dreamdancer 0 #1 October 7, 2009 what next... QuoteThe Industrial Revolution was a period from the 19th to the early 20th century where major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and transport had a profound effect on the socioeconomic and cultural conditions in the United Kingdom. The changes subsequently spread throughout Europe, North America, and eventually the world. The onset of the Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily life was eventually influenced in some way. Starting in the later part of the 18th century there began a transition in parts of Great Britain's previously manual labour and draft-animal–based economy towards machine-based manufacturing. It started with the mechanisation of the textile industries, the development of iron-making techniques and the increased use of refined coal. Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads and railways. The introduction of steam power fuelled primarily by coal, wider utilisation of water wheels and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity. The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines for manufacturing in other industries. The effects spread throughout Western Europe and North America during the 19th century, eventually affecting most of the world, a process that continues as industrialisation. The impact of this change on society was enormous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Industrial_Revolutionstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #2 October 7, 2009 Quotewhat next... My money is on something copy/pastedYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #3 October 7, 2009 is there a point to your post?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 October 7, 2009 This is why I count Eli Whitney as number 1 in my book as the most influential human being of all time. The revolution started with textiles. These textiles were cotton textiles. In 1790, a pair of cotton pants would run the equivalent of a two or three thousand dollars today because cotton was so labor intensive to profuce and weavers were highly skilled. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Cotton prices plummeted. Large scale looms made sense. The Luddites came around (a precursor to the modern liberal - a bunch of rich folks with something to lose who utilized underclass working conditions as a front to keep the underclass unemployed and unable to afford their products). And these textiles brought cotton clothing to the world. Then Eli Whitney invented mass production. The term "spare parts" did not exist in 1800. $ass production completed the groundwork necessary for the employment of a massive number of unskilled underclass. Had it not been for Eli Whitney there weould be no Progressive movement or labor unions. Yes, the same guy who invented the technology that built King Cotton in the South and the rise in slavery invented the mass production system that built the Northeast US that overpowered and destroyed slavery. A freaking amazing guy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrDree 0 #5 October 7, 2009 "Do I know you well enough to call you fellow plunderers? There is not an industrial company on earth, not an institution of any kind, not mine, not yours, not anyone's that is sustainable. I stand convicted by me, myself alone, not by anyone else, as a plunderer of the earth, but not by our civilisation's definition. By our civilisation's definition, I'm a captain of industry. In the eyes of many a kind of modern day hero. But really, the first industrial revolution is flawed, it is not working. It is unsustainable. It is the mistake, and we must move on to another and better industrial revolution and get it right this time." Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface (world's largest carpet manufacturer)"One day, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching." Dudeist Skydiver #101 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #6 October 7, 2009 Yeah, without that appetite for cotton, the British might never have sided with the South.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #7 October 7, 2009 QuoteThis is why I count Eli Whitney as number 1 in my book as the most influential human being of all time. The revolution started with textiles. These textiles were cotton textiles. In 1790, a pair of cotton pants would run the equivalent of a two or three thousand dollars today because cotton was so labor intensive to profuce and weavers were highly skilled. . John Kay, James Hargreaves and Samuel Crompton all predated Eli in the mass production of textiles. And as for powering the machinery, don't forget Thomas Newcomen and James Watt. And don't forget Henry Bessemer who made steel affordable for all these new fangled machines, and Richard Trevithick and George Stephenson who revolutionized land transportation. I'd put Whitney in the top 50, but nowhere near #1. Isaac Newton for #1.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #8 October 7, 2009 Quote $ass production completed the groundwork necessary for the employment of a massive number of unskilled underclass. Today we call that the porn industry www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 October 7, 2009 QuoteYeah, without that appetite for cotton, the British might never have sided with the South. They didn't! The South actually bet that the british would side with them because of the massive amount of cotton that they supplied. The Brits stayed officially neutral. While there was economic concern, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, the British culture would not support the South. They found slavery to be a bad thing and would be willing to have their textiles be more expensive than support slavery. That wasn't the whole thing, but a substantial part of it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 October 7, 2009 Quotethe British culture would not support the South. They found slavery to be a bad thing and would be willing to have their textiles be more expensive than support slavery. We're talking about the same British Empire that enslaved the entire world until the mid 20th Century? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #11 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteYeah, without that appetite for cotton, the British might never have sided with the South. They didn't! The South actually bet that the british would side with them because of the massive amount of cotton that they supplied. The Brits stayed officially neutral. While there was economic concern, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, the British culture would not support the South. They found slavery to be a bad thing and would be willing to have their textiles be more expensive than support slavery. That wasn't the whole thing, but a substantial part of it. You are correct. While the Brits remained neutral, there were British plans to try and bring the North and South together. If the plans failed, the Brits would go with the South. The Emancipation Proclamation shut this idea down. Up until then there were British and Confederate blockade runners (the British textile industry was virtually shut down). Seizures and sinkings by the Union Navy brought the Brits close to war with the North, but again you are right.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #12 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuotethe British culture would not support the South. They found slavery to be a bad thing and would be willing to have their textiles be more expensive than support slavery. We're talking about the same British Empire that enslaved the entire world until the mid 20th Century? Yep. Just like we (the US) are screaming about genocide after obliterating the indians in the 19th and early 20th centuries."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 October 7, 2009 QuoteQuotethe British culture would not support the South. They found slavery to be a bad thing and would be willing to have their textiles be more expensive than support slavery. We're talking about the same British Empire that enslaved the entire world until the mid 20th Century? The Brits had outlawed slavery back in the early 1800's, if I recall. It didn't stop them from stomping all over people and working them to death but they paid them menial wages and executed all who insurrected. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #14 October 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotethe British culture would not support the South. They found slavery to be a bad thing and would be willing to have their textiles be more expensive than support slavery. We're talking about the same British Empire that enslaved the entire world until the mid 20th Century? The Brits had outlawed slavery back in the early 1800's, if I recall. . Slavery was outlawed in Britain by the 16th Century but British ships continued to ship slaves to the Americas. The slave TRADE was outlawed by the UK in the early 1800s and the British Navy was used to shut down the transAtlantic slave ships. Quote It didn't stop them from stomping all over people and working them to death but they paid them menial wages and executed all who insurrected. Kind of like the US in the late 1800s (Haymarket riots and all that, which eventually led to May 1 being Labor Day in most of the world).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 October 8, 2009 Sure. I think that the Native Americans we didn't kill should have certain rights that we took. Of course, the American forefathers thought that the Limeys did certain things right. For example, the Spaniards were evil. They banged the natives before they killed them. The british simply robbed, executed or otherwise inflicted pestilence. Americans thought thought British were pussies. So we perfected genocide. Admit it - Great Britain once again got showed up by that piss ant criminal colony. Had india been an American territory we would have had the balls to neutralize Gandhi before he went to Africa and would have had no need to wait for poofter Peter Ustinov to sit idly by while his daughter got wasted. Edited to add: to avoid thread drift, had it not been for the industrial revolution, we could not have afforded to waste perfectly good blankets by lacing them with small pox to give to the red man. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #16 October 8, 2009 Quotewhat next... ***The Industrial Revolution was a period from the 19th to the early 20th century .., Quote Let me tell you about the biggest change brought about by the industrial revolution. Something the women ,to this day, are having a hard time figuring out. You all know about it. It probably is responsible for the rise in circulation of newspapers at that time and the continued circulation of newspapers through this time. The Complete Evacuation. Women just don't understand how you can take a newspaper and sit on the toilet for 30 minutes or more. Well just ask Andrew Carnegie. Before the industrial revolution men were like women in their evacuation habits,you could just go whenever the bowels said go. I mean sure, you might wait until you got to the end of the row you were plowing but pretty much and for the most part the day was your oyster. You just shit when the feeling struck. And then came the industrial revolution. You had to man your position on the assembly line. No more agriculture shittin' at the end of the rows. In fact, the few minutes break was not enough for all the men at the factory to relieve their bowels. So men adapted to the tradition of reading the newspaper and having a "complete evacuation" every morning before they left for work. And now you know the rest of the story, the good