산업 혁명: 기술로 세상을 변화시키다

1750년경 유럽에서 시작된 산업혁명은 기계, 새로운 에너지원, 상호 연결된 혁신을 통해 생산에 혁명을 일으켰습니다.

### 산업 혁명: 역사상 가장 혁명적인 시기
* 🏭 1750년에서 1850년 사이에 일어난 **산업혁명은 역사상 가장 혁명적인 시기**로, 삶의 다양한 측면에 큰 변화를 가져왔습니다.
* 💡 "산업혁명 이전에는 대부분의 사람들이 식량을 제공하는 땅에 살거나 아주 가까운 곳에 살았으며 **기대 수명은 25~35년 정도**였습니다."
* 📈 산업혁명의 영향을 강조하는 한 가지 주요 통계는 **산업혁명 이전에는 전 세계 인구의 약 80%가 농업에 종사했지만, 오늘날 미국에서는 1% 미만의 사람들만이 농사를 짓고 있다**는 사실입니다.
* 🇪🇺 산업혁명은 **1750년경에 시작**되어 전 세계로 확산되었지만, 특히 **영국을 중심**으로 유럽에서 시작되었습니다.
* 🔍 유럽, 특히 영국에서 산업화가 가장 먼저 일어난 이유는 논쟁의 대상이 되고 있습니다. **문화적 우월성, 과학과 발명 문화, 자유로운 정치 제도, 적은 인구** 등 다양한 유럽 중심적 이유가 거론되고 있습니다.
* 🏭 산업혁명은 **기계의 사용과 새로운 에너지원의 활용**을 통한 생산량 증가가 특징입니다.
* 🌏 인도의 면화 생산이 영국의 산업화를 촉진하는 데 중요한 역할을 했기 때문에 **유럽의 산업화가 고립된 사건**이 아니었다는 점에 주목하는 것이 중요합니다.

Hi, I’m John Green. This is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to discuss the series of events that made it possible for you to watch Crash Course. And also made this studio possible. And made the warehouse containing the studio possible. A warehouse, by the way, that houses stuff for warehouses. That’s right, it’s time to talk about the Industrial Revolution. Although it occurred around the same time as the French, American, Latin American, and Haitian Revolutions - between, say, 1750 and 1850 - the industrial revolution was really the most revolutionary of the bunch. Past John: No way, dude. All those other revolutions resulted in, like, new borders and flags and stuff. Present John: [sigh] We’ve studied 15,000 years of history here at Crash Course, Me from the Past. And borders and flags have changed plenty, and they’re going to keep

changing. But in all that time, nothing much changed 
about the way we disposed of waste or located drinking water or acquired clothing. Most people lived
on or very close to the land that provided their food. Except for a few exceptions, life expectancy
never rose above 35 or below 25. Education was a privilege, not a right. In all those
millennia, we never developed a weapon that could kill more than a couple dozen people
at once, or a way to travel faster than horseback. For 15,000 years, most humans never owned
or used a single item made outside of their communities. Simon Bolivar didn’t change that and
neither did the American Declaration of Independence. You have electricity? Industrial Revolution.
Blueberries in February? Industrial Revolution. You live somewhere other than a farm? Industrial
Revolution. You drive a car? Industrial Revolution. You get twelve years of free, formal education?
Industrial Revolution. Your bed, your antibiotics,

your toilet, your contraception, your tap
water, your every waking and sleeping second: Industrial Revolution. [theme music]. Here’s one simple statistic that sums it
up: Before the industrial revolution, about 80% of the world’s population was engaged
in farming to keep itself and the other 20% of people from starving. Today, in the United States,
less than 1% of people list their occupation as farming. I mean, we’ve come so far that we don’t
even have to farm flowers anymore. Stan, are these real, by the way? I can’t tell if
they’re made out of foam or digital. So what happened? TECHNOLOGY! Here’s my definition: The Industrial Revolution was an increase
in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new
energy sources. Although this will soon get more complicated, for our purposes today,
industrialization is NOT capitalism - although, as we will see next week, it is connected
to modern capitalism. And, the industrial

revolution began around 1750, and it occurred
across most of the earth, but it started in Europe, especially Britain. What happened?
Well, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The innovations of the Industrial Revolution
were intimately interconnected. Like, look, for instance, at the British textile industry:
The invention of the flying shuttle by John Kay in 1733 dramatically increased the speed
of weaving, which in turn created demand for yarn, which led to inventions like the Spinning
Jenny and the water frame. Soon these processes were mechanized using water power until the
steam engine came along to make flying shuttles really fly in these huge cotton mills. The most successful steam engine was built
by Thomas “They Didn’t Name Anything After Me” Newcomen to clear water out of mines.
And because water was cleared out of those mines, there was more coal to power more steam
engines, which eventually led to the fancying up of the Newcomen Steam Engine by James “I
Got a Unit of Power and a University Named

