11–20 of 152 posts
Another one I saw years ago was made in Germany, to test the Max Weber hypothesis that the Protestant Ethics fostered capitalism. The study compared the growth of both Catholic and Protestant cities. It found no significant difference in the rate of growth. The factor that actually had the most impact on growth was the presence of a printing industry.
As regards slavery and other factors, once the steam engines were invented and began making the companies who owned them more productive, human labor was outcompeted. Slave labor is not free as humans are quite expensive in food, water, shelter, medical care, and support for these things. Humans also require rest, and restrooms. Given that humans prefer not be enslaved, there’s also a cost to capture. Once an economic replacement for slavery and/or indentured servitude is available, these practices tend to disappear. Even animal labor usually disappears when machines are available, as animals require the same basic care that machines do not. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The British Raj in India came about roughly 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution in Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
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…
Huge catalyst: massive colonialist profits from India (est. $1 trillion), Africa and later on the Middle East (oil, prior to nationalization)
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. 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…
Exactly. We have plenty of examples of past civilizations experiencing similar economic conditions, slavery, etc. So why didn't e.g. the Romans have an industrial revolution of this scale? Coal (and exploitation of fossil fuels more generally) is the singular factor that differentiates the industrial revolution from everything before it.
We can point to the first industry to truly mechanize as the beginning of the revolution but the technologies that got us there were legion.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Roman_Britain#Coal
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…
Exactly. We have plenty of examples of past civilizations experiencing similar economic conditions, slavery, etc. So why didn't e.g. the Romans have an industrial revolution of this scale? Coal (and exploitation of fossil fuels more generally) is the singular factor that differentiates the industrial revolution from everything before it.
Huge catalyst: massive colonialist profits from India (est. $1 trillion), Africa and later on the Middle East (oil, prior to nationalization)
The industrial revolution predates Indian colonization. In fact, you have the causality exactly backwards. The British empire could not have colonized India without their force of industry (ships & machine guns)
The first British colony in India was established in 1608.
The only way you can argue that the Industrial revolution predates British colonization of India is to use the date that the colonies were nationalized as the starting point, which is incredibly misleading, as most of modern-day India was already under British control long before direct crown rule, and Britain was already reaping most of the economic benefits of colonization long before that date.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise, the silicon valley boom happened via massive ecological damage to the surrounding environments. The linked article seems to argue against itself in places, a surplus of labor is argued to be both good and bad. I've seen arguments that the Roman empire never underwent an industrial revolution because they had slavery, and thus never needed to automate. The Romans did the resource extraction part right, but n…
The Romans never had access to coal , which was the energy-dense fuel that made the Industrial Revolution possible. Bret Devereaux has a (long) post on this, which I recommend: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...
The Chinese widely used coal in metallurgy, but did not have an effective heat engine.