為什么寒冷地帶的國家比溫暖地帶的國家更發達？
Why are colder countries more developed than the warmer ones?
譯文簡介
除了公元19-20世紀之外，寒冷天氣地區的經濟并沒有真正領先于溫暖地區的經濟。
正文翻譯
Why are colder countries more developed than the warmer ones?
為什么寒冷地帶的國家比溫暖地帶的國家更發達？
評論翻譯
相關鏈接
-
- 理論上如果美國大陸被多個大國入侵，美軍會允許公民與他們一起拿起 2022/06/19 1718 24 0
-
- 網友討論：為什么東亞國家那么的同質化？ 2022/06/13 23991 38 0
-
- 話題討論：為什么除了美國以外，其他國家沒有把人送上月球？ 2022/06/12 16421 49 0
-
- QA討論：哪個國家對印度游客最友好？ 2022/06/08 11654 47 0
-
- 英國人均接收烏克蘭難民數少于歐洲大多數國家 2022/06/06 7521 19 0
-
- 網友討論：亞洲哪一個國家會成為下一個世界經濟大國，是印度，孟加 2022/06/01 21831 59 0
-
- 網友討論：1980年-2026年GDP對比，東盟國家VS亞洲四小龍 2022/05/30 19550 24 0
-
- 為什么許多印度人紛紛離開印度定居國外，年輕人幾乎沒有國家歸屬感 2022/05/24 16166 42 0
Other than the 19-20th century CE, cold weather regions were not really ahead of the economies of warmer regions. Historically, the civilization was centered around warm, tropics & subtropics. The first 5 civilizations - Sumer, Nile valley, Indus Valley, Yellow river valley, Norte Chico - were all in subtropics. The ones that followed - in Greece, Persia, Rome were in the same zone too. [Subtropics often were better than tropics because the latter was often next to dense rainforests with wildlife & epidemic dangers.] Still the warmer regions performed better throughout history.
Colonialism changed this dynamic for the first time. I will explain this how. The cold weather regions have very low population density as not many people preferred cold winters. This allowed the farmers to have much larger lands and more potential mines & mineral resources. Until the modern era, these were hard to tap though.
When industrial revolution came, the technology drastically helped those in cold climates. Mechanised farming - tractors and other machines - allowed industrial scale farming over those lands. This allowed the farmers to get rich because they had now huge lands that could be fully tapped. Factories also could now get minerals resources and infrastructure as large parts of their countries were sparsely occupied. In contrast, industrial revolution could not do much to densely populated tropics that already had high farming productivity - but shared by a large number of farmers. Tropics were too densely populated - meaning lesser resources & lesser room or infrastructure.
Other aspect colonialism did was to open up huge markets. England had a small domestic market - population was small. But, through its colonies it got a huge market for its textile mills and industries. In earlier times there was not much international trade and thus those in sparsely populated regions could not benefit from their innovations.
In 21st century CE, we are entering a post-industrial era and the pendulum might be shifting again. Mines and lands are not as important as they were in say 20th century. It is about the number of minds networked. In this, the subtropics/tropics such as California, Singapore, Shanghai or Bangalore are getting back in the game. The size of the domestic market matters big once again - as Californian startups could attest and density helps in various other ways too for an information economy.