After Me” Watt, whose engine made possible
not only railroads and steamboats but also ever-more-efficient cotton mills. And, for the first time, chemicals other than
stale urine (I wish I was kidding) were being used to bleach the cloth that people wore
- the first of which was sulfuric acid, which was created in large quantities only thanks
to lead-lined chambers, which would’ve been impossible without lead production rising
dramatically right around 1750 in Britain, thanks to lead foundries powered by coal. And all these factors came together to make
more yarn that could be spun and bleached faster and cheaper than ever before, a process
that would eventually culminate in $18 Crash Course Mongols shirts. Available now at DFTBA.com.
Thanks, Thought Bubble, for that shameless promotion of our beautiful, high-quality t-shirts
available now at DFTBA.com. So, the problem here is that with industrialization
being so deeply interconnected, it’s really

difficult to figure out why it happened in Europe, especially Britain. And that question of why turns out to be one of the more contentious discussions in world history today. For instance, here are some Eurocentric reasons why industrialization might have happened first in Europe: There’s the cultural superiority argument that basically holds that Europeans are just better and smarter than other people. Sometimes this is formulated as Europeans possessing superior rationality. By the way, you’ll never guess where the people who make this argument tend to come from - unless you guessed that they come from Europe. And then, others argue that only Europe had the culture of science and invention that made the creation of these revolutionary technologies possible. Another argument is that freer political institutions encouraged innovation and strong property rights created incentives for inventors. And, finally, people often cite Europe’s small population because small populations require labor-saving inventions. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter?

An Open Letter to the Steam Engine. But first,
let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, it’s a TARDIS. Truly the apex
of British industrialization. Dear Steam Engine, You know what’s crazy?
You’ve really never been improved upon. Like this thing, which facilitates time travel,
probably runs on a steam engine. Almost all electricity around the world, whether it’s
from coal or nuclear power, is just a steam engine. It’s all still just water and heat, and
it speaks to how truly revolutionary the Industrial Revolution was that since then, it’s really
just been evolution. Best Wishes, John Green. So, you may have heard any of those rationales
for European industrialization, or you may have heard others. The problem with all of
them is that each time you think you’re at the root cause, it turns out there’s a
cause of the root cause. To quote Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, and coal mine operators,
“We have to go deeper.”

But, anyway, the problem with these Eurocentric
why answers is that they all apply to either China or India or both. And it’s really
important to note that in 1800, it was not clear that Europe was going to become the
world’s dominant manufacturing power in the next hundred years. At the time, China,
India, and Europe were all roughly at the same place in terms of industrial production. First, let’s look at China. It’s hard
to make the European cultural superiority argument because China had been recording
its history since before Confucius, and plus there was all that bronze and painting and
poetry. It’s also kind of difficult to make a blanket
statement that China was economically inferior to Europe since they invented paper money
and led the world in exports of everything from silk to china. I mean, pre-Industrial
Revolution, population growth was the surest sign of economic success, and China had the
biggest population in the world. I guess that

answers the question of whether they’re
digital. It’s also difficult to say that China lacked
a culture of invention when they invented gunpowder, and printing, and paper, and arguably
compasses. And China had more free enterprise during the Song dynasty than anywhere in the
world. Some argue that China couldn’t have free
enterprise because they had a long history of trying to impose monopolies on items like
salt and iron. And that’s true, but when it comes to enforcing those monopolies, they
also had a long history of failure. So really, in a lot of ways, China was at least as primed
for an Industrial Revolution as Britain was. So, why didn’t it happen? Well, Europeans
- specifically the British - had two huge advantages: First, Coal. When you trace the
story of improved transportation, or communication, or industrial efficiency, or better chemical
manufacturing, it always comes back to coal, because the Industrial Revolution was all about
using different forms of energy to automate production.

And England had large supplies of coal that were near the surface, which meant that it was cheap to mine, so it quickly replaced wood for heating and cooking and stuff. So that encouraged the British to look for more coal. The only problem with coal mining, aside from it being, you know, like, deadly and everything, is that the coal mines flooded all the time. I guess coal mining is also a little problematic for, like, the health of, you know, like, the planet. But, because there was all this incentive to get more coal out of the ground, steam engines were invented to pump water out of the mines. And because those early steam engines were super inefficient, they needed a cheap and abundant source of fuel in order to work - namely, coal, which meant they were much more useful to the British than anyone else. So steam engines used cheap British coal to keep British coal cheap, and cheap British coal created the opportunity for everything from railroads to steel, which like so much

else in the Industrial Revolution created
a positive feedback loop. Because they run on rails, railroads need steel. And because
it is rather heavy, steel needs railroads. Secondly, there were Wages. Britain (and to
a lesser extent the Low Countries) had the highest wages in the world at the beginning
of the 18th century. In 1725, wages in London were the equivalent of 11 grams of silver
per day. In Amsterdam, they were 9 grams. In Beijing, Venice, and Florence, they were
under 4. And in Delhi, they were under 2. It’s not totally clear why wages were so
high in Britain. Like, one argument is that the Black Death lowered population so much
that it tightened labor markets, but that doesn’t explain why wages remained low in,
like, plague-ravaged Italy. Mainly, high wages combined with cheap fuel costs meant that
it was economically efficient for manufacturers

