从这里了解印度人对中国的看法

印度和中国为什么有那么多人口?

2015-02-28 12:00 123个评论 字号:

从历史的角度来说,印度和中国为什么人口众多,尤其是相较像欧洲和南美这样的地区而言?历史上,中国人和印度人比其他地区的人更健康吗?是因为农业上更胜一筹吗?中国和印度地区的人口一直相对较多吗?历史上是否有一个时期,人口稠密地区的人口密度从整体上是均衡的?
也许这个问题更加偏向社会科学,但是我真的很想了解历史上,比如说四千年来,人口密度是怎么变化或怎么保持不变的。我真的搞不明白,中国和印度是怎样在如此长的时间里,保持相比世界其他人类居住地区更多的人口的。

译者:荏苒不止
来源:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-336609-1-1.html
外文:http://www.reddit.com/

20151425090648

From a historical perspective, what is the reason for the relatively high populations of India and China, compared to places like Europe and South America, for example? Were the Indians and Chinese of the past comparatively healthier than people in other areas?

【问题】从历史的角度来说,印度和中国为什么人口众多,尤其是相较像欧洲和南美这样的地区而言?历史上,中国人和印度人比其他地区的人更健康吗?

Was their agriculture more ‘successful?’
Has the relatively high human population of these areas always been the case?
Was there a time in history that the population density was more ‘evenly balanced’ over populated areas as a whole? (For example, at some point in history, have all populated areas had generally the same population density? If so, why has this changed?)
This may be more of a Social Science question, but I am really interested to understand how population density has changed – or not changed – over the last, say 4000 years.
I can’t really understand what it is about India and China that has, for such a long time, supported such a large population compared to other parts of the inhabited world.

【问题补充】是因为农业上更胜一筹吗?

中国和印度地区的人口一直相对较多吗?

历史上是否有一个时期,人口稠密地区的人口密度从整体上是均衡的?(比如说,在历史上的某个特定时期,所有人口稠密地区的人口密度都相同?如果有,那么是什么改变了这一情况?)

也许这个问题更加偏向社会科学,但是我真的很想了解历史上,比如说四千年来,人口密度是怎么变化或怎么保持不变的。

我真的搞不明白,中国和印度是怎样在如此长的时间里,保持相比世界其他人类居住地区更多的人口的。

回复

darwinfish86 121赞同
The short answer is crop yield. Rice has a very high yield and a much higher nutrient content than most other agricultural crops. An acre of planted rice produces much more food with a higher nutrient density than an equivalent acre of wheat or barley, resulting in a larger yearly surplus and therefore can sustain higher populations on an equal amount of land.

Rice also has the advantage over wheat and other grains in that it requires very little processing in order to obtain an edible product. With wheat, the chaff must be separated from the grains, which then must be ground into flour and only then can it be cooked and consumed. Rice, on the other hand, once separated from the chaff can be cooked directly without further steps. (Although further milling may be desired to remove excess bran from the rice, turning “brown rice” into “white rice”.)

Rice does require more water to grow than wheat, but the monsoon rains of India and the fertile river valleys of China (fed by the monsoon rains falling in the Himalayas) have long been prime rice-growing areas that had plenty of water and as a result have been capable of supporting massive populations.

If you are interested more in this subject I would recommend Kenneth Pomeranz’s The Great Divergence.

简单来说是因为农作物产量。水稻产量很高,而且营养含量比其他大多数农作物要高得多。同样面积的土地面积,种植水稻相比种植小麦或大麦能够收获更高产量、含有更多营养物质的食物;从而每年留下更多余粮,在土地面积不变的情况下供养更多人口。

与小麦和其他谷物相比,水稻的另一个优点是,为获取可入口的食物所花的精力比其他谷物更少。对于小麦来说,在脱壳、研磨成面粉后才可以料理、食用。而水稻在脱壳后就可以直接料理,无需其他步骤。(虽然进一步的研磨可以脱去麸皮,将“糙米”变成“精米”)。

种植水稻确实比种植小麦要更多的水,但是被季风带来的降水滋养的印度和拥有肥沃河谷的中国(从喜马拉雅山脉顺势而下的季风带来的降水滋润着这些河谷)长久以来就是降水丰沛的主要稻米种植区,所以才能哺育大量的人口。

如果你对这个问题有更深层次兴趣的话,我推荐彭慕兰的《大分流》。

 

一楼EvanRWT 40赞同
I’m sorry, I don’t believe this explanation. There are several problems with it:

Rice is not higher yield than wheat. Both plants have the same photochemistry, and are roughly equivalent in terms of their efficacy at converting sunlight to food. In India, wheat yields are higher (2.9 tons per hectare) compared to rice (2.3 tons per hectare). Of course, yields were much lower for both in the past, but I don’t see why rice yields would be higher.

