News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by spaniard89277 on Friday August 26, 2022 @10:46AM (#32608209)
But the romans actually did innovate. Or at least put other's knowledge to massive use.

The scale of planning and engineering put into their infrastructure is just awesome.

It's not just roads. Their sewage systems, water treatment plants, siphons, aqueducts, pipes... IDK if any of you had a deep dive into this, but I watch some YT channels by spanish professors and this people were no joke.

And they seemed to have some research on materials too.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by beej71 on Friday August 26, 2022 @11:00AM (#32608394)
Fine. But aside from the roads, sewage systems, water treatment plants, siphons, aqueducts, and pipes, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by the_af on Friday August 26, 2022 @11:18AM (#32608654)
Well played!

"What have the Romans given us in return?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by insane_dreamer on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:40PM (#32609688)
More importantly, what have they done for us lately? Literally nothing in the past 1000 years.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by DigiDigiorno on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:50PM (#32609858)
Irrigation? Medicine?

Oh, and the wine.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by SergeAx on Friday August 26, 2022 @06:47PM (#32613625)
They just took the whole wine industry from Greeks. No added value whatsoever.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by ajuc on Friday August 26, 2022 @10:54AM (#32608328)
They innovated in areas where slaves didn't helped.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by kalimanzaro on Friday August 26, 2022 @11:24AM (#32608724)
In particular, they didn't innovate in general technologies, like energy/information production/transmission, or metallurgy. Hard to beat slaves as a general technology, even concrete is no match.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by Someone on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:42PM (#32609732)
> they didn't innovate in general technologies, like energy/information production/transmission, or metallurgy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_metallurgy#Mechanisation:

“There is direct evidence that the Romans mechanised at least part of the extraction processes. They used water power from water wheels for grinding grains and sawing timber or stone, for example. A set of sixteen such overshot wheels is still visible at Barbegal near Arles dating from the 1st century AD or possibly earlier, the water being supplied by the main aqueduct to Arles.”

I think that aqueduct is an example of energy transmission.

“Ausonius attests the use of a water mill for sawing stone in his poem Mosella from the 4th century AD. They could easily have adapted the technology to crush ore using tilt hammers, and just such is mentioned by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia dating to about 75 AD, and there is evidence for the method from Dolaucothi in South Wales”

“They also used reverse overshot water-wheel for draining mines, the parts being prefabricated and numbered for ease of assembly. Multiple set of such wheels have been found in Spain at the Rio Tinto copper mines and a fragment of a wheel at Dolaucothi. An incomplete wheel from Spain is now on public show in the British Museum.“

I think that shows innovation in technologies (not as fast as happened in the industrial revolution, but it is innovation)

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by kalimanzaro on Monday August 29, 2022 @06:59AM (#32636674)
From a related HN thread:

"Italy never got as large number of mills as Britain as the rivers flowing into Northern Italy have too large variation in water flow. That is part of the reason Romans could never utilize waterwheels to a great extent."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32629471

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by csours on Friday August 26, 2022 @11:23AM (#32608711)
I worry that capitalism is using us in a similar manner.

Neoliberal capitalism has given us a lot of very cheap, very technologically advanced stuff. An extremely basic integrated circuit in the 1960s costs the same as an entire iPhone now, accounting for inflation. Accounting for inflation, automobiles are as cheap as they've ever been, and have many more features that work much better than they ever have.

But ... the edges wear thin. A Raspberry Pi (computer) and a Raspberry Pie (food) may be purchased for around the same price. A varied and healthy diet can be quite expensive (though there are deals to be found if you can travel to get them). Companies want to "add value" to food with extensive processing that increases the engineered taste factors to make us consume more. Housing is insanely expensive in many areas. Health care in the United States is not designed for any humans - not doctors, nurses, other professionals, and certainly not patients.

Neoliberal capitalism won't innovate on these areas. Are we just stuck with what we have? Certainly government mandates could change the game, but just like the Romans, people think the system is working because they can buy a smart phone and a gaming console and some cheap snacks and go for a ride in their fine automobile.

We can't see what the collapse will be, and we can't see what's next. I wonder how many Romans talked like this? I don't believe that our doom is inevitable, but I also think that progress requires specific intention, and progress can be very easily disrupted.

---

I have a thesis that the economic benefits of integrated circuit microchip and the economic benefits of neoliberalism cannot be distinguished. They both feed each other. I don't see myself putting enough effort into researching it and writing it up, but I strongly believe that thesis.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by radu_floricica on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:06PM (#32609208)
I'm not sure what you're complaining about, exactly. A raspberry pie is mostly service, not product - you get it for things like convenience and company and time. You can tell because the frozen version is much cheaper. And if you want to go further lower, you can actually make pies at home for pennies - all you need is a sack of flower and a bunch of frozen fruit. And capitalism even makes it easy for you to do it - if you decide it's something you really want, you can invest a couple hundred bucks in home equipment to do most of the work.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but a couple of reads of your comment and I still think you're complaining that things go well :)

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by idle_zealot on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:38PM (#32609653)
The complaint seems to be that things like raspberry pies are cheap while nutritious food is expensive. The market optimizes for that consumers want without accounting for invisible costs like poor health outcomes from routinely eating calorie-dense nutrient-sparse food. Likewise affordability of healthcare is not optimized for in the US; the incentives in that market drive it towards high but subsidized prices. Someone who is well-employed benefits from health insurance that make prices reasonable-ish, but anyone not subsidized by their employer or government is effectively left out of the market. This is not a state of affairs where a free market will sort things out. In the food case, the prerequisite of rational agents in the marketplace is not met; people are bad at making good long-term health decisions and will vote with their dollars against their best interests. In the healthcare case the real transaction is not happening between the consumer and healthcare provider, but between the provider and employers or governments and no party has incentives to change this (except maybe the government following the will of the people). This relationship provides employers a way to attract and retain talent and makes a lot of money for providers.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by _vdpp on Friday August 26, 2022 @03:14PM (#32611546)
I find a lot of the criticism of healthcare today to be misguided.

Why would healthcare be inexpensive? Go into a clinic today and there’s a legion of professionals who attend to each patient. Each of them has years of training, even the clerk at the desk.

They use a whole battery of expensive equipment. Multi-million dollar machines to literally see inside your body.

Every piece of tubing, bandage, needle, plastic fitting, etc is sterile, and used only once. They are made in a facility to exacting standards which is in turn monitored and supervised by another network of professionals with reams of policy dictating how the equipment is made, accounted for, and an army of lawyers behind the scenes as well.

The facility itself has exacting standards for cleanliness, emergency power, disaster-resistance.

The medical records are held in computer systems which abide by HIPAA requirements, again with a team of engineers and cybersecurity professionals ensuring that standards are met.

Healthcare is expensive because it’s expensive. The alternative is suffering with untreatable injuries or just dying, which we take for granted because we don’t see it that much anymore. We don’t have country doctors working out of their house charging a few bucks for a visit.

Are there inefficiencies? Is there waste, fraud and abuse? Are there greedy pharmaceutical execs making billions of dollars on the backs of unsuspecting pill poppers? Could we do things better or cheaper? I’m sure we could, but I don’t think there’s some kind of grand conspiracy to make us slaves to our employers vía medicine.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by csours on Friday August 26, 2022 @08:10PM (#32614223)
I'm not just talking about the cost, I'm also talking about the experience.

The alternative isn't a lack of healthcare, it's a compassionate experience that understands that we are people, not bags of money. Individual medical centers may live up to that standard, but the industry does not.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by idle_zealot on Saturday August 27, 2022 @11:24AM (#32620020)
> I don’t think there’s some kind of grand conspiracy to make us slaves to our employers vía medicine.

There doesn't need to be a grand conspiracy, just aligned incentives. The result is the same. It's also true that modern cutting-edge healthcare is expensive any way you slice it. In free market capitalism it is up to each person to bear that cost. This means that some people will not be able to afford treatment or will be plunged into crippling debt. I'm of the belief that if we can treat someone with a health problem then that treatment should be available to them either for some marginal cost or for free. Basic human needs can not be subject to market pricing as consumers are essentially under duress when making purchasing decisions; they cannot choose to forgo lifesaving medicine should the price be unreasonable.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by csours on Friday August 26, 2022 @02:16PM (#32610906)
Interesting that my comment sounds like a complaint.

The Romans had a huge blind spot because of their economic system.

We have a huge blind spot because of our economic system.

What is that blind spot? What's in that blind spot? We're in the last stages of the information revolution. The maturity of the information revolution will continue for as long as civilization does; we are continuing the industrial revolution even now.

The Star Trek Original Series and Next Generation both showed a "post-scarcity" society. What is most scarce in our society that prevents a post-scarcity society? What does an economy look like in post-scarcity?

We have Science Fiction, it's entirely possible that ancient Rome had futurists too.

Think of my comment about RPi/Pie in terms of economic revolutions. A society that can make a pie only needs a few things that are relatively easily gathered. An adult human could reasonably invent a pie in any age, from the Stone Age until now. That such an incredibly simple food may be underpriced by advanced technology requiring millions of cumulative person-hours of technical progress is simply astounding.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by ajuc on Friday August 26, 2022 @03:37PM (#32611821)
> What is most scarce in our society that prevents a post-scarcity society?

Nothing. We could have had post-scarcity society since 1950s at least (Haber Bosch process means enough food for everybody, everything else is optional and/or could be achieved by redistribution). Yet we refused to do it cause we value marginal improvements in our comfort more than survival and lack of serious suffering of others. We're already making things scarce on purpose (see NFTs and art in general). People want things that are scarce even if that's the only property of these things, and they value these desires enough to deny other people resources they need to live.

Thinking that this will somehow change in the future just because of some new technology making more stuff non-scarce is naive. We'll invent something that doesn't exist yet just so that we can have it while others can't. There will never be post-scarcity as long as people are people.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by WillPostForFood on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:01PM (#32609153)
>Neoliberal capitalism won't innovate on these areas.

Wouldn't you put the transition from agriculture based economy under neoliberal capitalism? We went from 90% farm employment to 10% while massively increasing output.

Tech folks don't think food production is exciting so they miss all the innovation.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/1/8/22872749/john-deere-self...

As to housing and health care, we don't have "neoliberal capitalism", we have highly regulated, captured, markets. If you moved to zero zoning in SF you'd start to have innovative building.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by csours on Friday August 26, 2022 @02:26PM (#32611014)
My comment on food is not about the quantity or efficiency - those have advanced quite well. It is about the quality and value.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by WillPostForFood on Friday August 26, 2022 @07:13PM (#32613818)
The quality of food is better in a modern market like whole foods today than what you got 50 or 100 years ago. Or if you like it super fresh, in pretty much every city you have organic produce at multiple local farmer's markets. Or look at restaurant options today vs even 40 years ago. Coffee today vs Folger's. Fair trade chocolate vs Hershey's. Access to fresh fruit, year round, via global supply chains. I don't know what hasn't gotten better. The worst thing about food today is abundance of cheap (value?) junk food, but that's an accomplishment in its own way.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by unity1001 on Saturday August 27, 2022 @05:35AM (#32617330)
> I worry that capitalism is using us in a similar manner.

That's the entire point of capitalism. Reinstitution of feudal economy, or even worse, slave economies, through economic system. In post Civil War US and post-emancipation Brazil, the slave economy was reinstituted through 'free market' precisely using capitalist methodology. Former slave owners kept wages low, which forced now-freed slaves to work for even less economic return than before. Because now the slave-owners did not even have to feed their slaves and keep them healthy enough to work. They could just discard them when they couldn't work.

> but just like the Romans, people think the system is working because they can buy a smart phone and a gaming console and some cheap snacks and go for a ride in their fine automobile.