除了公元19-20世紀之外，寒冷天氣地區的經濟并沒有真正領先于溫暖地區的經濟。從歷史上看，文明是以溫暖、熱帶和亞熱帶為中心的。前5個文明--蘇美爾、尼羅河流域、印度河流域、黃河流域、卡勞爾文明--都是在亞熱帶地區。隨后的文明--希臘、波斯、羅馬也都在同一區域。[亞熱帶往往比熱帶好，因為后者往往是在有野生動物和流行病危險的茂密雨林旁邊］ 在整個歷史上，較溫暖的地區的表現更好。
殖民主義第一次改變了這種動態。我將解釋這一點。寒冷天氣地區的人口密度很低，因為沒有多少人喜歡寒冷的冬天。這使得農民可以擁有更大塊的土地和更多的潛在礦山和礦產資源。這些資源直到現代都很難被開發。
當工業革命到來時，技術進步極大地幫助了寒冷氣候下的人們。機械化耕作--拖拉機和其他機器--允許在這些土地上進行工業規模的耕作。這讓當地農民發了財，因為他們現在有了可以充分開發的大片土地。工廠現在也可以獲得礦物資源和基礎設施，因為他們國家的大部分地區都人煙稀少。相比之下，工業革命對人口稠密的熱帶地區沒有什么作用，這些地區已經有很高的農業生產力，但被大量的農民所分享。熱帶地區人口過于稠密，意味著資源和空間或基礎設施較少。
殖民主義的另一個作用是開辟了巨大的市場。英國的國內市場很小--人口很少。但是，通過其殖民地，它的紡織廠和工業獲得了巨大的市場。在早期，沒有太多的國際貿易，因此那些人口稀少地區的人無法從他們的創新中受益。
在公元21世紀，我們正在進入一個后工業化時代，鐘擺可能會再次轉移。礦山和土地并不像20世紀時那么重要了?，F在重要的是網絡思維的數量。在這一點上，加利福尼亞、新加坡、上?；虬嗉恿_爾等亞熱帶/熱帶地區正在重新參與游戲。國內市場的規模再次變得非常重要--加利福尼亞的初創企業可以證明這一點，人口密度在其他方面也有助于信息經濟的發展。
This isn’t correct. “The cold weather regions have very low population density“. You write this implying it was the main factor in early development. But actually the countries that developed first were the most densely populated ones: the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands, not Russia, Spain or Sweden. Belgium and the Netherlands have population densities that are still on the level of India (Netherlands higher than India, Belgium slightly lower), despite India’s huge population boom in the 20th century.
Besides, it’s really not progress in agriculture that was the hallmark of the industrial revolution, but the mechanization of industrial production.
不對。"寒冷地區的人口密度非常低"。你這樣寫，暗示這是早期發展的主要因素。但實際上最先發展的國家是人口密度最高的國家：英國、比利時和荷蘭，而不是俄羅斯、西班牙或瑞典。比利時和荷蘭的人口密度仍處于印度的水平（荷蘭高于印度，比利時略低），盡管印度在20世紀有著巨大的人口增長。
此外，工業革命的標志真的不是農業的進步，而是工業生產的機械化。
Britain wasn’t landlocked like Russia, its climate was better, and its harder to invade Britain than Russia (imagine all the damage done to Russia in World War 1, World War 2, Napoleon, and the sanctions later on.
英國不像俄羅斯那樣是內陸國，它的氣候更好，而且它比俄羅斯更難入侵。想象一下在第一次世界大戰、第二次世界大戰、拿破侖以及后來的制裁中對俄羅斯造成的所有傷害。
Balaji - I would like to disagree on the last paragraph. Getting back in game? game of what ? You seem to conveniently forget the fact that technology is going to increase the gap between have's and have not's. Technology in the future is going to be more of a net job destroyer than job creator and that is going to be huge problem with countries of huge population.Countries like India and China will have gigantic task of providing jobs of millions of graduates. So whatever boom we are seeing in these countries happening because of cheap labour will not continue till perpetuity. And land is not important? how are we going to feed the population of these countries? where can we get water and all resources needed for an economy to produce products?It is only matter of time where countries with land and technology and less population (like US, Canada)are going to be way more strong economically when the 4th industrial revolution (Robotic revolution) reaches its peak.
我不同意最后一段的說法。鐘擺再次轉移？你似乎很容易忘記這樣一個事實，即技術將擴大有的和無的差距。未來的技術將更多地成為凈就業的破壞者，而不是就業的創造者，這將是人口眾多的國家要面臨的巨大問題。因此，我們在這些國家看到的因廉價勞動力而出現的任何繁榮都不會持續到永久。當第四次工業革命（機器人革命）達到頂峰時，擁有土地、技術和較少人口的國家（如美國、加拿大）將在經濟上更為強大，這只是時間問題。
Yes, who was the big-shot IIT guy just a few days ago (was it Nilekani or Raghuram Rajan,? doesn’t matter though) who said ….don’t expect much from the “Make in India” manufacturing push…focus on the service industry instead…
Service industry? You mean shopping malls full of imported products (Nike, Adidas, Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Gucci etc.) Are there, will there be so many ‘High-end” consumers to afford to continually keep on buying these products…and if so…what happens to the millions of mom&pop corner stores that exist in almost every street corner of small-town (& big city) India???
