Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#101

Post by CaptArmchair »

pjc50 wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #40

Understanding the development of Western Europe is one of the most important things historians could be doing right now. Because those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development. Unfortunately too much of academia is fixated on faulting the west for past injustices, which leads to an unproductive Eurocentric mindset. (Britain will never, and cannot, pay back India what…

> those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development Not necessarily: firstly, some of those factors were "have the right geology" (coal/iron/later oil), which you can't replicate even if you want to, and secondly we're already in a developed world. That changes the environment and cost/benefit analysis greatly. The first person to develop a steam engine and the 1,000th…

I would argue that "applying lessons" ignores not just local geology, but - more importantly - local / regional culture, politics, socio-economics, etc. as well. It assumes that, throughout history, the rest of the world subconsciously has had - and still has - a need for Western-European frameworks of thinking about their place in the world. Which is very eurocentrist perception of the world.

A hallmark of post-modern historiography is exactly discarding this history can only be perceived through a western-european lens, and acknowledging that there are as many valid ways of looking at the past as there are cultures and people around the world.

> Japan, Singapore, Korea, and of course China

Neither Japan, Korea nor China were "third world" countries before WWII. Or even ever.

On the contrary. Japan was very much an industrialized nation in the 1930s. Before then, it has a long history as a advanced, albeit, regional power. The same is true about Korea. Chinese history itself is rife with empires and kingdoms - having trade networks, technological advances and so on - some of which being as large and influential - if not more - then the Roman Empire during its heyday.

Singapore already was a bustling trade port long before WWII, and has a history of being part of powerful local sultanates before the arrival of the British.

If anything, the examples you gave are quite ambivalent about the historical dynamics that led to their integration in today's modern global economic, geo-political, cultural structures and global power balances which were borne out of post-WWII victors creating a new order for peace and development.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#102

Post by madaxe_again »

rayiner wrote: post #40

Understanding the development of Western Europe is one of the most important things historians could be doing right now. Because those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development. Unfortunately too much of academia is fixated on faulting the west for past injustices, which leads to an unproductive Eurocentric mindset. (Britain will never, and cannot, pay back India what…

It isn’t just informative for “developing” nations, but also for “developed” nations.

To assume we have reached some endpoint of development is absurd, particularly given historical precedent.

The article posits that industrialisation was spawned out of necessity due to a shortage of unskilled labour, and an excess of underemployed capital.

I find it interesting that the U.K. finds itself once again at a not dissimilar crossroads, with a shortage of unskilled and skilled labour, and with an excess of underemployed, concentrated capital. Growth is sclerotic, the political situation is fragile, and inflation runs rampant. Meanwhile, new technology developed over the preceding century has enabled new possibilities, hitherto unimagined and as yet unrealised.

In history, when exposed to severe stressors, societies typically either flourish or collapse.

Collapse has become less common in the industrialised, interconnected world, so it’s not an unreasonable hypothesis that perhaps the U.K. will somehow find itself at the forefront of a new productivity revolution.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#103

Post by tremon »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #89
julianeon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. I don't think that's correct. If you are looking for a one-sentence "how did the Industrial Revolution start" summary, I wouldn't use this. My recollection was that things kicked off with the first mechanized mills, locating along streams which used hydraulic or steam power for their energy. EDIT: The book describing this is called Behemoth: The…

The romans had industrial scale water driven mills. But what you need to keep the running, when one emperor falls and another kingdom falters, is a empowered citizen ship with venture capital, that is out of reach of the king, making innovation resilient. For me the industrial revolution started with the "familys" taking hold in the netherlands, england, germany - backing ventures, banking, becoming a powerhouse outs…

What you're describing is more of a social revolution (upset of traditional societal structures). As always with history, the interesting question is whether the latter could have happened without the former.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#104

Post by LatteLazy »

college_physics wrote: post #97
LatteLazy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely demand is the easy piece: people with one set of cloths and one piece of furniture, want more stuff. When you have a lot of stuff already, then people demand things like leisure time, freedom, justice, etc which conflicts with production of goods. But when you are basically a subsistence farmer you just want more stuff first and foremost. I find the idea that some places have not developed because the people t…

You are thinking about very basic needs. Most of the world is (thankfully) beyond that stage. You need to explain why while industrial capacities are available for centuries now, there is a very varied picture in terms of development. Its precisely this assumption that "demand is given" that questioned. Demand seems to be a more complex beast.

