What were the precise circumstances that led to the industrial revolution?
And counter to that, how might society "progress" such that the industrial revolution would never occur? ie, what forces that seem like good ideas would actually cause stagnation?
I'd like to avoid answers like "they're too stupid and war prone to achieve the industrial revolution : see Africa" or "the environment doesn't allow for enough surplus : see Australia". I know this question is going to bring in the /pol/, but let's try and keep it on the masturbatory side of /pol/ rather than the shit flinging side of /pol/
>>46763297
>What were the precise circumstances that led to the industrial revolution?
Read a book, I don't know shit
>And counter to that, how might society "progress" such that the industrial revolution would never occur? ie, what forces that seem like good ideas would actually cause stagnation?
Magic, or some shit. Blame it on a wizard
>>46763297
Potatoes were introduced to Europe. That created food surpluses that let people start inventing and not starve to death.
>>46763297
https://youtu.be/zhL5DCizj5c
>>46763297
that is one of my favorite card arts, I want to get a foil one.
>>46763372
>Read a book,
Seconding this. 4chan is not your best educational resource.
>>46763386
Well that and the Black Death killed off 1/3 of the population in previous centuries, also allowing the population to reorganize itself and ease overpopulation.
>>46763297
It needs a power source. The industrial revolution was powered by coal, and later oil. It simply was not possible to power an industry without an energy-dense source of power to keep everything moving, heating, whatever. Even if it's steam powered, something's got to heat that steam.
Even if the power source was known for decades, centuries, millennia beforehand, it takes an inventive mind and technological progress to exploit it enough to kick off industry proper.
Dishonored did this with eldritch whale oil, despite what you may think of the game. The oil was used before for various purposes, but it took until Sokolov, the setting's Edison/Da Vinci prodigy, to invent his way up the tech tree and refine whale oil harvesting to really kick off all his industry and inventions.
>>46763644
This. A more real-life example would be the use of oil in lamps in the Middle east, yet they didn't have the means to use that for engines or anything.
Really, there are plenty of examples in real life of strange stuff like that being discovered, but not used. The Chinese had gunpowder. The Greeks had steam engines.
The exact reasons differ, but generally something as simple as population or dumb luck can prevent it for a very long time.
>>46763297
the Industrial revolution wasn't really my field of study, but I'll take a crack at summarizing.
The invention of the steam engine allowed for the mechanization of processes that were originally done by human or animal muscle power. Transportation of people and goods was one (railroads) and the manufacture of goods was another. The first mechanized processes were the manufacture of textiles, which was a very tedious and labor-intensive process, but it was fairly easy to automate and scale up the basic processes.
>>46763768
>The Greeks had steam engines.
THAT ONE DOESN'T FUCKING WORK
>>46763803
exactly, simply having the power source (coal, oil) or engine (water wheel, steam engine) is irrelevant if it is not applied to make some labor intensive endeavor cheaper and more efficient.
Industrialization is about replacing muscle power with steam/electric/magic power on a large scale
>>46763297
Domestication of animals is a factor to look into, Euorpe and Asia have over 20 somethings animals for food, clothing, and transportation, versus the Americans which only had the lama.
The Pre-Colonial American civilizations, Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas never invented the wheel because they never had any pack animals which would benefit from a cart.
I'd imagine that this would completely stunt any industrial revolution, or lead to some civilization which has steam power, but is slow/unable to utilize it.
>>46763803
>>46763861
That was my point. Someone in ancient Greece made a Steam Engine, but they didn't use it for anything other than sheer novelty.
I've often seen it said that it's because slave labor was still cheaper and everything, but I can't say for certain the actual reason.
Point is, they had it, but it didn't lead to industrialization because of other factors.
>>46763915
because Horo's steam engine couldn't do anything more than move itself maybe
>>46763901
The American civilizations didn't have much in the way of metallurgy.
Did they lack easy access to low-melting point (bronze, tin) metals and that prevented them from developing the advanced (iron, steel) metalworking crafts?
I honestly don't know.
>>46763928
But the principle was there. It wouldn't take much thought to say 'huh, that thing spins itself, I wonder if a bigger one could spin my mill'
But of course, then it's a matter of efficiency. If you need wood to burn it, then that means you need someone chopping down lots of lumber for you to use, and you need a way to transport it to your engine to keep the fire hot.
