>> >In all honestly, as far as I can tell the only thing   
   >> >stopping the Industrial Revolution from happen in ancient   
   >> >Roman times, instead of the 18th century, was the Roman   
   >> >elite.   
   >>   
   >> Simple, all of the prerequisite technology elements of the industrial   
   >> revolution were not in place.   
   >>   
   >> China was the leader in technology until about the 17th century.  If it   
   >> were to have happened anywhere else it would b china.   
   >>   
   >> A 1st century roman in egypt described a rudimentary steam engine, which we   
   >> associate with the industrial revolution as a primary energy conversion   
   >> prerequisite.   
   >   
   >I thought that technological progress doesn't occur when there is a lot of   
   cheap labor.   
      
   It occurs for several reasons.  In the 200 k years or so of modern humans   
   population tends to increase and follow new technology.  Labor as a   
   commodity did not occur until the appearence of the modern nation state..   
      
   >In the the case of ancient Rome,   
   wasn't that about slaves?   
      
   In the example mentioned, it appears to be for curiosity only.  Leonardo Da   
   Vinci left notebooks of new inventions which did not then have the   
   prerequisite technology to realize them.   
      
   >And in the case of China up to the 17th c., didn't it experience a   
   population boom after that?   
      
   Yes, which is an example of the above, population increase typically   
   follows technology.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)