Just yesterday I arrived back from “Cutting-edge” Mumbai & the first page of the Times of india property Section said it all….”Save the Mall” “High Prices and an economic slowdown are impacting the fate of the much-beloved, family-friendlymalls”…..!!!
是的，就在幾天前，一個經濟界的大人物（是尼勒卡尼還是拉格魯姆拉詹？不重要了），他說....不要對"印度制造"的推動抱有太大期望......而是要專注于服務業。
服務業？你的意思是滿是進口產品（耐克、阿迪達斯、卡爾文-克萊恩、喬治-阿瑪尼、古馳等）的購物中心，是否會有那么多"高端"消費者負擔得起持續購買這些產品......如果是這樣......那么存在于印度小鎮（和大城市）幾乎每個街角的數百萬家小便利店如何解釋？
就在昨天，我從"尖端"的孟買回來，《印度時報》財經板塊的第一頁說了一切.... "拯救購物中心"、"高價格和經濟放緩正在影響備受喜愛的、適合家庭的購物中心的命運".....!!
I am not sure how your comment relate to my comment. I am not debating whether manufacturing or service route is best for India. All I meant was having right amount of resources will be significant factor going ahead.
我不確定你的評論與我的評論有什么關系。我不是在爭論制造業還是服務業路線對印度來說是最好的。我的意思是，擁有適當數量的資源將是未來的重要因素。
You say “when the industrial revolution came” like it was a natural phenomena or something, and not a product of the minds, culture and innovation of one of those cold countries, Great Britain. Why did a cold country gift humanity the industrial revolution? Your answer fails to tackle this important question . . .
你說"當工業革命到來時"，好像它是一種自然現象或什么，而不是那些寒冷國家之一英國的思想、文化和創新的產物。為什么一個寒冷的國家會給人類帶來工業革命？你的回答沒有解決這個重要的問題......
They got the gift by colonising the largest economy by GDP of that time. The colonisation could cripple India’s textile industry — the world’s largest of that time — allowing English industrial revolution to happen.
這是他們通過對當時國內生產總值最大的經濟體（印度）進行殖民得到的禮物。殖民化可以削弱印度的紡織業--當時世界上最大的紡織業--使英國工業革命得以發生。
Thats not true the invention of the steam engine was due to the intelligence of one or two people who had a eureka moment. Things do not magically invent themselves because of external forces.
并非如此。蒸汽機的發明是由于一兩個人的聰明才智，他們有一個靈光乍現的時刻。事物不會因為外力而神奇地發明自己。
So the country with low population and abundant resources wins!
No matter how hard we try to convince ourselves, the word 'largest' in 'the world's largest democracy' isn't something to be really proud of.
所以說人口少、資源豐富的國家獲勝!
無論我們如何努力說服自己，"世界上最大的民主國家"中的"最大"一詞并不是真正值得驕傲的事情。
>> So the country with low population and abundant resources wins!
I said it was specific to those couple of centuries. In all other centuries regions with dense population won. In 21st century we are once again talking about densely populated nations.
>> 所以說人口少、資源豐富的國家獲勝!
我說這是針對那幾個世紀的。在其他所有的世紀，人口密集的地區都贏了。在21世紀，我們再次重視人口稠密的國家。
I am not sure what we are considering as winning for densly populated countries.
Even now also, even if it's Indian minds are mainstream in world they are based out of US. And what about quality of living, I bet it has gone downhill in most of the old traditional big cities as compared to 20-30 years back. All of the north Indian cities are “khichdi” of city+chaotic+village migratory population and feels like “dust mines” . I have not seen any technical advancement in civic sense, civic services or attitude of people towards their own life. It's only the virtual world of Internet, telecom where we see the advancement and assume that “our great India is going to shine again” .
我不確定我們所說的人口稠密的國家將再次獲勝是什么意思。
即使是現在，即使是印度人的思想是美國之外的世界的主流。而生活質量呢，我敢打賭，與20-30年前相比，大多數傳統大城市的生活質量已經走下坡路了。所有的北印度城市都是城市+混亂+鄉村移民人口的 "大雜燴"，感覺就像"粉塵礦"。我沒有看到公民意識、公民服務或人們對自己生活的態度有任何技術上的進步。只有在互聯網的虛擬世界中，我們看到了進步，并認為"我們偉大的印度將再次閃耀"。
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
Maybe another reason is that hotter weather makes people lazy or even sleepy and don't want to do a lot of work, while colder weather makes people alx and awake. They tend to stay indoor cause it's too cold outside, so they have plenty of time doing research, thus develop
more advanced technology and stay ahead of others up to now.
