Is Sushil Yadav right?

[the_lyniezian]

One question I could well have is: at what point do we consider a society to become "industrial", and what level of industrialisation pushes us past the tipping-point? At the start of the industrial revolution, there was probably little in the way of the sort of mass consumption we have now. Agricultural methods were being refined to produce greater output, but most of it was still horse-powered, none of the highly-mechanised stuff involving artificial fertilisers and pesticides being sprayed on in their gallons. Probably much less in the way of fasctory farming or the massive trawlers that exist for fishing. On the other hand, early engines would emit lots of soot and quite probably sulphur oxides from the sulphur in coal, the early chemical industry would emit all sorts of noxious fumes which turned the skies round my area all sorts of funny colours and probably drove plenty of chemical workers to an early grave.

I wonder if at any pint we've ever ben able to have mechanised mass production without damaging the environment in some way, though, if we could scale down production to the levels we actuallly need rather than that to fulfil our lifestyles of hedonistic overconsumption (for those not in being exploited in order to provide for that), using more renewable resources, and a transition to more sustainable farming methods, including permacuture, no factory rearing of animals &c. then what?

Or would that entail a post-industrial society?

[Little John]

One question I could well have is: at what point do we consider a society to become "industrial", and what level of industrialisation pushes us past the tipping-point? At the start of the industrial revolution, there was probably little in the way of the sort of mass consumption we have now. Agricultural methods were being refined to produce greater output, but most of it was still horse-powered, none of the highly-mechanised stuff involving artificial fertilisers and pesticides being sprayed on in their gallons. Probably much less in the way of fasctory farming or the massive trawlers that exist for fishing. On the other hand, early engines would emit lots of soot and quite probably sulphur oxides from the sulphur in coal, the early chemical industry would emit all sorts of noxious fumes which turned the skies round my area all sorts of funny colours and probably drove plenty of chemical workers to an early grave.

I wonder if at any pint we've ever ben able to have mechanised mass production without damaging the environment in some way, though, if we could scale down production to the levels we actuallly need rather than that to fulfil our lifestyles of hedonistic overconsumption (for those not in being exploited in order to provide for that), using more renewable resources, and a transition to more sustainable farming methods, including permacuture, no factory rearing of animals &c. then what?

Or would that entail a post-industrial society?

It's not so much industrialization as it is civilization. Industrial civilization is just the latest and most ecologically heinous example of it. All civilizations have overexploited their environment to the point of collapse. What has happened then is that the people have dispersed and found new territories to exploit and the whole process has repeated itself down the millennia.

Trouble is, we have run out of room to expand into and we are now in the process of the biggest collapse of human civilization in history

This is the big one.

[sushil_yadav]

......Industrialisation and modern science were the natural result of the process that started with our 2 million years of experimenting with designing and using stone tools. It was written into our destiny by our DNA.

This is primarily true for western civilization.......This is not true for all human societies.

The aborigines of Australia would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

Red Indians / Native Americans would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

These societies were content with what they had.

The western mind was much more restless.

In India people made efforts for spiritual development for thousands of years...... developing methods and techniques for making the mind quiet, tranquil and peaceful.......The knowledge of subjective experience led to the fields of yoga, meditation and pranayam [breath control].

Material Development has destroyed the planet.......If any kind of development was needed it was Spiritual Development.

[clv101]

......Industrialisation and modern science were the natural result of the process that started with our 2 million years of experimenting with designing and using stone tools. It was written into our destiny by our DNA.

This is primarily true for western civilization.......This is not true for all human societies.

The aborigines of Australia would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

Red Indians / Native Americans would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

...

I don't think we can say that with any confidence. The reasons behind the timing of 'developments' are far from clear. Why did things happen when they did? Why didn't the Romans discover electricity?

I don't think we can say the Australian aborigines or native Americas wouldn't have started the industrial revolution. All we know is that they hadn't done so when the Europeans did. If the Europeans hadn't, it's perfectly possible that 300 years latter the Australians or Americans would have.

[emordnilap]

Why didn't the Romans discover electricity?

Actually, I thought they had - or was it some other ancient civilisation? I think adam2 mentioned it.

[Blue Peter]

Why didn't the Romans discover electricity?

Actually, I thought they had - or was it some other ancient civilisation? I think adam2 mentioned it.

Lots knew about static electricity.

