Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA28605 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 30 May 2000 03:38:12 +0100 Message-ID: <3932E2CE.A0B57B8D@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:36:14 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Industrial Evolution References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174587E@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <00052912554101.00664@faichney> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin Faichney wrote:
> Watched a programme on Channel 4 last night, first of a series of 5 or 6
> on the industrial revolution, and why it took off where and when it did.
> The prog makers have gotten together 5 academic specialists in relevant areas,
> and apparently they're going to reach back to 10,000 BCE (or 10k years ago,
> at least), to try to find all relevant factors. Last night, though, they
> focussed on the year 1830, and Simon Schaffer, a Cambridge historian,
> discussed what was happening then, and what factors caused/allowed these
> developments. Like, the technology required to make cylinders for the new
> steam engines was very similar to what was already being used to make
> cannon. And, the widespread habitual drinking of tea, believe it or not,
> allowed cities to grow much bigger, because it has antibiotic properties,
> and the limiting factor was public health, specifically the frequency of
> epidemics which increases with population density.
>
> Anyway, I'm glad to say there was lots of talk of ideas, discoveries and
> inventions coming together, with social factors, and no mention of
> natural resource depletion, whatsoever. Of course, that might come up in
> a future programme. But I'd guess the chance of it being judged more
> significant than the combinatorial effects of discoveries, inventions and
> their communication, is zero.
Perhaps you should read not only straight anthropology, but history. For a start,
find out why they turned to coal. If you still can't figure out what coal has to
do with the industrial revolution, you should probably try a less complicated
field to make a living.
> The exponential development of science and
> technology over the last few hundred years in the West fits that model so
> well, I have to question the motives of anyone who claims to doubt it.
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 30 2000 - 03:38:45 BST