Earliest plausible Industrial Revolution?

[Tyr]

I've wondered about a divided China forming modern civilization before however I failed in my attempts to find maps to properly divide China.


For earlier IR... Maybe Chinese ideas could get through to Japan more? Japan's system of competiting warlords and samurai seems very fitting during a peaceful period for industrial development.

 

[Tony Williams]

Sigh. One day, I'd like to do an islamic scientific revolution.

They had one. Science and mathematics in the Islamic world were vastly superior to the Christian world's in the Middle Ages. They were even quite tolerant and enlightened about religious issues (much more so than the Christians). The problem is that while the Christian world developed, the Islamic world went backwards to its present sad state. Apropos of which, I have seen recent reports that there are two rival theories to account for the Indian Ocean tsunami in the Islamic world (specifically, reported in Egyptian news media). One is that it was God's punishment for the decadent behaviour of westerners on holiday in the region (evidently He doesn't worry too much about collateral damage), the other that the earthquake was kicked off by a US or Israeli nuclear bomb test. Very sad.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[Tony Williams]

If Christianity was such a tremendous obstacle to economic advance, then why did Europe come out of the Middle ages with a more sophisticated economy and better technology than it had even at the height of the Roman Empire?

The Medieval Christian Church was suspicious of scientific advances and only tolerated them when they could be seen to be to the greater glory of God. So they embraced architecture because it produced awe-inspiring cathedrals. They were happy with advances in painting because it enabled religious subjects to be depicted more impressively. Advances in navigation and trade they saw as opportunities to spread God's word. But slip into a clearer understanding of deeper scientific issues, like astronomy, and you ran into serious trouble - see Galileo.

Advances in scientific knowledge were seen as threatening because they pushed back the boundaries of what God was responsible for. This is still going on today - consider the attitude in Jesusland towards the evolution v creationism debate.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[DominusNovus]

The Medieval Christian Church was suspicious of scientific advances and only tolerated them when they could be seen to be to the greater glory of God. So they embraced architecture because it produced awe-inspiring cathedrals. They were happy with advances in painting because it enabled religious subjects to be depicted more impressively. Advances in navigation and trade they saw as opportunities to spread God's word. But slip into a clearer understanding of deeper scientific issues, like astronomy, and you ran into serious trouble - see Galileo.

Advances in scientific knowledge were seen as threatening because they pushed back the boundaries of what God was responsible for. This is still going on today - consider the attitude in Jesusland towards the evolution v creationism debate.

I'm inclined to disagree about their attitudes on scientific issues, especially astronomy. To me, this is simply a case of the establishment being incredibly reluctant to let go of the ideas they already had. Their view of the universe was developed from the Greek philosophers, pagan to a man. The Church went with their theories.

Now, it wasn't exactly hostile to new ideas, only to people saying that the Church's ideas were wrong. IIRC, Copernicus escaped alot of trouble by saying that his ideas were merely theories that happened to fit his observations.

 

[MerryPrankster]

IIRC, Copernicus escaped alot of trouble by saying that his ideas were merely theories that happened to fit his observations.

I thought that Copernicus was condemned by the Church, but never subjected to the same kinds of shenanigans as Galileo.

 

[Hierophant]

Matt Quinn Quote:
Originally Posted by DominusNovus
IIRC, Copernicus escaped alot of trouble by saying that his ideas were merely theories that happened to fit his observations.


I thought that Copernicus was condemned by the Church, but never subjected to the same kinds of shenanigans as Galileo.

The CHurch was fairly silent about the topic at the time. On the other hand ironically Luther and the rest of the Protestants in Europe said alot of nasty things about copernicus, and re-affirmed thier belief in the Ptolemaic model.

 

[DominusNovus]

I thought that Copernicus was condemned by the Church, but never subjected to the same kinds of shenanigans as Galileo.

Not as far as I know. In fact, he dedicated one of his books to the Pope. But, overall, the local church officials seemed to tolerate him and his ideas.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Copernicus was wise enough to spell out that his discoveries did not contradict official church doctrine and that, while his calculations did seem to work out better if one posited the sun as the center of the universe, everyone knew that the OT account of the cosmos was the correct one, after all. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Galileo, on the other hand, was unapologetic about his discoveries, and so he felt the full weight of the church. I guess the best modern analogue to the medieval church would be Stalinism.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Apropos of which, I have seen recent reports that there are two rival theories to account for the Indian Ocean tsunami in the Islamic world (specifically, reported in Egyptian news media). One is that it was God's punishment for the decadent behaviour of westerners on holiday in the region (evidently He doesn't worry too much about collateral damage), the other that the earthquake was kicked off by a US or Israeli nuclear bomb test. Very sad.

Not to drag this thread off topic, but I saw that Fred Phelps has the same theory (that God visited this disaster on gay Swedes and that the Muslims got caught up in it as well), and I heard Pat Robertson claim (on MSNBC last night) that the tsunami wasn't God's fault, but blamed the SEAsians for having the foolishness to live in such a dangerous area. Very sad.

Additionally, Tom DeLay touched on the issue of divine justice in the prayer breakfast yesterday. He read from Matthew 7:24-27:

24. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I'll grant you that Tom DeLay is not a media personality, but as the House Majority Leader he has not a little influence.

 

[Kadyet]

Just a few comments:
1. Usury is still considered a sin. The nature of usury has changed in the past few centuries however. Now it refers to excessive interest (interest having been considered excessive in itself prior).
2. Galileo was condemned for demanding that the Church change its interpretation of Scripture and also for insulting the pope, who had been his friend (he had put arguments favored by the pope into the mouth of a guy who was called Stupid or something like that).

 

[MerryPrankster]

I think DeLay was thinking more along the lines of, "See how wise Jesus is! The people whoses were on the beach got wiped out and the people whose houses were higher up survived" (hills being rockier than beaches).

I don't think he was claiming that God unleashed the tsunami.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Just a few comments:
1. Usury is still considered a sin. The nature of usury has changed in the past few centuries however. Now it refers to excessive interest (interest having been considered excessive in itself prior).
2. Galileo was condemned for demanding that the Church change its interpretation of Scripture and also for insulting the pope, who had been his friend (he had put arguments favored by the pope into the mouth of a guy who was called Stupid or something like that).

WI the Church's interpretation of Scripture happens to be wrong? Perhaps he could have been nicer to the Pope, but just b/c he was a layman doesn't make him incapable of possessing wisdom where faith, the Bible, etc. is concerned.

Perhaps a POD could be that the "excessive interest" as opposed to "any interest at all" interpretation wins out earlier than in OTL. That would generate more banking and thus more investment. Plus, if more Christians got into banking, it might lessen anti-Semitism a bit (those who were in fiscal trouble and angry at "the money masters" wouldn't pick on Jews exclusively).

 

[Leo Caesius]

I think DeLay was thinking more along the lines of, "See how wise Jesus is! The people whoses were on the beach got wiped out and the people whose houses were higher up survived" (hills being rockier than beaches).

I don't think he was claiming that God unleashed the tsunami.

I agree that he isn't laying the blame for the tsunami on God's doorstep, but that doesn't change the fact that he's comparing the people who were killed in the tsunami to those who have heard the gospel but chose to ignore it. That is, after all, the metaphor in the quote - those who have heard Jesus' sayings and responded to them (and were thus saved), in opposition to those who heard them and ignored them (who were doomed to destruction). I hope that I'm not reading too much into this, but it strikes me that the fact that the majority of people killed by the tsunami were non-Christian (but in heavily-evangelized sections of the world) is pregnant with significance for people like Tom "The Hammer" DeLay. This particular quote confirms this for me. His observation dovetails nicely with Robertson's claims last night, and his prediction that the Muslim world will turn to Christ in 2005, which was something that Joe Scarborough pointed out last night in his discussion with Diamond Pat.

A figure that I expect to get more play is the fact the country with the highest percentage of Christians in the region - Singapore - was also the only country in the region to be completely unaffected by the tsunami. All of Singapore's neighbors - Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and so forth - were horribly affected by the tsunami.

 

[MerryPrankster]

It is true that that is what Christ was referring to, but is DeLay making that comparison intentionally? Perhaps he found the verse, saw that on a superficial level (hills vs. beaches) it was applicable, and didn't think about it too much.

Pat Robertson didn't even make that comparison, and he's pretty darn wacky.

 

[fortyseven]

They had one. Science and mathematics in the Islamic world were vastly superior to the Christian world's in the Middle Ages. They were even quite tolerant and enlightened about religious issues (much more so than the Christians). The problem is that while the Christian world developed, the Islamic world went backwards to its present sad state. Apropos of which, I have seen recent reports that there are two rival theories to account for the Indian Ocean tsunami in the Islamic world (specifically, reported in Egyptian news media). One is that it was God's punishment for the decadent behaviour of westerners on holiday in the region (evidently He doesn't worry too much about collateral damage), the other that the earthquake was kicked off by a US or Israeli nuclear bomb test. Very sad.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Sad yes, but also pretty funny.The theories that is. I can see Muslims turning to Christianity but not a trinitarian version.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Getting the thread back on track here...

I've noticed one item is continually overlooked on our lists of Industrial Revolution requirements; markets. You can make all the goods you want, but if no one can buy them ... POOF ... no Industrial Revolution.

Look at just what was arguably the first mass produced good that wasn't a weapon; cloth. Not iron, not bricks, just plain old everyday cloth. It was an item that everyone needed; you need clothing. It was an item that everyone knew how to use; sewing was done by more than just women. It was an item was already partially industrialized; those roaming 'putting out' fellows who gave materials and tools; cards, looms, spinning wheels, to rural families and collected finished products; thread, linen, etc.

The Industrial Revolution occurred when someone to put all the pieces of cloth manufacturing together in a single location, succeeded far past his wildest expectations, and others reckoned they could do the same with other products.

But note the low 'entry price' for cloth. The early industrialists weren't selling something that cost a lot; like steel, or making something that required pricey raw materials; like ore and coke. They were making an already cheap product (indeed a product that many already produced themselves) even cheaper. So cheap in fact that a family could now buy a bolt of cloth and then use the hours they would have spent producing that cloth for other pursuits, like working somewhere else doing something else for money. Money is the key bit here. It provides the capital the nascent industrialists need and the purchasing power their customers need. Those two uses for money are closely linked.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, a cash economy was rare in both time and location. Once the Industrial Revolution occurred, a cash economy was nearly universal. One reason why earlier industrial revolutions never 'took off' is because political, social, and cultural restraints prevented a cash economy from developing on either the production side, the market side, or both.

Like many others, the Song Chinese had nearly all the pieces required for an industrial revolution. What they lacked was the market side of things. Everything their proto-inudstries produced was for 'official' use, reserved for either the government or the elites. No one ever thought of producing items for the poor slob weeding the rice paddy. He couldn't buy anything anyway because that poor slob didn't have any discretionary income. Besides, his society never saw the need for him to ever have any discretionary income.

This cultural blindspot can also be illustrated by China's take on printing. They developed paper, presses, moveable type, and all that centuries ahead of anyone else, but their culture prevented them from gaining any real benefit from it. (Their language played a part too).

In another thread, Hendryk mentioned that the Chinese once took 20 years to print something like 130 volumes of philosophy. Now compare that to the period between 1519 and 1520 when Martin Luther wrote over thirty tracts outlining his faith, which were then printed in 400 editions and sold over 300,000 copies. One of his books sold 2,000 copies in FIVE days in 1520. And Luther's stuff wasn't the only thing being printed and sold during that period. The Chinese would have never done that because their culture could never imagine it.

Remember, make all the stuff you want, but for an industrial revolution you need to sell all that stuff too.


Bill

 

[Hendryk]

I've noticed one item is continually overlooked on our lists of Industrial Revolution requirements; markets. You can make all the goods you want, but if no one can buy them ... POOF ... no Industrial Revolution. (...)

Like many others, the Song Chinese had nearly all the pieces required for an industrial revolution. What they lacked was the market side of things. Everything their proto-inudstries produced was for 'official' use, reserved for either the government or the elites. No one ever thought of producing items for the poor slob weeding the rice paddy. He couldn't buy anything anyway because that poor slob didn't have any discretionary income. Besides, his society never saw the need for him to ever have any discretionary income.

This cultural blindspot can also be illustrated by China's take on printing. They developed paper, presses, moveable type, and all that centuries ahead of anyone else, but their culture prevented them from gaining any real benefit from it. (Their language played a part too).

In another thread, Hendryk mentioned that the Chinese once took 20 years to print something like 130 volumes of philosophy. Now compare that to the period between 1519 and 1520 when Martin Luther wrote over thirty tracts outlining his faith, which were then printed in 400 editions and sold over 300,000 copies. One of his books sold 2,000 copies in FIVE days in 1520. And Luther's stuff wasn't the only thing being printed and sold during that period. The Chinese would have never done that because their culture could never imagine it.

I agree with Bill on the importance of markets and discretionary income (this ties in with the importance of having a sizeable middle class for an industrial revolution to take place: lots of moderately wealthy folks spend more than a few very wealthy ones, both in aggregate figures and in proportion to their income--which is also why tax breaks aimed at the rich don't make economic sense). Song China had a large clerical class (each office-holding mandarin, and there were a lot of them, had a whole staff to assist with the paper-pushing, and though they did not have civil-servant status they were de facto members of the bureaucracy) as well as a dynamic merchant class, but neither amounted to a middle class in the socio-economic sense of the term.
However, I disagree with the lack of benefits China derived from the invention of printing. As I wrote in the thread Bill refers to, about one third of Song China's population was literate, which amounted to some 30 million people: a large enough market for printed documents. Nor was the printing process itself that slow; those volumes of philosophy he mentioned were printed by a single team of crafstmen under the direction of a government minister, it was a limited-issue luxury item. But there were hundreds of printing presses in operation, both government-owned and private, churning out Buddhist texts, technical manuals, assorted literature, and of course the Confucian canon that every candidate for Imperial exams had to learn by heart. In a Confucian society, books are a status symbol, and all those who could afford to buy them did. Whether Song China could have had a full-fledged industrial revolution is open to debate; what is not is whether they made the best use they could of the printing press, because, unlike with some others of their inventions, they did.
For further information on printing in China, I refer you to Printing for Profit: The Commercial Publishers of Jianyang, Fujian (11th-17th Centuries) by Lucille Chia.

 

[Bill Cameron]

However, I disagree with the lack of benefits China derived from the invention of printing.

Hendryk,

I was insufficiently precise. I meant China failed to derive a benefit from printing in respect to the topic of this thread; industrial revolutions. Others will have differing opinions, but I can't shake the feeling that China's supposed 'failure' to take advantage of her 'lead' in so many areas can be blamed on her being a 'satisfied culture'.

BTW, I am a Sinophile too and have always enjoyed my business trips there.


Bill

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

So you want to go right from the first farms to the first factories. Interesting.

Hmm, that could be done, I suppose, but its' a bit more complicated than that (of course). I tend to believe that advanced farming was necessary for the Industrial Revolution to have happened, but as mentioned it takes more than that; writing, money, an open minded society, or at least a group of sufficiently open minded persons within said society, and a somewhat scientific approach to the world in general.

Let's see what do we need?

1) Advanced farming first of all! We need a surplus of food and to free up parts of the population - no use if 90% of the population works 12 hours every day in the field.

2) Writing!!!

3) We need cities of a sort. Hence markets, middle-classes, craftmen and some kind of centralized education system with libraries and universities or something similar! With advanced farming this should come along, I think!

4) An we need an environment where science is accepted or at least the art of thinking is accepted. People in the cities, and to a lesser degree out in the country, needs to make money, so focus will be around improving farming, metal-making and textiles....

When is the earliest that could have happened? Ancient Egypt? Greece? Rome? The Mayas? I think that a too delevoped religious doctrine will slow things down, as will slavery and an overly feudal society, so it might be later... Denmark during the Valdemars? Trade, cities, shipping, good farmland and what seems like an eye for progress. Britain at various times? Had Britain not been involved in God knows how many wars abroad and at home, we might have seen the Industrial Revolution kick in earlier! The Ottomans? China, of course, but it seemd like their society placed a lot of obstructions indirectly as noted by others.
Besides, it seems like some sort of sailing tradition was needed as much of the rather advanced stuff was developed as part of the shipping industry - steamers, steel, big guns ect etc.

(...) Progress (...) It involves a lot of effort, particularly thought, which most people really hate. It also involves lots of change, which always hurts as many or more as it improves. Things are better for everyone as time goes on, but not at first.

Good points, Napoleon! I've never really thought about the Industrial Revolution, or progress in general, with that in mind.

Not to steer this thread off course, but how far do you think a society can develop without writing?

This is btw a very interesting thread!

Best regards!

- B.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

While Willam Burns Glyn et al dispute this, it is still generally believed that the Inca had no writing.