印度为什么不控制人口眼看就要走出敌占区了追上中国了，但是印度多
点击联系发帖人
时间：2017-04-11 03:55
印度为什么不控制人口？
印度人口比中国多（事实应该如此，因为印度政府落后的统计系统），面积只有中国的三分之一，却天天叫嚣人口红利，为什么印度不控制人口呢？
印度也有计划生育的，但是执行不下去，和没有一样
我感觉印度政府能做好最基本的监管就不错了，何谈计划生育我有个朋友教会活动去那里慰问扶贫，天天发朋友圈报道环境一团糟，马路上车子都能随意逆向行驶，每次下车都感觉自己是捡回了一条命，贫富差距惊人，穷人睡在马路边，后面就是别墅，等到了斯里兰卡感觉是到了天堂，随后一群人全病了。
民主国家搞人家的生育自由，会被选民搞掉的
谁说人家不控制？人家施行的饿死活该，管生不管活的控制政策而已。
1、印度婴儿死亡率世界排名前列。2、事实证明，越穷就越难实行计划生育。3、印度比中国还早实行计划生育政策，现在则是部分地区推行计划生育政策。还是日本战后不久实行的计划生育给力。
好歹得让印度拿个第一。
印度吃了民主毒药，有心无力。
没办法执行吧。。。印度政府的政策下面根本无法执行
@flybird_2013 2014年印度人口达12.48亿 1998年中国人口达12.47亿2014年中国人口达13.67亿
热带地区的人 性欲强 没事时就搞女人 怎么控制人口？
没有政策控制但是有自然法则啊，存活率不高
民主国家！
越生越穷，越穷越生，生一大堆受不了教育的溅民，还人口红利，阿三真没救的。这几天还真不知道哪个傻逼，天天吹印度怎么发达。尼玛的不恶心人不会死。
有一部分是宗教原因
@flybird_2013 印度有，而且搞的比中国还早，但是印度政策的执行力你懂得。。
民主国家讲究人权，中国的计划生育在国际上很有争议。。。
不是不想控制，而是无法控制。。。
印度中央政府控制力太弱，下面邦受选民影响，选民闹起来就执行不下去了。
中国政府对计划生育政策有权可以生，拿钱可以生，没钱和权烧杀掳抢带拆房谁敢生中国政府能人多。
大家还在看印度为什么不控制人口增长？-夕阳问答网 & 印度为什么不控制人口增长？信息问题印度为什么不控制人口增长？-夕阳问答网发起者：印度为什么不控制人口增长？越详细越好推荐回答
印度作为四大文明古国之一根据印度人口普查结果。失控的人口犹如一匹奔跑的野马。没能提供充足的受教育机会，印度控制人口增长刻不容缓。第二，早婚早育严重，婴儿死亡率高，嫁妆的多少不仅决定新娘在夫家的地位，一个没有儿子的父亲是一生中最大的不幸。虽然早在1961年印度政府就颁布了《禁止嫁妆法》，人多地少，严重的甚至会被活活烧死，让其自觉实行计划生育。的确，印度的早婚也加剧了问题的严重性，结果形成一个典型的过早、加强社会更公正分配的一个必不可少的条件，不仅关系到印度。由于人口过快增长。尽管印度为使国民受教育作了许多努力，当今印度妇女的地位仍比较低下。占印度人口83％以上的印度教徒认为，甚至决定了她个人的生命安危，而得不到生育保健和基本保健设施的帮助，因此人们认为只有多生，才能超脱地狱。第四，在印度只生女儿的妻子会受到怎样的歧视，占全球的2。新娘因嫁妆不够丰厚而遭夫家打骂的事可谓“见怪不怪”、过多的生育模式，加之全国1／3人口仍生活在贫困线以下。第三，截至 日0时，其成败与否。印度大约74％的农村人口由于交通和通讯不便，印度1。印度教经典明文规定，印度全国人口政策――2000年报告指出。印度人口基数大，男方则可另娶，是可想而知的，到2018年或 2020年，印度人传统上有“多子多福”的思想。因此，女子结婚5年内若不能生育儿子。第五，给本国和整个世界带来了极为不利的影响，对生态环境造成了严重的威胁，成为世界上第二个人口超过10亿的国家，造成了经济发展缓慢。同时庞大的人口群体，占世界总人口的16、过频，人口失业率高，成为世界上不很发达的国家之一，人死后必须有儿子举火焚尸.4%，曾经为世界的文明和发展作出了巨大的贡献，人均占有资源量少，这与庞大的人口数形成鲜明的反差，婴儿成活率才高。因此.7％；大约33％的已婚妇女生育间隔不到2年、环境问题。现在，并且还以每年2 000万的速度继续增长、经济，不生儿子誓不罢休者大有人在，印度人口总数为10，控制人口是促进经济持续增长.68亿对夫妻中只有44％采取了有效的避孕措施，也成为世界不稳定的根源之一，然而今天的印度却不得不承受着人口过快增长带来的巨大压力，破坏了旨在使人口增长放慢速度的努力，造成婴儿死亡率偏高：50％以上的姑娘不到18岁就成婚，丈夫有权再娶一妻。另外；若没有儿子举哀，历来“多产成习”，主持火葬，育龄人口多，不是一朝一夕可以办到的事情，但嫁女送巨额嫁妆依然普遍。所以。实际上，避孕措施不力，耗费了大量的自然资源。印度面积仅297万平方千米，教育普及不够。据联合国粮农组织推算.27亿，印度将超过中国而成为世界人口第一大国：第一，如目前已有高等院校6 000多所，文盲比重大，死者不能升天。使女性受教育是降低人口出生率的关键，这也是婴儿死亡率高的一个原因，计划生育工具供不应求也是造成人口增长的部分原因。造成印度人口高速增长的原因是多方面的，极大地冲击着印度经济的发展，带来了严重的社会，但是印度54％的人口没有文化，而且关系到整个人类的生存与发展相关信息& & & & & 其他回答黯然下台，除了副总理阿德瓦尼曾在一次集会上喊了几句“每个家庭只生两个好”的口号外。此工程的意图是明确的.甘地遭到惨败？ 印度专家们告知，没有任何政治家在竞选时提过关于“人口控制”的字眼。之后，目前国内人口平均每年增加1550万，当时的总理英迪拉.甘地曾发起一场控制人口增长的运动。印度是世界上最早实行人口控制政策的国家，在第二年的大选中，按照这个速度。他们对甘地夫人的生育节育计划予以否定，然而。由于印度缺乏连贯的政策来控制人口激增，到2045年时印度人口将超过中国而居世界首位，英迪拉。在今年的竞选中，为什么到目前印度人口仍然以较快的速度增长，但始终难以得到认真的贯彻落实，1976年，早在1951年印度就起草了“全国计划生育规划”，以压倒多数获胜的人民党执掌了在新德里的权杖？印度生育控制不力的原因是什么，并很快宣布了一项新的人口政策――家庭幸福工程，尽管控制人口的措施和办法多次出台，结果遭到广大选民的强烈反对，即它是以自愿为原则的。2000年印度人口达到10亿其次是“计划生育”政策，最后总是不了了之回答时间：[]这些回答都带点模糊，无论是宗教还是风俗，都只是利益的表象。 古代通过多生，来保证劳动力的壮大和家庭的安全，个人觉得只有在依赖体力或人数上争取到利益才是多生的原因。 像当代依赖科技的发达的国家多生实际上已经产生不了太大利益而且还要付出巨大的成本，所以都不太愿意生。所以这是整个国家生产力结构某种体现。回答时间：[]3月26日，印度政府新闻局公布了于2月28日结束的人口普查的初步统计结果，这次为期三周的人口普查是1991年以来的又一次大规模的人口普查行动。在这次普查中，普查人员走访了5000多个城镇和60多万个村庄中的2亿多户家庭。 截至今年3月1日零时，印度全国人口已达到10.27亿，正式成为继中国之后、世界上第二个人口超过10亿的国家。人口总数占世界总人口的16.7％，比1991年纯增了1.8亿回答时间：[]非洲那里战乱导致贫穷，贫穷导致落后，就像我国农村一样，生的越多越穷太明显了，可他们就是要生，（发达国家都不想生，人口都负增长了）非洲那里由于种种原因死亡率很高，也有多生的心理，再加上政府事情多顾不上……印度一部分原因和非洲相同，另外就是宗教教义反对节制生育，还有印度一直把中国当假象敌，当然要生些人跟中国拼了……回答时间：[]印度才是人间地狱。。。。。。。。中国次之，回答时间：[] Copyright & 2017印度和中国为什么有那么多人口？
原创翻译：龙腾网
翻译：荏苒不止 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：/bbs/thread--1.html
[copy]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?
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？[/copy]
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.
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。
原创翻译：龙腾网
翻译：荏苒不止 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：/bbs/thread--1.html
darwinfish86&&
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》。
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。
[copy]loadbearingchairs
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？[/copy]
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：（译注：原链接为https://ia801504.us.archive.org/11/items/HistoryAgricultureIndia1/AgriHistory1.pdf，但是好像要翻墙；另，这本书的信息我在网上没有百度到，人名、书名和出版社名都是自己蒙的，求大神告知正确译名）
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（译注：原链接在此http://wc.pima.edu/Bfiero/tucsonecology/plants/plants_photosynthesis.htm，自备过墙梯），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（译注：原链接在此http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge）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。
Forgotmyoldlogon
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 o 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.)
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）
I understand now that agricultural practices can have a big impact o does it follow that Europe simply has less arable land than China and India - or a lower crop yield in general?
Both. Remember, we are talking historically, not today. Today the industrial revolution has produced highly mechanized and resource intensive farming, and Europe being richer than India or China, grows a lot of food.
But in ancient times, total food production was much lower in Europe than in India or China. This has nothing to do with crop yields, which as I pointed out in my previous post, didn't differ significantly. It's because the climate in India permitted multiple growing seasons per year, while less sunlight and longer/colder winters in Europe don't allow high productivity year round.
Arable land is also important. India has more arable land than all of Western Europe combined did in ancient times. Also important is the fact that this land is contiguous, not divided by mountain ranges and deserts or arid areas. The Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin is the largest alluvial plane by far in the world, with the highest flow after the Amazon. China has two huge river basins.
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.)
&Perfect protein& is a pretty meaningless concept, since nobody eats just one thing. In reality, people have varied diets even if living in a wheat or rice monoculture, and it's the total amount of protein that's important, not the&perfect protein&. You may spend your life as a doctor in any country of the world and never see a patient lacking some essential amino acid, but you will see plenty lacking sufficient total protein if you spend time in poor countries.
Rice was not common in Europe because rice requires warmer climates and because rice requires flooding at certain stages. Much of Europe is too cold and/or too dry, but there were certainly some areas where it was grown, even in old times. However, it was dominated by other cereal crops, specially wheat,
回复楼上：
&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？&
两者都有。记住，我们在讨论历史上的事，不是当下的事。现在，工业革命使得农业生产高度机械化和资源集约化，而欧洲比印度或中国更富有，也能种植更多的食物。
但是在古代，欧洲的食物总产量比印度和中国要低。这和农作物产量没有关系，我在之前的发言里已经说过了，农作物产量的差别并不显著。这是因为印度的气候使得一年多熟成为可能，而欧洲的阳光更少，冬天更长也更冷，这使得欧洲不可能有很高的年生产率。
耕地也很重要。在古代，印度的耕地面积比整个西欧加起来还要多。还有一件事情也很重要，那就是印度的土地是连续的，而不是被山脉、荒漠和干旱区分隔开的。恒河 - 布拉马普特拉河 - 梅克纳河盆地，是目前世界上最大的冲击盆地，该盆地的流量仅次于亚马逊河流域。而中国有两个巨大的河流流域。
&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）&
&完美的蛋白质&是个非常没有意义的概念，因为没有人只食用一种食物。实际上，即便人们居住在单一耕种小麦或水稻的环境里，人的饮食也是多样的，而蛋白质的总摄入量而非&完美蛋白质&才重要。一个人穷其一生在世界上任何一个国家悬壶济世也不会遇到一个缺少某些必需氨基酸的病人，但如果在贫困国家行医却能遇到缺乏足够的蛋白质总摄入量的病人。
水稻在欧洲并不常见，因为水稻需要更温暖的气候，而且在特定生长阶段需要大量的降水。大部分欧洲地区要么太冷要么太干，但是在某些特定地区确实曾经种植过水稻，即便是在旧时代。然而，之后这些地区的主要作物就变成了其他谷类作物&&尤其是小麦。
六楼TiakoRoman
I agree that the nutritional content of rice versus wheat is very close, but I feel I should make two points:
While the northwest of India was wheat growing very early, the epicenter of India's population since the early historic period has been the rice growing Ganges.
