Causes of the Qing Dynasty's collapse: Parallels to today's instability

The Qing Dynasty in China, after over 250 years, crumbled in 1912. Led by the Complexity Science Hub (CSH), an international research team has pinpointed key reasons behind the collapse, revealing parallels to modern instability and offering vital lessons for the future.

China is considered today to be the world's largest economy (in terms of PPP). However, this position is not new. In 1820, China's economy already held the top spot, accounting for 32.9% of the global GDP. In the interim, there was a period of decline followed by a resurgence. In 1912, after over 250 years in power, the Qing Dynasty collapsed despite being considerably wealthier at the time than modern-day China. "This clearly demonstrates that any economy must be vigilant as circumstances can change, and sometimes rather rapidly," emphasizes Georg Orlandi, the study's first author.

SIMILAR ROOTS THEN AND NOW

"It's crucial to comprehend the origins of such instabilities. Assuming it's a thing of the past and can't recur would be a mistake. Such changes can indeed happen because the underlying mechanisms bear surprising similarities," CSH researcher Peter Turchin points out.

Scientists have been attempting to pinpoint the causes behind the fall of the Qing Dynasty for two centuries. Various factors had previously been proposed, including environmental disasters, foreign incursions, famines, or uprisings. However, "none of these factors provides a comprehensive explanation," notes Turchin.

THREE MAIN DRIVERS

Hence, in this study, researchers amalgamated various factors and discovered that three elements dramatically heightened socio-political pressures:

Firstly, there was a fourfold population explosion between 1700 and 1840. This resulted in reduced land per capita and caused an impoverishment of the rural populace.

Secondly, this led to increased competition for elite positions. While the number of contenders soared, the number of awarded highest academic degrees declined, reaching its nadir in 1796. Because such a degree was necessary for obtaining a position in the powerful Chinese bureaucracy, this mismatch between the number of positions and those desiring them created a large pool of disgruntled elite aspirants. The leaders of the Taiping Rebellion, perhaps the bloodiest civil war in human history, were all such failed elite-wannabes.

Thirdly, the state's financial burden escalated due to rising costs associated with suppressing unrest, declining per capita productivity, and mounting trade deficits stemming from depleting silver reserves and opium imports.

Collectively, these factors culminated in a series of uprisings that heralded the end of the Qing Dynasty and exacted a heavy toll in terms of Chinese lives lost.

THE QING WERE AWARE

According to the study's findings, social tensions had already peaked between 1840 and 1890. "Assuming that the Qing rulers were unaware of this mounting pressure would be erroneous," explains Turchin. The fact that the dynasty endured until 1912 rather underscores its institutional structures' robustness.

However, many of their attempted solutions proved short-sighted or inadequate to the task; for instance, the government raised the allowable quota for people passing certain degree exams but without increasing the number of available openings. This ended up exacerbating the already-building tensions. With the arrival of potent geopolitical challengers through the late 19th century, the rulers ultimately couldn't avert their downfall.

PREVENT INSTABILITY TODAY

We can draw valuable lessons from this historical process for the contemporary era and the future. Many nations worldwide are grappling with potential instability and conditions that closely resemble those of the Qing Dynasty. For instance, competition for top positions remains exceedingly fierce. Orlandi cautions, "When a large number of individuals vie for a limited number of positions, political decision-makers should view this as a red flag, as it can, at the very least, lead to heightened instability."

"Unfortunately, the corrosive impact of rising inequality and diminishing opportunities develop over longer time scales that make them hard to recognize," adds co-author and CSH Affiliated Researcher Daniel Hoyer, "let alone effectively combat within the short political cycles we see in many countries. Without long-term vision and targeted strategies to relieve these social pressures, many places are at risk of going the way of the Qing."

Read more at Science Daily

What happens in the brain when we imagine the future?

In quiet moments, the brain likes to wander -- to the events of tomorrow, an unpaid bill, an upcoming vacation.

Despite little external stimulation in these instances, a part of the brain called the default mode network (DMN) is hard at work. "These regions seem to be active when people aren't asked to do anything in particular, as opposed to being asked to do something cognitively," says Penn neuroscientist Joseph Kable.

Though the field has long suspected that this neural network plays a role in imagining the future, precisely how it works hadn't been fully understood. Now, research from Kable and two former graduate students in his lab, Trishala Parthasarathi, associate director of scientific services at OrtleyBio, and Sangil Lee, a postdoc at University of California, Berkeley, sheds light on the matter.

In a paper published in the Journal of Neuroscience, the research team discovered that, when it comes to imagining the future, the default mode network actually splits into two complementary parts. One helps create and predict the imagined event, what the researchers call the "constructive" function. The other assesses whether that newly constructed event is positive or negative, what they call the "evaluative" function.

"It's a neat division," says Kable. "When psychologists talk about why humans have the ability to imagine the future, usually it's so we can decide what to do, plan, make decisions. But a critical function is the evaluative function; it's not just about coming up with a possibility but also evaluating it as good or bad."

Building on previous work

The DMN itself includes the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and regions in the medial temporal and parietal lobes, such as the hippocampus. It's aptly named, Kable says. "When you put people into a brain scanner and ask them to not do anything, to just sit there, these are the brain regions that seem to be active," he says.

Previous research had revealed which areas make up the DMN and that constructing and evaluating imagined events activates different components. Kable wanted to test that idea further, to better pinpoint the implicated regions and what's happening in each.

To do so, he and his team created a study in which 13 females and 11 males received prompts while in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine. Participants had seven seconds to read one of 32 cues such as, "Imagine you're sitting on a warm beach on a tropical island," or "Imagine you win the lottery next year." They then had 12 seconds to think about the scenario, followed by 14 seconds to rate vividness and valence.

"Vividness is the degree to which the image that comes to mind has a lot of details and how much those details subjectively pop as opposed to being vague," Kable says. "Valence is an emotional evaluation. How positive or negative is the event? Is this something you want to have happen or not?"

Participants went through the process four times. Each time, the Penn researchers watched brain activity from the fMRI. The work confirmed two sub-networks at play.

"One network, which we'll call the dorsal default mode network, was influenced by valence. In other words, it was more active for positive events than for negative events, but it was not influenced at all by vividness. It seems to be involved in the evaluative function," Kable says.

The other sub-network, the ventral default mode network, was more active for highly vivid events than for events with no detail. "But it wasn't influenced by valence," he says. "It was equally active for both positive and negative events, showing that network really is involved in the construction piece of imagination."

Next steps

According to Kable, the findings offer a first step toward understanding the basis of imaginative abilities. This research asked participants to evaluate the positivity or negativity of an imagined event, but more complex assessments -- moving beyond the simple good-versus-bad dimension, for instance -- might offer further clues about this neural process.

That kind of analysis will likely comprise future work for the Kable lab, which has already begun using these findings to parse why people don't value future outcomes as much as immediate outcomes.

"One theory is that the future isn't as vivid, isn't as tangible and detailed and concrete as something right in front of your face," he says. "We've started to use our identification of the sub-network involved in construction to ask the question, how active is this network when people are thinking about future outcomes compared to the same outcome in the present."

And although the research was completed before COVID-19, Kable sees pandemic-related implications for these findings. "If you described what someone's life was going to be like to them before the pandemic hit -- you're going to work from home and wear a mask every time you go outside and not engage in any social contact -- it would blow their mind. And yet, once we have the actual experiences, it's no longer so strange. For me, this demonstrates that we still have far to go in understanding our imaginative capabilities."

Read more at Science Daily