While meanwhile, it'd be cheaper to just get 4 dudes to push your mill manually.
Like I said, it was a novelty.
>>46763963
Oh that's a good point. They had gold and bronze working, but they were used it for trinkets and status symbols, rather than practical use.
The Incas were able to actually have somewhat wide spread smelting for practical use, but again, it was a sign of their wealth compared to any other culture.
It is interesting to note that their system od ontaining ore had very specialized labor and administration.
>>46764074
Then there's the fucking Filipinos who figured out how to work iron because they had ready access to easy iron deposits and then just went crazy making neat swords.
>>46764193
Yeah I guess location is what matters. Great Britian had massive coal deposits, which were always somewhat useless, and that contributed to their massive industrial revolution.
>>46763768
There's also the consideration of precision measuring tools and their long development. You can't make a non-shit stream engine without relatively low tolerances, and to make precise, well fitting parts you need precise accurate measuring tools. These took a long time to develop.
Also in the case of the industrial revolution, and in fact today's advancements, you need communication. It's not enough if someone finds a dead end scientific path, or a brand new promising one. You need the spread of ideas and information so others can run with it. Europe, England especially with their academic/aristocratic societies, had communities of like minded people sharing freely, sometimes not, among each other.
>>46763901
Domestication, partly.
The Americas had no draft animals. None.
The N.American Bison wasn't practical as a work animal.
Without them, the native populations were basically stuck until the arrival of the ox and horse.
>>46764307
llamas can carry small loads, but are impractical for riding and despite centuries of domestication, they are still difficult animals to work with.
>>46764269
In addition, by the time of the industrial revolution you had a lot more people being educated. Church founded, and supported, universities like in Paris or Oxford were not only educating people, they were also creating widespread social circles through which information could disseminate.
Like others have pointed out before a shortage of labor, with what became a surplus of food contributed as well. But one of the major developments which even allowed this was arguably the stability of countries. Yes France and several other nations saw revolutions but that's not what I'm talking about. This period is the formation of the nation-state, a political and cultural unit which gave à lot more cohésion to nations. In addition you see a much larger role taken on by stronger central governments, leading to more efficiencies in various ways. And some inefficiencies yes, but when resources are being allocated in a more top down manner, they tend to get concentrated more. Anyways internally, western nations are a lot more stable as well, roads are well developed, logistic networks from farms in the country to cities are more established, harassment of the peasantry by outlaws and the aristocracy is at a low, and Europe once again bounces back to Roman population levels, as well as increased urbanization.
All this makes innovation not just safer but potentially a lot more profitable and possible on a previously unseen scale.
Sorry for the wall of text and any spelling errors.
>>46764399
Yeah, llamas are bit worse than a Donkey as far as domestication goes. While the fur can be used for clothing, they're also not as easy to get a massive herd of like sheep
>>46763901
Several of those cultures also had little use for a wheel. The incas built one of the most impressive road systems in the mountains which are still used today in less developed areas. A lot of stretches are pretty narrow and to handle steep slopes they preferred to use stairs as graded slopes would be at stupid high angles.
As for the Aztec and mayans, I don't believe either were real big on clearing roads through the otherwise dense jungle in the area. So wheels would be functionally useless there as well.
>>46764580
I think the Aztecs or Mayans might have had something. At the very least they might have used logs to roll stones for construction, but the lack of any sort of draft animals really means there isn't much use for a wheel outside of the most basic uses.
>>46763297
A lot of people are saying "Steam Engine", and they're wrong.
The Industrial Revolution is generally considered to be from 1760 to around 1830 or so.
Steam engines became useful in 1698, became practical in 1712, and became efficient in 1781.
That last date is significant, it happened because of the Industrial Revolution, not the other way around.
From 1760-1781 the Industrial Revolution was mostly running on water wheel.
But they started running out space put water wheels without leaving the cities.
You could put your factories outside of the cities, but that hurt you profits in a few ways.
The foundation of the Industrial Revolution was the invention of the assembly line,
which allowed for rapid large scale production of complicated products using unskilled labor.China invented the assembly line in 1104, but Ancient China is basically reverse Rome.
>What were the precise circumstances that led to the industrial revolution?
Surplus of labor and shortage of products.
Specifically, it happened right after the massive infant mortality rates started going down.
>>46763297
The industrial revolution is the reason Global Warming is rampant right?