Wheat has been cultivated in the Indian subcontinent for as long as rice. There is evidence of wheat cultivation as early as 8000 – 6000 BC at Mehrgarh. The Indus Valley Civilization practiced mixed farming, and cultivated both rice and wheat (as well as barley, legumes, and a number of other crops).

Rice does not have a higher nutritional content than wheat. It does have about 10% more calories than wheat, but on the other hand, wheat has 75% more protein than rice. Nutritional value is a mix of a number of things, it’s not determined by calories alone.
I don’t know much about the history of agriculture in China, but I do know a bit about its history in India. India has always had a mixed system, with both rice and wheat grown as staples through antiquity. There are regional differences (more rice in the south and east, more wheat in the north), but the subcontinent has produced both in vast quantities for many thousands of years.
Here’s why I think India (and perhaps the same reasons are partly applicable to China too) has always had high populations:
India has a tropical climate and multiple growing seasons in the year. In fact, traditionally, Indian crops are divided into rabi and kharif — rabi being sown in winter and harvested in the spring, and kharif being sown in spring and harvested in late fall, which is the monsoonal season in India. Wheat is a rabi crop, rice is kharif. They don’t interfere with each other — in many parts of north India, both wheat and rice are grown on the same land seasonally. Indian rice is typically not deep water rice (grown in alluvial floodplains of S-E Asia) but rather it’s shallow water rice, which does not require full submergence in water. So the reason why India could support a large population was because it grew a lot of food in multiple growing seasons, not because they grew rice. They grew lots of crops, including many other cereals, which were dominant in different parts of the subcontinent.

India has huge amounts of arable land. This often comes as a surprise to people, seeing that India is only the 7th largest country in the world, far behind such giants as the US or Canada or Russia or China. But if you rank countries in terms of arable land, India is second — slightly behind the US, but ahead of China, Russia, Brazil, Canada. If you throw in Pakistan (which is a 70-year old creation), then India has the largest amount of arable land of any country in the world.

So the reason why India had such a large population was because they have the largest area of arable land, and the fact that the climate allows 2 or more growing seasons every year. China is not far behind, and it seems likely that they also supported large populations for the same reason. The anomaly here is not India or China, but rather the US. Why did the US not produce similarly large populations despite also having large amounts of arable land. They didn’t have rice or wheat, but they did have corn, which has a higher yield than both rice and wheat. In fact, corn has the highest yield of any cereal crop.

I suppose it may have to do with being part of the new world, and many old world improvements in agricultural technologies not reaching them until late. The absence of large domesticated animals to pull plows and break earth, the fact that many tribes weren’t agricultural tribes to begin with, but were hunter/gatherers instead probably also factored in.

回复层主:
对不起,我不同意这个解释。这个解释有以下几个问题:

水稻的产量并不比小麦高。这两种植物的光化学反应相同,将光能转化为植物能的效率也大致相同。在印度,小麦的单产(2.9吨/公顷)比水稻的单产(2.3吨/公顷)更高。当然,历史上两者的产量都要低得多。但是我看不出来水稻的产量高在哪里。

小麦在印度半岛的种植历史与水稻一样漫长。在梅赫尔格尔发现了在公元前8000年到公元前6000年左右种植小麦的痕迹。印度河流域文明实行的是混合种植,种植水稻的同时也种植小麦(还有大麦,豆类以及其他一些农作物)。

水稻的营养物质含量并不必小麦高。水稻的卡路里含量确实比小麦高10%左右,但是另一方面小麦的蛋白质含量比水稻高75%。营养价值要考量众多因素,而不仅仅取决于卡里路数值。

我对中国的农耕历史所知不多,但是我对印度的农耕历史略有了解。印度种植体系一直以来都是混合型的,在整个历史上小麦与水稻都是作为主食来种植的。地区差异确实存在(东部、南部种植更多水稻,北部种植更多小麦),但是整个印度次大陆种植的这两种作物的数量都非常巨大,且数千年来一直如此。

以下是我认为印度长久以来拥有众多人口的原因(这些原因可能会部分适用于中国):

