3 ms·
> Their implicit claim is that, other than in mid-eighteenth century Britain, save for a few short-lived cases, choosing innovation was simply just not worth it
by wombatmobile 5y ago
> Their implicit claim is that, other than in mid-eighteenth century Britain, save for a few short-lived cases, choosing innovation was simply just not worth it.
When I studied the industrial revolution at university, in a course on international trade, we began with the questions of why it occurred where it did, when it did.
Short answer: a series of strong agricultural decades created a surplus large enough to allow a pool of Labor to mobilise away from agriculture, which hitherto had occupied 98% of the workforce.
It’s not that those 98% of workers weren’t as imaginative and innovative as, for example, the people YCombinator funds today. It’s just that being serfs limited their opportunities for expression.
- someguydave 5y agoHow did lack of agricultural surplus prevent someone from coming up with a better way to weave?
- e9 5y agoYou need free time to come up with it
- someguydave 5y agoall of humanity was so close to the verge of starvation for millennia that they couldn’t arrange some wood and string to make weaving way more efficient (and thereby make themselves fat and happy)? this idea seems unlikely.
- e9 5y agoIf you had to do hard physical labor every day from dawn to dusk and then deal with family of probably 5+ children, do you really want to spend your limited free time working on improving anything?