Sorry, responding late because I am traveling. The race is too complicated a question to discuss here. But if we narrow down on the problem of China vs. Europe, this discussion would be beyond the point. China was good enough to report tremendous progress at the time Europe had little if any. Sure, China hade it's periods of disunion, but those were usually the times of bloody internecine conflict. Wherever it was prosperous, it was usually united and tightly centralized, there was never a question of a Portugal emerging there. So, once the emperor pronounced the policy of closed doors, it was established for centuries. In Europe, by contrast, a stagnant France or Spain was always compensated by Netherlands or Britain.
Modernity emerged in a bloody internicide conflict of the Reformation. Chinese dynasties changed twice with foreign rulers obliterating centuries of previous decisions. The New World was discovered to find a trade passage to India and spice islands. China had this trade next door. There was no real incentive to geographic curiosity. I also disagree that Europe was not making progress. Starting from the Crusades it was ceaseless upward motion. By the time of the scholastic revolution there was no question which part of the world is in the ascend and which is in a decline. Geography is no substitute for intellectual daring.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject