Was an Industrial age inevetible?

Was the industial age inevitable?


  • Total voters
    75

Stephen

Banned
Would it be plausible to manipulate history to prevent the industrial age from hapening, or delay it until after the next ice age?

I was thinking that maybe the merchantilist policies of the British Empire forced an unusual concentration of industry in Britain that got it started.
 
Would it be plausible to manipulate history to prevent the industrial age from hapening, or delay it until after the next ice age?

I was thinking that maybe the merchantilist policies of the British Empire forced an unusual concentration of industry in Britain that got it started.

There were many conditions neccesary, but it was by no means an accident. It was bound to happen, the question was of when the proper resources and prerequisites could be assembled together at the same time. Natural resources, mobile population, excess capital, and other things were neccesary.

Because of this, I think a fourth option is needed, in between #2 and #3. I picked #2, though, because it is closest to my opinion.
 
It's in the nature of human civilizations to develop and constantly re-develop their tools over time. Should a powerful POD lead to a very different history, the OTL prerequisites for an industrial revolution would still be in place sooner or later, even if the IR itself was delayed. The relentless flow of technological progress (or if you prefer, constant grinding of the millstone) would only make an IR easier as time marches on, leading to more and more possible avenues toward mechanical power and mass production.

It's also pretty much inevitable (at least sans ASBs) that groups of humans are going to be in competition of various kinds within and between societies and cultures, meaning even if you delay the IR as compared to OTL, the first group(s) to embrace it will gain significant advantages over everyone else; a lead that will only build if they retain an industrial monopoly.

That's not to say that industrial revolutions in any ATL would mimic OTL in the details, but the broader development of mechanical power and tools, greater (and cheaper) production, as well as the harnessing of more energy sources would be only natural.
 
Hmm...this is quite difficult to pinpoint. Certainly the Romans were quite innovative and brought about many technological advances. Their discovery and use of cement/concrete is one notable example. But the fall of the empire saw a loss of knowledge that helped plunge the Western World at least into a several centuries long age of little to no technological advancement. Finally numerous events, circumstances, and subtle changes occurred to help jump start the rennaissance that then lead to an ever quickening advancement which then helped usher in the industrial age.

So without those events, etc. occurring to help bring about the rennaissance, it is conceivable that mankind is still living in a medieval/dark ages world.
 
When you look at cultural evolution, certain trends do appear to be almost inevitable, given a certain set of demographic, geographic, and ecological conditions. Farming, social stratification, urbanization, writing, and states have independently evolved throughout the world when conditions favored it.

I do not believe industrialization and high technology is necessarily one of those things. It only evolved in one place (Europe), and did not occur in other civilized areas which were as advanced or more advanced for a much longer time (some of which even experimented with some of the technological precursors of modern technology). Get rid of Europe, and I am unconvinced we would not still be living in civilized "iron age" societies which still depended predominantly on animal power, human power, and other mechanical aids (pulleys, sails,wheels, wind/water mills, etc) for everything.
 
While AFAIK there were a few times when some society was close to IR still it is rather accidentally set of circumstances that IR started.
 
Social conventions and type of government have the potential to indefinitely postpone and/or permanently prevent industrialization. Both China and India (and the Middle East and Iran) had large populations, a merchant class and knowledge of iron and steel making. China had developed mass standardization of weapons fabrication and yet never took the steps needed to industrialize. The prejudices of the rulling classes towards manufacturing and (perhaps) the recognition that industrialization would revolutionize social structures to the detriment of the established order were probably the reason. Is there any evidence that Ming China for example, given a few more centuries without European intervention would have had an IR? Instead, what we see is that after the Treasure Fleet voyages of the early 1400's the naval building program (undoubtably a technology-forcing effort) was curtailed by imperial decree. Why? because the Mandarin administrative class did not see it as beneficial to them or the established Confucian order. Any comments?
 
Social conventions and type of government have the potential to indefinitely postpone and/or permanently prevent industrialization. Both China and India (and the Middle East and Iran) had large populations, a merchant class and knowledge of iron and steel making. China had developed mass standardization of weapons fabrication and yet never took the steps needed to industrialize. The prejudices of the rulling classes towards manufacturing and (perhaps) the recognition that industrialization would revolutionize social structures to the detriment of the established order were probably the reason. Is there any evidence that Ming China for example, given a few more centuries without European intervention would have had an IR? Instead, what we see is that after the Treasure Fleet voyages of the early 1400's the naval building program (undoubtably a technology-forcing effort) was curtailed by imperial decree. Why? because the Mandarin administrative class did not see it as beneficial to them or the established Confucian order. Any comments?

I agree, completely. China and India are both excellent examples as to why an industrial revolution was not inevitable. So is Hellenistic/Roman civilization - for other reasons. At a certain point the entrenched elites in all stable civilizations see no reason to support or foster technological advancement which could destabilize their power base. It took a combination of many factors (the collapse of Rome, the dark ages, social and political upheavals, lingusitic fragmentation, religious fragmentation, national competition, mixed in with a few few random scientific discoveries to create the cultural environment in Europe which fostered the enlightenment and industrialization.
 
