3 ms·

Energy wasn't sufficient, but it likely was necessary. That said, the energy was lying around all through history, so something exogenous got people to use it.

by graeme 9y ago

Energy wasn't sufficient, but it likely was necessary. That said, the energy was lying around all through history, so something exogenous got people to use it. And to develop the technology to do so.

vkou 9y ago
> so something exogenous got people to use it. And to develop the technology to do so. That was James Watt's steam engine, which was efficient at turning combustion into mechanical motion, and it was happenstance that it was invented in 1780, and not 1580, or 1980. People didn't suddenly develop a need to move heavy things in 1780 - it came around then because of advances in steelwork, precision manufacturing, and general refinement of the idea (Such engines were around for over a century, but were not compact, or efficient enough to be very useful.) All of a sudden, the labour of a coal miner was enough to feed a 10, then a 50, then a 100 horse-power engine. It was the AGI of its era.
- graeme 9y ago
  Though why were they in development? This article says an early one was developed in 1698, to pump water from a coal mine: http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/steam.engines.html http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/steam.engines.html Why was there a coal mine? Why not use wood or charcoal? Why didn't the Romans go down this path? They invented a toy steam engine. These things have many causes. Obviously watson's invention was a big inflection point. But, as for the question "were liberal markets necessary?" my suspicion is yes. But, I don't actually know. I think the answer begins before James Watt.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Because people have been trying to invent ways to mechanically augment human power since someone had the bright idea to make a lever. Why the steam engine did not succeed because Watt, was because the same reason that tri-deck galleons and gunpowder did not exist in the bronze age. Non-trivial practical inventions require a massive pyramid of other non-trivial practical inventions, each of which requires a pyramid of other non-trivial inventions, all of which have to solve a contemporary problem - cheaply then their alternatives. If liberal markets were necessary for the invention of the steam engine, why was it invented in England, and not in Renaissance Italy? It had liberal markets, access to capital, and was a center of technological and cultural progress for hundreds of years. There's no particularly satisfying answer to that, other then 'happenstance.'
wutbrodo 9y ago
Right, this is close to my model too, but it's in contradiction to the GP claim that energy is the reason and economic structures are behind the point. It's almost tautological to say that energy is behind growth, but it's also independent of economic structure, which effectively boils down to "the manner in which we convert energy to utility".

by graeme 9y ago

Energy wasn't sufficient, but it likely was necessary. That said, the energy was lying around all through history, so something exogenous got people to use it. And to develop the technology to do so.

vkou 9y ago

> so something exogenous got people to use it. And to develop the technology to do so. That was James Watt's steam engine, which was efficient at turning combustion into mechanical motion, and it was happenstance that it was invented in 1780, and not 1580, or 1980. People didn't suddenly develop a need to move heavy things in 1780 - it came around then because of advances in steelwork, precision manufacturing, and general refinement of the idea (Such engines were around for over a century, but were not compact, or efficient enough to be very useful.) All of a sudden, the labour of a coal miner was enough to feed a 10, then a 50, then a 100 horse-power engine. It was the AGI of its era.

graeme 9y ago
Though why were they in development? This article says an early one was developed in 1698, to pump water from a coal mine: http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/steam.engines.html http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/steam.engines.html Why was there a coal mine? Why not use wood or charcoal? Why didn't the Romans go down this path? They invented a toy steam engine. These things have many causes. Obviously watson's invention was a big inflection point. But, as for the question "were liberal markets necessary?" my suspicion is yes. But, I don't actually know. I think the answer begins before James Watt.
- vkou 9y ago
  Because people have been trying to invent ways to mechanically augment human power since someone had the bright idea to make a lever. Why the steam engine did not succeed because Watt, was because the same reason that tri-deck galleons and gunpowder did not exist in the bronze age. Non-trivial practical inventions require a massive pyramid of other non-trivial practical inventions, each of which requires a pyramid of other non-trivial inventions, all of which have to solve a contemporary problem - cheaply then their alternatives. If liberal markets were necessary for the invention of the steam engine, why was it invented in England, and not in Renaissance Italy? It had liberal markets, access to capital, and was a center of technological and cultural progress for hundreds of years. There's no particularly satisfying answer to that, other then 'happenstance.'

wutbrodo 9y ago

Right, this is close to my model too, but it's in contradiction to the GP claim that energy is the reason and economic structures are behind the point. It's almost tautological to say that energy is behind growth, but it's also independent of economic structure, which effectively boils down to "the manner in which we convert energy to utility".