>>46763901
>Incas never invented the wheel because they never had any pack animals which would benefit from a cart.
That and because they lived in the fucking mountains.
>>46765270
no its because someone is tampering with the seals keeping powerful fire elements locked away
>>46763526
So you're saying we just need to kill off 1/3 of our populations again and that would allow us to reorganize again and solve crises.
>>46765396
Yes. So asia has to go
>>46763779
Superhuman abilities that surpassed mechanization would be a possible solution then/
>>46764917
>You could put your factories outside of the cities, but that hurt you profits in a few ways.
Such as?
>>46765519
Transport costs.
Having to train new workers.
Having to buy land AND build buildings
>>46765519
You've got to ship that shit. In a city, your buyers either live in it or have a ready infrastructure for delivering it from the city to outside the city.
Put it outside the city, and you have to also build your own infrastructure to send those products out, and that adds to your costs.
>>46765519
>>46765569
>Transport costs.
The main reason.
>Having to train new workers.
The whole point of the assembly line is that you don't have to do this.
>Having to buy land AND build buildings
This is a good reason.
It's also harder to find employees. They'd all rather work at other factories inside the city.
This is before transportation stopped sucking, so leaving the city is well beyond inconvenient.
>>46764193
>Filipino swords with jagged teeth edges on the sides so you can cut a motherfucker while you cut a motherfucker
>Pull out two Flip swords escrima-style
>double the cutting the double motherfuckers
Why is this not a thing
>>46763297
Division of labor was hella important
>Hey man, what if I told you I can create more money by hiring more people?
>Fuck off m8
>A8 then watch this then m8 I'm going to make 100 shirts with 10 people in a day
>>46763975
>>46763928
Given that it was powered by a firepit underneath, that was probably stymied by "fuck this, I'll need some gigantic bonfire to make it work on a bigger scale"
>>46765785
Serrated edges are shit-tier for swordfighting though.
>>46763297
You should go at that alternate history forum site to discuss this. Those guys masturbate whole lists of reasons and counters for industry.
http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/pods/industrial_revolution
>>46765396
It actually wouldn't hurt. Part of the reason why Western economies are stagnant are because there are too many people and too many regulations, Kill off 1/3rd of people, you open up more competition and induce the government to start dropping regulations for survival's sake.
>>46765270
Maybe, maybe not. I don't confess to know all the details but the earth's weather works through cycles where it heats up, cools down and the like. What we are seeing is nothing new, however it is possible - probably very likely - that our dumping CO2 and other bits into the atmosphere is causing the cycle to speed up.
But it all depends on who you talk to. Some people don't believe in global warming, some do, some people think that we're actually causing the world to cool down more.
But humanity is certainly causing an impact.
>>46764814
Aztecs and Mayans, more Mayans, were famous for building roads through the jungle.
>>46763297
>What were the precise circumstances that led to the industrial revolution?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
>>46763297
You don't want a society without IR if you're looking at Ravnica and other pseudo 18th-19th century idyllic society. You want a society without figurative, stereotypical jews.
Take the IR, add labor rights, human rights, ethics and a quality standards, remove the rampant need from sheckel hoarding from the equation, and you have a magic-less Ivalice.
>>46763901
Aztecs did invent the barrow cart, they just didn't use the wheel for anything else because Tenochtitlan was an even more effective Venice and ships could carry way more products around than any horse could pull.
>>46765270
Global warming is just the cosmic spring.
Of couse we're making it worse by closing the windows with all that co2 and turning off the air conditioner because we just had to build settlements inside of it.
>>46765396
I expected H1N1 to do this and felt a sinking doom when it didn't.
That shit was meant to regulate the world and we said "nah, we want to kill each other in an orgy of mayhem, hatred and misery instead."
>>46768123
*tips fedora*
>>46763297
Widespread mechanical understanding and an elite class that could pursue curiosities. Viable means of power for mechanical systems without dependence upon local features, as a waterwheel can produce plenty of power, but coal and steam can power things throughout a nation. A time where food is not in short supply, and wages of the average person are increasing, as you need a reason to pursue something other than food, and need a reason to pursue a means other than throw more people at it.