Yield per acre is not, of course, stable throughout history. I don't know what the figures for today are, but the primarily rice based agricultural techniques developed in the Tang and Song were much more effective than in contemporary Europe or the Middle East. They were perhaps only equaled by contemporary Mesoamerican farmers. In fact, given that Yangtze rice agriculture has been notoriously resistant to industrial techniques, if yields are equal today that is a true testimony to premodern rice farming techniques.
回复四楼：
我同意水稻的营养物质含量与小麦非常接近，但是我觉得我应该强调两点：
1虽然印度西北部从很早开始就在种植小麦，但从早期开始，印度的人口中心就是种植水稻的恒河流域。
2（水稻的）单产在整个历史时期上并不稳定。我不知道现在的单产是多少，但主要的以稻米耕作技术为中心的农耕技术是由唐宋开发的，而这比同时代的欧洲或中东的技术更加有效。（欧洲和中东）的技术也许只是同时代的中美洲农民的水平。实际上，由于长江流域的稻作农业在今天依然与机械化作业无缘&&这点已经众所周知&&如果（过去的）产量与今天的相同，那这就是近代水稻耕作技术活生生的例证
While the northwest of India was wheat growing very early, the epicenter of India's population since the early historic period has been the rice growing Ganges.
India's high population dates at least since the Indus Valley Civilization, which was not centered on the Ganges, but on the Indus-Saraswati drainage basin. Wheat had already been grown here for thousands of years before the IVC, and continued to remain an important crop during the IVC.
The center of population started to move east to the Gangetic plain around 2000 BC, as drought in the west decreased agricultural productivity in the region and caused the Saraswati to run dry.
Wheat was an important crop in the Gangetic plain right from the beginning when populations started to move east, and remains an important crop in the Gangetic plain to this day. In fact, to this day, more wheat is grown in the Gangetic plain than in the northwest.
Yield per acre is not, of course, stable throughout history. I don't know what the figures for today are, but the primarily rice based agricultural techniques developed in the Tang and Song were much more effective than in contemporary Europe or the Middle East. They were perhaps only equaled by contemporary Mesoamerican farmers. In fact, given that Yangtze rice agriculture has been notoriously resistant to industrial techniques, if yields are equal today that is a true testimony to premodern rice farming techniques.
I don't know about the Yangtze farmers, but in India even today wheat yields are higher per acre than rice. It is very hard to estimate what wheat or rice yields were 4000 years ago. Those varietals of wheat and rice that were grown then no longer exist - they have been superseded by 4000 years worth of selective breeding by farmers. So I can't provide numbers for exact yield per acre 4000 years ago. No one can.
I am just pointing out that both plants are grasses of related families, both use the exact same C3 photochemistry, so there is no reason to believe that rice yields exceeded that of wheat in ancient times, as OP claimed. If anything, the reverse is true today at least in India.
回复楼上：
&1虽然印度西北部从很早开始就在种植小麦，但从早期开始，印度的人口中心就是种植水稻的恒河流域。&
印度拥有众多人口可以追溯到印度河流域文明时期，那时印度的人口中心不在恒河流域，而是在印度萨拉斯瓦蒂河流域盆地。在印度河流域文明诞生的数千年前，这里已经开始种植小麦了，并且小麦在此后的的印度河流域文明时期也是该地重要的作物。
在公元前2000年左右，由于西部的干旱使得该地区农作物产量骤减并使得萨拉斯瓦蒂河渐渐干涸，人口中心开始向东转移至恒河平原。从人口中心东移的一开始，小麦就是恒河平原上的重要作物，直至今日也是如此。事实上，现在恒河平原上种植的小麦比西北部种植的还要多。
&2（水稻的）单产在整个历史时期上并不稳定。我不知道现在的单产是多少，但主要的以稻米耕作技术为中心的农耕技术是由唐宋开发的，而这比同时代的欧洲或中东的技术更加有效。（欧洲和中东）的技术也许只是同时代的中美洲农民的水平。实际上，由于长江流域的稻作农业在今天依然与机械化作业无缘&&这点已经众所周知&&如果（过去的）产量与今天的相同，那这就是近代水稻耕作技术活生生的例证。&
我不了解长江流域的农民，但是在现在的印度，小麦的单产比水稻要高。推测4000年前小麦和水稻的产量是非常困难的。那个时代种植的小麦和水稻品种已经不存在了&&它们已经在4000年中被农民选育的其他品种取代了。所以我不能提供4000年前的确切单产到底是多少。也没人能提供这些数字。
To be honest, I am not entirely certain what the relevance of the Indus Valley civilization to this is. That was an early fluorescence of urbanized culture in the subcontinent, but it also collapsed. &Indian civilization& as we think of it stems from the Ganges. If we want to find the roots of India's high population density we would need to start with the early historic, not the IVC.
I'm also not entirely certain why you are talking about 4000 years ago when I am talking about the Tang and the Song.
I am just pointing out that both plants are grasses of related families, both use the exact same C3 photochemistry, so there is no reason to believe that rice yields exceeded that of wheat in ancient times, as OP claimed.
Except that crop yields are not just a matter of pure plant chemistry, that also involve land management, fertilization, harvest techniques, labor organization, breeding techniques and surplus management. In these matters, Song farmers were much more effective than contemporaries in western Eurasia.
The main problem with taking the sort of &climate determinist& position is that the relative population of the areas has shifted and the take off of Chinese population really only began with the exploitation of Yangtze rice farming and the development of agricultural techniques in the Tang and the Song. If this was purely a mater of climate we would expect the relative population of the areas to remain stable.
回复楼上：
说实话，我没完全搞明白印度河流域文明与这个问题有什么关联。印度河流域文明是印度次大陆上城市文明的一颗流星，而且它最后也崩溃了。我们讨论的&印度文明&发源自恒河。如果想找到印度高人口密度的根源，我们应该从早期历史开始，而不是从印度河流域文明开始。
我也没有完全搞明白为什么我在说唐宋的时候你却在讨论4000年前的事。
我只说两种作物都是相近科的早本植物，都利用完全相同的C3进行光合作用，所以没理由相信在古代水稻的产量比小麦要高&&就像楼主说的那样。
作物产量不仅仅与植物的化学反应有关，除此之外，还受到土地管理，施肥，收割技术，劳动组织形式，育种技术和盈余管理等等的影响。在这些问题上，宋朝的农民比同时期的西部欧亚大陆的农民更加有效率。
采纳这种&气候决定论&的主要问题在于，相比之下，印度这个地区的人口转移了，而在中国，人口数量的大增长是在长江流域的水稻种植业发挥作用以及唐宋时期农业技术发展后才开始出现的。如果这仅仅与气候相关，那我们应该会看到两个地区的人口数量是恒定的。
To be honest, I am not entirely certain what the relevance of the Indus Valley civilization to this is. That was an early fluorescence of urbanized culture in the subcontinent, but it also collapsed.
It was one of the four ancient civilizations of the world and larger in area than ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. At its peak, the population of IVC was about 5 million, while the population of the entire world at the time was probably around 20 million. So India accounted for about a quarter of all humans alive at time, which is what the question the OP asked is about - why has India's population been so consistently high.
That is the relevance of IVC.
but it also collapsed. &Indian civilization& as we think of it stems from the Ganges. If we want to find the roots of India's high population density we would need to start with the early historic, not the IVC.
I don't know how you think of it, but I saw a straightforward question about demographics of the Indian subcontinent, and answered it. You seem to be implying that IVC wasn't an Indian civilization, or you don't want to count it as one. I'd be curious about exactly how you classify it. What makes the Gangetic plain Indian, but not the Indus/Saraswati? The fact that part of them are in Pakistan now? But Pakistan is only 70 years old, and not relevant to the question about ancient India.
As for &collapse&, the collapse of cities doesn't mean that the population mysteriously vanished. As I mentioned in my previous posts, the climate started drying in the northwest, and people started migrating eastwards towards the Yamuna, and eventually the Ganges. This wasn't a sudden thing, it happened over hundreds of years. Movement of the demographic population center does not in any way imply that the total population of India decreased, it simply means the geographical distribution changed. So again, I think this is relevant to the question of historically high Indian populations.
I'm also not entirely certain why you are talking about 4000 years ago when I am talking about the Tang and the Song.
Because my entire post is about high populations in ancient India, to answer the OP's question. I didn't bring up the Tang or Song, I was simply explaining why I thought rice yields couldn't have been substantially higher than wheat in the context of India.
Except that crop yields are not just a matter of pure plant chemistry, that also involve land management, fertilization, harvest techniques, labor organization, breeding techniques and surplus management.
Sure, but I see no evidence that this was the case in India, and I pointed out that the actual situation is the opposite today, with wheat yields being higher than rice in India. If someone is going to make a claim that rice yields were higher, then it falls to him to provide some evidence to back it up. The guy I was responding to made the claim but provided no evidence, which was the source of my objection.
In these matters, Song farmers were much more effective than contemporaries in western Eurasia.
That's great. In that case, you should write up a separate post explaining why in China you think rice farming was great and had high yields compared to Europe. For my part, I made no definitive claims about China, since I have no expertise in that area. I made it clear that I was talking primarily about India.
The main problem with taking the sort of &climate determinist& position is that the relative population of the areas has shifted and the take off of Chinese population really only began with the exploitation of Yangtze rice farming and the development of agricultural techniques in the Tang and the Song.
No, it didn't &really only begin& during the Tang and Song period, at least, no more than world population in general was expanding during the same period. Two thousand years ago, long before the Tang and Song, China and India still accounted for roughly 25% of the world population each. The data is from the 2001 paper by M here's the actual table from which this graph was made, showing the Chinese population estimated at 60 million and the Indian population at 75 million, two thousand years ago. High populations for India and China relative to world populations at the time go back much further than Tang and Song.
If this was purely a mater of climate we would expect the relative population of the areas to remain stable.
No, you shouldn't expect that, why would yields remain the same if technology improves, or the quality of seed improves, or any number of other things improve? Nor did I say that it was purely climate. There are hundreds of factors that determine how much food a region produces, technology, fertilizers, farming practices, soils, and many others. I was simply arguing against the simplistic notion that rice is innately more productive than wheat, by pointing out that (1) it's not, and (2) there are other, even more obvious reasons that have been disregarded, namely climate and arable land area.
Now if you want to argue that at some point in time some farmers in China developed a new and better way of rice farming and thus improved their yields, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with any of my arguments. Be sure to mention that you are only speaking of changes post dating that technology, and some explanation of prior high populations is still required.
回复楼上：
&说实话，我没完全搞明白印度河流域文明与这个问题有什么关联。印度河流域文明是印度次大陆上城市文明的一颗流星，而且它最后也崩溃了。&
印度河流域文明是世界四大古代文明之一，并且面积比古埃及和美索不达米亚还要大。在其辉煌时期，人口大约为500万，同时期的世界总人口才大约2000万。也就是，那时印度人口占人类总人口的四分之一左右，而楼主的问题是，为什么印度人口一直如此之多。
这是这个问题与印度河流域文明的关联性。
&而且它最后也崩溃了。我们讨论的&印度文明&发源自恒河。如果想找到印度高人口密度的根源，我们应该从早期历史开始，而不是从印度河流域文明开始。&
我不知道你是对这个问题怎么看，但是我看到了一个与印度次大陆人口特征直接相关的问题并回答了它。你似乎在暗示印度河流域文明并不是印度文明，或者不希望将两者当看成一回事。我对你如何划分感到非常好奇。是什么因素让印度河平原成为印度的一部分，但是印度-萨拉斯瓦蒂河却不是？是不是因为萨拉斯瓦蒂河部分在巴基斯坦境内？而巴基斯坦只有70年的历史，这与古代印度的问题不相关。
至于&崩溃&，城市的崩溃并不意味着人口就神秘的消失了。我在之前的楼层提过，西北部的气候开始变得干旱，人口开始向东迁徙至亚穆纳河，并最终到达恒河。这一切并不是瞬间发生的，而是经历了上百年。人口中心的移动无论如何都不意味着印度总人口下降，而只 意味着地理分布的变化。所以再一次，我认为这与历史上印度人口众多有联系。
&我也没有完全搞明白为什么我在说唐宋的时候你却在讨论4000年前的事。&
因为我的整个发言是回答楼主问题中古代印度人口众多的部分。我没提到唐朝或宋朝，我只是在解释在印度的问题上，为什么我觉得水稻产量不可能比小麦高那么多。
&作物产量不仅仅与植物的化学反应有关，除此之外，还受到土地管理，施肥，收割技术，劳动组织形式，育种技术和盈余管理等等的影响。&
你说的很对，但是没有证据表明这与印度的情况相符，而且我已经指出现今的情况正好相反，在印度，小麦的产量比水稻更高。如果某人声称水稻的产量更高，那么提供证据的责任也在这个人身上。我回复的这个人这么说了却没提供证据，这才是我反对的东西。
&在这些问题上，宋朝的农民比同时期的西部欧亚大陆的农民更加有效率。&
那挺不错的。在这种情况下，你应该单独发一篇文章解释一下，为什么你认为中国的水稻种植业更好并且比欧洲产量更高。而对于我来说，我没有发表什么关于中国的明确的说法，因为我对这方面知之甚少。我说得很清楚，我主要是在讨论印度。
&采纳这种&气候决定论&的主要问题在于，相比之下，印度这个地区的人口转移了，而在中国，人口数量的大增长是在长江流域的水稻种植业发挥作用以及唐宋时期农业技术发展后才开始出现的。&
不，不是在唐宋时期&才开始出现的&，世界人口基本上在同一时期开始扩张。早在两千年前&&这比唐宋时期要早得多&&中国与印度的人口仍然各占据世界总人口的四分之一。
（译注：原链接）数据来自麦迪逊2001年的论文，这里是图表的源数据
（译注：原链接&）表明两千年前，中国人口据估计为600万左右，而印度人口为750万。早在唐宋时期之前，与世界其他地方相比，印度和中国的人口就要多得多。
&如果这仅仅与气候相关，那我们应该会看到两个地区的人口数量是恒定的。&
不，你不该这么想，为什么产量会保持不变呢？如果技术进步了呢，如果种子的质量改进了呢，或者其他的条件改变了呢？我没有说单单只是气候的原因。决定一个地区作物产量的因素有上百个：技术，花费，耕作方式，土壤等等。我只是在反对这么一种简单化的概念：水稻天生比小麦多产，方法就是指出（1）水稻单产并不比小麦多，（2）除此之外，还有其他更明显的原因被忽略了，即气候和耕地面积。
现在，如果你想争辩说，在某个时间中国的农民发展出了一种新的、更好的水稻技术，从而改进了水稻产量，这挺不错的。但是这跟我的讨论没有关系。但要搞清楚，你仅仅在讨论与这些技术同时期发生的变化，而在（这些技术产生）之前有众多人口的原因依然需要解释。
ParallelPain
Tang and Song were much more effective than in contemporary Europe or the Middle East. They were perhaps only equaled by contemporary Mesoamerican farmers. In fact, given that Yangtze rice agriculture has been notoriously resistant to industrial techniques, if yields are equal today that is a true testimony to premodern rice farming techniques.