and the bad behind the industrial revelution.2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #17 October 8, 2009 QuoteThe working class lifestyle under the factory system, with its new forms of social control, was a radical break with the past. It involved drastic loss of control over their own work. The seventeenth century work calendar was still heavily influenced by medieval custom. Although there were long days in spurts between planting and harvest, intermittent periods of light work and the proliferation of saints days combined to reduce average work-time well below our own. And the pace of work was generally determined by the sun or the biological rhythms of the laborer, who got up after a decent night's sleep, and sat down to rest when he felt like it. The cottager who had access to common land, even when he wanted extra income from wage labor, could take work on a casual basis and then return to working for himself. This was an unacceptable degree of independence from a capitalist standpoint. In the modern world most people have to adapt themselves to some kind of discipline, and to observe other' people's timetables, ...or work under other people's orders, but we have to remember that the population that was flung into the brutal rhythm of the factory had earned its living in relative freedom, and that the discipline of the early factory was particularly savage.... No economist of the day, in estimating the gains or losses of factory employment, ever allowed for the strain and violence that a man suffered in his feelings when he passed from a life in which he could smoke or eat, or dig or sleep as he pleased, to one in which somebody turned the key on him, and for fourteen hours he had not even the right to whistle. It was like entering the airless and laughterless life of a prison [the Hammonds, Town Labourer 1:33-34]. The factory system could not have been imposed on workers without first depriving them of alternatives, and forcibly denying access to any source of economic independence. No unbroken human being, with a sense of freedom or dignity, would have submitted to factory discipline. Stephen Marglin compared the nineteenth century textile factory, staffed by pauper children bought at the workhouse slave market, to Roman brick and pottery factories which were manned by slaves. In Rome, factory production was exceptional in manufactures dominated by freemen. The factory system, throughout history, has been possible only with a work force deprived of any viable alternative. http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/iron_fist.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites futuredivot 0 #18 October 8, 2009 Attack of the Response Bot-Coming soon to a forum near youYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnDeere 0 #19 October 9, 2009 Quote Attack of the Response Bot-Coming soon to a forum near you But but copy and pasting makes it so much easyer....Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
dreamdancer 0 #17 October 8, 2009 QuoteThe working class lifestyle under the factory system, with its new forms of social control, was a radical break with the past. It involved drastic loss of control over their own work. The seventeenth century work calendar was still heavily influenced by medieval custom. Although there were long days in spurts between planting and harvest, intermittent periods of light work and the proliferation of saints days combined to reduce average work-time well below our own. And the pace of work was generally determined by the sun or the biological rhythms of the laborer, who got up after a decent night's sleep, and sat down to rest when he felt like it. The cottager who had access to common land, even when he wanted extra income from wage labor, could take work on a casual basis and then return to working for himself. This was an unacceptable degree of independence from a capitalist standpoint. In the modern world most people have to adapt themselves to some kind of discipline, and to observe other' people's timetables, ...or work under other people's orders, but we have to remember that the population that was flung into the brutal rhythm of the factory had earned its living in relative freedom, and that the discipline of the early factory was particularly savage.... No economist of the day, in estimating the gains or losses of factory employment, ever allowed for the strain and violence that a man suffered in his feelings when he passed from a life in which he could smoke or eat, or dig or sleep as he pleased, to one in which somebody turned the key on him, and for fourteen hours he had not even the right to whistle. It was like entering the airless and laughterless life of a prison [the Hammonds, Town Labourer 1:33-34]. The factory system could not have been imposed on workers without first depriving them of alternatives, and forcibly denying access to any source of economic independence. No unbroken human being, with a sense of freedom or dignity, would have submitted to factory discipline. Stephen Marglin compared the nineteenth century textile factory, staffed by pauper children bought at the workhouse slave market, to Roman brick and pottery factories which were manned by slaves. In Rome, factory production was exceptional in manufactures dominated by freemen. The factory system, throughout history, has been possible only with a work force deprived of any viable alternative. http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/iron_fist.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #18 October 8, 2009 Attack of the Response Bot-Coming soon to a forum near youYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #19 October 9, 2009 Quote Attack of the Response Bot-Coming soon to a forum near you But but copy and pasting makes it so much easyer....Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
