Comments
Lackeytsar t1_jd849ak wrote
> of rice production
and wheat
absolutelyshafted t1_jd8d70l wrote
Yeah india has a lot of wheat and barley farming especially in the north
Really it’s not hard to understand. Both india and China developed farming very early on
crazyhadron t1_jd8je2m wrote
Wheat and rice is a recent development in India (and most of the world, for that matter).
Millets were the staple crop in most of India up till the mid 20th century.
Wheat and rice are just too risky to grow in most places without modern technology.
Europe didn't necessarily loose all of the fertility of its lands with the collapse of the roman empire, yet it suddenly became a lot less prosperous.
A civilization's success depends on many factors, and fertile lands are just one of them. You need some pretty sophisticated bureaucracy to run it all.
pinkcheems t1_jdavxhg wrote
>Wheat and rice is a recent development in India
No, it's not a recent development. Archeologists found 4 variety of wheats from mehrangarh site (7000 BCE–5500 BCE) of indus valley civilization. Which indicates that wheat is not a recent development. Same for rice it was cultivated 4000 years ago in indus valley civilization Source
bigfatfurrytexan t1_jdb22hq wrote
Yes, it was cultivated. But it wasn't widely dispersed because of the risk. It was a luxury item, and millet was the staple.
pinkcheems t1_jdb2py4 wrote
I don't think there was a concept of luxury 7000years ago. If you are situated near river you can grow how much rice you want there is no land limitation.
bigfatfurrytexan t1_jdb2yry wrote
Hmm...I'd need to see evidence that goods weren't traded at that time. I don't believe that's true.
pinkcheems t1_jdb3b8x wrote
How trading is related to luxury?
bigfatfurrytexan t1_jdb3m9a wrote
Luxury is defined by availability. A few people growing rice for themselves on a riverbank doesn't create rice from it's archaic form. Availability is defined by existence, then a trade route to acquire other goods.
This is the human way, especially in India.
pinkcheems t1_jdb5qdb wrote
Indus valley civilization worked on a community level not on the individual level. Everything they had was distributed equally. For example there was no division of houses between rich, poor, king, soldiers. All the houses in IVC were equipped with same facilities. Your initial point of argument was that rice and wheat developed very recently but when I provided you sources then you changed your argument and started spewing random bullshit like it was luxury. Man atleast stick to your point.
bigfatfurrytexan t1_jdc6x7z wrote
They didn't develop recently, and that wasn't the initial point. The initial point, and the one I asserted, was that it wasn't a widespread staple crop. Because it wasn't Millet was. Rice only recently became a global staple crop.
crazyhadron t1_jdb383i wrote
lol no unless you plant the rice in the fucking river, you have to have mechanisms to pump that water out into the fields. And precisely control the level of water as well.
Also, white rice is a very recent cultivar. Black and red rice used to be the norm, and they tasted like crap.
[deleted] t1_jdb3c1t wrote
[removed]
fear_the_god t1_jdb7583 wrote
If he's talking in the sense of food, that can be justified upto a point, like people may not get anything they desire on there finger tips, but considering the post, for being populated for so long, it gives us little idea about the environment around, and considering Indian culture, still more than 50% population is vegitarian, no meat or even right now those who do, are in no comparison with other people. So, there diet may have consisted most farm products. And when you go back to Indus valley Civilization, it's said to be the one of the most advance civilization of that time, and it's locations is around some of most fertile lands in the world. I can't speak for China about there culture and discoveries, but Just to say that, they have little yield compared to now, still they had less population to feed and more fertile land and literally way better earth for it.
ElfMage83 t1_jd7b5qg wrote
This is not surprising when you remember that just those two countries together have over two billion people at this point.
Early_Two7377 t1_jd89db8 wrote
Over 3
General_Derangement t1_jd7czbd wrote
I've always wondered how China has managed to sustain such a large population despite having been subject to and of some of the deadliest wars in history (in terms of sheer casualties).
GreenHandbag2 t1_jd7f0wa wrote
They were subject to deadly wars because of their population.
SomeIndividual1 t1_jd8grbd wrote
implying low population country don't have just as bloody war
GreenHandbag2 t1_jd8tsyu wrote
Kinda hard to kill 100 million people when your population is just 15 million.
SomeIndividual1 t1_jd8vekv wrote
so let say a country of 1 million, lost 500k life. its not as bloody as a war as above?
GreenHandbag2 t1_jd8wnq0 wrote
The whole discussion was that China only had wars with insane causality rates because they had a large population, the procentage that died was similar to European wars. You're just restating my point, maybe try reading before you comment.
dylanjohn87 t1_jd8y90g wrote
There is more blood in 50 million people than 1 million people. So yes, a lot less bloody
blunt_analysis t1_jdaei4a wrote
There are entire Native American/African tribes which were probably wiped completely out with ~100s of deaths. We probably don't know much about them because they didn't have expansive empires or significant written histories of such conflicts.
We probably still do cultural eradication of small groups like this every few years even today as society modernizes.
Going back into history the early european settlers were almost completely eradicated by the invading proto-indo-europeans (90%+ genetic replacement on the Y-chromosome).
grumble11 t1_jd968yt wrote
Huge agricultural base - long growing season, large highly fertile areas, pumping out a lot of calories. Also pretty big countries in general.
Sapatilhas t1_jd9qar6 wrote
all you have to do to understand that is to look at China in Google Earth.
[deleted] t1_jd8jbco wrote
[deleted]
Cleantech2020 t1_jd94qmy wrote
Once you have a large population, you keep on having a large population
BattdPlayer t1_jd9mopt wrote
Famine and war say otherwise.
Karatekan t1_jd8mtc0 wrote
The Mediterranean and the Near East had comparable populations for most of their history. It was only really after the 1600’s that India and China truly diverged and Europe became the population center in the West.
Suryansh_Singh247 t1_jdc6q1n wrote
Europe was never the population center of the world. Economic center yes, but not population.
Academic-Total2029 t1_jd8t63n wrote
They must be better than everyone else.
sonofoguntubi t1_jdk7if1 wrote
Sounds like they have a 6000 year head start.
Lost_Arix t1_jd8yuv6 wrote
They also had the half of the world's wealth before they git invaded
[deleted] t1_jd74qnh wrote
[deleted]
IllMonitor7559 t1_jd75ndr wrote
Maybe if we focus on the fact that they have rich and diverse cultures instead, the comments section won't turn into a dumpster fire.
HappyHighwayman t1_jd8bavm wrote
And look how well they’re doing!
absolutelyshafted t1_jd8ddoy wrote
Their long term prospects are quite good and they were on top of the technology game for most of their history
jiyujinkyle t1_jd8s6a3 wrote
Unfortunately with climate change my money is not on their long term prospects.
absolutelyshafted t1_jd8wa89 wrote
>people will suffer so the country will never succeed
You would’ve done well in the 1800’s and 1900’s lol
jointheredditarmy t1_jd8056t wrote
My biggest fear is that this means China is actually ahead, not behind, when it comes to government development. Maybe as population density increases governments gravitate towards more autocratic. Certainly seems to be going that way in the US and we’re only a 5th of china’s population.
[deleted] t1_jd9m6jg wrote
India has been the second most populous country in the world and has been a democracy since independence.
Autocracy can happen anywhere and to any society regardless of population.
blunt_analysis t1_jdaf1zj wrote
I have my theories around this - but also worth remembering that early governments didn't really understand modern economics or a knowledge economy - the most recentl iteration of Chinese government is only a few decades old and even they have been regressing in terms of institutions with nothing positive to show for it.
The Deng Xiaoping -> Hu Jintao period had a lot more achievements then the period prior or after and at that time the CCP was relatively more open and more rules-based rather than personality based.
In the long arc - I think successful governments needs meritocracy, which has both a technocratic and a democratic component. The technocratic component is needed to make sure things are executed well and complex problems are well understood - and the democratic component is needed so that the technocrats don't become divorced from reality and turn into a kleptocratic elite that starts acting against the benefit of the majority.
This doesn't necessarily mean a 1-man-1-vote standard democratic system - but you do need a government that is responsive to the public in some form. In Singapore for e.g. you can't really call it a democracy but the state is quite responsive to public issues. On the other hand you can have a kind of democracy where you don't really have a lot of competence which will lead to people choosing idiotic self destructive policies. Most successful advancing countries have found some balance between these two.
KanosKohli t1_jd7bojd wrote
Which is why I say treat their traditional medical knowledge systems with some respect.
These are two civilizations that know a trick or two about living longer and recovering from illness.
[deleted] t1_jd7ov2x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd8c9qq wrote
Lmfao every. single. dude. I’ve ever seen with this opinion has been a sleazy fuckin’ scam artist.
crazyhadron t1_jd8jwvp wrote
Well, the west is slowly realizing that maybe medical knowledge refined over thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years might not be all bullshit (Ayurveda).
Turmeric latte, charcoal and salt toothpastes, ashwagandha, what have you.
Traditional chinese medicine (like a fuckin cobra drowned in a bottle of cheap wine) is still utter bullshit, though.
ArOnodrim t1_jd7av3n wrote
They have been centers of rice production. Which is the essential agricultural ingredient to large populations.