About the end of the Chinese civilization technological advantage in the 16th century:
> War had ravaged the lands, laying waste whole cities. Plague had struck, killing millions, men, women and children buried in mass graves...
> (but) the force that put an end to the Chinese arc of progress was deadlier by far than all of these together, yet seemingly intangible as metaphysics. By the 16th century, the fleets had vanished, the proximate cause political; to this day there is no consensus on the underlying factors.
Also:
> The saving grace has always been the outside: when one nation, one civilization, faltered, another picked up the torch and carried on; but with the march of globalization, there may soon be no more outside.
Perhaps the direction the world is going in the last couple of years, with less unity, is not that bad.
It's a double-edged sword... if we want to have multiple competing civilizations, it's unavoidable they will conflict with each other (I'm pretty sure you'll always view the "other" guys as angry and evil no matter what they do, just as "they" see you the same way).
That may be a necessary evil though in the really long term.
Personally, I both agree and disagree. I think with more intelligent humans, harder for want-to-be dictators to manipulate, we could have different cultures and countries, and everyone friends, just enjoying the differences, as tourists and exchange students, no conflicts.
But with the humans of today, then yes I agree that conflict is unavoidable
But you could apply your theory to today: what is it that triggers most conflicts today? It seems to be it's most ideology. The West is highly ideological (like everyone else, it must be said) while not acknowledging it.
Could you "be friends" with authoritarian countries led by dictators? If not, why?
Many countries' populations appear to see authoritarian regimes as the preferred way to govern, from China to Iran, Russia to parts of Southern and Eastern Europe. You can claim most people would prefer something else but are silenced, but I don't agree with that, as countries "forced" to be democratic, like Afghanistan and Iraq, unequivocably go back to being authoritarian as soon as the "oppressors" leave.
If you're the ruler of a non-democratic country, you would take this kind of behaviour as kindly as the USA would take any other country trying to spread authoritarianism, wouldn't you?
Whether one ideological belief system is more correct than another, or more just, is kind of beyond the point (and very difficult to prove objectively anyway)... my point is that if you're willing to accept a variety of cultures, ideologies and so on, you must not lay judgement at all on others, and specially you must not attempt to crusade around the world trying to impart your own believes on others. Accepting that would go a long way towards "everyone being friends enjoying the differences".
You believe the people, the women, in Afghanistan want to be slaves under the Talibans? I guess your never met anyone from Afghanistan.
That's the same as believing the African Americans wanted to get captured by slave traders and shipped by boat to work as slaves in the US.
You have, or pretend to have, big holes in your understand of people and the world.
Putin was never chosen by the people, he doesn't represent them. He assassinates opposition politicians or put then in prison if they grow too strong, and fakes election results otherwise he would lose.
I wonder if you're a paid Chinese Communist Party 50 cent person, otherwise, the lack of knowledge you show would be baffling. If indeed you are, then, no hard feelings, I understand you might need a job and pay the rent and maybe you have family and kids what do I know. Probably I won't reply, have a nice day anyway.
Book tips: The Dictators Handbok. Those people don't ... Don't represent the people.
About the end of the Chinese civilization technological advantage in the 16th century:
> War had ravaged the lands, laying waste whole cities. Plague had struck, killing millions, men, women and children buried in mass graves...
> (but) the force that put an end to the Chinese arc of progress was deadlier by far than all of these together, yet seemingly intangible as metaphysics. By the 16th century, the fleets had vanished, the proximate cause political; to this day there is no consensus on the underlying factors.
Also:
> The saving grace has always been the outside: when one nation, one civilization, faltered, another picked up the torch and carried on; but with the march of globalization, there may soon be no more outside.
Perhaps the direction the world is going in the last couple of years, with less unity, is not that bad.