a concrete issue

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kramerman
And i disagree with your statement of a large population as needed to purchase and produce the goods, this ancient industrialization would still be just as revolutionary with a small 30 -50 million population, it would just produce on a much smaller scale than our industrialization, but it wouldn't be significantly smaller in proportion to their population.
Kman

A small scale industrialisation is a contradiction in terms. The reason that factories were setup was to serve the growing demand for products. If the demand is not there, factories would not be profitable and the revolution not take place.

But if the potential of the steam engine would of been realized, there would of been a pursuit for such needed elements such as agricultural techniques to help increase crop yields to help sustain a larger population.

Inventions do not lead society, no matter how ingenious they are, society selects the inventions that are suited to there current situation.

The steam engine served no useful purpose in ancient Greece, and so was not used as a basis from which to progress.

[Kramerman]

A small scale industrialisation is a contradiction in terms. The reason that factories were setup was to serve the growing demand for products. If the demand is not there, factories would not be profitable and the revolution not take place.

You misunderstand me, small scale in comparison to our industrial revolution, but in proporton it would be relatively the same. In other words its overall production would be nothing compard to what ours was, but in proportion to its population it would produce about the same per prerson in order to support the demand that drives it.

Inventions do not lead society, no matter how ingenious they are, society selects the inventions that are suited to there current situation.

no, that is not what i meant, your statement is generally true. After all, that is why the steam engine didn't spark the industrial revolution then, due to the society was laregely slave oriented (this one reason why the IR came to America later than Europe, and the the North much sooner than the south). Listen, now adays, when a business wants to get ahead, to make more money in the instinctive capitolist spirit of a human being, they will try to improve upon what they had. This is what led to the continual improvements made to the steam ingine design and to applications of it during the 19th century. James watt originally made his engine to pump water or something out of mine shafts. It was then modifid and improved to use as powering factories, boats, and trains. the idea of automated power was there, and led to the idea and eventual developement of internal combustion and all of the applications there of. Inventions are made to make life better (Technology is defined as science that is applied for use in everyday life) and though they do not directly lead society, because they are made to accomodate it, they do shape it and prepare it for its future evolutions. This is how an early IR would of sparked a technological revolution as well. If you think about it, there has been more technological growth since the IR (though this is due to many other and sometimes more important reasons too) then in the rest of the history of civilization combined.

I know my writting is hard to understand, but my idea makes since, though it is only hypothetical. A IR didn't happen then for many reasons, and depending on certain changes in events throughout history, an IR could have not have happened until several centuries from now. Many countres are just now under going this IR and some have yet too still, and thi due to their societies, like you said.

Kman

[Dauphin]

I think we are basically singing from the same hymn sheet, but have slightly different views on one or two points.

In other words its overall production would be nothing compard to what ours was, but in proportion to its population it would produce about the same per prerson in order to support the demand that drives it

My argument is that you lose the economy of scale if you scale down the size of the revolution.

With regards technology and society, there are several prerequisites required for the industrial revolution, and so the chances of ancients having a revolution was as much dependent on technology as on demographics, social views/civil desires, economics, transport, government etc. I think we are in agreement as to this. What my point was that even if the steam engines potential was recognized by people other than its inventor it still would not have been realised. It would have been a pipedream until all the other prerequisites were far enough developed.

After all the steam engine was reinvented in the 1650's, redesigned by Newcomen in the early 1700's and revolutionised by Watt in the 1770s. Yet the full scale use of the steam engine in industry and transport was not until the 1820's.

Also, considering the industrial revolution started in 1771 (Arkwrights first Cotton Mill in Cromford) and used waterwheels and not steam engines, it shows that the steam engine was filling a role to supply power for the revolution, rather than sparking the revolution.

We are expressing things differently, but I think we are making the same point.