Just taking out any of those could kill the development of an industrial revolution, or at least slow it. However you could also go with a totalitarian government with individual leaders who don't want it to happen, or are otherwise impeding it by pursuit of other goals. China hit or came close to the requirements several times, but had emperors either send them backwards just because they wanted to burn the libraries, or saw something that would have led them down that line as a waste or detriment. The extreme totalitarian nature of imperial china also set most of the upper classes on a course of attempting to gain favor with the emperor for wealth rather than develop wealth through other means.
>>46763297
Things like the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution start in the Middle Ages. Before Medieval times, you saw the sort of thousand-year old empires that a lot of Fantasy seems to be based on, even the "Medieval" Fantasy where no-one has gunpowder and technology has been stagnant for centuries. But during actual Medieval times, technology evolved rapidly.
As for the Industrial Revolution, that's a development that's closely tied to the steam engine. No steam engine, no Industrial Revolution. And no widespread automation in general. The need to make every stitch, carry every load, and travel every distance under your own power puts a big brake on development.
I always thought that the presence of magic is a good argument against technological advances. Early technology tends to be ineffective and expensive. It needs to be developed. But when there's a spell that can already do what technology would do, people would say "why a big machine to do that, when you could ask the court wizard?" But magic doesn't develop and evolve into cheaper and more efficient designs, so people are stuck on a plateau. And the fact that magic users themselves control the supply also limits things severely.
Actually far more important thing for industrial revolution to start was societal advances/changes rather than technology.
For example industrial revolution could have already occurred in Ancient Greece. They had had enough technological know-how to start it, but they had slaves for production, so no need for machines.
>>46768123
>That shit was meant to regulate the world
If H1N1 was meant to regulate human population then mother nature has absolutely no idea what she is doing. I mean, it was nothing but average influenza. Only reason there was lots of fear mongering involved was because vaccines gotta sell. The fact that it killed lot of people long ago has more to do with shitty living conditions of post-WW1 Europe than the virus itself.
There needs to be something like Ebola but more contagious if nature wanted to fix overpopulation.
>>46768123
>I despaired when a horrific plague didn't wipe out a third of mankind.
nurgle pls
>>46763297
There's a ton of different things that lead to the industrial revolution, not just one set of circumstances or one factor.
There was technological progression, a relative wealth of resources from colonies abroad, societies that encouraged invention, growth, and a focus on science and reason as a basis for progress, governments and economies that could take advantage of a wealth of resources and desired a continual flow of progressively better goods...
Another factor was the end of privileged monopolies and the invention of modern economical tools such as company shares, that allowed business to gather large amounts of money for productive investments. Also the loss of power of the church that led to the rise of banks who, again, put more money in the economy.
The list of factors that lined up to lead to industrial revolution is way too long to be listed here: frankly it's way too extensive to any singular person to fully grasp. I've noticed a rather particular and depressing trend among /tg/ threads debating anything history related, and that is essentially Marxist or even Engels-esque view of history as a simple teleological process where things simply happen because they "ought to" or because a simple set of conditions has been met.
History does not work that way, and industrial revolution was a culmination of an insane amount of both small and large strange factors aligning.
From the improvement of agriculture efficiency with new plants brought from the colonies, past the impact of protestant morals, past a whole array of other social changes that themselves have roots in religious transformations, changes in warfare tools, invention of printing press, random "stochastic" geopolitical shifts, towards much older factors: adoption of decimal numeral system utilizing zero, descriptive geometry and analytic math such as Cartesian math, which in itself is rooted in Christian theology of all places, which again itself is rooted in Artistotelism... and we are still barely scratching the surface here.
For the purpose of fiction building, industrial revolution will happen whenever you decide for it not to happen, but more importantly (and this seems to be a common issue on /tg/) it does NOT HAVE TO happen just because a culture is sufficiently old or because it has access to one or two of factors that contributed to it in real world history.
Cont soon.
>>46763297
>question.
>but please don't say exactly the correct answer
>>46769531
You should however keep in mind that it's difficult to believe that industrial revolution could happen unless your society does not fulfill these conditions:
A) population surplus (in other words, there must be sufficient food production to allow to rapid urbanization of your society)
B) efficient and advanced understanding of formal logic and math
C) has moved from iconographic or figurative mythological model to a highly abstract ones
D) has access to sophisticated mechanics (clockworks, sophisticated irrigation tools) and chemistry (gunpowder mostly)
E) has strongly anthropocentric philosophy
F) some sort of moral or religious pressure exists to push for increased wealth production, but at the same time curbs luxury good accumulation (wealth must circulate, rather than being accumulated)
G) is in general a "dynamic" civilization with relatively high social and value mobility. E.g. industrial revolution is less likely to occur in cast-based culture than relatively egalitarian one.