I think that the more common example quoted in this context is that the Greeks/Romans had a steam engine (I've got a picture in my mind of a container rotating due to steam coming out of a nozzle, but might be wrong), but only used it as a curio and didn't put it to use economically,


Peter.

[emordnilap]

Why didn't the Romans discover electricity?

Actually, I thought they had - or was it some other ancient civilisation? I think adam2 mentioned it.

Lots knew about static electricity.

Yes but that's not my recollection in this context. It was something to do with batteries but my mind has been known to leave the house without its trousers on.

[UndercoverElephant]

One question I could well have is: at what point do we consider a society to become "industrial", and what level of industrialisation pushes us past the tipping-point?

I'd say the first human activities that was worthy of the name "industry" was the first production of iron from ore. The process of industrialisation then progressed only very slowly until the scientific revolution happened, and at that point I think the full-blown industrial revolution that started in Britain was inevitable, and I'd argue that the start point of that was the building of the Bridgewater canal...but then I'm biased because I am very fond of the canals.

At the start of the industrial revolution, there was probably little in the way of the sort of mass consumption we have now.

The sort of consumerism we have now was invented in America after WWII, but mass-consumption of some sort of goods (e.g. decent underwear and pottery) started with the building of the first factories. Those factories supplied things that people needed. The difference now is the amount of stuff being actively sold to people that they do not need and would not even want if they weren't being bombarded with propaganda designed to make them want it.

I wonder if at any pint we've ever ben able to have mechanised mass production without damaging the environment in some way, though, if we could scale down production to the levels we actuallly need rather than that to fulfil our lifestyles of hedonistic overconsumption (for those not in being exploited in order to provide for that), using more renewable resources, and a transition to more sustainable farming methods, including permacuture, no factory rearing of animals &c. then what?

Or would that entail a post-industrial society?

Depends on how many people you are hoping to cater for...

[UndercoverElephant]

......Industrialisation and modern science were the natural result of the process that started with our 2 million years of experimenting with designing and using stone tools. It was written into our destiny by our DNA.

This is primarily true for western civilization.......This is not true for all human societies.

The aborigines of Australia would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

Red Indians / Native Americans would not have started the Industrial Revolution.

...

I don't think we can say that with any confidence. The reasons behind the timing of 'developments' are far from clear. Why did things happen when they did? Why didn't the Romans discover electricity?

I don't think we can say the Australian aborigines or native Americas wouldn't have started the industrial revolution. All we know is that they hadn't done so when the Europeans did. If the Europeans hadn't, it's perfectly possible that 300 years latter the Australians or Americans would have.

All interesting questions.

I think we might be able to answer the question of why the industrial revolution happened in Britain rather than, say, France or Italy. But why did the scientific revolution happen in Europe, and why did it happen when it did? Why did it happen at all? I think we can at least identify the point at which it began: Copernicus.

[SleeperService]

Actually, I thought they had - or was it some other ancient civilisation? I think adam2 mentioned it.

Lots knew about static electricity.

Yes but that's not my recollection in this context. It was something to do with batteries but my mind has been known to leave the house without its trousers on.

I think you're thinking of the batteries used by the Egyptians or in ancient Persia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/electricity.htm

[emordnilap]

Tanx.

[UndercoverElephant]

Tanx.

?

Don't wanna be nobody's hero...

Be what you are, be what you are, be what you arrrrarrrrr....

Hanx.

[peaceful_life]

On topic.


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/shiftshape ... rom-empire

In this 32-minute interview, Guy McPherson shares with Co-Host Daniel Kerbein his view that industrial civilization is destroying everything so quickly, that that if we don't stop it in the next few years, we are quickly headed for an uninhabitable planet.

[emordnilap]

Tanx.

?

To SS, for de linx.

[emordnilap]

On topic.


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/shiftshape ... rom-empire

In this 32-minute interview, Guy McPherson shares with Co-Host Daniel Kerbein his view that industrial civilization is destroying everything so quickly, that that if we don't stop it in the next few years, we are quickly headed for an uninhabitable planet.

Hehe - I like it, it kicked off with an advert for Renault, get them to pay for the talk about industrial destruction.

It's particularly good as it's the Irish main dealer's advert, the owner of which lobbied the government for (and got!) a bailout for his car sector and said on tv that young unemployed people should just go out and work for nothing. Rich twat.