I very much think that people don't think that the system works. Only those who are in or above the top 10% of the society. The rest are aware of the brutal reality of the system and they are unwilling participants in it for that reason. Exactly the same with later Rome. Which is a reason why Rome fall so easily and so fast - there was no difference in between their former Roman masters and their new feudal overlords as far as Romans were concerned.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by danenania on Friday August 26, 2022 @01:01PM (#32610052)
A lot of these are demand-side problems. Apart from a small slice of the population that is educated about nutrition, people actually want the cheap, tasty, processed food. In places where more highly educated people are concentrated, you actually do see innovation around conveniently getting people healthy food, farm-to-table, etc.

Yes, capitalism will happily cater to your worst vices. But then again, it will just as happily cater to your best virtues. I'd call it a problem of information and education, not a problem of capitalism.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by psychphysic on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:07PM (#32609225)
Similarly slave labour is not free in the economic sense.

You still pay housing, food and time at a minimum.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by kozikow on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:13PM (#32609280)
If your job can't afford you housing, food and basic healthcare you have it worse than most slaves did.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by aetherson on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:38PM (#32609657)
I'm sorry to hear that after you tried to move, you were run down by a professional slave-catcher, and had the letter "FUG" (for "fugitive") burned into your forehead! But I'm glad you weren't crucified and so are still alive to give us your hot takes on how slavery was pretty good.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by nautilius on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:16PM (#32609336)
Holy shit, man. What's your take on concentration camps? At least the prisoners are not homeless?
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by kozikow on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:19PM (#32609381)
If Amazon or Uber workers were slaves they probably would be treated better.

Not saying that slavery is by any means even slightly positive. Just that economic system allows for extreme exploitation of people without alternatives.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by kleer001 on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:45PM (#32609786)
concentration camps were (are?) built to kill people, subject them to abject torture, to hell, it was not an economic end let alone an ostensibly sustainable venture
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by badpun on Friday August 26, 2022 @01:55PM (#32610676)
Depends on the country. Soviet ones (Gulags) were created for economic purposes as much as for political. The economic idea behind the Gulags was to extract free slave labor out of population and basically free calories out of their bodies - the prisoners were barely fed, so their bodies had to burn their own tissues (starting with fat) to survive. Millions of prisoners/slaves doing hard manual labor for no pay and eating 800 kalories per day helped the country's rapid industrialization in the 20s and 30s.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by kleer001 on Saturday August 27, 2022 @07:30PM (#32624287)
I guess I had death-camps in mind.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by cardanome on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:53PM (#32609919)
Yeah, that is annoying. They should feed themselves. Maybe give them a small plot of land where they can grow their own food on the side? Let's call it feudalism.

People still romanticize the antique so much they miss that the medieval period saw quite a few advancements.

Why did the Romans not have an industrial Revolution?

For that you need a society that actually has incentives to efficiently use the labor available. Like in capitalism where you pay the workers based on hours. And the prerequisite for that was feudalism, the development of cities, start of manufacturing and so on. One economic system leads to another. Not easy to just leapfrog from a slave-holding society into the industrial age.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by visarga on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:35PM (#32609623)
- Water mills

- Steam engine - the Aeolipile

- Concrete - even underwater concrete

- Automations - see Heron of Alexandria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPu9OQpH6uo

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by lr4444lr on Friday August 26, 2022 @11:57AM (#32609100)
Yes, the Roman military enterprise demanded technological innovation both to expand and maintain their conquered territories. But their productivity as the OP pointed out was severely hamstrung by the plentiful slave labor that conquest afforded.
Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by unity1001 on Saturday August 27, 2022 @05:30AM (#32617297)
All of those existed before Romans. From Sumeria to Indus Valley civilization to Egypt. If you dive into their history and watch related channels, you will find even more amazing things. What Romans did, however, was building them systematically and in a standardized fashion to bring them everywhere. That is an innovation.

However...

Aside from that and what advances Rome was able to do from their inception until the Late Republic period, Romans did not innovate as you would describe it. That's why the Roman history from Middle Republic until its fall is a story of slow decline and deterioration into feudalism.

Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution? by Cupertino95014 on Friday August 26, 2022 @12:05PM (#32609206)
re materials: google "pozzolanans"

they knew it worked, and Caesarea in Israel shows that it really did.