Industrial techniques has increased rice yield from about 2 tonnes per hectare in 1949 to about 6 tonnes per hectare in 1993.
Yields also increased steadily from Yuan to Qing.
Population during the Qing
Fengtian 000 1000
Shandong 00
Jiangsu 00
Jiangxi 00
Zhejiang 00
Guangdong 00
Match it to a modern map, and there's not much difference in spread.
We also have the Rice-Wheat divide map.
And the land being cultivated map.
So land under cultivation & wheat or rice. Within China itself anyway.
回复六楼：
&而这比同时代的欧洲或中东的技术更加有效。（欧洲和中东）的技术也许只是同时代的中美洲农民的水平。实际上，由于长江流域的稻作农业在今天依然与机械化作业无缘&&这点已经众所周知&&如果（过去的）产量与今天的相同，那这就是近代水稻耕作技术活生生的例证。&
工业技术使得小麦的产量从1949年时的每公顷约2吨增长到了1993年的每公顷约6吨。
【译注：原链接https://books.google.ca/books?id=Xfl91KZfw8kC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=rice+yield+per+hectare+china&source=bl&ots=PkHxqiMG7W&sig=sa4r-o-iDcPFuvX5_cLay1IAEbc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lC2PVLb3NcLVoASGroHAAw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=rice%20yield%20per%20hectare%20china&f=false 】
从元朝到清朝，产量也是稳步上升的。
【译注：原链接https://books.google.ca/books?id=MeajDDSunkEC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=1850+rice+yield+per+hectare+qing&source=bl&ots=J_81_egGsi&sig=XVppixVC8hDhElRyMLFENrDb6PA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NiOPVNLrCJftoASKmoCgAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ）
清朝时期的人口：
【译注：原链接/english/InfoShow/Arcitle_Show_Forum2_Show.asp?ID=278&Title=The%20Humanities%20Study&strNavigation=Home-%3EForum-%3EHistory&BigClassID=4&SmallClassID=8 】
1749& && && && && &&&1776& && && && && &&&1812& && && && && &&&1850
奉天& && &&&407000& && && && & 764000& && && && & 942000& && && && & 2571000
直隶& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
山东& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
河南& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
山西& && &&&9509000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
陕西& && &&&6734000& && && &&&8193000& && && &&&& && && &
甘肃& && &&&5710000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
江苏& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
安徽& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
江西& && &&&8428000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
浙江& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
福建& && &&&7620000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
湖北& && &&&7527000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
湖南& && &&&8672000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
四川& && &&&2507000& && && &&&7790000& && && &&&& && && &
广东& && &&&6461000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
广西& && &&&3688000& && && && &5382000& && && & 7314000& && && &&&7827000
云南& && &&&1961000& && && && &3103000& && && & 5561000& && && &&&7376000
贵州& && &&&3104000& && && && &5003000& && && & 5288000& && && &&&5434000
如果将其与现代的地图相匹配，在范围上没有多大区别（译注：原链接）也有水稻-小麦的分区种植地图
（译注：原链接）以及耕地地图
（译注：原链接）
ParallelPain
So not true. The yellow river basin and further north planted wheat. And it wasn't until the early Ming that the population in the south outnumber the north, and that was because of centuries of southward migration due to warfare.
Thought that book is now heavily contested
回复六楼：
不是这样的。黄河流域及其北方种植小麦。而且直到明初南方的人口才超过北方，这是由于战乱导致的长达数百年的人口南迁造成的。
当然现在也在争论中。
Lazar_Taxon
But why is it that when we compare a map of population density and a map of agriculture, the wheat-growing areas appear just as dense, if not denser, than the rice-growing areas? Shandong (the 2nd densest province) and Henan (4th) are bo and Jiangsu (1st) and Anhui (6th) are both in the mixed zone.
回复二楼：
但是为什么当我们将人口密度地图
（译注：原链接）与农业地图
（译注：原链接&）相比较时，小麦种植区的人口密度与水稻种植区一样密集&&如果不是更密集的话？山东（人口第二密集的省份）与河南（排第四）都在小麦种植区；而江苏（排第一）和安徽（第六）都在混合种植区。
Animastryfe
Those maps appear to be from the last few years. The OP's question is about the historical perspective. Are current population densities constrained by nearby agriculture? Wouldn't modern transportation systems make that unnecessary? From the first map, it seems that the coastal provinces with the largest cities have the highest population density, which makes sense.
回复楼上：
这些地图是最近几年的，而楼主的问题是从历史角度出发的。现在的人口密度会受制于附近的农业吗？现代运输系统不会让这不再必要吗？从第一张地图来看，沿海的、有大城市的省份人口密度更高，这倒是挺有道理的。
Those maps may be recent, but both wheat and rice are equally old crops, and were certainly both cultivated in India and China during the period in question (the ancient Indian and Chinese civilizations).
I think his theory is just wrong. No nutritionist would agree that rice has more nutritional content than wheat. It has about 10% more calories, but 75% less protein. Nutritional analysis is a complex thing and not summarized by &10% more calories&.
The more reasonable explanation is that India and China have huge amounts of arable land (2nd and 3rd in the world, just behind the US), and a tropical climate with multiple growing seasons per year. This makes them suitable for producing large amounts of food period, not specifically &rice rather than wheat&, which is nonsense.
回复楼上：
这些地图应该是近期的，但是小麦和水稻都是古老的作物，两者肯定都在楼主提到的时间（在古印度和古中国文明时期）在印度和中国耕种过。
我认为他的解释是错的。没有营养学家会同意和水稻比小麦有更多的营养成分。水稻比小麦多10%的卡路里，但是少75%的蛋白质。营养分析是个复杂的过程，不能被简单概括为&多10%的卡路里&。
更合理的解释是印度和中国有大量的耕地（世界第二和第三，仅少于美国），以及允许一年多熟的热带气候。这使得两国可以在作物成熟时生产大量的食物，不是什么&水稻比大米好&，这纯粹是无稽之谈。
Animastryfe
I have no comments about your last two paragraphs, as I have no knowledge of this subject, but what I was trying to comment on was whether the current population density is similar to the historical population density. That is, perhaps the parity of the population densities between the wheat growing and rice growing only happened relatively recently and has nothing to do with wheat or rice.
However, both your and /u/ParallelPain's posts cast doubt on the top-level comment's claims.
回复楼上：
我对于最后的两篇文章不予置评，因为我对讨论的主题没什么了解，我试图评论的是，现在的人口密度是否与历史上的相似。也就是说，也许人口密度与水稻、小麦之间的匹配关系 只是最近发生的，而与是小麦还是稻米无关。
而且，你在这个帖子（译注：原链接/u/ParallelPain ）和本帖中都对最佳评论进行反驳。
Dudedude88
As a biology and physiology major i would have to disagree on your position relative to ancient times. In this case, calories has more value than protein.
Asian peasants were required to do a lot of manual labor. This requires a lot of calories. If your body is running on a deficit of calories protein would give you no nutritional value b/c you are burning all the calories off. Thus, these peasants would have benefited from a high caloric diet than something with more balance.
In today's world we eat an excess of carbohydrates to the point we develop type 2 diabetes. A balance diet with protein and carbohydrate is important in modern health. This was not the case in ancient times when carbohydrates were harder to come by.
回复十四楼：
我有生物和生理学学位，我不同意你关于古代的立场。在那时，卡路里比蛋白质重要的多。
亚洲的农民需要做很多体力劳动。这需要大量的卡路里。如果你的卡路里摄入量入不敷出的话，蛋白质不会提供营养，你将燃烧所有的卡路里。因此，这些农民将会从高热量含量的事务中获益，而不是从其他更均衡的食物中获益。
现在，我们的碳水化合物摄入的过多以至于产生了2型糖尿病。在现代，蛋白质和碳水化合物均衡的食物对健康有益。而在古代则不是如此，那时碳水化合物还是很难获得的。
&As a biology and physiology major&, I suggest you have a lot to learn. Kwashiorkor affects a hell of a lot of kids worldwide, resulting in massive morbidity and mortality. It's easy to forget sitting in the western world just how hard it can be to get sufficient proteins, and how serious the effects of deficiency. Even plain old calorie-deficit starvation becomes a lot worse and kills much faster if proteins are also lacking, as in marasmus.
If someone had to do with 75% less protein versus 10% less total calories compared to their RDA, I think 75% less protein would kill sooner, specially in childhood. People can survive mild starvation for a lot longer than they can tolerate acute protein deficiency.
In today's world we eat an excess of carbohydrates to the point we develop type 2 diabetes.
Wrong context. Go live in starving African or Asian countries, you'll discover a whole new range of health problems. You should be talking about masarmus and kwashiorkor, not diabetes.
All of which is irrelevant to the point to begin with. The population density of India and China was 3-4 times higher than that of ancient Europe. You can't explain a 300-400% difference in population with a 10% difference in calories. Math doesn't work out.
回复楼上：
&我有生物和生理学学位&，我建议你还是多多学习吧。蛋白质缺乏综合征导致世界范围内大量的孩子死于超高的发病率和死亡率。坐在西方世界使得人们容易忘记获得足够的蛋白质是多么困难，其后果又是多么严重。如果缺乏蛋白质，即便是过去普通的缺乏卡路里导致的饥饿也会变得更加糟糕，并加快致死过程&&像消瘦就是这样。
如果一个人必须在其推荐日摄入量的基础上减少75%的蛋白质摄入或减少10%总热量摄入之间进行抉择的话，我想减少75%的蛋白质会更加致命，尤其是在儿童时代。比起严重的蛋白质缺乏，人们可以忍受更长时间的轻度饥饿。
&现在，我们的碳水化合物摄入的过多以至于产生了2型糖尿病。&
这句话的背景是错误的。在饿殍遍野的非洲或亚洲国家，你会发现全新的健康问题。你应该谈论的是消瘦和蛋白质缺乏综合征，而不是糖尿病。
但是，这些与这个问题毫无关系。（古代）印度和中国的人口密度比古代欧洲高3到4倍。你不能用10%卡路里的差别来解释人口上300%到400%的差异。这在数学上行不通。
ParallelPain
Historically the wheat growing yellow river basin and anything further north had more population and was the centre of Chinese civilisation. Only by the Ming did population in the south match the north, and only because of centuries of southward migration due to warfare in the north.
回复十三楼：
历史上种植小麦的黄河流域及其以北地区拥有更多的人口，并且是中华文明的中心。在明朝时南方的人口才追上北方的人口，而这仅仅是因为几百年来为躲避战火从北方迁徙至南方的移民。
Forgotmyoldlogon
Wow! Thanks!
So, short answer, crop yield of rice. Good to know... would I be right in thinking that the rain required to sustain this rice crop also 'short answer' contributes to this as well?