Keep in mind that not even all of these conditions together form a SUFFICIENT condition, but they are close to necessary ones.
Also keep in mind that in fantasy world building, you are allowed to break any rules that real-world history teaches us if you have a narrative reason to do so. So the above-mentioned guidelines can be broken/ignored if your fiction needs it.
>>46769586
>unless....does not
Nigga
>>46769531
>happen...when you decide not to
Double nigga.
Dude pls, other than that it's a good post.
>>46767572
>some people think that we're actually causing the world to cool down more
What seems to be the case is that pumping particulates into the air is causing a little bit of an albedo effect that's actually disguising the problem.
>>46769630
Yeah, I do tend to screw up my negatives in english, sorry about that. The point is still (relatively) comprehensible though, isn't it?
>>46768993
Prevent scientific advancement and we're all good then. We have religion after all.
>>46768249
Did China do well though even without the industrial revolution?
the weight of the waterbridges would be too much
>>46771256
Explain
>>46769673
Ah right, thanks for that, I need to read up more on this...
>>46770808
No the post-industrial world colonized them.
Ancient China held together because it was culturally strong, but it's technology was a joke.
They invented just about everything you can invent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions),
but because they never tried to find good uses for any of it. They never tried to make any of it efficient either.
>>46763297
Advances in technology and comparative economic freedom. Actually, the second fosters the first. So really just it's a natural consequence of advancing past a certain point in technology.
(The greeks had a "steam engine" of sorts and that's supposed to be the counterexample but the reality was that that overall level of technological advance was comparatively low. Also, by the time that had been invented you had a series of despotisms under Phillip and his successors, followed by Roman domination.)
Culture does make a difference at the margins. Europe had theirs a little early due to depopulation from the plagues, a quick infusion of new tech from the islamic world after the crusades and the fall of Constantinople, and a series of vicious internecine wars for political and religious dominance. So they were a little early for their tech development. I'm not a pure technological determinist here, but this is one area where free marketers and marxists come to the same conclusions from very different lines of argument.
Much of what people complainingly call "westernization" is really a consequence of industrialization. The West fought these culture wars, too, only it was generations ago. So in part they object to western cultural/moral/political tropes. But also in part they're resisting natural changes that come with technological development.
Ultimately, the only way to resist industrialization is to arrest technological progress, which means a despotism of some kind.
>>46774733
Well, they never really needed to.
None of their neighbors, for most of history, could really compete with them. Their culture was so strong that anytime they got conquered, the invaders were as Chinese in mindset as they were within two generations at most. They had the most population, the best technology, the most wealth, and an outright monopoly on trade. They were the uncontested superpower of East Asia.
Before the coming of the West, China had simply never been challenged by a people they couldn't assimilate. Suddenly, the same technology that had always kept them on top, for centuries, was centuries behind.
Necessity is the mother of invention, innovation, and progress - and China lacked necessity.
I fucking love you all.
>>46769586
Could you elaborate on why C and E are important for an industrial revolution?
>>46763297
The industrial revolution didn't happen over night. A lot of fucking hard work and gathering of knowledge, and the convincing of noblemen, trial and error, took place over a long time period. Once all the pieces were there, however, it sort of took off at an insane rate. You can't isolate a single factor and say "This is why the industrial revolution happened." That would be ignorant and silly.
>>46769531
Marxists aren't the only historical determinists, certainly not the only ones to posit economic and technological development as intimately linked.
>>46769586
What you're doing is spitting out a cattle call of factors that were coincidental with the industrial revolution in the West and then insisting that they're causal factors.
A) "surplus" compared to what? Certainly not compared to other cultures-- population density in the West was lower than in other parts of the world and only increased as a consequence of increased agricultural productivity.
B-C) Math, yes. I don't see how formal logic or its cousins are necessary. Degree of abstraction you'll need to produce some support for-- I suppose it's based on your definitions of the concept.
D) These are consequences of the industrial revolution, not prerequisites for them.
E) I don't see how this is necessary. Again, it's a coincidental characteristic of the West.
