『Click on the chapter to report an error』

Intellectuals can concentrate on their studies and thus improve the average quality of the people, while blacksmiths, merchants, weavers, and others, who are basically on the same level as them, can truly transform the whole country and increase the labor productivity of the whole society. Society naturally takes less time to move into the more advanced capitalist societies that it has today.

With the great abundance of social productive capacity, the number of people who can be separated from production is increasing, and their average level is also rising because of the gradual popularization of education, and all kinds of development can naturally be more progressive.

Of course, the out-of-work population does not mean that it is all positive energy.

With Confucianism, then monopolization, no one supervises, and it begins to degenerate.

When later generations of Chinese medicine angrily scolded those so-called "Confucian doctors", they said: "Today, the needle and the head of the law will not work for a long time, and the doctor will abandon the difficulties and make it easy. The way of the world is getting worse and lower, and the times are also trending. ”

He had no surgical training at all, and he didn't know how to use knives and needles, so he could only rely on a few prescriptions he memorized and prescribed a few decoctions, but he pretended to care for his patients, saying that surgery would put his life in danger and hurt his vitality. He also recognized abscess and carbuncle as internal diseases, and those re-enlistments as death signs, "If I die, I can show that I have made a decision, but I am fortunate not to die, and I can ask for merit and thank you."

In fact, it is "to be foolish and sick, and to protect one's own shortcomings", which is really deceitful!

And "if I die, I can show that I have a decision, but I am fortunate not to die, and I can ask for merit and thank you", right, if there is a problem in the country, it is resolutely not willing to solve it, but to pull a bunch of kings and sages, and then widely educate, so the problem will be solved. When things broke out, that's what I said, and if things go away, it's still my credit. This kind of practice is actually "fooling the world and protecting its own shortcomings", which is really deceiving!

In the West, it was also the tune, to be precise, that the kings of Western Europe gathered an army of peasants and killed the knights with muskets. Fighting with cold weapons requires more physical strength, more training time, and better defensive equipment, and there is a big difference between the lethality and defense of a full-time knight and a non-full-time or semi-full-time militia. With the popularization and evolution of gunpowder, the physical strength and training time required have decreased, and the armor made of steel, in the face of the evolved gunpowder weapons, the defense power has gradually decreased, which has led to the disparity in the lethality and defense of the off-duty knights is not as great as the use of cold weapons, and the militia can overwhelm the quality of the knights with quantity.

The core of all the issues is how many people in the secret realm can feed the unemployed population.

This refers to the elite who do not have to work all day, but practice after eating, and rest when they are done.

Based on the ration of 0.8 catties per person per day (less than three taels of meals per meal, normal for ordinary people, and low for professional soldiers), 0.8×365 = 292≈300 catties per person per year.

In the pre-industrial farming era without pesticides and fertilizers and without the breeding of excellent varieties, the yield of wheat per mu was about 100 catties (common in the Middle Ages in Western Europe), and the yield of wheat millet or rice per mu was about 300 catties (common in the Ming Dynasty). 1 square kilometer is equal to 1,500 mu, that is to say, according to the agricultural level of the Ming Dynasty, 1 person per mu was fed, and 1,500 people per square kilometer were fed.

So we can assume very briefly the following scenario: the territory of a country is 1 square kilometer (so shabby). If each person can only take care of one acre of land, then everyone can only feed themselves and cannot feed the soldiers who are out of production, and if each person can manage two acres of land (and the land is only 1,500 acres),

Then you can save 750 people as soldiers. If each person has the ability to manage five acres of land, well, it only takes 300 farmers to support an army of 1,200 people. However, the upper limit of the population can only be 1,500, and it cannot be more, and more will cause the population to die back to this number due to lack of food. Before the revolution in grain yield per acre (such as the invention of the four-nursery rotation, the discovery of super-fertile soil, and the introduction of sweet potatoes, corn and potatoes), all the rulers could do was to squeeze the per capita amount of cultivated land managed by the peasants, so as to determine how many people would farm and how many would defend the country out of 1,500 people. Moreover, this minimalist model does not take into account other part-time occupations other than peasants and soldiers, including but not limited to the ruling class, nobles/landlords, priests/monks, officials, craftsmen/workers, service workers, clerks, merchants, etc.