Europe's unique advantage after the Renaissance: maritime prowess and the burning desire to travel/settle the world.

Now contrast India. Don't some of their religious faiths shun or forbid ocean travel?
 
I agree, completely. China and India are both excellent examples as to why an industrial revolution was not inevitable. So is Hellenistic/Roman civilization - for other reasons. At a certain point the entrenched elites in all stable civilizations see no reason to support or foster technological advancement which could destabilize their power base. It took a combination of many factors (the collapse of Rome, the dark ages, social and political upheavals, lingusitic fragmentation, religious fragmentation, national competition, mixed in with a few few random scientific discoveries to create the cultural environment in Europe which fostered the enlightenment and industrialization.

I disagree completely, well at least I am going to argue that I do. I think that what we call "the industrial revolution" is based on how "the industrial revolution" occurred in Europe. That is by definition the industrial revolution is based on European changes and the like. It is a bit unfair to try to apply the changes that the industrial revolution made in Europe and say that the Chinese chose not to industrialize. In Europe prior to the industrial revolution any crafted good was made from a small group of artisans based in a guild. In Europe the industrial revolution can be seen as the centralization of production into factories and the destruction of the artisan. China on the other hand developed centralized production on an "industrial" scale as early as the 11th century.

I think that the problem of china was that steam driven machines were never that useful because of the excess of cheap human driven machines. I think that European industrialization was inevitable just because of the perfect situation it found itself in. It was diverse enough that one power could not rule over it, it was a perfect place for a Sea trade therefore it was easy to gain new information, and I am sure there are more reasons besides.

Even if you argue that without Europe no industrialization, does the existence of Europe mean that it was inevitable? If a plague wiped out all of Europe would not it become gradually repopulated by non-Europeans. I think that would delay the IR but not stop it.

In fact I think that if there was a plague that wiped out even India or China in say 1400 there would be a delayed IR, as the trade which enriched Europe greatly would not have even gotten started, which would in turn delay a middle class.
 
the fall of the empire saw a loss of knowledge that helped plunge the Western World at least into a several centuries long age of little to no technological advancement

A popular misconception with little relation with reality, The Middle Ages were less organized on the grand scale, lacked the "globalizing" width of the Roman world, but were in many respects more adavanced in technology. And fundamentale discoveries and inventions were made in those centuries. Just only think about the clock.
 
I think that European industrialization was inevitable just because of the perfect situation it found itself in. It was diverse enough that one power could not rule over it, it was a perfect place for a Sea trade therefore it was easy to gain new information, and I am sure there are more reasons besides. .

You make some good points in the rest of your post, but in the quote above, you yourself state that Europe found itself in a "perfect" situation to foster industrialization. To me, this implies a rare situation which might not reoccur if history could repeat itself 100 times. I also wouldn't agree that Europe's diversity necessarily rules out a single state or empire dominating it. Imperial China dominated an area which was at least as diverse, lingusitically, religiously, and geographically as Europe.

Let's go back to 10,000BC, start again, and I'd lay 100 to 1 odds against any modern technological society being around anywhere on the globe now or in 500 years.
 
You make some good points in the rest of your post, but in the quote above, you yourself state that Europe found itself in a "perfect" situation to foster industrialization. To me, this implies a rare situation which might not reoccur if history could repeat itself 100 times. I also wouldn't agree that Europe's diversity necessarily rules out a single state or empire dominating it. Imperial China dominated an area which was at least as diverse, lingusitically, religiously, and geographically as Europe.

Let's go back to 10,000BC, start again, and I'd lay 100 to 1 odds against any modern technological society being around anywhere on the globe now or in 500 years.

Absolutely. In a way, the extreme governmental fragmentation of Europe probably fostered innovation and scientific experimentation to a greater extent than a centralized state. Think of the OTL Papacy's reaction to Copernicus and Galileo and then think of an alternate Europe dominated from the center by the Church in the same way as the Chinese Empire was from Peking. The IR required not only the underlying resources and ability to mass-produce but a society open to revolutionary change. In Europe's case, that was the result of Mass Depopulation (the Black Plague), Religious Upheaval (the Reformation and religious wars) and fierce competition between rival nation-states. Eliminate one or more of these factors and the IR might not have taken place.
 
To me, this implies a rare situation which might not reoccur if history could repeat itself 100 times. I also wouldn't agree that Europe's diversity necessarily rules out a single state or empire dominating it. Imperial China dominated an area which was at least as diverse, lingusitically, religiously, and geographically as Europe.

I say that Europe was in a perfect situation, because of reasons that are essentially geographic. Without changing geography Europe would probably still be a technologically innovative area. For instance take the Caravel it is uniquely important to the development of European power, but the reason for this is essentially geography. The Caravel was basically the application of triangle sail or Meditteranean based technology to the square sail of the North Sea. Because of the relative closeness of two different seas that require to different solutions, the caravel succeeds in both. This was a substantial developmental advantage for Europe.

