I tend to agree with you here. I don't think the industrial revolution was inevitable, but rather just the right factors and conditions coming together at just the right time.
Asking this question though is a bit like asking where the “Great Filter” is, in terms of Fermis paradox.
Indeed. I'm sure industrialisation is one of those Great Filters. And now we have next ones. Sustainable growth and AI.
Would also be interesting once we develop interstellar travel, what if Galaxy is full not only of microbial life (which I bet is the case), but even societies, most of which extinct, because they were agricultural forever? That would be some very cool Archaeology to explore.
You sort of touch on this in your point about Britain and fossil fuels, though not directly. I'm curious if you generally agree with this logic or not. The idea being that it's actually very hard to imagine a useful steam engine being invented for any purpose besides pumping water out of large coal mines, in a society that has very large demand for coal for basic heating because wood isn't available in sufficient quantity, and coal is. So even in a society with a culture of commercial invention, if there's not a practical use-case for a highly inefficient initial steam engine, maybe the technology never goes anywhere.
This at least raises the question, if the island of Great Britain lacked significant coal deposits and the economic history of Europe were otherwise largely unchanged, how much later might the Industrial Revolution have happened? Perhaps other Commercial parts of Europe would have eventually deforested to the point that they made more use of coal and went down the path of building ever-better steam engines. Or perhaps not.
Devereaux's argument at least makes me wonder to what degree timberland per capita really differs from place to place within the core countries of NW Europe circa 1700, and what the rate of change was.
Great comment, and thanks for the link. I had not heard of it and it looks very interesting. Rather than answer here, I think that I will write one or more articles on the issue.
A quick answer is that Britain could have gone a long way towards industrialization using wood instead of coal, but even with imports they would have eventually run out. USA followed that path in 19th Century. The Netherlands did the same with peat. Wood is fine for short-term, but it is not a long-term substitute for coal and other fossil fuels.
Wood is so much less energy-dense than coal that it could not possibly lead to an industrialized Europe or industrialized world.
Important and persuasive. The Arc of History is disturbing naive belief that probably leads to losing social will. "We Got Lucky.. and it's a lot of hard work to maintain", leads to a very different set of implications.
I believe these investigations are the true and proper role of History. That History will be critical for shaping the good of Humanity, our Ecosystem, and successfully navigating the future. In a society that is regressing, history is the first to go.
This is an interesting article on a topic I was thinking for a while 'why did it take so long for Scientific and Industrial revolutions to happen? It happened only 200 years ago out of 200 000 years of human existence and over 10 000 years of various civilizations.
I would argue with some minor details, but I like the core idea that social structure of Agricultural societies doesn't incentivise innovation at a mass scale.
It's also curious to think about this in our modern geopolitical context of the new Cold War. We have a block or authoritarian countries that want to come back to the world of 19th century politics, and Western democracies opposing them on the other side. Each has its advantages in warfare, but this idea gives me hope that once western societies realise the threat (which takes a while), they will be able to innovate much faster and at much more sustainable level than the new Axis (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea). Also, modern West has accumulated a lot of inefficient and outdated policies (though Idk if that wasn't the case always), especially those preventing robust growth. I hope that the new threat will cause our societies to rapidly modernize and increase innovation and growth.
I tend to agree with you here. I don't think the industrial revolution was inevitable, but rather just the right factors and conditions coming together at just the right time.
Asking this question though is a bit like asking where the “Great Filter” is, in terms of Fermis paradox.
Interesting analogy. I had not thought of that. For those who are not aware of the Great Filter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
PS. Didn't expect to see you here, I guess I found out about Michael Magoon on notes from subscribing to you
I am everywhere :)
Indeed. I'm sure industrialisation is one of those Great Filters. And now we have next ones. Sustainable growth and AI.
Would also be interesting once we develop interstellar travel, what if Galaxy is full not only of microbial life (which I bet is the case), but even societies, most of which extinct, because they were agricultural forever? That would be some very cool Archaeology to explore.
Yes. The more I think about it, there are probably many "filters." I don't think that bacterial life is particularly rare.
Good discussion. Have you read this piece (or related arguments): https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/
You sort of touch on this in your point about Britain and fossil fuels, though not directly. I'm curious if you generally agree with this logic or not. The idea being that it's actually very hard to imagine a useful steam engine being invented for any purpose besides pumping water out of large coal mines, in a society that has very large demand for coal for basic heating because wood isn't available in sufficient quantity, and coal is. So even in a society with a culture of commercial invention, if there's not a practical use-case for a highly inefficient initial steam engine, maybe the technology never goes anywhere.
This at least raises the question, if the island of Great Britain lacked significant coal deposits and the economic history of Europe were otherwise largely unchanged, how much later might the Industrial Revolution have happened? Perhaps other Commercial parts of Europe would have eventually deforested to the point that they made more use of coal and went down the path of building ever-better steam engines. Or perhaps not.
Devereaux's argument at least makes me wonder to what degree timberland per capita really differs from place to place within the core countries of NW Europe circa 1700, and what the rate of change was.
Great comment, and thanks for the link. I had not heard of it and it looks very interesting. Rather than answer here, I think that I will write one or more articles on the issue.
A quick answer is that Britain could have gone a long way towards industrialization using wood instead of coal, but even with imports they would have eventually run out. USA followed that path in 19th Century. The Netherlands did the same with peat. Wood is fine for short-term, but it is not a long-term substitute for coal and other fossil fuels.
Wood is so much less energy-dense than coal that it could not possibly lead to an industrialized Europe or industrialized world.
Important and persuasive. The Arc of History is disturbing naive belief that probably leads to losing social will. "We Got Lucky.. and it's a lot of hard work to maintain", leads to a very different set of implications.
I believe these investigations are the true and proper role of History. That History will be critical for shaping the good of Humanity, our Ecosystem, and successfully navigating the future. In a society that is regressing, history is the first to go.
This is an interesting article on a topic I was thinking for a while 'why did it take so long for Scientific and Industrial revolutions to happen? It happened only 200 years ago out of 200 000 years of human existence and over 10 000 years of various civilizations.
I would argue with some minor details, but I like the core idea that social structure of Agricultural societies doesn't incentivise innovation at a mass scale.
It's also curious to think about this in our modern geopolitical context of the new Cold War. We have a block or authoritarian countries that want to come back to the world of 19th century politics, and Western democracies opposing them on the other side. Each has its advantages in warfare, but this idea gives me hope that once western societies realise the threat (which takes a while), they will be able to innovate much faster and at much more sustainable level than the new Axis (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea). Also, modern West has accumulated a lot of inefficient and outdated policies (though Idk if that wasn't the case always), especially those preventing robust growth. I hope that the new threat will cause our societies to rapidly modernize and increase innovation and growth.