F) This demonstrates a very poor understanding of economics. The whole "protestant work ethic" argument does hold some small amount of water, but you're asserting that it's an iron-clad requirement of industrialization?
G) You spelled "caste" wrong, but otherwise this is probably a good point.
I'll also agree with your last point: that any good fiction can freely ignore any/all theories of history. My own practice is to take four or five of them and apply them more or less at random. (Toynbee, Spengler, Marx, Toffler, Great Man theory, human geographic theory, etc). Each of these attempts at a big-picture causal model of history tends to fit well in some eras and very poorly in others, so you end up with a view of history that passes the smell test.
>>46776395
Would China have stayed constant forever then?
>>46777399
At some point they would end up facing some kind of crisis large enough to cause change
>>46764307
>The Americas had no draft animals. None.
They had dogs, actually.
I mean sure, a dog can't pull much and even up north on the snow they needed whole teams of dogs to pull a hunter's sled at reasonable speed, but it was still a draft animal.
>>46763297
>What were the precise circumstances that led to the industrial revolution?
Literally all of human history prior to that point in time. Are you fucking retarded?
>>46777521
Communism
>>46776544 They're wrong is why.
Those are correlated with (but not causes of) cultures that are less prone to stagnation.
>>46776825
>population surplus (in other words, there must be sufficient food production to allow to rapid urbanization of your society)
Sort of agree here. But it's not "how much food can we make", it's "what fraction of the population do we need to make it".
>>>46776825 "surplus" compared to what
Compared to how many people are making food.
Also of note, larger populations mean more frequent innovation.
>efficient and advanced understanding of formal logic and math
You don't need efficient math, you don't need advanced math, and you don't need formal logic.
But you do need widespread math knowledge and you do need advanced logistics.
>has moved from iconographic or figurative mythological model to a highly abstract ones
Figurative mythos is (generally) found in cruder cultures, and cruder cultures (generally) lean towards oligarchic traditionalist despotism.
Traditionalism and Despotism both rely on cultural stagnation, so they tend to cause technological stagnation.
A culture with a figurative mythos that wasn't despotic or (very) traditional could self-industrialize as easily as any other non-traditional non-despotic culture.
>has access to sophisticated mechanics (clockworks, sophisticated irrigation tools) and chemistry (gunpowder mostly)
The better your irrigation the better your food production per labor (and thus food production per capita). See my response to A.
The rest of mechanics and chemistry are irrelevant to /starting/ industrialization. Mind you, they would certainly follow an industrial revolution.
>has strongly anthropocentric philosophy
See my response to C.
The industrial revolution occurred because of efficient steam engine designs. These designs were possible thanks to advances in metallurgy which could withstand the intense pressure of the steam engine's working process.
Big technological revolutions are commonly because of advances in materials. Never forget that.
>>46780630 (cont.)
>some sort of moral or religious pressure exists to push for increased wealth production,
Property acquisition is instinctive, production is one of the easier ways to do it.
>but at the same time curbs luxury good accumulation
A small portion of the population not contributing to wealth is irrelevant.
Also, good accumulation of any sort does contribute to wealth.
It's currency accumulation that's a problem.
Incidentally, significant banking and loaning helps.
>(wealth must circulate, rather than being accumulated)
Wealth /is/ property circulation.
Currency? You can accumulate. Property? You can accumulate. Value? You can accumulate.
But you can't accumulate wealth.
>is in general a "dynamic" civilization with relatively high social and value mobility.
Again, see my response to C.
>>46780646
Very rarely do I wish I could reach through space and punch you in the the face quite as strongly as I do right now.
>>46763297
>>46763644
The industrial revolution actually started off with waterwheels. Steam power came along partway through it, though it definitely helped.
>>46780727
>Very rarely do I wish I could reach through space and punch you in the the face quite as strongly as I do right now.
Nice shitpost. Speaks volumes about the value of your thoughts.
>>46780891
>writes several posts worth about the industrial revolution but he insulted me!!!!!!
>getting mad over getting insulted for being wrong on fucking 4chan
I think you got the wrong door, Reddit's like two blocks down.
>>46781169
>shitposts
>gets called a shitposter
>is made about it
Nice one, shitposter. Also, religion, philosophy and population had nothing to do with the industrial revolution. You're doing a fine job at being an idiot and shitting up the thread.