印度是热带气候且一年多熟。事实上,传统上印度的作物分为早春作物和秋收作物——早春作物在冬天播种,在春天收获;而秋收作物在春天播种,在晚秋收获;这也是印度的季风季节。小麦是早春作物,而水稻是秋收作物。它们彼此互不干扰——在印度北部的许多地区,小麦和水稻在同一块土地上随季节交替种植。印度的水稻不是深水水稻(生长在东南亚的冲击平原上)而是典型的、不需要完全被水淹没的浅水水稻。因此,印度之所以拥有众多人口的原因是印度在复数个农作物生长季节里种植大量食物,而不是因为印度种植水稻。印度人种植大量的农作物,包括其他谷物,在印度次大陆的不同地区,占据主导地位的作物是不同的。

印度有大量的耕地。这常常让很多人吃惊,因为印度的领土面积在世界上仅仅排名第七,远远落后于像美国、加拿大、俄罗斯或中国这样的大块头。但如果按照可耕种土地面积对国家进行排名的话,印度是第二(译注:原链接在此http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country)——稍稍落后于美国,但高于中国、俄罗斯、巴西和加拿大。如果加上巴基斯坦——仅仅在70年前才被割离出印度——那么印度比世界上的其他国家拥有更大的可耕种土地面积。

因此,印度之所以拥有众多人口的原因是印度的耕地面积世界第一,以及印度的气候使得一年两熟或多熟成为可能。中国的耕地面积与印度相比没有少多少,所以中国之所以人口众多的原因应该也是相同的。在这儿不正常的是美国而不是印度或中国。为什么美国与中国和印度一样有大量的耕地却没能供养同一个数量级的人口。美国不种植水稻或小麦,但是美国种植玉米,而玉米的产量比水稻和小麦都高。实际上,玉米的产量比其他任何谷物都高。

我想这可能与美国是(地理大发现中的)新世界的一部分有关,许多旧世界中对农业技术的改进直到最近才传播到美国。由于缺乏大型家畜来拉犁、破土,导致许多部族没有从农业技能开始发展,而是转向狩猎和采集,这些因素也要考虑进来。

 

二楼loadbearingchairs 2赞同
Do you have any source recommendations for further investigation into this topic?

回复楼上:
你对能促进研究这个话题的资料来源有什么建议吗?

 

三楼EvanRWT 2 赞同
Which information in particular? I’ve covered several different disciplines in my post – history, geography, biology, food production. Could you be a bit more specific?

For history, I recommend M.S. Randhawa’s “A History of Agriculture in India”. It’s a multi-volume set, but the first volume covers the period of interest, from the beginnings of agriculture to the 12th century. It’s published by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Here’s a PDF copy of the first volume.

Another good source is the collection titled “History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization”, edited by Chattopathyaya. This is also a multi-volume set, but Volume 5 covers the history of Indian agriculture.

In addition, pick any book on ancient Indian history to understand the general context. Specifically early neolithic sites associated with farming, such as Mehrgarh, some coverage of the Indus Valley Civilization, the later shift of population centers to the Gangetic plain. I don’t have any particular recommendations, just any book that covers these periods.

Regarding crop yields, I would recommend reading a primer on the evolutionary history of grasses. Almost all modern cereal crops – including wheat, rice, barley, etc. – are grasses, which appeared relatively recently in the geological record. In particular, you would want to read about the different kinds of photochemistry used by plants to harness solar energy into the production of food. This gets somewhat technical, and I don’t know your biology background, but you would need to understand the mechanism of photosynthesis, and the different types of photosynthesis – C3, C4, CAM – that are used by plants, and how each type sets limits on yield based on environmental conditions. What the limiting factors or bottlenecks are for each kind, is it sunlight, is it carbon dioxide, is it moisture. You can start with a basic primer like this one, and then go from there.

Regarding geography, there is not much to say. A good physical atlas of the world is a great starting point, and there are dozens on the internet. Vegetation maps and maps that show climate zones that can be overlaid on relief maps will give you an idea of the extent of these farmlands in different parts of the world.

If you are looking to verify specific facts I mentioned in my posts, please say which one and I’ll try to find a reference for it. I provided a link for the areas of arable land by region in my previous post. Here’s a link showing why northern India has such a huge alluvial plain – because the flow of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna system is immense, the 3rd largest in the world after the Amazon and Congo, and it brings millions of tons of silt down from the Himalayas every year.

回复楼上:
具体是指哪方面的资料?我在本楼的发言中涉及到了几个不同的领域——历史、地理、生物、食品生产。您能说的更具体一点吗?

如果是历史方面,我推荐M•S•兰德哈瓦的《印度农业史》。这是部多卷书,但是第一卷就涵盖了您感兴趣的时期——从农业的萌芽一直到12世纪。这部书由印度农业发展理事会出版。这是本书第一卷的PDF版链接:

另一个不错的资料来源是由Chattopathyaya (吐槽:这个机翻也翻不了的名字和那个别扭的书名都是自己蒙的,求大神告知正确译法)编辑的一个叫“印度文明的科学、哲学和文化史”的集子。这也是多卷本,但第五卷有关于印度农业历史的部分。

另外,随意选一本有关印度古代史的书来了解大背景。具体来说,像梅赫尔格尔一样的新石器时代与农业有关的历史遗迹,关于印度河流域文明的报导,以及此后人口中心向恒河平原的转移,涵盖这些时期的书都可以。

对于作物产量,我建议您阅读一些关于草本植物进化历史的入门书籍。绝大部分现代谷类植物——包括小麦,水稻,大麦,等等——都是草本植物,相比较而言都是最近才出现在地质记录上的。您尤其应当了解的是,植物在将太阳能转化成食物时所利用的不同的光化学反应。这需要一定的技术基础,我不清楚您的生物学知识背景,但是您需要了解光合作用的机制,以及不同的光合作用类型——也就是植物使用的C3,C4和CAM类型(译注:这里的C3,C4和CAM是指植物在进行光合作用时,二氧化碳固定的最初产物。如果最初产物是含有三个碳原子的分子,就是碳三植物,即C3植物,而 大部分植物为碳三植物;如果含有四个碳原子,就是碳四植物,即C4植物,如玉米,高粱,甘蔗等;有一些干旱地区的特殊植物,在阳光下的最初产物为C3,在黑暗中的最初产物为C4,这样的植物被称为CAM植物,如仙人掌,菠萝,兰花等),以及不同的光合作用类型在不同环境下的产量限制,每种类型的限制因素和瓶颈,是光线,二氧化碳,还是湿度?你可以从像这样的基本入门读物开始,然后从这里开始延伸。

关于地理方面就乏善可陈了。一本好的世界地图集是个很好的起点,而这样的资源在网上有很多。可以显示在三维地图上的植被图和气候区域图能够划分这些耕地在世界不同地区的分布,这可以给你提供一些关于耕地范围分布的启示。

如果您想验证我的回复中一些具体的观点,请指出是哪一个,我会设法找到它的参考资料。在我之前的一个帖子里,我贴出了区域耕地面积的链接。这个链接解释了为什么印度北部有如此巨大的冲击平原——因为恒河 – 布拉马普特拉河 – 梅克纳河流域的流量如此巨大的,是继亚马逊河流域和刚果河流域之后的流量第三大的流域,每年从喜马拉雅山脉上冲刷下来的泥土有数百万吨之多。

 

四楼Forgotmyoldlogon 2 赞同
OP here, follow up question: I was more curious about the population density disparity between Europe (the entire continent as a whole,) and India and China throughout history.
I understand now that agricultural practices can have a big impact on population density; does it follow that Europe simply has less arable land than China and India – or a lower crop yield in general?
My curiosity about rice has been piqued. (I have heard that rice and beans are a ‘perfect protein,’ but I may be wrong about that.) Any idea why rice was/is not such a widely eaten staple food in Europe? Has rice been grown in Europe historically? (The explanation of rice being less labour intensive to go from field to fork made sense to me.)

【楼主贴】

我是楼主,还有一些后续的问题:我对于中国、印度和欧洲(将整个欧洲大陆作为整体来看)之间在历史上的人口密度差距更感兴趣,我现在知道了农业传统对于人口密度很大的影响,这是不是意味着,这一差距的原因是欧洲的耕地面积比中国和印度更少,或者总体上的农作物产量更低?

我对水稻的好奇心被激起了(我曾听说过水稻和豆类是“完美的蛋白质”,但我可能搞错了)。你能解释为什么大米在欧洲不是被广泛接受的主食吗?历史上水稻有没有在欧洲种植过?(水稻从田间到饭桌上需要更低的劳动密度这个理由在我看来确实很有道理)



分页: 1 2 3 4

友荐云推荐

无觅相关文章插件,快速提升流量