This is purely my guesses:)
也許另一個原因是，較熱的天氣使人們變得懶惰，甚至昏昏欲睡，不想做大量的工作，而較冷的天氣使人們警覺和清醒。他們傾向于呆在室內，因為外面太冷了，所以他們有足夠的時間做研究，從而開發出更先進的技術，并領先于其他人。
這純粹是我的猜測:)
That was the traditional theory on why colder climate people are more successful than their warmer counterpart..... On today's times though that doesn't really matter much anyway as just about every decent buildings on tropical area are air-conditioned.
這是關于為什么氣候寒冷的人比氣候溫暖的人更成功的傳統理論.....在今天這個時代，這其實并不重要，因為熱帶地區幾乎所有像樣的建筑物都裝有空調。
There's actually a research about hotter temperature makes people “dumber” or less productive than people who live in colder temperature.
Hot temperature makes our brain dehydrated more often thus requires more energy to think, making it more difficult to focus and be more productive.
實際上，有一項研究表明，溫度較高的人比生活在低溫環境中的人更"笨"，或更缺乏生產力。
炎熱的溫度使我們的大腦更經常地脫水，因此需要更多的能量來思考，使我們更難集中精力來提高工作效率。
Actually you got your history very wrong. European colonialism was well along before the industrial revolution or the enlightenment. 1492 is probably the best starting point for colonialism. Europeans began colonizing the Americas shortly after with varying degrees of success. I thing the hypotheses in Jared Diamond's book 'Germs, Guns and Steel' are much more compelling.
事實上，你的歷史論據是非常錯誤的。歐洲的殖民主義在工業革命或啟蒙運動之前就已經開始了。1492年可能是殖民主義的最佳起點。歐洲人在不久之后開始對美洲進行殖民，并取得了不同程度的成功。我認為杰瑞德戴蒙德的《細菌、槍炮和鋼鐵》一書中的假說更有說服力。
germs, guns and steel and the discovery of antibiotics and vaccines- these are the signs of industrialisation, at least the beginning
病菌、槍炮和鋼鐵以及抗生素和疫苗的發現，這些都是工業化的標志，至少是開始。
I think a more accurate date would be 1415, when the Portuguese took the city of Ceuta in Morrocco. This was the starting point of Portuguese exploration around the African coast, surpassing and renaming the Cape of Good Hope in 1488 and finally reaching India in 1498, breaking the moorish and venetian spice monopoly, thus creating the first European Global Empire.
我認為更準確的日期應該是1415年，當時葡萄牙人占領了摩洛哥的休達城。這是葡萄牙人圍繞非洲海岸探索的起點，在1488年越過了好望角并將其重新命名，最后在1498年到達印度，打破了摩爾人和威尼斯人的香料壟斷，從而建立了第一個歐洲全球帝國。
The date you propose is fine. The point was however that Western expansion and colonialism started well before the industrial revolution. Your suggested date is earlier than the one I proffered, which makes my point.
你提出的日期很好。然而，我的觀點是，西方的擴張和殖民主義遠在工業革命之前就開始了。你提出的日期比我提出的日期還要早，這就說明了我的觀點。
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
But what about Deccan and SE Asia? the latter was developed despite being close to equator, same goes about Ethiopia.
但是德干和東南亞呢？后者雖然靠近赤道，但卻很發達，埃塞俄比亞也是如此。
Brilliant Answer!
I would just like to add another point: The countries in the colder region had signifinactly less number of diseases because bacterias generally become dormant at cold temperature.
On the other hand, the tropical regions provided a breeding ground for number of diseases.
Thus more healthy workforce in colder regions, and thus more development.
Let me know if I am wrong. Thanks!
精彩的回答!
我只想補充一點。寒冷地區國家的疾病數量明顯較少，因為細菌在低溫下通常會休眠。
另一方面，熱帶地區為許多疾病提供了滋生的土壤。
因此，在寒冷地區有更多健康的勞動力，因此也有更好的發展。
如果我說錯了，請告訴我。謝謝!
