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

121–130 of 152 posts

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

#121

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

kitd wrote: post #83
Archelaos wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bret C. Devereaux's wrote a very interesting article on this topic in his blog. See: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus... His central observation is that the Industrial Revolution involves "coal, steam engines, textile manufacture and above all the harnessing of a new source of energy in the economy", but that "each innovation in the chain required not merely the discovery of the principle,…

This is a good argument. I would only add one thing to it: a scientific understanding of the principles behind the new technologies makes major step changes in mechanised capabilities possible ("paradigm shifts" urgh), and probably explains why the Industrial revolution didn't happen in Greece or Rome. It's those major step changes that open up the doors to unforeseen opportunities and make previously unviable busine…

Yes - the UK had the Royal Society pioneering the idea of organised research and result sharing on a national and eventually on an international scale.

Before that "research" wasn't really a thing. Discussions between intellectuals were scholastic and often implicitly about political status. The scientific tradition of hands-on experimentation and observation shifted the emphasis to building and trading rather than debating and conquering.

So effectively the UK invented the concept of invention. Other cultures were imperial, martial, and slave-owning, and ambitious men didn't concern themselves with hands-on work. That was for tradesmen and slaves. Although some invention happened, it was outside the main power hierarchy. It wasn't a tradition.

The UK - only partially, but enough - combined mercantile opportunism with practical invention. It took about a century, but invention became a recognisable tradition in its own right, and a credible high-reward career path for ambitious people. (Mostly men of course. But even so.)

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

#122

Post by CaptArmchair »

biorach wrote: post #116
CaptArmchair wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Neither Japan, Korea nor China were "third world" countries before WWII. Or even ever. I think you're missing the point - the idea is to learn from the industrialisation of those countries

> To develop the third world, it might be more informative to look at the postwar trajectories of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and of course China.

That's the exact sentence, and it doesn't sit right with me for three distinct reasons.

First, it can be read as an an implication: "these 4 countries where part of the "third world" and now aren't given their post-war trajectory." which ignores the history of those 4 nations long before WWII or Western involvement.

Second, makes the same a-historical mistake by assuming that the particular path followed by those nations can readily be transposed towards other regions in the world.

Third, it's a take that ignores the agency other cultures and peoples have to carve out their own place in the world. Moreover, many of the problems in the so-called global south are a direct result of this exact thinking. Countless cultures and ways of living have disappeared over the past 2 centuries because it.

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

#123

Post by biorach »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #122
biorach wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither Japan, Korea nor China were "third world" countries before WWII. Or even ever. I think you're missing the point - the idea is to learn from the industrialisation of those countries

> To develop the third world, it might be more informative to look at the postwar trajectories of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and of course China. That's the exact sentence, and it doesn't sit right with me for three distinct reasons. First, it can be read as an an implication: "these 4 countries where part of the "third world" and now aren't given their post-war trajectory." which ignores the history of those 4 nations…

I think you're reading far too much into it.

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

#124

Post by bombcar »

Retric wrote: post #52
dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Serfdom was rare in the UK by 1400 The UK didn’t exist before 1922. Or 1801, depending on how picky you want to be. In Scotland it was still around till nearly 1800 (oddly, the last serfs were coal miners); in England it started its decline just before 1400 and was largely eliminated by 1500 and totally by 1600.

1706/1707 is another reasonable start date to the UK depending on what is meant by that, but in this case I was referring to a geographic location not a political organization.

C’mon we all know that the UK started when Arthur pulled that sword out of the Stone ;).

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

#125

Post by i_am_proteus »

I recommend two additional texts:

Civilization and Capitalism, Vol 1 by Braudel[one], and Energy and Civilization: A History by Smil[two]

A combined read yields a picture of the "industrial revolution" not as a single event- industrialization preceded the use of the steam engine; renaissance Europe was substantially more industrialized than early medieval Europe due to increased use of water power and animal power.

Exhaustion of wood as thermal fuel (largely for blast furnaces), exploitation of peat and coal, and development of steam engines followed.

[one]https://archive.org/details/BraudelFernandCivilizationAndCap...

[two]https://vaclavsmil.com/2017/05/08/energy-and-civilization-a-...

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

#126

Post by pjc50 »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #122
biorach wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither Japan, Korea nor China were "third world" countries before WWII. Or even ever. I think you're missing the point - the idea is to learn from the industrialisation of those countries

> To develop the third world, it might be more informative to look at the postwar trajectories of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and of course China. That's the exact sentence, and it doesn't sit right with me for three distinct reasons. First, it can be read as an an implication: "these 4 countries where part of the "third world" and now aren't given their post-war trajectory." which ignores the history of those 4 nations…

The good old HN incredibly adversarial reading of a single sentence.

It was in reply to "those lessons can be applied to help developing nations follow the same trajectory to development", which does indeed embed the assumption of both a trajectory and that help is being imposed from outside.

> makes the same a-historical mistake by assuming that the particular path followed by those nations can readily be transposed towards other regions in the world

I put "might" in there for a reason. It also might not. It seems like something that might be worth investigating rather than dismissing? If that kind of development is your goal, of course. And it comes with its own assumptions and disadvantages.

> Moreover, many of the problems in the so-called global south are a direct result of this exact thinking. Countless cultures and ways of living have disappeared over the past 2 centuries because it.

Unable to parse antecedant of "this"; colonialism? Western involvement? Copying other countries?

But I'm not sure it's worth replying in this kind of environment.

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

#127

Post by throwaway4aday »

sdenton4 wrote: post #63
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 think the causality on slavery is backwards, and the article agrees... Shortages of low-skilled labor encourage automation, because then the (very expensive) automation process becomes cheap relative to labor. The article argues that labor shortages coinciding with excess capital paved the way for automation, which in turn reduced dependence on slavery in the long term. In this sense, cheap labor is cheap, but also…

Why didn't the industrial revolution start in 1360 then?

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

#128

Post by PestoDiRucola »

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 well as a late start to industrialization

This is true for the more rural southern states, northern states industrialized way earlier (which goes to prove the rest of your argument about slavery).

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

#129

Post by bluGill »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #90
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…

>In the USA, slavery hung around longer than it did in Europe largely due to reward for the capture of runaways provided by government, as well as a late start to industrialization. The story I was always told was that Eli Whitney's cotton gin made slavery economically viable for longer than it would have otherwise.

That is a factor too. Slavery is expensive because you have to feed the slave even when they are not working. Same problem applies to using horses, they eat even where the fields are plowed. Machines sitting idle do not cost additional capital (other than taxes) - of course machine sitting idle don't make their payments, but you can arrange those terms with the bank.

Before the cotton gin, wool was more popular because it was less labor. (I'm not sure how silk and flax fit in, but all have their own labor intensive parts pre mechanization). By making cotton cheaper, the labor needed to separate the seed from the cotton was much less and so it was more competitive with others despite the high labor costs elsewhere.

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

#130

Post by wittenbunk »

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…

You can't understand the rapid development of western Europe without examining how it's colonialism simultaneously enriched europe and sparked conflicts that are still raging.

Who would you suggest modern developing nations colonize?

Post reply on HN