How come Rome never entered the Industrial age?

Great Debates
61

Even if they had, there was no way they were going to get enough iron or steel to use it.

I woudl like to put up a more complete suggestion. The OP has it backwards. The odd thing is not that it didn’t, but that anyone did. Industrialization was as much as accident of human history as anything: at one place and time, economic possibilities emerged from specific conflux of technology, business know-how, a government preferring to profit from the result than demand its pound of felsh up-front, and a relatively easy social situation. It probably would have happened in other places eventually had that moment passed, but it didn’t have to. Millions of incremental social, economic, cultural, technical, and political ideas went into it, all of which radically changed from Roman times.

62

For more on the subject:

‘Engineering in the Ancient World’ J.G. Langels, Author

63

While the Romans did, technically have the steam engine (aeolipile), I was taught basically that it was treated as a toy and that society was driven by slave labor. Thus, steam power was a solution in search of a problem.

64

I can’t comment on the authenticity of the story, but it wasn’t a steam engine. I was told the device was some sort of crane, proposed to Vespasian during the building of the Colosseum. Anyone know the source on this?

65

In The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, which I reviewed here:

the authors argue that the scientific discoveries of ancient Greek scientists were made too early, because the average European intelligence had not evolved sufficiently to understand them. By the Renaissance there were enough people who had the intelligence to understand the discoveries. Those people made new discoveries. By the Industrial Revolution enough people had the intelligence to make practical use of the discoveries.

Also, throughout history and pre history there has been a struggle between population growth and technology. More people lead to scarcity and the need to develop new technologies. New technologies lead to a higher standard of living, and more people. These additional people lead to more scarcity, and the cycle continues.

During pre history large, slow moving animals that were easy to hunt were hunted to extinction. This lead to the invention of weapons that could kill smaller, faster animals like deer. When these became scarce agriculture was developed, and so on.

66

Which is an idea so ridiculous that it isn’t even worth commenting on.

In what sense did people in, say, Medieval Europe, have a higher standard of living in Mesopatamia 2, 000 years earlier?

Which is of course utter twaddle. The hunting toolkits used by people in Australia, or the Americas, or Madagascar, or Polynesia or… well, pretty much anywhere, were identical in 1400 to what they were when people arrived.

Can we see some evidence for this claim that the extinctions of large animals led to the development of novel hunting technologies? Where did it occur?

67

It is hard to compare the standard of living in Medieval Europe and Mesopotamia 2,000 years earlier. The standard of living during during the Dark Ages for nearly everyone was certainly lower than it was during most of the Roman Empire because of the decline in technology that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that as the large slowly moving animals died out there was first the expanded use of spear throwers. These greatly increased the range of spears. Then the bow and arrow appears about fifteen thousand years ago and spreads throughout the world, except in Australia.

As new technologies become essential those who are able to learn them survive and reproduce. Those who are not able do not. The most important factor in human evolution has been the develop of greater intelligence. Civilization places an even greater premium on superior intelligence than hunting and gathering because men with the intelligence to become merchants, artists, government officials, and so on have throughout history lived better lives than those lacking that intelligence. They consequently had more children who survived and reproduced. This is why the industrial revolution began in the eighteenth century, rather than the first.

68

Frankly, I don’t see how the Romans got any engineering accomplished with those unwieldy Roman numerals.

69

The Romans did have the Abacus, so they wouldn’t be slowed down that much for regular addition and subtraction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_abacus

70

+1

Didn’t Europe go through a population decline leading to the industrial evolution…or if not a decline not much of a rising?

The value of labor increasing means innovation. Cheap labor means stagnation.

Not sure on this…but will throw it out.

71

Now, now – it neatly explains why places that came to civilization late (e.g. Japan) remain mired in ignorance while places where civilization began (e.g. Iraq) now dominate the world.

72

Your entire ridiculous thesis depends on the fact that you did compare it, and found that it increased. Now you tell us that there is no way to compare it, but we should just accept that it did increase.

Interesting debating style.

Cite.

I very much doubt if the standard of living of 99% of the population changed on iota. I see absolutely no reason why a slave or serf living in Rome in Rome in 200 would have had a better standard of living to to that of a serf or slave living in Romania in 900.

Please provide evidence for this claim that standard of living decreased during the Dark Ages for “nearly everyone”. We’ll define “nearly everyone” very broadly: 85% of the populace.

Repeating a baseless assertion is not evidence.

Which large slow moving animals died out 15, 000 years ago? You seem to have put the cart before the horse here. The large slow moving animals died out 40, 000 years ago in Australia, 500 years ago in New Zealand and in a continuity withing that time around the world.

So the fact that “the bow and arrow appears about fifteen thousand years ago and spreads throughout the world” is proof that your hypothesis is utterly incorrect.

Still I will ask again: where is your evidence for these ludicrous claims?