Industrialization just works better in cooler climates. Would you want to work in a steel mill in Panama or in Michigan? Factory work is mostly a hot job so if it's 40F outside the factory is cooler than if it's 120F outside. Making stuff is what drives development in this era, so cooler wins, but not too cool as then getting to work becomes a problem as does finding people who will tolerate the 10 month winters unless the government make them work there (see Siberia) .
工業化在涼爽的氣候條件下運作得更好。你想在巴拿馬的鋼鐵廠工作還是在密歇根的鋼鐵廠工作？工廠工作大多是高溫工作，所以如果外面是40華氏度，工廠就比外面是120華氏度要涼快。在這個時代，制造東西是發展的動力，所以涼爽的地方會贏，但不能太涼，因為那樣的話，去工作就成了一個問題，除非政府讓他們在那里工作，否則就要找到能忍受10個月冬天的人（見西伯利亞）。
Thanks for explaining this! I have similar confusion in my head for a long time. I am from China, which had/has been a country based on farming economy for a long long time. Thus, you can even see its impact today. The wealthiest part of China, (without Beijing since it is the capital) are almost all in the south with warm/hot humid weather. It is such a pleasure to live there since I found an immediate improvement on my skin (girlish I know) after I moved there. Also there are a larger variety of vegetables and fruits and they are definitely fresher than those in the north. However, after I moved to the US, I found that people just don’t gather around places with good weather. States in the northeast are as cold as my hometown, California is too dry. For the states with good weather, it is really hard to find a good university and a good job. I am astonished at this. I mean human are not robots, we are creatures of the nature. If I can choose, I definitely prefer a place where trees and flowers grow easily, because I think this also indicates that I will have a comfortable life there. Sadly, where I live basically is due to economic factors…
謝謝你的解釋! 我的腦子里也有類似的困惑已經很久了。我來自中國，在很長一段時間里，中國曾經/一直是一個以農業經濟為基礎的國家。因此，你甚至在今天都可以看到它的影響。中國最富裕的地區（不包括北京，因為它是首都）幾乎都在南方，氣候溫暖/炎熱潮濕。在那里生活是一件非常愉快的事情，因為我發現在我搬到那里之后，我的皮膚立即得到了改善（我知道這是女孩子的想法）。另外，那里的蔬菜和水果種類更多，而且肯定比北方的更新鮮。然而，在我搬到美國后，我發現這里的人們就是不在有好天氣的地方聚集。東北部各州和我的家鄉一樣寒冷，加利福尼亞太干燥。對于天氣好的州來說，卻很難找到一所好的大學和一份好的工作。我對此感到很驚訝。我的意思是，人不是機器人，我們是自然界的生物。如果我可以選擇的話，我肯定會選擇一個樹木和花朵容易生長的地方，因為我認為這也表明我在那里會有一個舒適的生活?？杀氖?，我住的地方基本上是由經濟因素造成的......
I beg to differ .I think people in tropics live in a very warm climate making their needs of housing ,clothing much less .with a hut & no shirt ,a man in cold climate is likely to die .So people in cold climates work much harder just to survive
while those in tropics are lazy .see in India how hilly people & those in Punjab etc migrate to warmer areas & have a much superior living standards .With passage of living in warm area will make them lazy too .
我不同意。我認為熱帶地區的人生活在非常溫暖的氣候中，他們對住房和衣服的需求要少得多。在寒冷的氣候中，如果只有一間小屋，沒有衣衫，人很可能會被凍死。
看看印度的山地人和旁遮普省的人是如何遷移到溫暖的地區并擁有更高的生活標準的。
I’m not so sure that low population density is an advantage. Until the mid-20th Century, Sub-saharan Africa had a low population density, and South America still has a low density. On the other hand when England and the Netherlands industrialized, they had relatively high population densities.
I can’t say I know why the north industrialized first though. Maybe the mature subtropical states were an impediment to industrial development, since those states are good at defending the status quo.
