[anothermember]

The industrial revolution changed the world more significantly, perhaps, than anything in history. But what was it that made the industrial revolution first happen in Europe, instead of anywhere else?

It could have happened first in China or Africa or the Arab world, or in the 'new' world before it was colonised, but it happened in Europe. The reason I ask is I think it's important to understand the reasons behind history, especially something this fundamental - imagine if things had been different. Why were we so much more advanced than anyone else at the time? Is it just chance, a case of it had to start somewhere and we were just first? Or is there more to it than that, is there something 'special' about the culture of Europe, and the civilisation here that made us take that step as opposed to someone else?

[Looter]

The miracle of distillation, turning wine into whiskey. If turning water into wine makes one eligable to be worshipped as a god, turning wine into whiskey must make you into a god yourseklf. Its the devine spirit which drives mankind to strive ever higher. Whiskey truly is the water of life. Whiskey is the driving force of history.

[Thunderhawk]

Industry needs atleast a people with basic mechanical knowledge to make and operate the machines, suitable materials (good wood would do), trade-transportation means, and a suitable population.

Mosts regions the world over have materials that can be processed for use, but extracting and processing them to something useful requires a certain level of tools needed aswell. These tools and knolwedge self perpetuate, and were generally either non-existant in the new world or rudimentry. Fitting really, as the region didnt have simpler and easier material to develop their trades (mining, processing, smithing) off of - going from bone and stone to steel is a rather massive jump.

A suitable population is also required - to create and operate the machines, to grow excess crops for the operators. Good trade routes allow the import of operators and food and the export of industrial goods. Of course, within the transportation network sufficient value must exist for industrial production to be worth it, and concentrated wealth at that, so that it can be moved/traded for industrial goods.

The New world generallly didnt have trade routes (Mexico region being a prime exception), nor the population to support dedicated operators.


Africa didnt have the stability to allow such things to come to fruition very often. It did have the ground work, but it didnt survive contact with colonial foriegners (Arabs included). The regions own chaotic history didnt help.

The middle East and China DID have industrial production. Not steam power ala England and Europe, but they had their own mass produced conveyer goods.

[msxoin]

I think the reason the Industrial Revolution started in Europe was the advabtage of colonies the european countries had which brought them much wealth. This andvantage in cooperation with the greed of the people lead to the industrila revolution mostly in U.K.. There were many money for research that went into the production ysstem which then and only then started to look like capitalism. In addotion, England had an anormous amount of coal which gave them the advantage to first raise the production.

[Vladimir]

Europe extracted the necessary wealth from the rest of the world in order to industrialise.....
Without the looting of the colonies Europe would have remained a backward third-world country, and would be most likely conquered by the arabs

[GandalfTheGrey]

As with most advances that came out of Europe, the main driving force was the plight of the masses and the oppression of the ruling classes. In the case of the industrial revolution, the main catalyst was the so called farming revolution. Technological advances led to increased output, which inevitably led to small peasant farms being overrun by rich landowners. Having no livelihood, the peasants were forced into the big cities which provided industrialists with an endless supply of cheap labour to exploit.

[Truth-a-naut]

The 'oppression' of the masses began long before the Industrial Revolution Gandalf, it began when mankind first domesticated plants and wildlife.

The Industrial Revolution actually helped democratize the means of production in a way. Before, only a few people could really own and benefit from land directly, with the advent of machines many people weren't part of the production process.

As for the whole "Europe only succeeded because it exploited Africans" comment : Haha.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The 'oppression' of the masses began long before the Industrial Revolution Gandalf, it began when mankind first domesticated plants and wildlife.

I never said it didn't. In fact the industrial revolution was just another chapter in Europe's long history of such oppression. I would argue that Europe's "competitive edge" it had over the rest of the world was the result of a complete inability of the many different societies to live in harmony, where the fierce rivalries led to a kind of "innovations race" - fast tracking technology and wealth in order to kill and suppress each other.

[The Decay of Meaning]

According to what I have read, "industrialization" in China could of happen many hundreds of years ago, but did not due to various wars and conflicts.

Europe extracted the necessary wealth from the rest of the world in order to industrialise.....

Yes.

In England's case, the first nation to industrialize, Ireland.

That industrialization happened in Europe did not have anything to do with a so-called "European superiority".

[Potemkin]

According to what I have read, "industrialization" in China could of happen many hundreds of years ago, but did not due to various wars and conflicts.

There were 'various wars and conflicts' in Europe at the time too. I seem to recall one aggressive little Corsican midget was particularly objectionable at about that time....

In England's case, the first nation to industrialize, Ireland.