The problem with this line of thinking is that we can only prove that what has happened has happened for certain reasons. We can either look at it as individuals making decisions and discoveries or we can try to remove the individual events and replace them with longstanding developments. I don't really want to think about which is which right now.
 
The Romans were on the verge of an industrial revolution before the end. They had a working steam engine, a mechanical calculator among other things. Not to mention an unparrelled infastructure for the time.

The fall of the Roman Empire set civilization back a thousand years.
 
I think it was bound to happen "any century now". However, I could easily imagine it not having happened yet (in an ATL 2009).
 
The Romans were on the verge of an industrial revolution before the end. They had a working steam engine, a mechanical calculator among other things. Not to mention an unparrelled infastructure for the time.

The fall of the Roman Empire set civilization back a thousand years.
I think its debatable to what degree Rome would actually have industrialized. Sure, it had several of the basic technological prerequisites, but they were very rudimentary, and it is quite another leap from simply possessing these innovations to actually using them in synthesis to create something more profound. Further, I've never really seen any evidence that social, political, or economic factors in Rome would have been terribly condusive to fostering an industrial surge.
 
When you look at cultural evolution, certain trends do appear to be almost inevitable, given a certain set of demographic, geographic, and ecological conditions. Farming, social stratification, urbanization, writing, and states have independently evolved throughout the world when conditions favored it.

I do not believe industrialization and high technology is necessarily one of those things. It only evolved in one place (Europe), and did not occur in other civilized areas which were as advanced or more advanced for a much longer time (some of which even experimented with some of the technological precursors of modern technology). Get rid of Europe, and I am unconvinced we would not still be living in civilized "iron age" societies which still depended predominantly on animal power, human power, and other mechanical aids (pulleys, sails,wheels, wind/water mills, etc) for everything.

The problem of comparing industrialization with farming, social stratification, urbanization, writing, and states is the following: all these didn't have an inmediate global effect. If farming (or any of the others) had the same effects as industrialization, it would have happened only once. In that case, the first people who developped farming (or social stratification, urbanization or writing) would have conquered or dominated the rest of the peoples of the world. If we had lived in such a TL,, we might consider these advances as unique events, as they would have happened only once (at least originally).

But that didn't happened. Farming, social stratification, urbanization and writing gave the peoples who invented them predominance over their neighbours. But the peoples who were far away weren't affected by these. They had time (thousands of years) to invent this for their own. Mesoamericans, for example, invented all these entirely independently.

The industrial revolution had inmediate effects worldwide. If its effects could somehow have been limeted to western Europe, it might have happened elsewhere independently. While there was no sign that in the late XVIII another part of the world was about to industrialize on its own, who can assure that Japan, China or India wouldn't be industrialized by the year 3000 if Europeans had been killed by a plague? Japan, for example, was quite comparable to late medieval Europe. What would had happened there if left alone?

This doesn't mean industrialization is inevitable. I think nothing is inevitable, even agriculture. But saying that industrialization is inevitable because it happened only once IOTL, unlike farming, social stratification, urbanization, writing isn't accurate. Industrialization, given it's nature, would ALWAYS happen once, in almost any TL. It have happen in China, India, Europe or somewhere else. But once it happens there, that region will dominate the world. Other places might industrialize, and even surpass the regiuon where industrializatiuon startes; but they will be copying the starters.

That's what makes it hard to determinate what's necessary to industrialization. For example, we know that having domesticated animals isn't a pre-requisite for urbanization, as Mesoamericans had cities without having domesticated animals. But we can't know for sure if banking is a pre-requisite for industrialization, just because it predated it in the British case.
 
That's what makes it hard to determinate what's necessary to industrialization.
Whe also have to define Industrialization.

?Is it just Factories? then the Minonians with their extensive Factory system for producing trade goods has to be considered

?Is it the Use of non Animal Power?, Then the 1500~1600 Dutch with their extensive use of wind Mills or the 1600 English with their water powered factories qualify as Industrialized.
 
See -taking into account all of human history-, I don't think it was inevitable. My problem with how many view progress is that it was always set to happen how it did. This era looked like this and led to this and these things, and that's how people always develop and were always going to develop. So, for example, by that, if you go to an alien planet and find intelligent life, the aliens will always develop likes this, and then when that's done they'll do this, and this and that, and do what we did. But I don't think that's true. I think development is an odd thing, and can go along any number of ways. I mean, we could have discovered steam powered engines in the Hellenistic age and be wearing sandals and togas today and never develop computers or high electronics and remained very natural for example. Or any number of things. So to me, development is always an oddly shaped thing. We can leap ahead in certain areas and not others, and some areas you may never find out about or not discover for centuries (and could have discovered centuries before), or not discover at all. We can have rockets and oil lamps, or fusion power and vacuum tubes. So I don't think it was inevitable.

That's far more complex of an idea than I may present it as, but I don't know how to explain it any better.
 
Last edited:
Top