Only if you define “essential” as “technology which it is necessary to master in order to survive and reproduce”.

If you define “essential” in any other way, this statement is clearly not true. And if you do define “essential” in that manner all you’ve done is construct a tautology.

This isn’t going to convince anyone who has the capacity to argue rationally

Bollocks. The most important factor in human evolution has been disease resistance.

Cite please.

So your evidence for the assertion that “the scientific discoveries of ancient Greek scientists were made too early, because the average European intelligence had not evolved sufficiently to understand them” is an assertion that “the industrial revolution began in the eighteenth century, rather than the first because the average European intelligence had not evolved sufficiently to understand the advances any earlier”.

So not only is it an argument from assertion, and begging the question, it is also perfectly circular.

With that trifecta of ignorance, I am sure you have everyone convinced.

73

:smack: Of course.

It also explains why New Guinea, one of the world’s earliest centres of agriculture, is a world leader, whereas western Europe, where agriculture developed thousands of years later, is such a backwards place. And it explains why Greece is doing so well while South Korea struggles.

The pattern is all so clear now that he has pointed it out using circular reasoning and repeated assertions supported by unfounded supposition.

74

nm

75

In the second half of the eighteenth century the population in England may have grown from five million to eight million. This inspired Thomas Robert Malthus to write An Essay on the Principle of Population. In this he argued that food supply will always increase incrementally, if at all, while the human population has the ability to more than double in a single generation.

Malthus seems to have been unaware of the industrial revolution, which was happening as he wrote, and he disapproved of birth control. His disapproval of birth control was almost moot, because the only reliable method at the time were fairly primitive condoms that were expensive, and unpleasant to use.

It is true that several hundred years earlier Bubonic Plague reduced the population of Europe by a third or more. This raised the standard of most Europeans by raising wages and reducing prices, especially rents.

76

Agriculture began in the Near East ten thousand years ago, and spread from there to Europe, probably entering Europe about seven thousand years ago. After agriculture began in the Near East it developed independently in several locations including China, New Guinea, and the New World.

Agriculture promotes the ability to plan a year into the future, and to defer gratification. It is urban civilization that really places a premium on superior intelligence. New Guinea never developed an indigenous civilization, and it has only been within the past several centuries that European civilization reached the island.

Although the relationship between length of time since the adoption of urban civilization and average intelligence is not exact, it does exist, as one can see by looking at this chart.

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

77

Well, Jared Diamond argues precisely the reverse of these points in several of his books. He points out that as population density grew after the adoption of agriculture, humans were overwhelmingly selected for disease resistance, and to a much less intense degree, everything else, presumably including intelligence. He further notes that hunter-gatherers have to personally know a great deal about their environment, and those who do not don’t merely fail to “have better lives,” they die. Meanwhile, epidemic disease exerts much less selection pressure on small mobile populations like hunter-gatherers.

Diamond explicitly concludes that it’s his opinion that the average New Guinean hunter-gatherer is at least as intelligent if not more intelligent than the average modern Westerner. At least selection pressures seem to work in that direction.

78

Recent article suggesting otherwise…

79

If what Jared Diamond says is correct we could expect average New Guinean hunter gatherers to excel academically when they move to European and Asian countries, as well as to Australia. To the best of my knowledge this is not happening.

We would also expect American Indians to out perform whites, because their pre Columbian populations did not have to contend with diseases like Small Pox and Measles the way European populations did. American Indians perform less well than whites, as one can see from this chart of SAT averages.

Also Jared Diamond’s theory cannot explain the superior average intelligence of the Chinese. China has been one of the most densely populated countries in the world for many centuries, perhaps for two or more thousand years.

Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel provides a plausible explanation of why agriculture and civilization began in the Near East, rather than somewhere else. The Near East happened to have more animals that could be domesticated and edible plants that could be cultivated than other parts of the world. These included sheep, goats, donkeys, wheat, barley, olives, grapes, and probably broad beans.

Nevertheless, once agriculture and civilization begin they have different populations pressures than a paleolithic existence. Those who are able to master literacy, mathematics, more than one language, and so on live better lives than those who are not, so they are more prolific.

80

Hey, New Deal Democrat, since you are still here, can you please address my questions and requests for evidence for these ludicrous claims?

“We” would only expect that if “we” were ignorant enough to believe that academic performance in English language academies is totally unaffected by not speaking English as a first language.

“We” are not that ignorant, are “we”?

Tell me, do you actually believe that this is a coherent argument?

But how does your theory explain the performance of North Korea? You said that national performance is indicative of intelligence and not culture. So why are North Koreans so much stupider than the Chinese, while South Koreans apparently are not?

You have repeated this claim numerous times now. Can we see your evidence for it.

I know you believe that repeating an assertion ad nauseum constitutes evidence for the assertion, but it doesn’t really.