The answer to the Needham Question?

[bemildred]

The author of Science and Civilization in China, Joseph Needham (1900-1995), asked why China in about the 1500s seemed to have abandoned technological innovation although it had led the world in that area up until then.

I feel that the reason is because the Neo-Confucian officials of that time came to believe that developing artificial means (eg, technology, credit) and depending on them not only to keep things going but also to extend capabilities would result in short-term gains in productivity and efficiency but at the expense of loss of control which the officials of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) felt was a threat to their authority.

As far as they were concerned, nothing could begin to function properly without a strong central authority. Concerning Jose Ortega Y Gasset's observation, "Barbarism is the absence of standards to which appeal can be made", they intended to provide standards for society in the way of norms.

As far as they were concerned, nothing could be more barbaric than the belief that "the end justifies the means" - a mistranslation of Machiavelli's The Prince which they would say adequately describes the way we think and do things in the 21st-century. They would have agreed with what he really said, which was: "In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/CHIN-02-180215.html

[KoKo]

1. Some interesting "food for thought" in that article....

especially since China is now actively engaging "globally."

Questions raised in article...about whether this works for them in the long run or not.

Anyway it was an interesting read...thanks!

[bemildred]

2. It's a big subject, and a very relevant one.

The problem in this country is most of our governing elites are ignorant self-absorbed mediocrities who have no idea what to keep and what to let go, and could care less.

[KoKo]

3. "New Silk Roads and the Chinese Vision of a Brave New (Trade) World"

Year of the Sheep, Century of the Dragon?

New Silk Roads and the Chinese Vision of a Brave New (Trade) World

By Pepe Escobar

Geopolitically, Russia, India, and China have just sent a powerful message westward: they are busy fine-tuning a complex trilateral strategy for setting up a network of economic corridors the Chinese call “new silk roads” across Eurasia. Beijing is also organizing a maritime version of the same, modeled on the feats of Admiral Zheng He who, in the Ming dynasty, sailed the “western seas” seven times, commanding fleets of more than 200 vessels.

Meanwhile, Moscow and Beijing are at work planning a new high-speed rail remix of the fabled Trans-Siberian Railroad. And Beijing is committed to translating its growing strategic partnership with Russia into crucial financial and economic help, if a sanctions-besieged Moscow, facing a disastrous oil price war, asks for it.

To China’s south, Afghanistan, despite the 13-year American war still being fought there, is fast moving into its economic orbit, while a planned China-Myanmar oil pipeline is seen as a game-changing reconfiguration of the flow of Eurasian energy across what I’ve long called Pipelineistan.

And this is just part of the frenetic action shaping what the Beijing leadership defines as the New Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road of the twenty-first century. We’re talking about a vision of creating a potentially mind-boggling infrastructure, much of it from scratch, that will connect China to Central Asia, the Middle East, and Western Europe. Such a development will include projects that range from upgrading the ancient silk road via Central Asia to developing a Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor; a China-Pakistan corridor through Kashmir; and a new maritime silk road that will extend from southern China all the way, in reverse Marco Polo fashion, to Venice.

Don’t think of this as the twenty-first-century Chinese equivalent of America’s post-World War II Marshall Plan for Europe, but as something far more ambitious and potentially with a far vaster reach.

CONTINUED AT:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41106.htm

[bemildred]

4. Pepe gets a little too florid for my taste at times.

What we have is a multi-polar world, and that is a very uncertain prospect. There are the USA, EU, Russia, China, India, and then a long tail of smaller or quieter countries. The EU will want to stay friends with Russia and everybody else too, and I expect Putin wants to sell gas & oil anywhere he can. The question is what will we do? Can the UN be made useful as an agent of order in the world? That will require a level of forethought and self-abnegation rarely if ever seen in international affairs. What happens when they start competing for resources to keep their development going? All of those large nations are well-able to protect themselves, having nukes and whatnot, but are no more able than we to bully the entire planet, unless they collude. They could even collude in the common interest, if they were wise. But we haven't seen much of that, have we?

On the other hand we appear to have stepped back from the brink, again, in Ukraine, much to the loss of Ukraine.

[KoKo]

5. I thought the article went well with the "Needham Question"...

Will China's adventures outside its own Sphere prove successful in partnerships or will they once again turn inward if confronted with needing to be more aggressive militarily if confronted or threatened in their new expansion. I was reminded of the mention of the Admiral Zheng experience in the Needham article and Pepe's mention.

From Pepe:

Beijing is also organizing a maritime version of the same, modeled on the feats of Admiral Zheng He who, in the Ming dynasty, sailed the “western seas” seven times, commanding fleets of more than 200 vessels.

Agree about Pepe's writing style but find him an interesting read. I think Pepe is optimistic in his view about new Silk Roads. That wouldn't be in the USA's interest with our partners. But, we shall see.


I had always hoped the UN would be a much more powerful source for "good in the world" than it has become. But, then any large organization is always open to manipulation and interference by special interests. We should still hope for better balance there.

Hard to know, though, what will happen with Ukraine. It seems to be a Test Case for NATO Expansionism. Russia has stated that it won't tolerate any more NATO expansion on its border and yet Ukraine is signalling it wants some expedited NATO agreement for protection. Given the bellicose, bullying language in the USA and Great Britain Mainstream Media against Putin (portrayed as the new Hitler, KGB Bully/ Asperger's Sufferer) it seems that they are setting the stage for the popular opinion to push for ramping up NATO exercise "actions" in the states surrounding Russia which will make the whole situation worse. It's a great distraction from what is going on in the ME, though.

Anyway...who knows. Distressing to see so many "Mistakes" coming home to roost.

[bemildred]

6. +1. nt