4 ms·

In fighting there are various factors at place, the size and speed of those in the fight, the area they are in, the training. Some areas are more conducive to v

In fighting there are various factors at place, the size and speed of those in the fight, the area they are in, the training. Some areas are more conducive to victory for specific body types and training. This kind of dynamic plays out everywhere, the race is not always to the swift but you should place your bets that way. Geographical factors would seem to be this kind of importance that establishes a long dominance and strong chance of success, sure, but what Geographical factor allowed for Industrialism to be established in Western Civilization, with all the force multipliers that Industrialism gives? Almost all countries nowadays are industrialized therefore there is no geographical factor that prevents industrialization in those nations. Finally, historical trends seem not really to last more than 200-400 years, which 200 years really seems like the kind of thing that can be effected by a cultural issue - somebody who was a really bad king came along and reined for 70 years and destroyed the country, now you're in a weakened condition and get picked on by everyone else for the next 130 years. Yeah - your country's rich geographical resources finally lead to comeback but it just does not seem a very profound or interesting point the more I think about it.

Radim 3y ago
> what Geographical factor allowed for Industrialism to be established in Western Civilization, with all the force multipliers that Industrialism gives? Wasn't there a whole book devoted to exploring exactly this question? Now what was its name…
- BOOSTERHIDROGEN 3y ago
  https://bayesianinvestor.com/blog/index.php/2023/06/14/how-the-world-became-rich/ https://bayesianinvestor.com/blog/index.php/2023/06/14/how-t...
Gud 3y ago
>Geographical factors would seem to be this kind of importance that establishes a long dominance and strong chance of success, sure, but what Geographical factor allowed for Industrialism to be established in Western Civilization, with all the force multipliers that Industrialism gives? Almost all countries nowadays are industrialized therefore there is no geographical factor that prevents industrialization in those nations. the Industrial Revolution started because Great Britain had an over abundance of coal, so another point for the geographical theory?
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  China is the largest coal producing country in the world. Why did China not have an industrial revolution?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Not that it changes your point in the slightest, but China is about the size of all western Europe, so that should be more like "why didn't Shaanxi[0] have an industrial revolution?" [0] picked for size, not mineral abundance; I don't want to waste time delving into exactly which part of China is currently mining however much coal.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    China has a very centralized structure, he who holds the central planes is king of the hill. So technological competition like in the battle sponge of Europe never took off. Centralization is then arch nemesis of progress.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  also Rome had access to Britain's coal, there were steam turbines available in 1 B.C, in other words the geographical requirements for industrialism existed a long time ago and the people who had access to these things were not idiots and had a relatively strong organizational system. I would say Printing is the most important explanation for the Industrial revolution, allowing spread of science through the West, and at the same time providing an example of a technology that was successful and financially beneficial. If you're smart, coming up, and see that other smart people became financially successful by building tools it drives your ambition.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    Printing didn't require a lot of power. The Romans didn't have the precision (though arguably could have acquired that skill) to build decent steam engines, but more importantly they had no use for that power. The most compelling explanation I've read about the convergence of trade, textiles, free-energy (coal), and engines is one that comes up on HN periodically: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/ https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...
ohthehugemanate 3y ago
It has been a very long time since I read GGS, but I can tell you haven't yet... and judging from this comment I bet you would find it fascinating. To give a top-of-my-foggy-memory answer to your question about industrialization, here are some of the contributing factors as I recall: - Head-start: agricultural settlements started in Mesopotamia about 10k BCE, and branched out from there. That's the earliest record we have anywhere in the world of a farming culture which allowed specialized classes to emerge (builders, rulers, administrators, inventors, etc etc) and the basis for emerging technology. e.g. in the Americas it looks like this happened 5k years later. - More wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication. Only a small % of wild plants and animals are suitable and useful for domestication, and they were overwhelmingly concentrated in Europe. Wheat, barley, and beans were farmed earlier and are easier to farm than rice (East Asia) and potatoes/corn (Americas). There are no African or American animals with the capacity for burden and domesticability of european horses, donkeys, and oxen, and we haven't even talked about cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, etc. - the mix of small arable geographical area and concentrated population centers led to constant war in Europe, which drove a lot of technological innovation, especially in metallurgy. Europe is also particularly rich in iron and coal, which gave another advantage to pre-industrial tech branches (to use a Civilization analogy). In contrast, China was extremely politically stable and had less need for tools of war like hardened steel. - The relatively limited available land and population also motivated invention in European farming methods, which was not the case in e.g. China, where human labor is in many places still cheaper than technological efficiency. Human labor intensive farming methods from the 6th century are still in use in many parts of China, because that's just more effective than the alternative. - Constant war improved infrastructure between cities, too (thank you Roman empire). Hundreds of years later this accelerated trade beween population centers, contributing to many features that characterize industrialization as it happened in Europe. Including: a merchant class, production geogrpahically separated from sale, etc. - Early advantages were determining factors in colonialism and wealth extraction from other continents. i.e. because Europe had better guns, more germs, and better steel (ha), when they arrived in the Americas they wiped out the indigenous populations. Please don't take this as a unilateral endorsement of the ideas in the book - I'm not qualified! If nothing else the whole question is post-hoc... "why did Europe achieve European-defined success before any other continent achieved European-defined success?" In any case the ideas are interesting and I bet you would enjoy thinking about them, as I did.