to look to machines as a way of lowering their
production costs. To quote the historian Robert Allen: “Wages were high, and energy was cheap.
These prices led directly to the industrial revolution by giving firms strong incentives
to invent technologies that substituted capital and coal for labor.” Ugh, Stan, I’m a little worried that people
are still going to accuse me of Eurocentrism. Of course, other people will accuse me of
an anti-European bias. I don’t have a bias against Europe. I love Europe. Europe gave
me many of my favorite cheeses and cross-country skiing and Charlie Chaplin, who inspired today’s
Danica drawing. Like, the fact of coal being near the surface
in Britain can’t be chalked up to British cultural superiority. But the wages question
is a little different because it makes it sound like only Europeans were smart enough
to pay high wages. But here’s one last thing to consider: India
was the world’s largest producer of cotton.

textiles, despite paying basically the lowest
wages in the world. Indian agriculture was so productive that laborers could be supported
at a very low cost. And that, coupled with a large population, meant that Indian textile
manufacturing could be very productive without using machines, so they didn’t need to industrialize. But more importantly from our perspective,
there’s a strong argument to be made that Indian cotton production helped spur British
industrialization. It was cotton textiles that drove the early Industrial Revolution,
and the main reason that Britain was so eager to produce cottons was that demand was incredibly
high. They were more comfortable than woolens, but they were also cheaper, because cottons
could be imported from India at such a low cost. So, Indian cottons created the market and
then British manufacturers invested in machines (and imported Indian know-how) to increase
production so that they could compete with India. And that’s at least one way in which
European industrialization was truly a world

phenomenon. For those of you who enjoy such highly contentious and thorny cultural historical debates, good news. Next week, we’ll be talking about capitalism. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. We are ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was The New England Revolution. That was challenging. If you want to suggest future phrases of the week or take a guess at this week's, you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome.

Coal, Steam, and The Industrial Revolution: Crash Course World History #32

At Crash Course, we believe that high-quality educational videos should be available to everyone for free! Subscribe for weekly videos from our current courses! The Crash Course team has produced more than 50 courses on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from the humanities to sciences and so much more! sciences. We also recently teamed up with Arizona State University to bring you more courses on the Study Hall channel.


CrashCourse

1750년에서 1850년 사이에 일어난 산업혁명은 인류의 생활, 일, 소비 방식 등 인류 역사에 혁명적인 변화를 가져왔습니다.

농경 사회에서 산업화된 도시 중심지로의 전환을 가져왔고, 인구의 대다수가 농부에서 비농민으로 바뀌었습니다.

이 시기는 기계와 새로운 에너지원의 사용으로 정의되며 현대 자본주의의 발전과 상품 생산 방식에 중요한 이정표가 되었습니다.

산업혁명은 1750년경 유럽, 특히 영국에서 시작되었으며 섬유 산업, 증기기관 기술, 화학 공정의 상호 연결된 혁신에 의해 주도되었습니다.

유럽에서 시작된 이유에 대해서는 문화적 우월성, 과학과 발명 문화, 정치 제도, 적은 인구 규모 등이 여전히 논쟁의 대상이 되고 있습니다.

증기기관이 산업 혁명에 미친 영향

증기기관은 산업혁명 이후에도 크게 변하지 않고 전 세계 전력 생산에서 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있습니다.

중국의 선진 문화, 기술, 인구 규모에도 불구하고 유럽, 특히 영국이 산업혁명을 통해 산업 생산에서 우위를 점할 수 있었던 것은 석탄의 이점 덕분이었습니다.

중국의 산업 혁명 잠재력도 상당했지만, 석탄의 접근성 덕분에 유럽은 산업 발전을 선도하는 데 있어 우위를 점할 수 있었습니다.

석탄과 고임금이 산업 혁명에 미친 영향

영국에서 값싼 석탄을 구할 수 있게 되면서 증기기관이 발명되었고, 이는 산업혁명의 원동력이 되었습니다.

다른 지역에 비해 높은 영국의 임금은 저렴한 연료 비용과 결합하여 제조업체들이 기술에 투자하도록 장려했고, 이는 혁명으로 이어졌습니다.

영국의 저렴한 에너지와 높은 임금은 기업들이 노동력의 필요성을 줄이는 기술을 개발하도록 강력한 동기를 부여하여 궁극적으로 산업 변혁을 이끌었습니다.

인도 섬유 제조가 영국 산업화에 미친 영향

인도의 섬유 생산은 낮은 임금과 높은 수요로 인해 생산성이 높았고, 이는 영국의 산업화를 촉진하는 데 도움이 되었습니다.

인도산 면화의 저렴하고 편안한 착용감은 강력한 시장 수요를 창출했고, 영국은 인도와 경쟁하기 위해 기계 및 생산에 투자하게 되었습니다.

인도와 영국 섬유 산업 간의 이러한 상호 작용은 유럽 산업화라는 세계적인 현상에 중요한 역할을 했습니다.