Factors that reduce production such as unfavorable terrain, floods, droughts, and locust infestations are not taken into account, as well as large food consumers such as six livestock. The assumption is that the entire population is young and middle-aged males, not counting women, children, and the elderly...... In the pyramid-shaped natural distribution of the population structure, it should be reasonable to take the data of young and middle-aged men accounting for a quarter of the total population, so that under the condition of "five acres of land per person", in fact, every 1,500 people can pull out 300 permanent residents, which is 2 million soldiers in a population of 10 million.

Many times, we are learning from the "unsuccessful" experience of some successful companies or successful people. There is a widespread myth in the human brain that as long as a company achieves phased success, then any of its practices will become advanced and worthy of reference. Just like a company succeeds, its strategic design, its R&D concept, its market strategy, its HR system... Everything about it is being learned as a "success story" by many companies, and countless management books and MBA programs say "how it is done".

But when it took them only a year, they went from first to bankruptcy, and the management books and MBA programs that once touted these "success stories" changed their rhetoric to "the reason why they went bankrupt was because of its strategic direction (or R&D concept, or ...... How how". Those "successful experiences" that have been learned by countless companies have become the culprits that lead to bankruptcy in an instant.

The same is true of HP, which I have seen at its peak when everyone inside and outside the company was saying that HP's success was because of "the HP way," and "the HP way" was even ranked as the best way to manage a business in the United States. But when HP began to decline in 2004, fewer and fewer people mentioned the "HP Way", and some people even began to criticize the "HP Way".

In fact, the real development of any enterprise is far different from our process interpretation based on results - the path is clear, and the choice of each step is the result of conscious, planning and design. The real process is often an uncertain choice, and it is likely to be "intentionally planting flowers and flowers not living, unintentionally planting willows and willows into the shade", which is an alternate, repeated, tangled, and sober process.

This is true of the successful experience of enterprises, and the same is true of the successful experience of individuals (so comrades, success learning is not to be dropped~) Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" deeply dissected the root of this "successful experience" cognitive bias: the human brain cannot properly process what does not happen.

In fact, many of the important events that do happen involve many choices that can lead you to exaggerate the power of your skills and underestimate the impact of luck on the final outcome.

Although there is such a big cognitive bias in the "successful experience" summarized or shared by others, if we want to grow faster, we have to learn from the experience of others. How do you discern what kind of experience is worth learning?

There are three criteria for judging:

Criterion 1: Does the person who shares it have a successful experience himself? There is a very strange thing in society that many people who share "successful experience" have no successful experience in this area at all. Most of the teachers who give make-up lessons to primary and secondary school students in major off-campus tutoring institutions are part-time college students, and many of them have average grades when they are studying. If I didn't master effective learning methods at that time, how could I tutor these primary and secondary school students? For another example, there are almost few "entrepreneurial mentors" who have successfully started a business by taking advantage of the "mass entrepreneurship and innovation" outlet. I haven't really done it myself, and then teach the entrepreneurial camp students the "successful experience" of entrepreneurship, how high can the gold content be (the value of changing the "failed entrepreneurial experience" may be higher)

Criterion 2: How broad is the scope of successful experiences?It is not easy for one person to excel in one field, let alone dozens of fields. If a person shares with you the management of human resources today, the management of finances tomorrow, and how to play a musical instrument the day after tomorrow, then you have to have reservations about his successful experience, and there must be some so-called "successful experience" that is only scratching the surface and lacking insight into the essential laws. With this standard, if one day I don't share my experience related to thinking style and learning methods with you on Zhihu, but share with you how to raise children and how to fall in love, you will know that my experience is not worth learning from.

