Subtitles section Play video
Hi, I'm John Green.
Welcome to Crash Course Big History.
Today we're going to look at the modern revolution.
Mr. Green, Mr. Green!
But what does modern even mean?
I mean, I know that fax machines
and Super Nintendo are modern, but, like, people used to think
that toilets that flushed were modern.
That's actually a pretty perceptive question,
me from the past.
So, if we're going to talk about modernity,
we should probably define modernity.
But first, I have great news.
There is a future me from the past
where video games are so much better than Super Nintendo.
In fact, this machine plays 24,000 games
and it's in the office of future you.
What were we talking about?
Oh, right, modernity.
So, some historians date the beginning of the modern era
with the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution
in the 19th century.
Some date it to the French Revolution in 1789.
Some push it further back
to 16th and 17th century European colonialism.
And some date modernity with the European Renaissance
and call anything past the year 1500 "early modern."
But through aBig Historylens, all of these are just signs
of acceleration in human collective learning,
which was already underway and took its first tiny steps
in East Africa 250,000 years ago.
Then again, it would be silly
to call the first human foragers "early-early-early modern."
So for the purposes of today, let's say:
With an acknowledgment that it's all a little bit arbitrary.
And I know what you're wondering,
but no, 1750 was several decades
before the first flushing toilets.
So last week, we looked at how collective learning--
which relies on population numbers and connectivity
to produce new ideas-- grew by leaps and bounds
with the introduction of agriculture.
By the year 1400, the human population
had advanced magnificently, but the world was still divided
into four isolated world zones: the Americas, Australasia,
the Pacific, and Afro-Eurasia.
From aBig Historyperspective,
what makes the European explorations worthy
of a place in an episode called "Modern Revolution"
is that they eventually united all four world zones
into a global system.
But why did the Europeans feel so motivated to expand?
Well, a lot of reasons.
One, Ottoman dominance of overland trade routes with Asia,
particularly after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453,
made Europeans seek alternative routes to the populace
and rich lands of the East.
Two, European states were fairly small compared to some
of the vast empires of Asia and needed to compete
for more resources to fuel their almost-constant wars.
And three, the fruits of exploration
undoubtedly had positive effects,
whether it be the many advanced inventions
and consumer goods imported from China
or the spices of India and Indonesia,
or crops from the Americas.
That last one should not be underestimated.
Crops like the potato-- which earned the nickname
"ready-made bread" because it was easy to prepare--
combined with maize and squashes and tomatoes
and various yams allowed farms in Europe
to support more people.
This was also good for Asia,
where those crops were introduced in the 17th century.
And let us not forget about the vast amounts of silver
that the Spanish "acquired" from the Americas
or the many cotton, tobacco, and sugar farms
that Europeans bolstered their economies with.
The unification of the world zones
also had many, many negative effects.
For instance, it was terrible for people who worked
on those cotton and tobacco and sugar farms.
Europeans increasingly relied on African slaves,
the first of whom were granted to the Portuguese
by African rulers, and then, you know, several centuries
of horror ensued with an incomprehensible number
of African slaves dying in the appalling conditions
of the Atlantic crossing.
Life was also pretty miserable
for the slaves that survived the journey
and generations of their descendents.
Also, because Afro-Eurasia was a modestly connected
thriving cesspool of disease,
Europeans had developed many immunities.
When they started arriving in the previously isolated Americas
in the late 1400s and 1500s, the indigenous inhabitants
had no immunity to those diseases.
This resulted in one of the most horrific events
in human history.
A cocktail of various European diseases, most notably smallpox,
killed off an estimated 50 million people
in the Americas in little over a century.
A similar tragedy played itself out in Australia
when Europeans started arriving there in the 18th century.
Now, along with all this horrific stuff,
the unification of the world zones was, nevertheless,
a good thing for collective learning,
which would eventually prove our salvation in many ways.
Which is why people can now look at this on their smart phone.
Anyway, the unification of the world zones did not
in itself lead to a breakthrough
in the way humans harvested matter and energy.
The last major shift happened with the arrival
of agriculture 10,000 years prior.
The colonizing European societies of the 16th, 17th,
and 18th centuries remained agrarian.
But the explorations did allow for a network of exchange
that eventually did lead to a major breakthrough
in how humans harnessed more energy and produced more
and more cultural complexity:
The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain,
as they'll be happy to tell you, in the 18th century.
