當有人問nasa為什麼探索太空,nasa用了明朝做了靶子

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/Why_We_01pt1.html

Ming China

There is a value judgment in that last sentence -- that xenophobia and isolation are bad, but that they are in fact bad, I think, is borne out by history. The case most often cited for a societal decision not to explore -- with generally recognized bad effects -- is Ming China in the 15th century. You will find this case, for example, made in Bob Zubrin's books on Mars, and before that made by NASA Administrator James Beggs. Is it hype, or is it history?

Some day historians will be writing about whether or not WE chose wisely, not only to make a proposal to explore, but also to fund it.
The historical facts are quite clear. Historian Daniel Boorstin -- the recently deceased Librarian of Congress -- pointed out that in the early 15th century the biggest Chinese ships were up to ten times the size of Columbus's later in the century. While Columbus had 17 ships and 1500 men on the largest of his four expeditions, the Chinese Admiral Zheng He had 317 ships and 27,000 crewmen on the first of his six expeditions. Following a maritime tradition stretching back to the 11th century, from 1405-1433, these ships plied the seas of Southeast Asia, sailed to India, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and down the East Coast of Africa. (And yes, these are the voyages that Gavin Menzies addressed in his book 1421: The Year China Discovered America, although in my view that claim is not supported by good evidence.)

But what is important is this. Although Chinese state revenues were probably 100 times Portugal's, after the 1430s the Ming emperors had other priorities, and it was the Portuguese and other European countries that led the way in exploration. As Boorstin noted "When Europeans were sailing out with enthusiasm and high hopes, land-bound China was sealing her borders. Within her physical and intellectual Great Wall, she avoided encounter with the unexpected .... Fully equipped with the technology, the intelligence, and the national resources to become discoverers, the Chinese doomed themselves to be discovered."

In their recent world history, historians J. R. and William McNeill come to the same conclusions, and historians in general tend to agree that the Chinese chose poorly in the mid-15th century. By the 1470s, the McNeils wrote, even the skills needed to build great ships were lost. Boorstin called the withdrawal of the Chinese into their own borders, symbolized by the Great Wall of China that took its current form at that time, "catastrophic ... with consequences we still see today." The parallel with what is happening now, despite renewed attempts at space exploration, is striking. Some day historians will be writing about whether or not WE chose wisely, not only to make a proposal to explore, but also to fund it.
4
分享 2020-08-06

13 个评论

以古諷今太甚,失論史之道。道理正確,但史例錯誤,明朝不是共朝,明朝始終(整體)領先全球,士人庶民之水準亦非中共國人所能企及。此恕不詳論詳答。三人行必有吾師焉。知其正確道理,固步自封必衰,可矣。
農耕文明是無法征服任何其他文明的

人類的歷史已經一遍又一遍的證明

小農經濟的型態缺乏對外擴張的誘因及實力
大明獄、還有輸給滿州野豬皮!

而且這種吹捧有吊用,反襯本文論點正確

再先進固步自封也是遲早完蛋(就像明朝)

縱使一時落後也要銳意進取,就像二戰後日本

大陸?開始衰敗了!基本完蛋
這事情有趣之處在文外——在中美對抗的大環境下才會誕生這種“反思”中國歷史的文章,真是明嘲暗諷,大陰陽師
這明嘲暗諷用的真妙

還是NASA妙,找明朝例子一定是有中國通監修的!
太陽三觀測站 品葱娘创作者
文 化 輸 出
國 威 遠 揚
按《明史·郑和传》的讲法,所谓的“郑和宝船”长44丈,宽16丈。长宽比接近于5:2。这“船”能开?NASA的人是不是连基础的物理知识都忘光了?
当然,我更愿意相信NASA的人只是懒得考证就把白左的历史发明学抄上去了。
顺便郑和宝船世界最大这个说法明朝人自己估计都不信,他们的奏折上这么写:
该臣维琏会同巡按福建监察御史路振飞看得,红毛一番远去中国四万里,晨昏昼夜皆相反,后乃侵据咬吧,营窟台湾。其人深目长鼻,赤须朱发,其性贼虐尚雠杀,诸夷畏之。其舟长五十丈,横广六、七丈,名曰夹版,内有三层,皆置大铳外向,可以穿裂石城,震数十里,人船当之粉碎,是其流毒海上之长技有如此者。 

这摆明就是做题家不会算距离而已,因为科举不考。
農耕文明是無法征服任何其他文明的人類的歷史已經一遍又一遍的證明小農經濟的型態缺乏對外擴張的誘因及實力...

不是小农经济的问题,是专制极权的问题,专制政府不允许有任何不好控制的子民,而遥远边疆的殖民者正是此列。大航海时代的西欧一样是小农经济为支撑,贸易只是少数人的游戏。而小农的中国,近代在东南亚也有很多民间自发的殖民尝试,只是被欧洲和中国官府合力绞杀,到清末仅存台湾一地而已。

事实上一旦开放许可,小农经济的中国人同样是很擅长殖民的,比如清末开放柳条边后,中国人在满洲的殖民,成果就非常突出,
不是小农经济的问题,是专制极权的问题,专制政府不允许有任何不好控制的子民,而遥远边疆的殖民者正是此列...

相反高度发展的后工业社会不鼓励殖民。二战之后世界各国普遍出现了殖民能力低下的情况,人口向最富庶的省份聚集,随之带来的是边疆地区的不断萧条,北美澳洲欧洲日本韩国台湾中国莫不如是。因为工业社会,人和人之间的交流本身就能产生利润的缘故,偏远边疆在农业时代尚可自给自足,在工业时代则由于交流成本太高,彻底失去了竞争力。同时边远地区交通条件的改善,反而促进了富庶省份对边远地区的人才虹吸。
中国大陆性文明,殖民能力也仅仅是陆地上殖民,还要农耕区,进入草原之后就是被草原民族吊打,就算是中原鼎盛时期征服草原之后也没有能力汉化草原
东厂和锦衣卫就是明朝的吧

則近代西班牙設宗教裁判所,美國奴役黑人……莫陷入臭蟲論。要看整體。華夏士大夫之記述謂不可信,則明末多有西洋傳教士紀聞傳世,可取以觀明國之優劣得失。若今世不濟則厚責古人,今世有績則歸功今人,非君子所為也。

要发言请先登录注册

要发言请先登录注册