I’m watching a British TV programme called QI where a bunch of people discuss cleverish stuff in a vaguely amusing way. At the moment they are discussing the theory that China, which was so much more advanced than Europe, fell behind because they drank tea. The theory is that the Chinese became experts at producing pottery (china) but had no incentive to produce glass. If you think about the knock on effects, particularly in academia and research, of not having glass this kind of makes sense and might explain why nothing much new came out of China during the last millennium.
Explains a lot on Britain if you ask me 
What does beer for Germans do, World wars? 
Maybe those clever people should take a look at Joseph Needham’s history of Chinese science and technology for some broader views on the subject.
Baidu says that the Chinese have had glass for about 2000 years.
The other theory is that innovation develops quickest when there is a wide communication of ideas - which is why the geographical belt of Europe - Middle East - China developed so much quicker than North or South America, Australasia. Sub-Saharan Africa developed slowly because it was separated from the rest of the world by the Sahara.
The theory goes that innovation in China stopped when its emperors decided to close its borders to “barbarians” in the 15th and 16th centuries. So great exploratory fleets such as Zheng He’s stopped sailing just as the Europeans started exploring themselves. China isolated itself just at the wrong time.
The development of glass probably wasn’t influenced by what beverages people drank. While China was becoming expert in producing porcelain because they drank tea, Europe wasn’t becoming expert in glass production because they drank beer - that’s because in Europe they were using wood or pewter for their drinking vessels. Both regions were using glass for fenestration. It was cross fertilisation of ideas that allowed Europeans to develop grinding methods for glass to produce lenses.
I think the black death and the encouragement to think out of the box, which slowly emerged in Europe from the late middle ages should be credited for giving the impetus to the western takeover of the world.
China was developed enough to embark on the same path in late Song, but did not do it, I blame the pholisopical underpinning of their culture.
The Chinese invented everything, including the universe, 5000 years ago. A bit silly of the Brits to have forgotten that.
I thought that was the Koreans 
I thought that was the Koreans [/quote]
You have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people, a van will be around shortly to take you to the [strike]concentration[/strike] [strike]torture[/strike] re-education camp
[quote=“greenmark”]The other theory is that innovation develops quickest when there is a wide communication of ideas - which is why the geographical belt of Europe - Middle East - China developed so much quicker than North or South America, Australasia. Sub-Saharan Africa developed slowly because it was separated from the rest of the world by the Sahara.
The theory goes that innovation in China stopped when its emperors decided to close its borders to “barbarians” in the 15th and 16th centuries. So great exploratory fleets such as Zheng He’s stopped sailing just as the Europeans started exploring themselves. China isolated itself just at the wrong time.
The development of glass probably wasn’t influenced by what beverages people drank. While China was becoming expert in producing porcelain because they drank tea, Europe wasn’t becoming expert in glass production because they drank beer - that’s because in Europe they were using wood or pewter for their drinking vessels. Both regions were using glass for fenestration. It was cross fertilisation of ideas that allowed Europeans to develop grinding methods for glass to produce lenses.[/quote]
That sounds like a more probable explanation. I’ll forward it to the BBC, lazy buggers.
[quote=“Mr He”]I think the black death and the encouragement to think out of the box, which slowly emerged in Europe from the late middle ages should be credited for giving the impetus to the western takeover of the world.
China was developed enough to embark on the same path in late Song, but did not do it, I blame the pholisopical underpinning of their culture.[/quote]
China was too monolithic, the existence of many small competing states allowed the development of technology and universities and different ways of thinking, the best ideas and most advanced states naturally moved forward faster. Constant wars and the battle for resources between these states also pushed their faster evolution.
[quote=“headhonchoII”][quote=“Mr He”]I think the black death and the encouragement to think out of the box, which slowly emerged in Europe from the late middle ages should be credited for giving the impetus to the western takeover of the world.
China was developed enough to embark on the same path in late Song, but did not do it, I blame the pholisopical underpinning of their culture.[/quote]
China was too monolithic, the existence of many small competing states allowed the development of technology and universities and different ways of thinking, the best ideas and most advanced states naturally moved forward faster. Constant wars and the battle for resources between these states also pushed their faster evolution.[/quote]
Agree - note that warfare and the fact that European nations had to watch their neighbors also helped.
Different states also meant that ideas not popular one place could prosper in another. That gave Europe the dynamics needed to overtake China.
China was a monolith a lot of the time - still is, actually - and they were and to some extent still are guided by a philosopher who was looking toward the past when he lived some 2,500 years ago.