我不太確定低人口密度是一種優勢。直到20世紀中期，撒哈拉以南非洲的人口密度都很低，南美洲的人口密度仍然很低。另一方面，當英格蘭和荷蘭實現工業化時，他們的人口密度相對較高。
我不能說我知道為什么北方首先實現工業化。也許成熟的亞熱帶國家是工業發展的一個障礙，因為這些國家更善于維護現狀。
There seems to be a myth that the UK and Europe have a low population density, when I travel in Asia I'm often told that the fact they have much more people compared to the UK is the reason for their infrastructure problems and overcrowding. However the UK has a higher population density than many countries in SE Asia (and if you look at England by itself its even higher almost the highest in the world) but it just feels alot less crowded here due to most people living in suburbia.
似乎有一個神話，即英國和歐洲的人口密度低，當我在亞洲旅行時，我經常被告知，與英國相比，他們的人口要多得多，這就是他們的基礎設施存在問題和過度擁擠的原因。然而，英國的人口密度比東南亞的許多國家都要高（如果你看一下英格蘭本身，它的人口密度甚至更高，幾乎是世界上最高的），但由于大多數人住在郊區，所以這里感覺不那么擁擠。
The population density is small in colder climate not because people prefer warmer winters but because the fields produce much more grain in a warmer climate. Here in Finland, in the extreme north, a hectare of wheat field produces 2 tons of grain. In Germany 4 tons and in southern France even more. The same goes for fruits etc. The people who are used to snow have no big interest in moving to warmer places. For example, the immigrants who moved to USA from Scandinavia chose about similar places in North-America. They could have moved to Florida and California, instead they chose Montana and Canada.
The technological advances in Europe probably were caused by the ground work done by ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece. Without that Europe would have been in a much weaker position to develop technology.
在寒冷的氣候下，人口密度小，不是因為人們更喜歡溫暖的冬天，而是因為在溫暖的氣候下，田地生產的糧食要多得多，也就能供給更多的人。在芬蘭的極北地區，一公頃的麥田生產2噸糧食。在德國是4噸，在法國南部甚至更多。水果等也是如此。習慣于冬天下雪的人對于搬到溫暖的地方并不是很感興趣。例如，從斯堪的納維亞半島移居美國的移民在北美選擇了差不多的地方。他們本可以搬到佛羅里達和加利福尼亞，但他們卻選擇了蒙大拿和加拿大。
歐洲的技術進步可能是由古埃及、羅馬和希臘的基礎工作造成的。如果沒有這些工作，歐洲在發展技術方面將處于更弱勢的地位。
原創翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.mmg13444.com 轉載請注明出處
The cold temperature anyway led to a more tight knit socal structure as people had to rely more on their neighbors during the cold winters. And it required more planning in advance as there is no food available for months and also no travel possible.
Qualities which in the end helped to develop an industrial society which is based on cooperation and planning.
無論如何，寒冷的氣溫導致了更緊密的本地結構，因為人們在寒冷的冬天不得不更多地依賴他們的鄰居。由于幾個月都沒有食物，也不可能旅行，因此需要提前進行更多的計劃。
這些特點最終有助于發展一個基于合作和規劃的工業社會。
Apart from the effect of lower population density mentioned in other answers, another reason is that harsh weather directly ensures nobody is extremely poor. People in these countries cannot afford to stay poor, it is not an option unlike in tropical countries.
A well built house with heating and warm clothing is not a luxury but a basic requirement to stay alive. This sets the bar high for minimum standard of living and what we call 'basic amenities of life'. The harsh conditions acts as a tough taskmaster.
So, when even the poorest citizen of these countries have a house to live in with decent standard of living (there are exceptions) they can surely afford to provide education to their kids. When the literacy rate is almost 100 percent, a nation will have no reason to be under developed.
除了其他答案中提到的人口密度較低的影響外，另一個原因是惡劣的天氣直接保證了沒有人是非常貧窮的。這些國家的人們無法禁受貧窮，這與熱帶國家不同，這不是一種選擇。
在寒冷地區。擁有一所建好的有暖氣的房子和溫暖的衣服不是奢侈品，而是維持生命的基本需求。這為最低生活標準和我們所說的"基本生活設施"設定了很高的標準。嚴酷的條件就像一個嚴厲的任務主管。
因此，當這些國家最貧窮的公民也有房子住，有體面的生活標準時（也有例外），他們肯定有能力為他們的孩子提供教育。當識字率幾乎達到100%時，一個國家就沒有理由不發達了。