On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 8:23:09 AM UTC-10, reader wrote:   
   > >> >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.   
      
   Concerning China, what about the Needham Question?:   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham#Needham_Question   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)