Hasbeen- Thanks for your comments I found them interesting. I think this could be drawn out a little more but I think I'll do this at another opportunity. Thanks again. CM.

At the risk of challenging David F one too many times-

In regards to the history of Chinese technology...

I would argue that the China of today is very different to Dynastic China. China itself is the result of massive acts of colonialism for example in the Warring States Period, the Mongolian Invasions, etc. Ironically this seems to have led to certain parts of China being isolated or protected enough from the instability of politics to develop advanced technology- the artisan's appear to have become quite rich from their crafts but they seem to have been essentially sub-kingdoms within the superstructure of China.

The Jurchen tribe (Manchu people) seems to have been wise enough to protect the majority of Chinese Culture and let them alone as long as they paid their taxes similar to the Roman structure. Like the Roman's they kept control through advanced military tactics and technology. The Manchu were taller than the average Chinese and their homeland had access to mobility in the form of horses making them an impressive force. "Horsepower" is also very useful for production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse#Domestication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe#/media/File:Eurasian_steppe_belt.jpg

Domestication of the horse most likely took place in central Asia prior to 3500 BC.

There is some argument that technological development in China was faster because ubiquitous bamboo is easier and more flexibly worked than trees found in the west.

http://www.britannica.com/plant/bamboo

The Mao Communists on the other hand were much more intrusive, they appear to have taken advantage of the weakness of Chinese Leaders due to their current conflicts in the Opium Wars and Japan.

The Mao Communists as I understand killed and destroyed the educated and traditions on an unprecedented scale as part of it's culture war. Mao bombed China back to the stone age in a sense. This was coupled with unprecedented massive population growth (which has now been outdone by India). The Chinese Communists realising errors in the strategy of massive population expansion corrected managed their population using the one child policy- which had some undesirable effects- but achieved their population reduction objective. This objective had implications much beyond the Chinese border.

Before the Opium Wars (circa 1845) I would probably agree that China like Japan before the Kanagawa Treaty (1854) was fairly peaceful but this came after periods of instability.

China appears set for a new era of expansionism and aggression.

Those that are less like us are less likely to respect our ways- but that doesn't mean we should give up our ways. Sometimes we need to stay on our side of the fence.

I don't think that David F is intentionally blaming the victim of Chinese expansionism.

Dear Saltpetre,

I agree that we know little about the impact of species upon each other. In order to learn about it we would have to find out about the matter. However, I think the effort to make such a study would yield more useful information than a determination of their current range. Determining their current range would be a snapshot in time while knowledge of impacts of species on one another would be learning about a dynamic process.

Who are we to adjudicate and judge? Who do we have to be to adjudicate and judge? We have been making decisions which affect us and the other life forms on the planet. We have been doing it arrogantly and blindly. Peter Singer advocates we should consider all sensate creatures. Since other animals do not have abstract language to express their wishes we have to continue doing it arrogantly but maybe not quite as blindly.

To make an analogy we have organizations which study breast cancer, prostate cancer, bowel cancer, lung cancer etc. To my mind this is a wasteful approach. We might do better to devote those resources to study cell growth, cell reproduction and cellular abnormalities which are factors in all cancers.

One act that might minimize the impact of our dominance and yield information to minimize the damage we do would be to leave some areas wild and only allow trained observers in to gain information about the interactions in those areas.

Is it possible we could learn to live simply? Rather than concentrating on ways to maintain our life style change our life style. I believe the Epicurean philosophy is a better guide to a satisfying life and a minimal impact on the environment than any religion I know of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Dear Canem Malum,

You have not challenged me. I have studied Chinese history as the University of Queensland. I am not an expert, but your account is fairly consistent with what I learned. I think the Chinese government at this time is a tyrannical operation. However, I believe that the Chinese government is still reacting to the humiliation of such western operations as the Opium Wars.

I object strongly to such statements as “The Chinese only believe in two things: money and all. things Chinese.” That is a bigoted and offensive attack on the Chinese people not the Chinese government or nation. Some Chinese people such as those demonstrating for democracy in Hong Kong are in the mould of other people who have wanted a voice in their government. Some Chinese are materialistic money grubbers. In short there are many different Chinese people, and one can find in them whatever type you are looking for.

The Chinese call us sai-gwai-loh- Foreign Devil. Japanese have gaijin and iteki- foreign person or outsider. Muslims have infidel- non believer (but interestingly seems to be originally a Christian word). Hebrew's have gentiles- sometimes goyim (I'm unsure of the various contexts here).

"Barbarian's at the gate".

Every culture seems to have their own word for outsiders.

"Saying that someone is self absorbed (bigoted)" (in this case the Chinese) is bigoted?? Everyone is biased to their own understanding of the world- they seek to maintain what they perceive to be in their own self interest. I don't see anything wrong with that- "when in Rome".

Dear Canem Malum,

Mormons call non-Mormons gentiles. A Jew ran for governor of Utah. He was making a speech, and a voice called out, "Shut up, you gentile." He said, "I got to come to Utah to be a gentile?" Anyhow he told the story at subsequent rallies and was elected.