10 votes

Why no Roman industrial revolution?

3 comments

  1. [2]
    skybrian
    (edited )
    Link
    From the article: [...]

    From the article:

    But the key here is that none of these processes inches this system closer to the key sets of conditions that formed the foundation of the industrial revolution. Instead, they are all about wringing efficiencies out the same set of organic energy sources with small admixtures of hydro- (watermills) or wind-power (sailing ships); mostly wringing more production out of the same set of energy inputs rather than adding new energy inputs. It is a more efficient organic economy, but still an organic economy, no closer to being an industrial economy for its efficiency, much like how realizing design efficiencies in an (unmotorized) bicycle does not bring it any closer to being a motorcycle; you are still stuck with the limits of the energy that can be applied by two legs.

    [...]

    In my view the key takeaway here is just how contingent the industrial revolution was: the industrial revolution that occurred required a number of very specific pre-conditions which were really only true on Great Britain in that period. It is not clear to me that there is a plausible and equally viable alternative path from an organic economy to an industrial one that doesn’t initially use coal (much easier to gather in large quantities and process for use than other fossil fuels) and which does not gain traction by transforming textile production (which, as we’ve discussed, was a huge portion of non-agricultural production in organic economies), though equally I cannot rule such alternatives out.

    Much of history ends up this way. As much as we might want to imagine that the greater currents push historical events largely on a predetermined path with but minor variations from what must always have been, in practice events are tremendously contingent on unpredictable variables.

    5 votes
    1. vord
      Link Parent
      I forget where I saw this, but the explaination is simple: You can't smelt metal without burning something. It takes an immense amount of wood to keep a forge going....but not nearly as much coal....

      I forget where I saw this, but the explaination is simple:

      You can't smelt metal without burning something. It takes an immense amount of wood to keep a forge going....but not nearly as much coal.

      There pretty much isn't a path to industrialization without a huge souce of energy density for smelting.

      4 votes