3 ms·

> The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable

> The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable society in the long run that spans across centuries I'm not clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that it would be a good thing if society in western countries were more like what it was 400 years ago? Enormous improvements in science, technology, culture and civil society grew out of that 400 year history, and regressing or remaining static over that 400 years would be a disaster. The only way to have a stable society that spans across centuries is to have a society that can change and incorporate new ideas, technology, people and ways of doing things. It's societies that aren't flexible and strong enough to cope with change that are unable to remain stable over long periods of time.

free_rms 6y ago
China as a nation dealt with 'change' in the form of white men on awesome ships with awesome guns coming and having their way for 100 years. Going from their nadir in WWII to what they are now in 70 years seems awfully adaptable to me.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  China was at the same level, or higher, in development as Europe in 1600. By 1700, and certainly by 1800, Europe's interest in science, which then led to developments in advances in technology. This technology is what allowed the "white men on awesome ships with awesome guns" to have their way. Perhaps if China was so top-down they could have also developed themselves more. Toby Huff examines this disparity in his books Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution. A Global Perspective and The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. The telescope was embraced in the West, but hardly used (except with a few isolate individuals) in the other major cultures in the 1600s.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    I think it's more about multipolar vs unipolar. The time period you describe includes multiple massive european wars between nation states who were incentivized to improve industrialization, logistics and yes technology. China's periodic bloody uprisings don't create the same incentive, they basically didn't have foreign policy until it came knocking.

free_rms 6y ago

China as a nation dealt with 'change' in the form of white men on awesome ships with awesome guns coming and having their way for 100 years. Going from their nadir in WWII to what they are now in 70 years seems awfully adaptable to me.

throw0101a 6y ago
China was at the same level, or higher, in development as Europe in 1600. By 1700, and certainly by 1800, Europe's interest in science, which then led to developments in advances in technology. This technology is what allowed the "white men on awesome ships with awesome guns" to have their way. Perhaps if China was so top-down they could have also developed themselves more. Toby Huff examines this disparity in his books Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution. A Global Perspective and The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. The telescope was embraced in the West, but hardly used (except with a few isolate individuals) in the other major cultures in the 1600s.
- free_rms 6y ago
  I think it's more about multipolar vs unipolar. The time period you describe includes multiple massive european wars between nation states who were incentivized to improve industrialization, logistics and yes technology. China's periodic bloody uprisings don't create the same incentive, they basically didn't have foreign policy until it came knocking.