losers and kids when they are caught with their hands into the jar, I see you show your true colors very easily.
Spell can be a slip of the finger, or a momentary lapse of attention while writing, especially when English is a foreign language (can teach you some chinese and some other language if u want..for free the whole course, if u can bear it).
While the ludicrous errors in history u just wrote, can only be the product of a deep ignorance in the matter….Know how to speak and write english being a native is the minimum a human being should be able to do (for foreign languages let me know when u need some lessons), history on the other hand requires study, dedication and knowledge..all things u evidently lack, as much as u lack any whatsoever knowledge of China. I have been taught not to speak of things I know nothing about…i’m sorry nobody taught you that precious lesson.
Sorry Alessandro. I just thought that seeing as how you gave me a history lesson, I’d return the favour with a grammar lesson. There, we’ve both enlightened each other. That’s a positive thing, no.
Thanks for you ever-cheery and polite responses.
😉
First of all, the Roman Empire didn’t start in 44 b.C (the year of the assassination of Julius Caesar), but in 27 b.C., the year Octavian accept the title of Augustus from the Senate and chose for himself the title of Princeps. Stating then that the Roman Empire lasted till 1453 CE (the year of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks) is another even bigger distortion. Historian usually consider the year 476 CE as the end of the (Western) Roman Empire, that’s the most common accepted date for the end of the Roman state. There are other dates accepted by others, but usually the latest is the year 610 CE, when the emperor Heraclius deeply reformed the eastern empire, altering it’s face…from then on the what was the eastern roman empire is usually considered to have fully become the Byzantine Empire. To use 1453 as the final year for the roman state is to push history well beyond the limits.
On an historical point of view, Parfitt definitely starts with the wrongest foot possible.
The old excuse that the glorious part of the history of China is all a fabrication of the EVIL communist party, is the usual propaganda trick of the “china-bashers” that do not have other arguments. China’s history didn’t start 60 years ago, nor did its study. There’s plenty of material, as well as the witnesses of many many foreigner that travelled in China in different periods that confirms the greatness, the wealth and the power of the chinese civilization in many different periods…trying to deny it, ascribing everything to a diabolical propaganda plan of the reds is childish, other then clumsy…I don’t really see why someone has to deny history, making a joke of oneself (putting aside different other academic works that prove him wrong, and elevating the only author he apparently knows – Jonathan Spence – to the level of “sacred truth” (distorting also the work of Spence….Maybe Parfitt would be surprised to know – but I suspect he knows it all to well…. – that also the roman empire was deeply rigged by “poverty, lawlessness, chaos, violence, warlordism, rebellion, warfare, despotism”…maybe he should study his history lessons better) to push its own idea that china will not dominate the world or similar strange ideas….
Parfitt started overstatig and distorting taiwan – mainland relationship…and keeps on his own biased and prejudiced (but quite weak ) views