Actually, it was more the superprofits from the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Ireland was never a particularly profitable colony for the British, consisting as it did mainly of subsistence farmers.

That industrialization happened in Europe did not have anything to do with a so-called "European superiority".

True.

[jiam17]

Europe has limited biodiversity so people have limited sight of natural patterns

Tt the core of politics is logic and politics in europe is real.

[Kiroff]

Europe has limited biodiversity so people have limited sight of natural patterns

Tt the core of politics is logic and politics in europe is real.

What?

[noemon]

The Industrial Revolution begun when Copernicus defied ultimately the Church and the whole thing had begun earlier in the Marcian Library and the {Platonic} Academy of Rome founded by Cardinal Bessarion. To do that he stood on the Shoulders of Giants. -Hawkings

We can say with much certainty that the Industrial Revolution in itself begun with the re-invention of the steam engine by copy/pasting the Greek mechanical designs of Heron.

The process for this was a long one and several factors contributed, it is certain that it begun when Byzantium fell and the Ellinic Platonists became scattered across Europe with the documents traveling with them.

Up until our times we have not seen anything that can be regarded as an invention.

[Defiant]

I think the best place to place the Industrial Revolution was the start of industry in England.

Then again, if you dont wanna think of that as the starting point, it could have started later when Germany and the United States had their own Industrial Revolutions.

Mostly though, it was just a growth from the Reformation periods, movement more from Religion and ultimate following of the government, to movement to the individual and focus on business and commerce

[Torwan]

Why did the industrial revolution happen in Europe and the United States and nowhere else? [Time: Late 18th, early 19th century]

Reasons:
- Europe was already the ruling power of the world and needed large quantities of goods (ships, weapons, clothes, food etc.). Industrialization made that production possible, so it was implemented.

- In Europe and the US, there was a division of religion and state, therefore backwards-religious leaders were unable to interfere with the driving force of the free market (that demanded industrialization).

- Europe and the US had just gone through revolutions (US, 1774; France, 1789) that brought a new way of thinking into the minds of the people. The change to industrialization fit in.

- Europe and the US went through extensive wars (US, War of Independence and War of 1912; Europe: French/Napoleonic Wars) that required a massive amount of war-time production.


Why not somewhere else?
- Since the late middle ages, the islamic world fell back in science and development. The structures established in North Africa and the Middle East were unable to develop industrialization. The missing division between religion and state also prevented or at least slowed down advantages in society and technology (until today).

- China: Would have been able to go to industrialization in the 15th century, but the confucian religion/ideology prevented the rise of power of merchants. When the then-emperor terminated all travel on the oceans (reference: Zheng He) and focused on internal and religious/ideological issues, the forces for advancement were silenced.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Why did the industrial revolution happen in Europe and the United States and nowhere else? [Time: Late 18th, early 19th century]

It began in England.

Newcomens steam engine is a good starting point, tho where I live in the north east of england we had unpowered railways working off gravity to transport coal to the docks well before this.

As for americas role I'll just state that this area was infested with american spies in the first half of the 19th century.american industrialisation started after that

[Torwan]

OK, it began in England.

But on the grand scale, the fifty years where industrialization began in England and continental Europe and the US are only a second in the development of humanity. It's fair to say, that it nearly started at the same time.

[Oxymoron]

I think it is wars in Europe which led to great advances, since China was united and had no wars it had no real reason to advance they became to conservative. War is the greatest vechile to progress, even a possible war like the cold war brought unbelievable advances which would never happen in peace, the internet is a military invention, so is the computer, so is Nuclear energy, so is ballistics (rockets to the moon), satelites, jet planes. Same with railroads in the past, steam engines, its the lack of resources that also drove Europeans to think, how are we going to raise more food, how are we going get the spices if the Muslims charge us to much tax for carravans, Also capitalism and banking (I think the Templars and jews are the driving force behind this movement)was much more developed in Europe then in Asia in Middle east lending with interest is immoral. I also think the independence(you didnt need the Church as much)
which was given under Protestant religion gave people more initiative to explore, to do business to think.

[Ombrageux]

While I think competition, warring or peaceful, can sometimes provide the incentive for progress.. I don't think this is a sufficient explanation. War is a retarding phenomenon when it is too damaging, Africa and the Mideast have plenty of war, I don't expect either to be particularly advanced in the future.

[Thunderhawk]

The crusades spurred the redevelopment of trade routes in Europe. Aside from a few parts (like Belgrade, Balkans) most of Europe only suffered financial loss, not infrastructure nor the lives of many people.

A small short loss that spurred redevelopment of inter-European trade. Worth it, I would say.