Europe vs China

Agricultural food production is the critical step towards civilization and modernization. The huge social, technological and military differences between Euroasia and other continents, namely Africa, America and Asian Pacific Islands, has proven this point. There're still questions, however, remained unanswered solely with the differential development of agriculture. Why China, one of the first agriculture centers in the world, a country that had enjoyed enormous technological advantages up to at least 1500AD, has failed to ride on its momentum, and to lead the world in industrial revolution and modernization? Clearly, the answer to this question lies beyond simple geographical and climatory factors that differentiated Euroasia from the rest of the world. In fact, the great contrast between the rise of Europe and the fall of China, is a vivid example of how political and social structures influence the development of a society.

After the Qin dynamsty (220 BC), the Middle kingdom has been unified and integrated as one of the largest states in the world, not only politically but also culturally. The unification of China, which the Chinese people have been proud of, also brought negative side effects. The highly unified and centralized China have stifled diversity and innovations. One evidence is the fact that China did not develop ocean-borne ships, while Europe did, and later on used them to conquer the world. Around 14-15th century AD, China was at the peak of its economic development, producing almost a third of the world GDP. The then kings and queens in China did not see the need to explore outside their own country, therefore discouraging all the ship-building programs. If China was a fragmented, or decentralized political entity, what the kings and queens thought might not necessarily apply to local officials. Ships would have been built if someone saw the need of it. This is exactly what happened in Europe, which was an extremely fragmented political landscape. Columbus had lobbied Italy, England, France for supporting his plan of voyage, and eventually gained support from the queen of Spain. The beauty of a fragmented and decentralized political structure lies in the tolerance for diversity in the system. When one party demonizes an idea, another party might find it interesting.

The consequences of the unified, centralized political structure in China, vs the fragmented, decentralized Europe, go far beyond ship-building. One critical consequence is the origin and growth of capitalism. Both China and Europe have witnessed similar embryonic birth of capitalism around 14-15th century AD. The idea of being self-sustaining and even prospering by engaging in manufacturing or trading did not attract the political leaders in China. In fact, it's been viewed as a threat to the status quo. In the unified China, whatever the kings didn't like wouldn't survive. In contrast, capitalism found its niche in the fragmented Europe, and thrived. The successful development and spread of capitalism in Europe acted as an enormous force to push Europe for more resources and bigger markets. It also drove and encouraged the development of science and technology, which were stifled in the arrogant, ancient China. Technological development tends to be an auto-catalyzed progress. Advancement in one technology enables and facilitates many other technologies to be developed. As a consequence, once Europe took a head start in science and technology, the gap between Europe and China would only widen.

The unified and centralized political structure in China has helped stifled diversity and innovations in the country. In contrast, the fragmented, decentralized Europe had became the crescent for capitalism, which drives colonization, technological development and eventually, rapid industrial revolution. From this standpoint, it's not hard to understand why some Europeans don't like the idea of European Union. It's the political fragmentation that makes Europe the Europe.