>>46781236
>implying i'm him
Also,
>wah wah he insulted me in a different reply so everything he said was invalid and a shitpost wah wah
I hope you realise that the Industrial Revolution began with the water wheel and not the steam engine, nor does an Industrial Revolution require steam power.
>>46781307
Obviously, this discussion is about the second industrial revolution. There's no need to keep pointing that out with every reference to the second industrial revolution. You're kinda dumb, lad.
>>46781592
And there's no need to shitpost about "shitposts" which are really just you getting your feelings hurt.
>>46781657
Are you giving yourself advice? Because that's what you're doing.
>>46781686
Are you deflecing on how mad you are? Sounds like what you're doing currently
>>46780730 Looks interesting and well laid out,
>ctrl-f culture 74 hits
>ctrl-f agriculture 50 hits
>section titled magi-tech
but I'm not even going to try reading that.
>>>46781592 muh golden age of rails
First off, everyone and their uncle call that the Technological Revolution.
And if you'd bothered to read the thread (or the OP) you would know that no one but you has been talking about it.
>>46781686
I'm on your side, but at the point where the thread is derailing you should stop responding.
>>46773155
For the picture the weight of water would break those fancy waterbridges
>>46782296
It's a magical academy. Probably either held up with enchantments or constructed with magical materials.
>>46782296
More interesting answer, the water is falling above air.
The "fancy waterbridges" contain infrequent and extremely small portals to the bottom of the reservoir.
Some ultra snazzy piping is keeping the water flow even and steady.
You just can't see the water pouring down because of the angle.
>But that angle would-
the angle and some really crazy high speed winds.
Did I mention we were spanning mountain ranges?
Because I'm adding that detail now.
>>46763297
The most important component of the industrial revolution was legal and sociological, not technological.
It was all about the emergence of the rule of law and the modern bureaucratic state in contrast to the earlier concentration of absolute power in the landed nobility. This gave us modern banking and corporations, producing the climate of stable/secure investment necessary to support the massive capital expenditures involved in building factories.
Basically, the most important pre-condition of industrialization is that commoners can pool their resources in a commercial entity and know that it won't be confiscated by their ruler as soon as it turns a profit.
>>46782695
All of those things existed well before the 18th century.
>>46782296
Not necessarily.
>>46782784
You're comparing a flat-bottom water taxi that carries 20 max with at least one multi-masted ship I can see. Unless every ship is really a barge, the depth of water we're talking about will be stupid heavy. Necessitates magic.
>>46782935
What you rapid advancements in magic do to a society anyways?
Post-modern scarcity? Magocracy? Something, something, Eberron?
>>46782935
>stupid heavy
Got a number?
>>46764580
So what's the Australian aborigines' excuse?
>>46784721
An average IQ of 62.
>>46782935
Thankfully, if there's one thing that's not in short supply on the city-plane of Ravnica, it's magic.
>>46784721
No domesticated animals bar dingos, no population density and no crops. Too hot to grow much of anything without modern irrigation.
>>46784943
Soil is shit and weather lousy for farmers. Hunter-gathering was adapted for the environment and served them well at their low density.
>>46784943
>>46784968
Thanks for answering.
>>46784709
I see at least a few galleons in that picture, and they can need upwards to 15" of water depths to move properly.
It's very dependent on the boat, and it's usually only around 12", but you have to build with tolerance so we'll go with 15".
The aqueducts(?) are ~10 times as thick as the boats. Again going with a typical galleon measure we get 110" across.
So each foot a distance you want to travel needs (15*110*1) 1650 cubic feet of water. A cubic foot of water weighs ~62.4 lb.
So your arbitrarily raised canals(?) would need to support 102,960 lb. for every foot you intend to move your boat.
What is really fucking heavy Anon.Lots of water even more so.
>>46785026
>would need to support 102,960 lb. for every foot you intend to move your boat
Just to be clear here, that's before the weights of the boats, their cargo, and the bridge's tolerance are even considered.
>>46785135
protip, a boat floating in water doesn't add weight to the system if there's overflow. Dumbass.
>>46785173
I was going to say the water bridges in the picture don't connect to lower levels anywhere,(which is stupid)
but now that I'm looking back at it there's a few randomly placed waterfalls.(which is also stupid)
>>46763297
I figure if you built your city in the middle of a lake and waterfalls all around, you might stagnate your progression on industrialization.