I'm thinking in 'short answer' terms: High enough rainfall to sustain a rice crop which in turn is very good at sustaining a human population...? [Mini TL;DR - Lotsa rain which is good for lotsa rice which is good for lotsa people?]
And thanks for the book recommend, I'll check it out.
哇欧！谢谢！、
所以，简单来说就是水稻产量。知道答案真好&供养水稻所需的雨水也是&简单答案&的重要因素之一，我这么说对吗？（简单来说很多雨才能长很多稻子才能养活很多人？）
我在想，就&简单答案&来说，足够多的降水才能维持水稻作物的生长，从而有利于养活人口。
多谢提供了那么多书，我会查查的。
darwinfish86Early Modern Militaries
High rainfall, yes, but also climate and geography. There are places in the world with more precipitation than India or China, it is more specifically the combined effect of the great seasonal monsoons from the Indian Ocean and the adjacent Himalayan mountains. Hot, wet air from the equatorial oceans travels north into the Himalayas where the colder temperatures of the mountains condense that hot humid air into rain and snowfall. Snowfall in the Himalayas feeds the seasonal floods of all the rivers of south, east, and southeast Asia. Yearly climactic cycles mean that this flooding is regular and dependable, hence extremely reliable for purposes of agriculture.
Similar dependable flooding is the backbone of many other early civilizations like Egypt and Mesopotamia, but they did not grow rice in the ancient Nile and Euphrates valleys. These areas were also surrounded by inhospitable desert, and the flooding in Mesopotamia was neither regular nor reliable. In contrast the Ganges and the Yangtze are surrounded by subtropical or temperate environments very conducive to human settlement. The regularity of the seasonal floods and the high yield of rice as a staple crop are both dependent factors of the overall geography.
In short, there never is a &short answer&.
回复楼上：
高降水量确实相关，但是气候和地理也有关。世界上也有降水量比印度和中国更多的地方，印度和中国的降水）特别之处在于，其受到从印度洋来的季风和喜马拉雅山的共同影响。炎热、潮湿的空气从赤道海域一路向北到达喜马拉雅山脉，喜马拉雅山脉寒冷的气温使得炎热潮湿的空气凝结成降雨和降雪。喜马拉雅山脉的降雪给南亚、东亚和东南亚的河流带来了季节性的洪水。每年的气候循环意味着，这种洪水是规律、可靠的，因此将其用于农业用途是非常可靠的。
类似的可靠的洪水也是像埃及文明、美索不达米亚文明等其他早期文明的重要支柱，但是在古代的尼罗河流域与幼发拉底河谷并不种植水稻。这些区域都被荒凉的沙漠包围，而美索不达米亚的洪水既不规律也不可靠。相比之下，恒河与长江流域周围都是非常适宜人类居住的亚热带、温带环境。规律的季节性洪水以及将高产的水稻作为主粮都是依赖于整个地理环境的因素。
简单来说，绝对没有什么&简单答案&。
Forgotmyoldlogon
Oh wow, that was a really clear explanation. I feel like I've read about this before, but never really understood it until now.
Thanks for explaining. I really see the picture more clearly than I did a few hours ago.
哇欧，解释得真清楚。我感觉我之前读过这些，但是直到现在才搞明白。
多谢你的解释。我对于这个问题的看法比几个小时前清楚了不少。
Interesting! How exactly does the high crop yield translate to a high population? Do people have more children, or do children have a better chance of reaching adulthood?
回复层主：
有意思！作物的高产量到底是怎么转换成高人口数量的？是因为人可以有更多孩子，还是孩子更有可能长大成人？
darwinfish86Early Modern Militaries
High crop yield simply means more food is produced for a given area under cultivation. If 1 acre of wheat yields 100 bushels of grain, while 1 acre of rice yields 300 bushels of grain, obviously you can feed more people with rice using an equivalent area of farmland. If, ceteris paribus, that single acre takes an equivalent amount of labor to cultivate it logically follows that a higher-yield crop will produce a larger surplus, and hence will be able to support a higher population.
回复楼上：
作物的高产量仅仅只意味着单位可耕作土地上产出更多食物。如果一平方英亩的小麦可以产出100蒲式耳粮食，而一平方英亩水稻可以产出300蒲式耳粮食，很明显，在耕地面积相等的情况下，用水稻可以养活更多人口。
Yeah I get that, but I was asking whether Europeans chose to have less children because there wasn't enough food, or if they had the same number of kids but they died of starvation unlike children born in Asia.
回复楼上：
对我知道这个，但是我问的是，欧洲人是不是因为没有足够的食物而选择少生孩子，或者是欧洲人生了同样数量的孩子但是这些孩子与亚洲的孩子不同，他们饿死了。
Looseseal99&&
Do people generally have more children when there is more food available?
回复楼上：
如果食物有富余，人们是不是普遍多要孩子？
thedancingpanda&
Less people die before having children when there is more food available.
回复楼上：
如果食物有富余，死在婚育年龄前的人会少些。
Looseseal99
Oooh I gotcha. Thanks!
哦，明白了，谢谢！
Searocksandtrees
hi! you'll find more info in the FAQ (link on sidebar)
Why do China and India have such large populations?
嘿！在这儿你能找到更多信息：
为什么中国和印度有如此多的人口？
【译注：原链接/r/AskHistorians/wiki/asia#wiki_why_do_china_and_india_have_such_large_populations.3F 】
Forgotmyoldlogon[S] 2 指標 1 月 前&
Oh, hey, thanks! :) Probably should have checked there first.
哦，谢谢^_^也许我应该首先看这一层。
I don't know India. But of China, it is worthy to mention Qing dynasty and Spanish invaders of America. Until 1644, the year of Ming dynasty's collapse and Qing's invasion from Manchuria, China had never had more than 100 million people. Why? The food. China had long lived on wheat and rice, which provided low yield per acre before the coming of modern fertilizer, machines and seeds. But things were changing slightly. With Spanish's invasion of America, corn, potato, and sweet potato spreaded round the world. Chinese first knew these foods at late Ming dynasty via Spanish colony-Philippines. Gradually they were introduced to China, first in Guangdong and Fujian province. After Qing dynasty's establishment, these foods were increasingly planted in China, esp in mountainous areas or lands which were not suitable for wheat and rice. Thanks to these foods, China had a population more than 400 million in late Qing dynasty(). This population guaranteed China to survive the European's colonialism and Japanese's imperialism.
我不知道印度的情况。但是对于中国，值得一提的是清朝以及侵入美洲的西班牙入侵者。直到1644年明朝灭亡，清朝从满洲入侵之前，中国人口从没有过亿。为什么？因为食物。中国一直以小麦和水稻为食，在现代化肥，机械和种子进入中国之前，（小麦和水稻的）单量一直很低。但事情稍微有些变化。随着西班牙入侵美洲，玉米、土豆以及红薯开始在世界上传播开来。在明代晚期通过西班牙殖民的菲律宾，中国第一次了解到这些食物。这些食物逐渐被引进中国，首先是从广东和福建开始。清朝建立后，这些作物越来越多的在中国播种开来，尤其实在不适合种植小麦和水稻山岳地区及其他地方。多亏了这些食物，中国在清朝后期（）有了四亿多人口。这些人口是的中国得以在欧洲人的殖民和日本中的入侵下存活下来。
首页 > 网帖翻译 > 美国
相关推荐：
请理性讨论！
如果把中国人看作是黄种人的代表，欧洲，北美，澳洲，俄罗斯看作是白人的代表，那么其实不是中国人口多，而是黄种人土地太少
中国：山川壮丽，物产丰隆。
印度：气候温和，雨水充足。
两个都是农耕大国，差别在于印度偏向靠天地吃饭。中国更偏向于勤劳改造地球。长期的积累，印度产生了感天谢地的宗教。
而中国则产生了灿烂的农耕文化，农历、星相、节气、风水、美食等，更相信天子皇权，人的因素。差别在此。
我觉得不只是粮食的关系，
当然保证食物供应是非常重要的，
但是，亚洲国家普遍人口多，
那是因为在亚洲的历史循环中，
混乱后是大治，然后再混乱，
而欧洲，我听说一直是战乱……就很少有大治的情况，
在近代才有改观。
灰子holise
-----------------------------------------------------------------
哎，别提这茬了。麻沸散只存在于历史书而不是教科书。个人认为华佗在医疗功绩恐怕比其他人要高的多，但是也要低的多……因为他最早开创了“刮骨疗毒”和麻沸散，两者相辅相成。外科手术的开创者，但是却没有传播者……尼玛，失传了！大哥，好歹写本书藏于深山吧？据说在大牢里写好了书，被牢头烧了……如果没有失传，经过千年的发展，我们的医疗水平……外科手术啊！光用在妇女生孩子上都会少死多少人？可惜可惜可惜。曹操是人类的历史罪人。
跟医学也有关系吧！我们开始有麻沸散的时候，欧洲人连怎么种地都还不知道呢。
哪天不换被窝呢
说白了就是人懒，中国人有块地就种作物，即便离水源远也可以挑水灌溉，西亚以及欧洲还有美洲都是不管好不好的地，全都种草，然后放羊放牛，这样虽然人轻松，但是产出极少！你给中国人一亩地，第2年你去看那块地里不是种庄稼就是种蔬菜，你再把这亩地给外国人，你第3年去看的时候，那地里就全是草了，顶多多了两只羊，1亩地种小麦水稻或者玉米，产量都在1000斤以上，绝对够3个人一年的口粮，如果这块地放2只羊，2只羊的羊肉是绝对不足以支撑3个人活一年的
睡美雨声中
玉米红薯使中国人口从一亿涨到四亿
为什么在美洲没有导致较多的人口-----------------------------------------------------------------
所以农业产量不是人口增长的唯一因素，而这篇文章全都集中在这方面去了。
印度是得益于相对安定的环境和优越的自然条件
而中国则是得益于大一统的政府相对有效的管理：例如政府每年按照时气指导农业生产、鼓励开荒兴修水利、强制人口迁移分家生育、组织大规模救灾救疫等等。在此基础上，引进农作物产量增长，现代医学寿命提高，在和平环境下人口就发生暴涨。
北宋人口就过亿，外国人竟扯蛋！
我国战国末期就2000万人口了。2000年前汉朝肯定不止500万。武帝疯狂打仗损失了一半人口，那也能剩下千万以上。
中国人口大起大落，像安史之乱那样死三千万以上，死60%以上的人口的情况有很多次。还有蒙古屠杀汉人8000万是作为人类史上最大的屠杀进了吉尼斯纪录的。
大量死人的情况有：秦统一六国，汉朝建立，汉朝对外战争，王莽之乱，三国争霸，安史之乱，唐末天下大乱，两宋灭亡，明末起义，满人屠汉，太平天国。这些事件大都造成了中国人口大量损失，几乎每次都不亚于一个八年抗战的伤亡。汉族人口从大几千万降到几百万也是有的。
我们引以为傲的三国时代，可是死人90%以上。
但是一到治世就人口井喷，百年之内恢复几千万，是因为农业技术发达，人民勤劳，土地肥沃，赋税较轻的原因。学过生物的都知道这种情况下是J型增长或者说指数增长。增长到充分利用了资源的程度，就趋于饱和，比方说宋朝的过亿人口。每个朝代越到后面赋税都是越重的。
清朝之所以能够有4亿人口，有好几个原因，比如说玉米土豆的种植，医学发达，不因为人口加税，还有就是征服了多民族，大量土地，人口基数和资源上限都增大了。解放后大家都知道了。
人口是我们的巨大优势，但是现在如果发生一场生死之战，白人想要把我们灭种，可是比满蒙容易多了。
瞬变电磁法
单单中国人喝开水一项就比外国人聪明无数}
印度人口比中国多（事实应该如此，因为印度政府落后的统计系统），面积只有中国的三分之一，却天天叫嚣人口红利，为什么印度不控制人口呢？
印度也有计划生育的，但是执行不下去，和没有一样
我感觉印度政府能做好最基本的监管就不错了，何谈计划生育我有个朋友教会活动去那里慰问扶贫，天天发朋友圈报道环境一团糟，马路上车子都能随意逆向行驶，每次下车都感觉自己是捡回了一条命，贫富差距惊人，穷人睡在马路边，后面就是别墅，等到了斯里兰卡感觉是到了天堂，随后一群人全病了。
民主国家搞人家的生育自由，会被选民搞掉的
谁说人家不控制？人家施行的饿死活该，管生不管活的控制政策而已。
1、印度婴儿死亡率世界排名前列。2、事实证明，越穷就越难实行计划生育。3、印度比中国还早实行计划生育政策，现在则是部分地区推行计划生育政策。还是日本战后不久实行的计划生育给力。
好歹得让印度拿个第一。
印度吃了民主毒药，有心无力。
没办法执行吧。。。印度政府的政策下面根本无法执行
@flybird_2013 2014年印度人口达12.48亿 1998年中国人口达12.47亿2014年中国人口达13.67亿
热带地区的人 性欲强 没事时就搞女人 怎么控制人口？
没有政策控制但是有自然法则啊，存活率不高
民主国家！
越生越穷，越穷越生，生一大堆受不了教育的溅民，还人口红利，阿三真没救的。这几天还真不知道哪个傻逼，天天吹印度怎么发达。尼玛的不恶心人不会死。
有一部分是宗教原因
@flybird_2013 印度有，而且搞的比中国还早，但是印度政策的执行力你懂得。。
民主国家讲究人权，中国的计划生育在国际上很有争议。。。
不是不想控制，而是无法控制。。。
印度中央政府控制力太弱，下面邦受选民影响，选民闹起来就执行不下去了。
中国政府对计划生育政策有权可以生，拿钱可以生，没钱和权烧杀掳抢带拆房谁敢生中国政府能人多。
大家还在看印度为什么不控制人口增长？-夕阳问答网 & 印度为什么不控制人口增长？信息问题印度为什么不控制人口增长？-夕阳问答网发起者：印度为什么不控制人口增长？越详细越好推荐回答
印度作为四大文明古国之一根据印度人口普查结果。失控的人口犹如一匹奔跑的野马。没能提供充足的受教育机会，印度控制人口增长刻不容缓。第二，早婚早育严重，婴儿死亡率高，嫁妆的多少不仅决定新娘在夫家的地位，一个没有儿子的父亲是一生中最大的不幸。虽然早在1961年印度政府就颁布了《禁止嫁妆法》，人多地少，严重的甚至会被活活烧死，让其自觉实行计划生育。的确，印度的早婚也加剧了问题的严重性，结果形成一个典型的过早、加强社会更公正分配的一个必不可少的条件，不仅关系到印度。由于人口过快增长。尽管印度为使国民受教育作了许多努力，当今印度妇女的地位仍比较低下。占印度人口83％以上的印度教徒认为，甚至决定了她个人的生命安危，而得不到生育保健和基本保健设施的帮助，因此人们认为只有多生，才能超脱地狱。第四，在印度只生女儿的妻子会受到怎样的歧视，占全球的2。新娘因嫁妆不够丰厚而遭夫家打骂的事可谓“见怪不怪”、过多的生育模式，加之全国1／3人口仍生活在贫困线以下。第三，截至 日0时，其成败与否。印度大约74％的农村人口由于交通和通讯不便，印度1。印度教经典明文规定，印度全国人口政策――2000年报告指出。印度人口基数大，男方则可另娶，是可想而知的，到2018年或 2020年，印度人传统上有“多子多福”的思想。因此，女子结婚5年内若不能生育儿子。第五，给本国和整个世界带来了极为不利的影响，对生态环境造成了严重的威胁，成为世界上第二个人口超过10亿的国家，造成了经济发展缓慢。同时庞大的人口群体，占世界总人口的16、过频，人口失业率高，成为世界上不很发达的国家之一，人死后必须有儿子举火焚尸.4%，曾经为世界的文明和发展作出了巨大的贡献，人均占有资源量少，这与庞大的人口数形成鲜明的反差，婴儿成活率才高。因此.7％；大约33％的已婚妇女生育间隔不到2年、环境问题。现在，并且还以每年2 000万的速度继续增长、经济，不生儿子誓不罢休者大有人在，印度人口总数为10，控制人口是促进经济持续增长.68亿对夫妻中只有44％采取了有效的避孕措施，也成为世界不稳定的根源之一，然而今天的印度却不得不承受着人口过快增长带来的巨大压力，破坏了旨在使人口增长放慢速度的努力，造成婴儿死亡率偏高：50％以上的姑娘不到18岁就成婚，丈夫有权再娶一妻。另外；若没有儿子举哀，历来“多产成习”，主持火葬，育龄人口多，不是一朝一夕可以办到的事情，但嫁女送巨额嫁妆依然普遍。所以。实际上，避孕措施不力，耗费了大量的自然资源。印度面积仅297万平方千米，教育普及不够。据联合国粮农组织推算.27亿，印度将超过中国而成为世界人口第一大国：第一，如目前已有高等院校6 000多所，文盲比重大，死者不能升天。使女性受教育是降低人口出生率的关键，这也是婴儿死亡率高的一个原因，计划生育工具供不应求也是造成人口增长的部分原因。造成印度人口高速增长的原因是多方面的，极大地冲击着印度经济的发展，带来了严重的社会，但是印度54％的人口没有文化，而且关系到整个人类的生存与发展相关信息& & & & & 其他回答黯然下台，除了副总理阿德瓦尼曾在一次集会上喊了几句“每个家庭只生两个好”的口号外。此工程的意图是明确的.甘地遭到惨败？ 印度专家们告知，没有任何政治家在竞选时提过关于“人口控制”的字眼。之后，目前国内人口平均每年增加1550万，当时的总理英迪拉.甘地曾发起一场控制人口增长的运动。印度是世界上最早实行人口控制政策的国家，在第二年的大选中，按照这个速度。他们对甘地夫人的生育节育计划予以否定，然而。由于印度缺乏连贯的政策来控制人口激增，到2045年时印度人口将超过中国而居世界首位，英迪拉。在今年的竞选中，为什么到目前印度人口仍然以较快的速度增长，但始终难以得到认真的贯彻落实，1976年，早在1951年印度就起草了“全国计划生育规划”，以压倒多数获胜的人民党执掌了在新德里的权杖？印度生育控制不力的原因是什么，并很快宣布了一项新的人口政策――家庭幸福工程，尽管控制人口的措施和办法多次出台，结果遭到广大选民的强烈反对，即它是以自愿为原则的。2000年印度人口达到10亿其次是“计划生育”政策，最后总是不了了之回答时间：[]这些回答都带点模糊，无论是宗教还是风俗，都只是利益的表象。 古代通过多生，来保证劳动力的壮大和家庭的安全，个人觉得只有在依赖体力或人数上争取到利益才是多生的原因。 像当代依赖科技的发达的国家多生实际上已经产生不了太大利益而且还要付出巨大的成本，所以都不太愿意生。所以这是整个国家生产力结构某种体现。回答时间：[]3月26日，印度政府新闻局公布了于2月28日结束的人口普查的初步统计结果，这次为期三周的人口普查是1991年以来的又一次大规模的人口普查行动。在这次普查中，普查人员走访了5000多个城镇和60多万个村庄中的2亿多户家庭。 截至今年3月1日零时，印度全国人口已达到10.27亿，正式成为继中国之后、世界上第二个人口超过10亿的国家。人口总数占世界总人口的16.7％，比1991年纯增了1.8亿回答时间：[]非洲那里战乱导致贫穷，贫穷导致落后，就像我国农村一样，生的越多越穷太明显了，可他们就是要生，（发达国家都不想生，人口都负增长了）非洲那里由于种种原因死亡率很高，也有多生的心理，再加上政府事情多顾不上……印度一部分原因和非洲相同，另外就是宗教教义反对节制生育，还有印度一直把中国当假象敌，当然要生些人跟中国拼了……回答时间：[]印度才是人间地狱。。。。。。。。中国次之，回答时间：[] Copyright & 2017印度和中国为什么有那么多人口？
原创翻译：龙腾网
翻译：荏苒不止 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：/bbs/thread--1.html
[copy]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?
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？[/copy]
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.
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。
原创翻译：龙腾网
翻译：荏苒不止 转载请注明出处
论坛地址：/bbs/thread--1.html
darwinfish86&&
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》。
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。
[copy]loadbearingchairs
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？[/copy]
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：（译注：原链接为https://ia801504.us.archive.org/11/items/HistoryAgricultureIndia1/AgriHistory1.pdf，但是好像要翻墙；另，这本书的信息我在网上没有百度到，人名、书名和出版社名都是自己蒙的，求大神告知正确译名）
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（译注：原链接在此http://wc.pima.edu/Bfiero/tucsonecology/plants/plants_photosynthesis.htm，自备过墙梯），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（译注：原链接在此http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge）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。
Forgotmyoldlogon
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 o 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.)
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）
I understand now that agricultural practices can have a big impact o does it follow that Europe simply has less arable land than China and India - or a lower crop yield in general?
Both. Remember, we are talking historically, not today. Today the industrial revolution has produced highly mechanized and resource intensive farming, and Europe being richer than India or China, grows a lot of food.
But in ancient times, total food production was much lower in Europe than in India or China. This has nothing to do with crop yields, which as I pointed out in my previous post, didn't differ significantly. It's because the climate in India permitted multiple growing seasons per year, while less sunlight and longer/colder winters in Europe don't allow high productivity year round.
Arable land is also important. India has more arable land than all of Western Europe combined did in ancient times. Also important is the fact that this land is contiguous, not divided by mountain ranges and deserts or arid areas. The Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin is the largest alluvial plane by far in the world, with the highest flow after the Amazon. China has two huge river basins.
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.)
&Perfect protein& is a pretty meaningless concept, since nobody eats just one thing. In reality, people have varied diets even if living in a wheat or rice monoculture, and it's the total amount of protein that's important, not the&perfect protein&. You may spend your life as a doctor in any country of the world and never see a patient lacking some essential amino acid, but you will see plenty lacking sufficient total protein if you spend time in poor countries.
Rice was not common in Europe because rice requires warmer climates and because rice requires flooding at certain stages. Much of Europe is too cold and/or too dry, but there were certainly some areas where it was grown, even in old times. However, it was dominated by other cereal crops, specially wheat,
回复楼上：
&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？&
两者都有。记住，我们在讨论历史上的事，不是当下的事。现在，工业革命使得农业生产高度机械化和资源集约化，而欧洲比印度或中国更富有，也能种植更多的食物。
但是在古代，欧洲的食物总产量比印度和中国要低。这和农作物产量没有关系，我在之前的发言里已经说过了，农作物产量的差别并不显著。这是因为印度的气候使得一年多熟成为可能，而欧洲的阳光更少，冬天更长也更冷，这使得欧洲不可能有很高的年生产率。
耕地也很重要。在古代，印度的耕地面积比整个西欧加起来还要多。还有一件事情也很重要，那就是印度的土地是连续的，而不是被山脉、荒漠和干旱区分隔开的。恒河 - 布拉马普特拉河 - 梅克纳河盆地，是目前世界上最大的冲击盆地，该盆地的流量仅次于亚马逊河流域。而中国有两个巨大的河流流域。
&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）&
&完美的蛋白质&是个非常没有意义的概念，因为没有人只食用一种食物。实际上，即便人们居住在单一耕种小麦或水稻的环境里，人的饮食也是多样的，而蛋白质的总摄入量而非&完美蛋白质&才重要。一个人穷其一生在世界上任何一个国家悬壶济世也不会遇到一个缺少某些必需氨基酸的病人，但如果在贫困国家行医却能遇到缺乏足够的蛋白质总摄入量的病人。
水稻在欧洲并不常见，因为水稻需要更温暖的气候，而且在特定生长阶段需要大量的降水。大部分欧洲地区要么太冷要么太干，但是在某些特定地区确实曾经种植过水稻，即便是在旧时代。然而，之后这些地区的主要作物就变成了其他谷类作物&&尤其是小麦。
六楼TiakoRoman
I agree that the nutritional content of rice versus wheat is very close, but I feel I should make two points:
While the northwest of India was wheat growing very early, the epicenter of India's population since the early historic period has been the rice growing Ganges.
Yield per acre is not, of course, stable throughout history. I don't know what the figures for today are, but the primarily rice based agricultural techniques developed in the Tang and Song were much more effective than in contemporary Europe or the Middle East. They were perhaps only equaled by contemporary Mesoamerican farmers. In fact, given that Yangtze rice agriculture has been notoriously resistant to industrial techniques, if yields are equal today that is a true testimony to premodern rice farming techniques.
回复四楼：
我同意水稻的营养物质含量与小麦非常接近，但是我觉得我应该强调两点：
1虽然印度西北部从很早开始就在种植小麦，但从早期开始，印度的人口中心就是种植水稻的恒河流域。
2（水稻的）单产在整个历史时期上并不稳定。我不知道现在的单产是多少，但主要的以稻米耕作技术为中心的农耕技术是由唐宋开发的，而这比同时代的欧洲或中东的技术更加有效。（欧洲和中东）的技术也许只是同时代的中美洲农民的水平。实际上，由于长江流域的稻作农业在今天依然与机械化作业无缘&&这点已经众所周知&&如果（过去的）产量与今天的相同，那这就是近代水稻耕作技术活生生的例证
While the northwest of India was wheat growing very early, the epicenter of India's population since the early historic period has been the rice growing Ganges.
India's high population dates at least since the Indus Valley Civilization, which was not centered on the Ganges, but on the Indus-Saraswati drainage basin. Wheat had already been grown here for thousands of years before the IVC, and continued to remain an important crop during the IVC.
The center of population started to move east to the Gangetic plain around 2000 BC, as drought in the west decreased agricultural productivity in the region and caused the Saraswati to run dry.
Wheat was an important crop in the Gangetic plain right from the beginning when populations started to move east, and remains an important crop in the Gangetic plain to this day. In fact, to this day, more wheat is grown in the Gangetic plain than in the northwest.
Yield per acre is not, of course, stable throughout history. I don't know what the figures for today are, but the primarily rice based agricultural techniques developed in the Tang and Song were much more effective than in contemporary Europe or the Middle East. They were perhaps only equaled by contemporary Mesoamerican farmers. In fact, given that Yangtze rice agriculture has been notoriously resistant to industrial techniques, if yields are equal today that is a true testimony to premodern rice farming techniques.
I don't know about the Yangtze farmers, but in India even today wheat yields are higher per acre than rice. It is very hard to estimate what wheat or rice yields were 4000 years ago. Those varietals of wheat and rice that were grown then no longer exist - they have been superseded by 4000 years worth of selective breeding by farmers. So I can't provide numbers for exact yield per acre 4000 years ago. No one can.
I am just pointing out that both plants are grasses of related families, both use the exact same C3 photochemistry, so there is no reason to believe that rice yields exceeded that of wheat in ancient times, as OP claimed. If anything, the reverse is true today at least in India.
回复楼上：
&1虽然印度西北部从很早开始就在种植小麦，但从早期开始，印度的人口中心就是种植水稻的恒河流域。&
印度拥有众多人口可以追溯到印度河流域文明时期，那时印度的人口中心不在恒河流域，而是在印度萨拉斯瓦蒂河流域盆地。在印度河流域文明诞生的数千年前，这里已经开始种植小麦了，并且小麦在此后的的印度河流域文明时期也是该地重要的作物。
在公元前2000年左右，由于西部的干旱使得该地区农作物产量骤减并使得萨拉斯瓦蒂河渐渐干涸，人口中心开始向东转移至恒河平原。从人口中心东移的一开始，小麦就是恒河平原上的重要作物，直至今日也是如此。事实上，现在恒河平原上种植的小麦比西北部种植的还要多。
&2（水稻的）单产在整个历史时期上并不稳定。我不知道现在的单产是多少，但主要的以稻米耕作技术为中心的农耕技术是由唐宋开发的，而这比同时代的欧洲或中东的技术更加有效。（欧洲和中东）的技术也许只是同时代的中美洲农民的水平。实际上，由于长江流域的稻作农业在今天依然与机械化作业无缘&&这点已经众所周知&&如果（过去的）产量与今天的相同，那这就是近代水稻耕作技术活生生的例证。&
我不了解长江流域的农民，但是在现在的印度，小麦的单产比水稻要高。推测4000年前小麦和水稻的产量是非常困难的。那个时代种植的小麦和水稻品种已经不存在了&&它们已经在4000年中被农民选育的其他品种取代了。所以我不能提供4000年前的确切单产到底是多少。也没人能提供这些数字。
To be honest, I am not entirely certain what the relevance of the Indus Valley civilization to this is. That was an early fluorescence of urbanized culture in the subcontinent, but it also collapsed. &Indian civilization& as we think of it stems from the Ganges. If we want to find the roots of India's high population density we would need to start with the early historic, not the IVC.
I'm also not entirely certain why you are talking about 4000 years ago when I am talking about the Tang and the Song.
I am just pointing out that both plants are grasses of related families, both use the exact same C3 photochemistry, so there is no reason to believe that rice yields exceeded that of wheat in ancient times, as OP claimed.
Except that crop yields are not just a matter of pure plant chemistry, that also involve land management, fertilization, harvest techniques, labor organization, breeding techniques and surplus management. In these matters, Song farmers were much more effective than contemporaries in western Eurasia.
The main problem with taking the sort of &climate determinist& position is that the relative population of the areas has shifted and the take off of Chinese population really only began with the exploitation of Yangtze rice farming and the development of agricultural techniques in the Tang and the Song. If this was purely a mater of climate we would expect the relative population of the areas to remain stable.
回复楼上：
说实话，我没完全搞明白印度河流域文明与这个问题有什么关联。印度河流域文明是印度次大陆上城市文明的一颗流星，而且它最后也崩溃了。我们讨论的&印度文明&发源自恒河。如果想找到印度高人口密度的根源，我们应该从早期历史开始，而不是从印度河流域文明开始。
我也没有完全搞明白为什么我在说唐宋的时候你却在讨论4000年前的事。
我只说两种作物都是相近科的早本植物，都利用完全相同的C3进行光合作用，所以没理由相信在古代水稻的产量比小麦要高&&就像楼主说的那样。
作物产量不仅仅与植物的化学反应有关，除此之外，还受到土地管理，施肥，收割技术，劳动组织形式，育种技术和盈余管理等等的影响。在这些问题上，宋朝的农民比同时期的西部欧亚大陆的农民更加有效率。
采纳这种&气候决定论&的主要问题在于，相比之下，印度这个地区的人口转移了，而在中国，人口数量的大增长是在长江流域的水稻种植业发挥作用以及唐宋时期农业技术发展后才开始出现的。如果这仅仅与气候相关，那我们应该会看到两个地区的人口数量是恒定的。
To be honest, I am not entirely certain what the relevance of the Indus Valley civilization to this is. That was an early fluorescence of urbanized culture in the subcontinent, but it also collapsed.
It was one of the four ancient civilizations of the world and larger in area than ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. At its peak, the population of IVC was about 5 million, while the population of the entire world at the time was probably around 20 million. So India accounted for about a quarter of all humans alive at time, which is what the question the OP asked is about - why has India's population been so consistently high.
That is the relevance of IVC.
but it also collapsed. &Indian civilization& as we think of it stems from the Ganges. If we want to find the roots of India's high population density we would need to start with the early historic, not the IVC.
I don't know how you think of it, but I saw a straightforward question about demographics of the Indian subcontinent, and answered it. You seem to be implying that IVC wasn't an Indian civilization, or you don't want to count it as one. I'd be curious about exactly how you classify it. What makes the Gangetic plain Indian, but not the Indus/Saraswati? The fact that part of them are in Pakistan now? But Pakistan is only 70 years old, and not relevant to the question about ancient India.
As for &collapse&, the collapse of cities doesn't mean that the population mysteriously vanished. As I mentioned in my previous posts, the climate started drying in the northwest, and people started migrating eastwards towards the Yamuna, and eventually the Ganges. This wasn't a sudden thing, it happened over hundreds of years. Movement of the demographic population center does not in any way imply that the total population of India decreased, it simply means the geographical distribution changed. So again, I think this is relevant to the question of historically high Indian populations.
I'm also not entirely certain why you are talking about 4000 years ago when I am talking about the Tang and the Song.
Because my entire post is about high populations in ancient India, to answer the OP's question. I didn't bring up the Tang or Song, I was simply explaining why I thought rice yields couldn't have been substantially higher than wheat in the context of India.
Except that crop yields are not just a matter of pure plant chemistry, that also involve land management, fertilization, harvest techniques, labor organization, breeding techniques and surplus management.
Sure, but I see no evidence that this was the case in India, and I pointed out that the actual situation is the opposite today, with wheat yields being higher than rice in India. If someone is going to make a claim that rice yields were higher, then it falls to him to provide some evidence to back it up. The guy I was responding to made the claim but provided no evidence, which was the source of my objection.
In these matters, Song farmers were much more effective than contemporaries in western Eurasia.
That's great. In that case, you should write up a separate post explaining why in China you think rice farming was great and had high yields compared to Europe. For my part, I made no definitive claims about China, since I have no expertise in that area. I made it clear that I was talking primarily about India.
The main problem with taking the sort of &climate determinist& position is that the relative population of the areas has shifted and the take off of Chinese population really only began with the exploitation of Yangtze rice farming and the development of agricultural techniques in the Tang and the Song.
No, it didn't &really only begin& during the Tang and Song period, at least, no more than world population in general was expanding during the same period. Two thousand years ago, long before the Tang and Song, China and India still accounted for roughly 25% of the world population each. The data is from the 2001 paper by M here's the actual table from which this graph was made, showing the Chinese population estimated at 60 million and the Indian population at 75 million, two thousand years ago. High populations for India and China relative to world populations at the time go back much further than Tang and Song.
If this was purely a mater of climate we would expect the relative population of the areas to remain stable.
No, you shouldn't expect that, why would yields remain the same if technology improves, or the quality of seed improves, or any number of other things improve? Nor did I say that it was purely climate. There are hundreds of factors that determine how much food a region produces, technology, fertilizers, farming practices, soils, and many others. I was simply arguing against the simplistic notion that rice is innately more productive than wheat, by pointing out that (1) it's not, and (2) there are other, even more obvious reasons that have been disregarded, namely climate and arable land area.
Now if you want to argue that at some point in time some farmers in China developed a new and better way of rice farming and thus improved their yields, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with any of my arguments. Be sure to mention that you are only speaking of changes post dating that technology, and some explanation of prior high populations is still required.
回复楼上：
&说实话，我没完全搞明白印度河流域文明与这个问题有什么关联。印度河流域文明是印度次大陆上城市文明的一颗流星，而且它最后也崩溃了。&
印度河流域文明是世界四大古代文明之一，并且面积比古埃及和美索不达米亚还要大。在其辉煌时期，人口大约为500万，同时期的世界总人口才大约2000万。也就是，那时印度人口占人类总人口的四分之一左右，而楼主的问题是，为什么印度人口一直如此之多。
这是这个问题与印度河流域文明的关联性。
&而且它最后也崩溃了。我们讨论的&印度文明&发源自恒河。如果想找到印度高人口密度的根源，我们应该从早期历史开始，而不是从印度河流域文明开始。&
我不知道你是对这个问题怎么看，但是我看到了一个与印度次大陆人口特征直接相关的问题并回答了它。你似乎在暗示印度河流域文明并不是印度文明，或者不希望将两者当看成一回事。我对你如何划分感到非常好奇。是什么因素让印度河平原成为印度的一部分，但是印度-萨拉斯瓦蒂河却不是？是不是因为萨拉斯瓦蒂河部分在巴基斯坦境内？而巴基斯坦只有70年的历史，这与古代印度的问题不相关。
至于&崩溃&，城市的崩溃并不意味着人口就神秘的消失了。我在之前的楼层提过，西北部的气候开始变得干旱，人口开始向东迁徙至亚穆纳河，并最终到达恒河。这一切并不是瞬间发生的，而是经历了上百年。人口中心的移动无论如何都不意味着印度总人口下降，而只 意味着地理分布的变化。所以再一次，我认为这与历史上印度人口众多有联系。
&我也没有完全搞明白为什么我在说唐宋的时候你却在讨论4000年前的事。&
因为我的整个发言是回答楼主问题中古代印度人口众多的部分。我没提到唐朝或宋朝，我只是在解释在印度的问题上，为什么我觉得水稻产量不可能比小麦高那么多。
&作物产量不仅仅与植物的化学反应有关，除此之外，还受到土地管理，施肥，收割技术，劳动组织形式，育种技术和盈余管理等等的影响。&
你说的很对，但是没有证据表明这与印度的情况相符，而且我已经指出现今的情况正好相反，在印度，小麦的产量比水稻更高。如果某人声称水稻的产量更高，那么提供证据的责任也在这个人身上。我回复的这个人这么说了却没提供证据，这才是我反对的东西。
&在这些问题上，宋朝的农民比同时期的西部欧亚大陆的农民更加有效率。&
那挺不错的。在这种情况下，你应该单独发一篇文章解释一下，为什么你认为中国的水稻种植业更好并且比欧洲产量更高。而对于我来说，我没有发表什么关于中国的明确的说法，因为我对这方面知之甚少。我说得很清楚，我主要是在讨论印度。
&采纳这种&气候决定论&的主要问题在于，相比之下，印度这个地区的人口转移了，而在中国，人口数量的大增长是在长江流域的水稻种植业发挥作用以及唐宋时期农业技术发展后才开始出现的。&
不，不是在唐宋时期&才开始出现的&，世界人口基本上在同一时期开始扩张。早在两千年前&&这比唐宋时期要早得多&&中国与印度的人口仍然各占据世界总人口的四分之一。
（译注：原链接）数据来自麦迪逊2001年的论文，这里是图表的源数据
（译注：原链接&）表明两千年前，中国人口据估计为600万左右，而印度人口为750万。早在唐宋时期之前，与世界其他地方相比，印度和中国的人口就要多得多。
&如果这仅仅与气候相关，那我们应该会看到两个地区的人口数量是恒定的。&
不，你不该这么想，为什么产量会保持不变呢？如果技术进步了呢，如果种子的质量改进了呢，或者其他的条件改变了呢？我没有说单单只是气候的原因。决定一个地区作物产量的因素有上百个：技术，花费，耕作方式，土壤等等。我只是在反对这么一种简单化的概念：水稻天生比小麦多产，方法就是指出（1）水稻单产并不比小麦多，（2）除此之外，还有其他更明显的原因被忽略了，即气候和耕地面积。
现在，如果你想争辩说，在某个时间中国的农民发展出了一种新的、更好的水稻技术，从而改进了水稻产量，这挺不错的。但是这跟我的讨论没有关系。但要搞清楚，你仅仅在讨论与这些技术同时期发生的变化，而在（这些技术产生）之前有众多人口的原因依然需要解释。
ParallelPain
Tang and Song were much more effective than in contemporary Europe or the Middle East. They were perhaps only equaled by contemporary Mesoamerican farmers. In fact, given that Yangtze rice agriculture has been notoriously resistant to industrial techniques, if yields are equal today that is a true testimony to premodern rice farming techniques.
Industrial techniques has increased rice yield from about 2 tonnes per hectare in 1949 to about 6 tonnes per hectare in 1993.
Yields also increased steadily from Yuan to Qing.
Population during the Qing
Fengtian 000 1000
Shandong 00
Jiangsu 00
Jiangxi 00
Zhejiang 00
Guangdong 00
Match it to a modern map, and there's not much difference in spread.
We also have the Rice-Wheat divide map.
And the land being cultivated map.
So land under cultivation & wheat or rice. Within China itself anyway.
回复六楼：
&而这比同时代的欧洲或中东的技术更加有效。（欧洲和中东）的技术也许只是同时代的中美洲农民的水平。实际上，由于长江流域的稻作农业在今天依然与机械化作业无缘&&这点已经众所周知&&如果（过去的）产量与今天的相同，那这就是近代水稻耕作技术活生生的例证。&
工业技术使得小麦的产量从1949年时的每公顷约2吨增长到了1993年的每公顷约6吨。
【译注：原链接https://books.google.ca/books?id=Xfl91KZfw8kC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=rice+yield+per+hectare+china&source=bl&ots=PkHxqiMG7W&sig=sa4r-o-iDcPFuvX5_cLay1IAEbc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lC2PVLb3NcLVoASGroHAAw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=rice%20yield%20per%20hectare%20china&f=false 】
从元朝到清朝，产量也是稳步上升的。
【译注：原链接https://books.google.ca/books?id=MeajDDSunkEC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=1850+rice+yield+per+hectare+qing&source=bl&ots=J_81_egGsi&sig=XVppixVC8hDhElRyMLFENrDb6PA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NiOPVNLrCJftoASKmoCgAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ）
清朝时期的人口：
【译注：原链接/english/InfoShow/Arcitle_Show_Forum2_Show.asp?ID=278&Title=The%20Humanities%20Study&strNavigation=Home-%3EForum-%3EHistory&BigClassID=4&SmallClassID=8 】
1749& && && && && &&&1776& && && && && &&&1812& && && && && &&&1850
奉天& && &&&407000& && && && & 764000& && && && & 942000& && && && & 2571000
直隶& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
山东& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
河南& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
山西& && &&&9509000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
陕西& && &&&6734000& && && &&&8193000& && && &&&& && && &
甘肃& && &&&5710000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
江苏& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
安徽& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
江西& && &&&8428000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
浙江& && &&&& && && && && && && && && &
福建& && &&&7620000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
湖北& && &&&7527000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
湖南& && &&&8672000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
四川& && &&&2507000& && && &&&7790000& && && &&&& && && &
广东& && &&&6461000& && && &&&& && && && && && &
广西& && &&&3688000& && && && &5382000& && && & 7314000& && && &&&7827000
云南& && &&&1961000& && && && &3103000& && && & 5561000& && && &&&7376000
贵州& && &&&3104000& && && && &5003000& && && & 5288000& && && &&&5434000
如果将其与现代的地图相匹配，在范围上没有多大区别（译注：原链接）也有水稻-小麦的分区种植地图
（译注：原链接）以及耕地地图
（译注：原链接）
ParallelPain
So not true. The yellow river basin and further north planted wheat. And it wasn't until the early Ming that the population in the south outnumber the north, and that was because of centuries of southward migration due to warfare.
Thought that book is now heavily contested
回复六楼：
不是这样的。黄河流域及其北方种植小麦。而且直到明初南方的人口才超过北方，这是由于战乱导致的长达数百年的人口南迁造成的。
当然现在也在争论中。
Lazar_Taxon
But why is it that when we compare a map of population density and a map of agriculture, the wheat-growing areas appear just as dense, if not denser, than the rice-growing areas? Shandong (the 2nd densest province) and Henan (4th) are bo and Jiangsu (1st) and Anhui (6th) are both in the mixed zone.
回复二楼：
但是为什么当我们将人口密度地图
（译注：原链接）与农业地图
（译注：原链接&）相比较时，小麦种植区的人口密度与水稻种植区一样密集&&如果不是更密集的话？山东（人口第二密集的省份）与河南（排第四）都在小麦种植区；而江苏（排第一）和安徽（第六）都在混合种植区。
Animastryfe
Those maps appear to be from the last few years. The OP's question is about the historical perspective. Are current population densities constrained by nearby agriculture? Wouldn't modern transportation systems make that unnecessary? From the first map, it seems that the coastal provinces with the largest cities have the highest population density, which makes sense.
回复楼上：
这些地图是最近几年的，而楼主的问题是从历史角度出发的。现在的人口密度会受制于附近的农业吗？现代运输系统不会让这不再必要吗？从第一张地图来看，沿海的、有大城市的省份人口密度更高，这倒是挺有道理的。
Those maps may be recent, but both wheat and rice are equally old crops, and were certainly both cultivated in India and China during the period in question (the ancient Indian and Chinese civilizations).
I think his theory is just wrong. No nutritionist would agree that rice has more nutritional content than wheat. It has about 10% more calories, but 75% less protein. Nutritional analysis is a complex thing and not summarized by &10% more calories&.
The more reasonable explanation is that India and China have huge amounts of arable land (2nd and 3rd in the world, just behind the US), and a tropical climate with multiple growing seasons per year. This makes them suitable for producing large amounts of food period, not specifically &rice rather than wheat&, which is nonsense.
回复楼上：
这些地图应该是近期的，但是小麦和水稻都是古老的作物，两者肯定都在楼主提到的时间（在古印度和古中国文明时期）在印度和中国耕种过。
我认为他的解释是错的。没有营养学家会同意和水稻比小麦有更多的营养成分。水稻比小麦多10%的卡路里，但是少75%的蛋白质。营养分析是个复杂的过程，不能被简单概括为&多10%的卡路里&。
更合理的解释是印度和中国有大量的耕地（世界第二和第三，仅少于美国），以及允许一年多熟的热带气候。这使得两国可以在作物成熟时生产大量的食物，不是什么&水稻比大米好&，这纯粹是无稽之谈。
Animastryfe
I have no comments about your last two paragraphs, as I have no knowledge of this subject, but what I was trying to comment on was whether the current population density is similar to the historical population density. That is, perhaps the parity of the population densities between the wheat growing and rice growing only happened relatively recently and has nothing to do with wheat or rice.
However, both your and /u/ParallelPain's posts cast doubt on the top-level comment's claims.
回复楼上：
我对于最后的两篇文章不予置评，因为我对讨论的主题没什么了解，我试图评论的是，现在的人口密度是否与历史上的相似。也就是说，也许人口密度与水稻、小麦之间的匹配关系 只是最近发生的，而与是小麦还是稻米无关。
而且，你在这个帖子（译注：原链接/u/ParallelPain ）和本帖中都对最佳评论进行反驳。
Dudedude88
As a biology and physiology major i would have to disagree on your position relative to ancient times. In this case, calories has more value than protein.
Asian peasants were required to do a lot of manual labor. This requires a lot of calories. If your body is running on a deficit of calories protein would give you no nutritional value b/c you are burning all the calories off. Thus, these peasants would have benefited from a high caloric diet than something with more balance.
In today's world we eat an excess of carbohydrates to the point we develop type 2 diabetes. A balance diet with protein and carbohydrate is important in modern health. This was not the case in ancient times when carbohydrates were harder to come by.
回复十四楼：
我有生物和生理学学位，我不同意你关于古代的立场。在那时，卡路里比蛋白质重要的多。
亚洲的农民需要做很多体力劳动。这需要大量的卡路里。如果你的卡路里摄入量入不敷出的话，蛋白质不会提供营养，你将燃烧所有的卡路里。因此，这些农民将会从高热量含量的事务中获益，而不是从其他更均衡的食物中获益。
现在，我们的碳水化合物摄入的过多以至于产生了2型糖尿病。在现代，蛋白质和碳水化合物均衡的食物对健康有益。而在古代则不是如此，那时碳水化合物还是很难获得的。
&As a biology and physiology major&, I suggest you have a lot to learn. Kwashiorkor affects a hell of a lot of kids worldwide, resulting in massive morbidity and mortality. It's easy to forget sitting in the western world just how hard it can be to get sufficient proteins, and how serious the effects of deficiency. Even plain old calorie-deficit starvation becomes a lot worse and kills much faster if proteins are also lacking, as in marasmus.
If someone had to do with 75% less protein versus 10% less total calories compared to their RDA, I think 75% less protein would kill sooner, specially in childhood. People can survive mild starvation for a lot longer than they can tolerate acute protein deficiency.
In today's world we eat an excess of carbohydrates to the point we develop type 2 diabetes.
Wrong context. Go live in starving African or Asian countries, you'll discover a whole new range of health problems. You should be talking about masarmus and kwashiorkor, not diabetes.
All of which is irrelevant to the point to begin with. The population density of India and China was 3-4 times higher than that of ancient Europe. You can't explain a 300-400% difference in population with a 10% difference in calories. Math doesn't work out.
回复楼上：
&我有生物和生理学学位&，我建议你还是多多学习吧。蛋白质缺乏综合征导致世界范围内大量的孩子死于超高的发病率和死亡率。坐在西方世界使得人们容易忘记获得足够的蛋白质是多么困难，其后果又是多么严重。如果缺乏蛋白质，即便是过去普通的缺乏卡路里导致的饥饿也会变得更加糟糕，并加快致死过程&&像消瘦就是这样。
如果一个人必须在其推荐日摄入量的基础上减少75%的蛋白质摄入或减少10%总热量摄入之间进行抉择的话，我想减少75%的蛋白质会更加致命，尤其是在儿童时代。比起严重的蛋白质缺乏，人们可以忍受更长时间的轻度饥饿。
&现在，我们的碳水化合物摄入的过多以至于产生了2型糖尿病。&
这句话的背景是错误的。在饿殍遍野的非洲或亚洲国家，你会发现全新的健康问题。你应该谈论的是消瘦和蛋白质缺乏综合征，而不是糖尿病。
但是，这些与这个问题毫无关系。（古代）印度和中国的人口密度比古代欧洲高3到4倍。你不能用10%卡路里的差别来解释人口上300%到400%的差异。这在数学上行不通。
ParallelPain
Historically the wheat growing yellow river basin and anything further north had more population and was the centre of Chinese civilisation. Only by the Ming did population in the south match the north, and only because of centuries of southward migration due to warfare in the north.
回复十三楼：
历史上种植小麦的黄河流域及其以北地区拥有更多的人口，并且是中华文明的中心。在明朝时南方的人口才追上北方的人口，而这仅仅是因为几百年来为躲避战火从北方迁徙至南方的移民。
Forgotmyoldlogon
Wow! Thanks!
So, short answer, crop yield of rice. Good to know... would I be right in thinking that the rain required to sustain this rice crop also 'short answer' contributes to this as well?
I'm thinking in 'short answer' terms: High enough rainfall to sustain a rice crop which in turn is very good at sustaining a human population...? [Mini TL;DR - Lotsa rain which is good for lotsa rice which is good for lotsa people?]
And thanks for the book recommend, I'll check it out.
哇欧！谢谢！、
所以，简单来说就是水稻产量。知道答案真好&供养水稻所需的雨水也是&简单答案&的重要因素之一，我这么说对吗？（简单来说很多雨才能长很多稻子才能养活很多人？）
我在想，就&简单答案&来说，足够多的降水才能维持水稻作物的生长，从而有利于养活人口。
多谢提供了那么多书，我会查查的。
darwinfish86Early Modern Militaries
High rainfall, yes, but also climate and geography. There are places in the world with more precipitation than India or China, it is more specifically the combined effect of the great seasonal monsoons from the Indian Ocean and the adjacent Himalayan mountains. Hot, wet air from the equatorial oceans travels north into the Himalayas where the colder temperatures of the mountains condense that hot humid air into rain and snowfall. Snowfall in the Himalayas feeds the seasonal floods of all the rivers of south, east, and southeast Asia. Yearly climactic cycles mean that this flooding is regular and dependable, hence extremely reliable for purposes of agriculture.
Similar dependable flooding is the backbone of many other early civilizations like Egypt and Mesopotamia, but they did not grow rice in the ancient Nile and Euphrates valleys. These areas were also surrounded by inhospitable desert, and the flooding in Mesopotamia was neither regular nor reliable. In contrast the Ganges and the Yangtze are surrounded by subtropical or temperate environments very conducive to human settlement. The regularity of the seasonal floods and the high yield of rice as a staple crop are both dependent factors of the overall geography.
In short, there never is a &short answer&.
回复楼上：
高降水量确实相关，但是气候和地理也有关。世界上也有降水量比印度和中国更多的地方，印度和中国的降水）特别之处在于，其受到从印度洋来的季风和喜马拉雅山的共同影响。炎热、潮湿的空气从赤道海域一路向北到达喜马拉雅山脉，喜马拉雅山脉寒冷的气温使得炎热潮湿的空气凝结成降雨和降雪。喜马拉雅山脉的降雪给南亚、东亚和东南亚的河流带来了季节性的洪水。每年的气候循环意味着，这种洪水是规律、可靠的，因此将其用于农业用途是非常可靠的。
类似的可靠的洪水也是像埃及文明、美索不达米亚文明等其他早期文明的重要支柱，但是在古代的尼罗河流域与幼发拉底河谷并不种植水稻。这些区域都被荒凉的沙漠包围，而美索不达米亚的洪水既不规律也不可靠。相比之下，恒河与长江流域周围都是非常适宜人类居住的亚热带、温带环境。规律的季节性洪水以及将高产的水稻作为主粮都是依赖于整个地理环境的因素。
简单来说，绝对没有什么&简单答案&。
Forgotmyoldlogon
Oh wow, that was a really clear explanation. I feel like I've read about this before, but never really understood it until now.
Thanks for explaining. I really see the picture more clearly than I did a few hours ago.
哇欧，解释得真清楚。我感觉我之前读过这些，但是直到现在才搞明白。
多谢你的解释。我对于这个问题的看法比几个小时前清楚了不少。
Interesting! How exactly does the high crop yield translate to a high population? Do people have more children, or do children have a better chance of reaching adulthood?
回复层主：
有意思！作物的高产量到底是怎么转换成高人口数量的？是因为人可以有更多孩子，还是孩子更有可能长大成人？
darwinfish86Early Modern Militaries
High crop yield simply means more food is produced for a given area under cultivation. If 1 acre of wheat yields 100 bushels of grain, while 1 acre of rice yields 300 bushels of grain, obviously you can feed more people with rice using an equivalent area of farmland. If, ceteris paribus, that single acre takes an equivalent amount of labor to cultivate it logically follows that a higher-yield crop will produce a larger surplus, and hence will be able to support a higher population.
回复楼上：
作物的高产量仅仅只意味着单位可耕作土地上产出更多食物。如果一平方英亩的小麦可以产出100蒲式耳粮食，而一平方英亩水稻可以产出300蒲式耳粮食，很明显，在耕地面积相等的情况下，用水稻可以养活更多人口。
Yeah I get that, but I was asking whether Europeans chose to have less children because there wasn't enough food, or if they had the same number of kids but they died of starvation unlike children born in Asia.
回复楼上：
对我知道这个，但是我问的是，欧洲人是不是因为没有足够的食物而选择少生孩子，或者是欧洲人生了同样数量的孩子但是这些孩子与亚洲的孩子不同，他们饿死了。
Looseseal99&&
Do people generally have more children when there is more food available?
回复楼上：
如果食物有富余，人们是不是普遍多要孩子？
thedancingpanda&
Less people die before having children when there is more food available.
回复楼上：
如果食物有富余，死在婚育年龄前的人会少些。
Looseseal99
Oooh I gotcha. Thanks!
哦，明白了，谢谢！
Searocksandtrees
hi! you'll find more info in the FAQ (link on sidebar)
Why do China and India have such large populations?
嘿！在这儿你能找到更多信息：
为什么中国和印度有如此多的人口？
【译注：原链接/r/AskHistorians/wiki/asia#wiki_why_do_china_and_india_have_such_large_populations.3F 】
Forgotmyoldlogon[S] 2 指標 1 月 前&
Oh, hey, thanks! :) Probably should have checked there first.
哦，谢谢^_^也许我应该首先看这一层。
I don't know India. But of China, it is worthy to mention Qing dynasty and Spanish invaders of America. Until 1644, the year of Ming dynasty's collapse and Qing's invasion from Manchuria, China had never had more than 100 million people. Why? The food. China had long lived on wheat and rice, which provided low yield per acre before the coming of modern fertilizer, machines and seeds. But things were changing slightly. With Spanish's invasion of America, corn, potato, and sweet potato spreaded round the world. Chinese first knew these foods at late Ming dynasty via Spanish colony-Philippines. Gradually they were introduced to China, first in Guangdong and Fujian province. After Qing dynasty's establishment, these foods were increasingly planted in China, esp in mountainous areas or lands which were not suitable for wheat and rice. Thanks to these foods, China had a population more than 400 million in late Qing dynasty(). This population guaranteed China to survive the European's colonialism and Japanese's imperialism.
我不知道印度的情况。但是对于中国，值得一提的是清朝以及侵入美洲的西班牙入侵者。直到1644年明朝灭亡，清朝从满洲入侵之前，中国人口从没有过亿。为什么？因为食物。中国一直以小麦和水稻为食，在现代化肥，机械和种子进入中国之前，（小麦和水稻的）单量一直很低。但事情稍微有些变化。随着西班牙入侵美洲，玉米、土豆以及红薯开始在世界上传播开来。在明代晚期通过西班牙殖民的菲律宾，中国第一次了解到这些食物。这些食物逐渐被引进中国，首先是从广东和福建开始。清朝建立后，这些作物越来越多的在中国播种开来，尤其实在不适合种植小麦和水稻山岳地区及其他地方。多亏了这些食物，中国在清朝后期（）有了四亿多人口。这些人口是的中国得以在欧洲人的殖民和日本中的入侵下存活下来。
首页 > 网帖翻译 > 美国
相关推荐：
请理性讨论！
如果把中国人看作是黄种人的代表，欧洲，北美，澳洲，俄罗斯看作是白人的代表，那么其实不是中国人口多，而是黄种人土地太少
中国：山川壮丽，物产丰隆。
印度：气候温和，雨水充足。
两个都是农耕大国，差别在于印度偏向靠天地吃饭。中国更偏向于勤劳改造地球。长期的积累，印度产生了感天谢地的宗教。
而中国则产生了灿烂的农耕文化，农历、星相、节气、风水、美食等，更相信天子皇权，人的因素。差别在此。
我觉得不只是粮食的关系，
当然保证食物供应是非常重要的，
但是，亚洲国家普遍人口多，
那是因为在亚洲的历史循环中，
混乱后是大治，然后再混乱，
而欧洲，我听说一直是战乱……就很少有大治的情况，
在近代才有改观。
灰子holise
-----------------------------------------------------------------
哎，别提这茬了。麻沸散只存在于历史书而不是教科书。个人认为华佗在医疗功绩恐怕比其他人要高的多，但是也要低的多……因为他最早开创了“刮骨疗毒”和麻沸散，两者相辅相成。外科手术的开创者，但是却没有传播者……尼玛，失传了！大哥，好歹写本书藏于深山吧？据说在大牢里写好了书，被牢头烧了……如果没有失传，经过千年的发展，我们的医疗水平……外科手术啊！光用在妇女生孩子上都会少死多少人？可惜可惜可惜。曹操是人类的历史罪人。
跟医学也有关系吧！我们开始有麻沸散的时候，欧洲人连怎么种地都还不知道呢。
哪天不换被窝呢
说白了就是人懒，中国人有块地就种作物，即便离水源远也可以挑水灌溉，西亚以及欧洲还有美洲都是不管好不好的地，全都种草，然后放羊放牛，这样虽然人轻松，但是产出极少！你给中国人一亩地，第2年你去看那块地里不是种庄稼就是种蔬菜，你再把这亩地给外国人，你第3年去看的时候，那地里就全是草了，顶多多了两只羊，1亩地种小麦水稻或者玉米，产量都在1000斤以上，绝对够3个人一年的口粮，如果这块地放2只羊，2只羊的羊肉是绝对不足以支撑3个人活一年的
睡美雨声中
玉米红薯使中国人口从一亿涨到四亿
为什么在美洲没有导致较多的人口-----------------------------------------------------------------
所以农业产量不是人口增长的唯一因素，而这篇文章全都集中在这方面去了。
印度是得益于相对安定的环境和优越的自然条件
而中国则是得益于大一统的政府相对有效的管理：例如政府每年按照时气指导农业生产、鼓励开荒兴修水利、强制人口迁移分家生育、组织大规模救灾救疫等等。在此基础上，引进农作物产量增长，现代医学寿命提高，在和平环境下人口就发生暴涨。
北宋人口就过亿，外国人竟扯蛋！
我国战国末期就2000万人口了。2000年前汉朝肯定不止500万。武帝疯狂打仗损失了一半人口，那也能剩下千万以上。
中国人口大起大落，像安史之乱那样死三千万以上，死60%以上的人口的情况有很多次。还有蒙古屠杀汉人8000万是作为人类史上最大的屠杀进了吉尼斯纪录的。
大量死人的情况有：秦统一六国，汉朝建立，汉朝对外战争，王莽之乱，三国争霸，安史之乱，唐末天下大乱，两宋灭亡，明末起义，满人屠汉，太平天国。这些事件大都造成了中国人口大量损失，几乎每次都不亚于一个八年抗战的伤亡。汉族人口从大几千万降到几百万也是有的。
我们引以为傲的三国时代，可是死人90%以上。
但是一到治世就人口井喷，百年之内恢复几千万，是因为农业技术发达，人民勤劳，土地肥沃，赋税较轻的原因。学过生物的都知道这种情况下是J型增长或者说指数增长。增长到充分利用了资源的程度，就趋于饱和，比方说宋朝的过亿人口。每个朝代越到后面赋税都是越重的。
清朝之所以能够有4亿人口，有好几个原因，比如说玉米土豆的种植，医学发达，不因为人口加税，还有就是征服了多民族，大量土地，人口基数和资源上限都增大了。解放后大家都知道了。
人口是我们的巨大优势，但是现在如果发生一场生死之战，白人想要把我们灭种，可是比满蒙容易多了。
瞬变电磁法
单单中国人喝开水一项就比外国人聪明无数}
我要回帖
更多关于 印度人口2016多少人口 的文章
更多推荐
- ·个人交养老保险险和医疗保险在一个地方交吗
- ·天安保险属于哪家公司公司主要股东
- ·股票怎么开通万一免五股票账户是真的吗？有何优劣势？如何使用？
- ·任客来智慧农业appP如何让传统农业“活”起来？
- ·在中国银行个人定期存单可以异地取么定期存款到期了可以在异地办理吗？
- ·发往国内货物进入保税区保税区的货物算"实际进出境"吗
- ·中石化跟中石油哪个好和中石油的油哪个好
- ·想做好财务工作，必须练好哪些三基工作基本功训练
- ·截面琼斯模型-
- ·信用卡分期0.68贷款68万还不起会判几年
- ·亲，哪里有消防灭火器配备标准 消防器材店
- ·离职后五险一金怎么取出来
- ·公司新来的那个小姑娘，被老员工加盟联合丽格整形医院起来整哭了。 好惨，，，，
- ·有贵州民族大学是几本学长么
- ·抗日战争期间侵华日军残忍对待 731 部队进行过哪些残忍试验
- ·前天从朋友那用了400元请的戴观音菩萨的吊坠禁忌吊坠！请问这枚菩萨吊坠质的如何，价钱是否合理？谢谢
- ·电竞职业选手有月薪怎么招人
- ·我在一家国企公司实习了三个月 一开始进公司 公司帮我做了职业病危害
- ·后西游记txt 不老婆婆 为什么观音在南海
- ·印度为什么不控制人口眼看就要走出敌占区了追上中国了，但是印度多
- ·如何轻松在大四招聘季获取年薪12万个税如何申报的工作
- ·职校市场营销好找工作吗专业好找工作吗
- ·办暂开占住证需要那些证明拿什么
- ·工作处处要小心翼翼中处处都藏危机
- ·中国目前有“波音747和空客a3800”吗
- ·美国政府真的是被美联储控制美国政府的么
- ·基层公检法都是怎么如何看待基层工作彼此的
- ·工业机器人专业的俄语专业就业前景景
- ·有没有招兼职cad制图员兼职的
- ·CSOL2军装csol崔智云x邪恶图怎么买 军装csol崔智云x邪恶图获取攻略
- ·去香港抽血验男女报告单的手续？
- ·办理无业证明怎样办理？办理过失业证 离职证明的原单位开的离职证明能不能当失业证 离职证明明使用？
- ·将来世界和平了 保定不打仗了 和平了 出自哪里
- ·淮南子的精神训宣传了精神不灭的封建迷信思想？鬼神都是人类人们头脑中的鬼神观念的幻想？
- ·综治干部社区开展综治宣传月民调工作时要注意哪些问题