I actually think it's the other way around. I can plausibly explain differences in development levels by pointing to 1001 different factors from colonial legacies to geography to corruption to infrastructure etc. It is your conjecture, that people just don't want things in some of these places (sorry if that is reductionist?) that requires a lot of justification. What makes people in some places lack demand while rich westerners like me demand so much? Why did my poor ancestors living with similar levels of poverty have demand when these people do not?

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#105

Post by Lio »

julianeon wrote: post #49
BirAdam wrote: post #12

As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. As shafts got deeper there was a need to pump in water and air, and then to lift product out. These steam engines at the site could run on low quality coal allowing all of the good stuff to be sold. The Industrial Revolution really started with these mines in the UK. As regards slavery and other factors, once the steam engines were invented and beg…

> As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. I don't think that's correct. If you are looking for a one-sentence "how did the Industrial Revolution start" summary, I wouldn't use this. My recollection was that things kicked off with the first mechanized mills, locating along streams which used hydraulic or steam power for their energy. EDIT: The book describing this is called Behemoth: The…

I was always taught the industrial revolution started earlier than that with the work of people like Abraham Derby, the elder. For perspective, he died in 1717.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Darby_I

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#106

Post by robbiep »

julianeon wrote: post #49
BirAdam wrote: post #12

As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. As shafts got deeper there was a need to pump in water and air, and then to lift product out. These steam engines at the site could run on low quality coal allowing all of the good stuff to be sold. The Industrial Revolution really started with these mines in the UK. As regards slavery and other factors, once the steam engines were invented and beg…

> As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. I don't think that's correct. If you are looking for a one-sentence "how did the Industrial Revolution start" summary, I wouldn't use this. My recollection was that things kicked off with the first mechanized mills, locating along streams which used hydraulic or steam power for their energy. EDIT: The book describing this is called Behemoth: The…

Jesus fuck people, the article is literally about new approaches to this.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#107

Post by shafyy »

Retric wrote: post #85
shafyy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, steam engines did go "mainstream" with the coal mine use case, at least to an important part: The first commercially successful engine that could transmit continuous power to a machine was the atmospheric engine, invented by Thomas Newcomen around 1712. It improved on Savery's steam pump, using a piston as proposed by Papin. Newcomen's engine was relatively inefficient, and mostly used for pum…

The industrial revolution is generally considered to have started around 1760. That’s 50 years after adoption of the Thomas Newcomen steam engine and 150 years after steam engines where in use. This shows it wasn’t specifically the steam engine that kicked things off, but rather a wide range of factors which eventually caused people to say something different was going on. The stated start of the industrial revolutio…

You're right, I misread your comment. I thought that you said that steam engines weren't initially mainly used in coal mines.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#108

Post by skapa_flow »

BirAdam wrote: post #12

As far as I know, the Industrial Revolution started with coal mining. As shafts got deeper there was a need to pump in water and air, and then to lift product out. These steam engines at the site could run on low quality coal allowing all of the good stuff to be sold. The Industrial Revolution really started with these mines in the UK. As regards slavery and other factors, once the steam engines were invented and beg…

I lately had an idea: Why did the industrial revolution start in the UK? Coal mining was probably a factor. But why in the UK? Coal deposits are abundant in other places as well. But the UK has cold, rainy winters. Coal is good for heating, not only for industrial purposes, like smelting metal. Trees have mostly been cut down by that time. I think they used them for ship building. So if you have the coal mining already there, the other steps are more likely to happen.

Re: A flurry of new studies identifies causes of the Industrial Revolution

#110

Post by pjc50 »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #101
pjc50 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development Not necessarily: firstly, some of those factors were "have the right geology" (coal/iron/later oil), which you can't replicate even if you want to, and secondly we're already in a developed world. That changes the environment and cost/benefit analysis greatly. The first person to develop a steam engine and the 1,000th…

I would argue that "applying lessons" ignores not just local geology, but - more importantly - local / regional culture, politics, socio-economics, etc. as well. It assumes that, throughout history, the rest of the world subconsciously has had - and still has - a need for Western-European frameworks of thinking about their place in the world. Which is very eurocentrist perception of the world. A hallmark of post-mode…

> Japan was very much an industrialized nation in the 1930s.

Before that, Japan went from feudal agrarianism to aircraft carriers in, what, 50 years?

Post reply on HN