3 ms·

I would also contend that the New World had an impact, but a different one than just the natural resources. Rather, it's one of the pieces in the puzzle of "mod

I would also contend that the New World had an impact, but a different one than just the natural resources. Rather, it's one of the pieces in the puzzle of "modernity", and modernity preceded industrialization as a philosophical end to which society coordinated its actions. Ancient Rome was not just agrarian but tributary in nature: the social roles creating slaves and citizens were predefined through conquests. The empire had trade, and trade helped it prosper, but trade was not respected as a foundational ideology as was the case later with merchantalism. The reason why Britain felt pressure to be an exporter was because this was where the dominant ideology ultimately led: put more assets on the national balance sheet, externalize the liabilities. That emerged from the struggle between the colonial powers of Europe over the course of centuries. The Crusades brought back new ideas, and later, so did the Spanish explorations. At first the dynamic was primarily derived from tribute, and the early conquests had a focus on bullionism: getting gold and silver. But it soon became clear that sugar, cotton, etc were more fundamental to prosperity, and by the 1700's, this had been refined by the utilitarian philosophers into a mode of thought about trade, ethics and invention that remains close to what we accept today. In the prior societies, this wasn't a topic of discussion, and therefore new ideas were suspicious by default. So even if you had the idea to explore some topic, you needed to be close to, or part of, the nobility to have an opportunity to try. And a big part of early modern Europe was that the inventors and philosophers were always upsetting some noble and running away to the next country over. So, while Britain got there first, continued emphasis on trade - both with the Americas and the East - would have eventually created the conditions for industry somewhere in Europe.

CRConrad 4y ago
> the early conquests had a focus on bullionism: getting gold and silver. But it soon became clear that sugar, cotton, etc were more fundamental to prosperity Maybe less clear to Spain, which did perhaps too well with the silver? Which may have been a contributing reason to the rise of the British (and Dutch) colonial empire(s), because not getting that huge influx of silver and gold, their merchants had more incentive to keep their eyes open for other ways to make money. (Just a WAG, not a historian.)

CRConrad 4y ago

> the early conquests had a focus on bullionism: getting gold and silver. But it soon became clear that sugar, cotton, etc were more fundamental to prosperity Maybe less clear to Spain, which did perhaps too well with the silver? Which may have been a contributing reason to the rise of the British (and Dutch) colonial empire(s), because not getting that huge influx of silver and gold, their merchants had more incentive to keep their eyes open for other ways to make money. (Just a WAG, not a historian.)