Radim 3y ago

> what Geographical factor allowed for Industrialism to be established in Western Civilization, with all the force multipliers that Industrialism gives? Wasn't there a whole book devoted to exploring exactly this question? Now what was its name…

BOOSTERHIDROGEN 3y ago
https://bayesianinvestor.com/blog/index.php/2023/06/14/how-the-world-became-rich/ https://bayesianinvestor.com/blog/index.php/2023/06/14/how-t...

Gud 3y ago

>Geographical factors would seem to be this kind of importance that establishes a long dominance and strong chance of success, sure, but what Geographical factor allowed for Industrialism to be established in Western Civilization, with all the force multipliers that Industrialism gives? Almost all countries nowadays are industrialized therefore there is no geographical factor that prevents industrialization in those nations. the Industrial Revolution started because Great Britain had an over abundance of coal, so another point for the geographical theory?

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
China is the largest coal producing country in the world. Why did China not have an industrial revolution?
- ben_w 3y ago
  Not that it changes your point in the slightest, but China is about the size of all western Europe, so that should be more like "why didn't Shaanxi[0] have an industrial revolution?" [0] picked for size, not mineral abundance; I don't want to waste time delving into exactly which part of China is currently mining however much coal.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  China has a very centralized structure, he who holds the central planes is king of the hill. So technological competition like in the battle sponge of Europe never took off. Centralization is then arch nemesis of progress.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
also Rome had access to Britain's coal, there were steam turbines available in 1 B.C, in other words the geographical requirements for industrialism existed a long time ago and the people who had access to these things were not idiots and had a relatively strong organizational system. I would say Printing is the most important explanation for the Industrial revolution, allowing spread of science through the West, and at the same time providing an example of a technology that was successful and financially beneficial. If you're smart, coming up, and see that other smart people became financially successful by building tools it drives your ambition.
- Jedd 3y ago
  Printing didn't require a lot of power. The Romans didn't have the precision (though arguably could have acquired that skill) to build decent steam engines, but more importantly they had no use for that power. The most compelling explanation I've read about the convergence of trade, textiles, free-energy (coal), and engines is one that comes up on HN periodically: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/ https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...

ohthehugemanate 3y ago

It has been a very long time since I read GGS, but I can tell you haven't yet... and judging from this comment I bet you would find it fascinating. To give a top-of-my-foggy-memory answer to your question about industrialization, here are some of the contributing factors as I recall: - Head-start: agricultural settlements started in Mesopotamia about 10k BCE, and branched out from there. That's the earliest record we have anywhere in the world of a farming culture which allowed specialized classes to emerge (builders, rulers, administrators, inventors, etc etc) and the basis for emerging technology. e.g. in the Americas it looks like this happened 5k years later. - More wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication. Only a small % of wild plants and animals are suitable and useful for domestication, and they were overwhelmingly concentrated in Europe. Wheat, barley, and beans were farmed earlier and are easier to farm than rice (East Asia) and potatoes/corn (Americas). There are no African or American animals with the capacity for burden and domesticability of european horses, donkeys, and oxen, and we haven't even talked about cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, etc. - the mix of small arable geographical area and concentrated population centers led to constant war in Europe, which drove a lot of technological innovation, especially in metallurgy. Europe is also particularly rich in iron and coal, which gave another advantage to pre-industrial tech branches (to use a Civilization analogy). In contrast, China was extremely politically stable and had less need for tools of war like hardened steel. - The relatively limited available land and population also motivated invention in European farming methods, which was not the case in e.g. China, where human labor is in many places still cheaper than technological efficiency. Human labor intensive farming methods from the 6th century are still in use in many parts of China, because that's just more effective than the alternative. - Constant war improved infrastructure between cities, too (thank you Roman empire). Hundreds of years later this accelerated trade beween population centers, contributing to many features that characterize industrialization as it happened in Europe. Including: a merchant class, production geogrpahically separated from sale, etc. - Early advantages were determining factors in colonialism and wealth extraction from other continents. i.e. because Europe had better guns, more germs, and better steel (ha), when they arrived in the Americas they wiped out the indigenous populations. Please don't take this as a unilateral endorsement of the ideas in the book - I'm not qualified! If nothing else the whole question is post-hoc... "why did Europe achieve European-defined success before any other continent achieved European-defined success?" In any case the ideas are interesting and I bet you would enjoy thinking about them, as I did.