What motive does a centralized dominant power have to allow any progress?
A culture/ideology that says the ruler is supposed to be benevolent and try to improve their subjects’ lives, which of course was not literally followed, but would make it hard to fully suppress things that could clearly make people’s lives better, like many kinds of technological progress. And historically, AFAIK few if any of the Chinese emperors tried to directly suppress technological innovation, they just didn’t encourage it like the West did, through things like patent laws and scientific institutions.
The entire world would likely look more like North Korea.
Yes, directionally it would look more like North Korea, but I think the controls would not have to be as total or harsh, because there is less of a threat that outside ideas could rush in and overturn the existing culture/ideology the moment you let your guard down.
I don’t think patent laws are the key difference other property rights are more important.
Gutenberg was living in a free city and was able to take a loan to start a startup with 15-25 employees on the promise of an unproven technology without any patent laws protecting him. Merchants were strong enough at the time so that idea of creating a startup with the main motivation of financial return was viable.
Chinese rulers could just take whatever they wanted from merchants, so merchants were less powerful and did not make similar capital investments. When Europeans sailed across the oceans, they did it because the ability to make a profit from trade. When Chinese did it, they wanted to bring home gifts to the emperor.
The key difference is that European merchants could make very expensive capital investments that then produced returns and reinvest those returns to produce even more value.
What motive does a centralized dominant power have to allow any progress? The entire world would likely look more like North Korea.
A culture/ideology that says the ruler is supposed to be benevolent and try to improve their subjects’ lives, which of course was not literally followed, but would make it hard to fully suppress things that could clearly make people’s lives better, like many kinds of technological progress. And historically, AFAIK few if any of the Chinese emperors tried to directly suppress technological innovation, they just didn’t encourage it like the West did, through things like patent laws and scientific institutions.
Yes, directionally it would look more like North Korea, but I think the controls would not have to be as total or harsh, because there is less of a threat that outside ideas could rush in and overturn the existing culture/ideology the moment you let your guard down.
I don’t think patent laws are the key difference other property rights are more important.
Gutenberg was living in a free city and was able to take a loan to start a startup with 15-25 employees on the promise of an unproven technology without any patent laws protecting him. Merchants were strong enough at the time so that idea of creating a startup with the main motivation of financial return was viable.
Chinese rulers could just take whatever they wanted from merchants, so merchants were less powerful and did not make similar capital investments. When Europeans sailed across the oceans, they did it because the ability to make a profit from trade. When Chinese did it, they wanted to bring home gifts to the emperor.
The key difference is that European merchants could make very expensive capital investments that then produced returns and reinvest those returns to produce even more value.