Criterion 3: Has the successful experience passed the expiration date? Experience, like food, has an expiration date. If the first two criteria are met, let's continue to understand: (1) When did his successful experience happen? When does the successful experience of ten years ago come to the present, what you have to learn must not be the superficial approach, but the underlying laws and thinking logic under the surface. (2) Is he still doing it? If he is not doing it now, then many of his cognitions may not reflect the latest situation in the industry, and you should be careful when learning from it. The environment has changed, the time has changed, and the preconditions for the validity of experience are likely to fail.

First: a short-term, superficial approach.

The short-term, superficial way is to copy and copy. It is not impossible to copy and copy, but the current and local conditions must be consistent with the preconditions of this experience. For example, if you want to imitate a certain big V on Zhihu to answer questions, at least you must first see if the field you are good at is consistent with him. Don't want to be a serious management experience sharing account, but the result is an entertainment account, although the post is playful, and it is also very "Internet", but the boss, president, and director all ran away. It should be noted that although this kind of copying and copying experiential learning method can take effect quickly in some aspects at first, the effect will not be long-lasting, and it is not transferable.

Second, people who will really learn from the experience of others in a long-term and fundamental way must learn the underlying laws behind the experience. For example, the general trend of social or industry development, the nature of the exchange of business interests, the pyramid structure of human society, the principle of normal distribution of human performance, etc., or the logic of his thinking reflected behind the experience of the other party. For example, empathy, framework first, iteration, PDCA, etc. Above, I hope that we can all learn from the experience of others and find our own way.

As an independent regime, the White Emperor Secret Realm and other secret realms are almost difficult to start.

At least conspiracy expert Wang Jian can't help it.

No matter how you say it, the White Emperor Secret Realm is inextricably linked with Huaguo, and it lacks the legitimacy of an armed attack.

The legitimacy of the regime is the recognition of the governed by the governed, and the lack of legitimacy will increase the cost of governance, which can be reflected in the cost of maintaining stability. For example, the legitimacy of the Qing Dynasty, for most people in the past, who became the emperor was about the same for him, the quality of the emperors of the Manchu Qing Dynasty was not necessarily worse than that of the Han regime, and the defects of the Manchu regime in legitimacy mainly had two points, forced changes in the customs of the Han people, and the massacre, but after a few generations, these two points did not have much impact.

Of course, for scholars, the legitimacy of the Manchu regime lies in the fact that they accepted the culture and Confucianism of the Han people and allowed them to participate in politics, of course, the Manchus, as a minority, occupied more and more important positions, so their legitimacy was definitely worse than that of the regime established by the Han people, but they were not awarded official positions according to political talent and morality, so these were not of great significance to the people at the bottom.

There are three necessary elements of a state, namely, territory, population and political power.

Obviously, the people of the secret realm have all three.

Territory, which is generally considered to include land, water, and its space. The territory is three-dimensional. Territory is the most fundamental factor of the State, and it is the primary factor of the State. Human rights fighters may immediately jump out against it, saying that talent is the most fundamental factor in the country. Let me ask, where can people survive without land and water? How can they survive? Without survival, what human rights can we talk about? The most fundamental condition for the existence and development of any country is territory. More than half of the wars between countries in the history of the world have been fought over territory.

The most important thing in the territory is land. Because soil is an important dependence on the materials needed for human survival. Land includes the surface, soil, and a number of depths below the surface. How deep is the territory of the state? I really don't know. At present, the oil, coal, iron ore, gold, diamonds, etc., which can be extracted by humans, do not seem to have caused territorial disputes. So, it seems that no country feels the need to define a depth range. The water area is an extension of the land, especially rivers, lakes, and inland seas, which are directly dependent on the land, and the marine range is also generated by the extension of the continental shelf and islands.

Space is the vertical part of land and water, and I don't know how high it stretches upwards.

"Bookmark for easy reading"