Suppose that henry ford never mass-produced the automobile. and that we never had large deposits of cheap petroleum. Consequently, our metropolitan transportation system still revolves around horse-drawn carriages. Sort of like having an 1890’s transportation system today. Could we support a 300 million-person economy using horse transport? How large would the horse population have to be? And, would we have a horrendous pollution problem? 9all of those horses peeing and dropping manure in the streets)?
Just wondering what the airpollution would be like today, if the gasoline engine car had never come about.
I’d expect to see lots of trolleys and subways. Horse-drawn transport just doesn’t scale well to high-density areas.
Well, in 1900 China had ~400 million people, and India ~235 million, so it would be possible to support that many people with that level of technology - granted, almost everyone in those countries were dirt poor.
I think industry would be a bigger problem than transportation; certainly more so than personal transportation. Unless petroleum still existed and was used for plastics and powering industry.
More things would be in walking distance. More densely packed cities. No suburbs.
Or possibly, no cities, but enormous sprawling towns.
I think the 1890s transportation system was based on railways and ships, not horses. Even if we had no oil, we could generate electricity from coal and power electric trains, streetcars and trolley buses. London already had an electric underground railway in 1890.
Horse have to be fed. We’d be using a sizable portion of our agricultural output to support our transportation system.
Sort of a pre-automotive ethanol economy.
You’d certainly need horses for farming, if no IC engines - although, I suppose you could use steam tractors, I just don’t know enough about those to say for sure, though.
Were they used in farming in the late 1800s?
Otherwise, Ian Anderson would turn out to be on the money with Heavy Horses
Steam engines for agri purposes are around at fairs and things as collector items, but I don’t know how widely they were used when they were a new thing.
One blew up and killed four people at a county fair in Ohio a few years back, which makes me pretty leery of them, but that could just be the proximity to the tragedy affecting my perception.
Steam engines were used fairly extensively in agriculture, but only for a brief time. Gas and diesel engines came out quite soon after the advent of steam tractors, and their enormous advantages over steam led to very quick adoption. Horse-based agriculture is vastly more labour intensive than modern agriculture. But if we didn’t have internal combustion engines, I’m guessing we’d have much more advanced steam power that would pick up a good deal of the slack.
Or else reeeeally long extension cords.
We already had a horrendous pollution problem, back in Henry Ford’s day. One of the big advantages cited for automobiles was that they were non-polluting. If it was that bad back then, I can’t imagine it’d be much better now (since unlike internal or external combustion engines, there’s not much room left to improve upon the horse).
Aside from metropolitan transport, it’s worth noting that we’d still have trains and canals, which would hold virtually all of our long-distance transportation (unless, I suppose, airplanes were invented, and we had combustion engines but nobody thought of putting the damn things into cars…). Trains and canals would be unable to hold the same capacity as the real modern system. There would be much less food diversity and things produced further away would be way more expensive. The expensiveness of all sorts of stuff would probably mean that we’d see much slower technological innovation, so that we’d be way further back in virtually every area, not just metropolitan transportation.
That’s silly.
There are a lot more than 4 people killed in in gasoline/diesel farm tractor accidents. In fact, OSHA figures show that farm tractor accidents cause an average of 170 injuries and 2 deaths per day!
Not really a valid comparison since those figures include rollovers, people being caught in PTOs and other mishaps totally unrelated to the engine.
However I suspect that there have been people killed when internar combustion engines have malfunctioned, or when the fuel has ignited. Thjose figures woudl provide a meaningful comparison of the saftey of IC vs steam.
I did actually admit that it wasn’t a logical reaction (at least I meant to, but perhaps I wasn’t clear). However, comparing steam engines to gasoline/diesel on pure numbers is rather silly, too. It’s like comparing skydiving deaths to traffic deaths, and saying that skydiving is MUCH safer.
Steam engines do have a nasty habit of exploding, though.
back to the original point: how many horses would NYC (population about 9 milllion0 need today? And, how much manure would all of those horses produce? How many sanitation workers would be needed? and how much farmland would be needed to grow the necessary hay, oats, etc., to feed them? I guess that the IC engine has given us many benefits-not the least of which is not having to shovel up all of that manure!