English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

whereas there are larger countries in the world.

2006-09-27 16:56:13 · 10 answers · asked by dvman56 1 in Social Science Anthropology

10 answers

Both China and India (1.4 and 1.1 billion respectively) are located in the best possible places to raise pre technological societies. Lots of room, decent weather, lots of natural resources.

They had superior agricultural production for thousands of yers to get a head start on the rest of the world.

Places like Egypt or the Middle East although they invented agriculture earlier, had much more marginal and easily depleted arable land. Those populations either migrated or were otherwise limited from reproducing as quickly.

Even modern "breadbasket" countries like Canada or the USA or Australia would not be able to sustain large dense populations without modern technology, as they are largely deserts.

China and India are victims of being too easy to live in! But because it is relatively easy to survive there, certain material cultures and technologies were ignored, whereas countries with more challengeing environments (like the UK) had pressure on them to develop machines and technology to alleviate the harsh conditions.

Like Winter.

500 years ago, there was nothing to indicate that the US, or even Europe would be the dominant culture as all the wealth and opulance of that era was in the two most populated regions...India and China.

2006-09-28 11:48:08 · answer #1 · answered by aka DarthDad 5 · 0 0

For one thing, they have kept their political unity. The only time in measurable history that China was not the most populous political entity was around the 200s AD when China was divided in two and the Roman Empire had more people than either of the two. If all of the Indian subcontinent were one country it would have more people than China now.

Rice-growing allows for a higher density of population than any other form of agriculture, so the most densely populated areas of the world pre-1750 were the lowland non-desert parts of China, South Asia, and Java which is where paddy fields are most possible. Simply in terms of the number of families that can support themselves in a peasant culture per hectare.

These two facts give you a 'baseline' position in AD1900. In the 20th century the vital factor is poverty. Death rates declined in every developing country with the spread of modern medicine (doing away with previous epidemics) and transport (doing away with local famines by importing and distributing food). Birth rates declined soon afterwards when, and only when, the standard of living of the poor improved to a certain fairly basic level such that economic benefit favoured having three or four educated children rather than seven to ten uneducated ones. I recall a report of a farmer in Burkina Faso in the 1990s whose daughter (aged six) and donkey fell gravely ill at the same time. He could afford either to take his daughter to the doctor or his donkey to the vet, but not both. He chose the donkey. Why? He explained that he and his wife could breed another daughter, but if they lost the donkey they would have to buy another. It is when people rise out of that depth of poverty that birth rates decline. And China just didn't make it that good in the 1910s, 20s, & 30s, only with the "iron rice bowl" policies of the 1950s.

BTW, there are only 3 larger countries in area than China including occupied Tibet and Sinjiang, and all 3 have vast square kilometres of tundra and polar waste -- Russia, Canada, and the US (Alaska).

2006-10-01 09:28:22 · answer #2 · answered by MBK 7 · 0 0

It was believed that having many children would be good for China and make China strong also children were to bring luck and good fortune. Unfortunately, having too large a population has made China poor.

EDIT: Also, if you look at the statistics, it's usually poverty sticken areas and people that have the most children. In North America and other developed parts of the world couples are having fewer and fewer children. This has to do with economics and sexual education.

2006-09-27 17:17:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Birth and death rates used to be about the same , keeping the population stable. Women had more children too but a large number of them died before they reach the age of six. With the advances in science and technology and people going abroad to be educated this all led to a success in reducing death rates and infant deaths, increasing the life span and thus the population.

2006-09-29 00:21:15 · answer #4 · answered by VelvetRose 7 · 0 0

I think theres some law about contraceptions and abortions there but im not so sure.

2006-09-27 17:04:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

No TV for 50 years, no movies, farming society, and all they had to do for fun was have sex.

Guess what????

2006-09-28 04:48:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

domestication of plants and animals, baby.

2006-09-28 17:07:23 · answer #7 · answered by eo 2 · 0 0

Very successful and ancient culture and those chinese girls are hot

2006-09-27 17:00:50 · answer #8 · answered by JimZ 7 · 2 1

has your parents ever told you about the birds and the bees?

2006-09-27 17:05:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Chinese girls have the biggest boobs out of all the other asian girls.

2006-09-27 17:04:31 · answer #10 · answered by Du Hast mich? 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers