On occasion, I'll share an insight I've gained from a seemingly disparate field. In the long-run its implications will be evident. While here looking out from the ports of southern France, I'm concurrently reading Non-Zero, a highly recommended book on human history through the lens of game theory by Robert Wright.
Wright recounts that an industrial revolution was just as likely to occur in China as it was in Europe. But China in an attempt to fend off barbarians erected the Great Wall. This took resources away from their trade effort and hampered the inward spread of innovations developed in Europe. The Ming Dynasty had unplugged themselves from the game. Wright writes:
The irony of this isolationism is that during the early Ming period the Chinese were king of the sea. In 1405 the emperor dispatched a flet of 317 vessels--nearly twice the size of the Spanish Armada would reach--to explore trade routes along souther Eurasia...yet the Ming retreated from big-time sailing, eventually banning the construction of large ships....
...China consciously shifted resources from one vast project--ocean voyages that had shown little profit--to another vast project: building the Great Wall to keep barbarians at bay....For centuries, China had been a big exporter of good ideas, and western Europe a big importer. Now, just as Europe's social brain was really humming, China opted out of the exchange....Over the next half-century European nations would embrace sailing big-time and find the New World. Some scholars believe this stroke of fortune explains why the industrial revolution happened where it did. Europe stumbled onto a trove of precious metals and vast farmlands and hacienda-ready farmers, all just waiting for exploitation...
Last year around this time, China tried banning Google searching for its people. Effectively erecting an informational Wall of China. Under such restriction, the implications are profound for the spread of valuable information--such as progress in nanotechnology research. The time and cost to retrieve valuable news or information that may be competitvely relevant for Chinese researchers would've been saliently and negatively impacted. As would the corresponding prospects for technology commercialization and economic leadership.
It's good to see they are learning from their past.
(Josh Wolfe, Cannes, France)
Article comments