But it was a global revolution involving collective learning
shared across the global system.
But a number of innovations that kickstarted industry
originated in Britain, like the more intensified use
of steam engines or the use of coke to refine metal.
Not that Coke-- yeah, that coke.
Also, they invented many textile machines
and Britain had lots of coal and it was relatively easy to mine.
Thank you, trees that died hundreds
of millions of years ago.
We're going to turn you into industry.
And smog.
But all those British breakthroughs
wouldn't have been possible without a huge global network
of trade that supplied raw materials like cotton
and that opened new markets
where Britain could sell its goods.
And it wouldn't have been possible to expand that network
of trade in the first place without gun powder
and the compass, which both came from China.
The methods of porcelain manufacture
that were important to the Industrial Revolution
in Britain also came from China via Germany.
And the improved methods of farming,
which freed up many British farm workers
for industrial wage labor in the cities came
from Flanders in the Netherlands.
Early designs for steam engines came from 18th century France,
and much of the designs for these machines depended
on mathematics preserved and transmitted
by Islamic and Hindu civilizations.
So up until the end of the 18th century,
virtually all production in human history was propelled
by human or animal muscle power, or else by wind and water power.
But it turned out the coal and oil had stored energy
from the sun that had built up over hundreds
of millions of years.
And using those resources dramatically increased
the energy that humans could harness.
Huge numbers of goods could be produced by factories
at relatively low prices which meant that over many decades,
goods that had previously been seen as luxuries
by common people were suddenly viewed as necessities.
By the 1900s, most Europeans enjoyed a standard
of living higher than the kings of the Middle Ages.
Coal and oil also allowed mechanization of agriculture,
which raised the carrying capacity,
increasing the population.
And new modes of connectivity beginning with the telegraph,
and then later, the telephone,
increasingly bound the human species together,
allowing for swift and rapid exchange of ideas.
For 250,000 years, if I wanted to tell someone
who lived 100 miles away from me something,
it took me days to do so.
For the last 100 years, it's taken me seconds.
Because a slight tweak in modes of production
in the 18th century and the adoption
of fossil fuels lead to an explosion
of productivity and invention in the 1800s and 1900s,
people often compare the Industrial Revolution
to the Cambrian explosion about 540 million years ago.
Remember:
In the Cambrian explosion, that evolutionary change
was biological.
In the Industrial Revolution, that increased pace
of change was cultural.
Consider bike design.
In the 1800s, there were many, many different designs
for bikes, some of which look amazingly, terrifyingly unsafe.
In the beginning of innovations for bicycles,
a huge number of designs filled all of the available niches.
Eventually, those designs started competing
with each other and a few forms won out.
You've got the road bike and the mountain bike and the BMX bike.
Just a little bit different variations of the same thing.
Another example is the adaptive radiation of electronics.
Take a look at all the stuff you needed in the 1980s
to do what your average cell phone can do today.
And that was only a few decades ago.
Many new ideas sparked an increase in the human standard
of living and the complexity of societies
in tons of different ways.
The explosion of cultural evolution
that started 200 years ago has yet to cease.
The Cambrian explosion went on for millions of years.
The Agricultural Revolution proceeded
for thousands of years.
We're still right in the middle of the modern revolution--
maybe only at the beginning.
The huge shift in human activity and a rise
in complexity may continue
long after our grandchildren's lifetimes.
That is, so long as we don't do something stupid,
which, you know, withhomo sapiens,
is always a distinct possibility.
And let's not forget about the rise in complexity
that's been happening since the beginning
of the universe 13.8 billion years ago.
A star is essentially a pile of hydrogen and helium.
It's extremely simple.
By comparison, a brain that arose via biological evolution
is an intricate network of billions of connections
and building blocks.
Industrial society is an immense whirring global network
of millions upon millions of brains more closely connected
than ever before.
The products of this society raised complexity even further.
Bottom line is this, if the first part of this series,
which looked at the vastness of the universe,
made you feel insignificant, just remember that now
at the tremendous heights of technological progress,
humanity is, in terms of networks and building blocks:
And there's currently no end to the potential
for rising complexity in sight.
This brings us to a long-standing
historical question:
why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Britain?
Great Britain was certainly uncommonly well positioned.
That said, so was China.
So why didn't the Industrial Revolution happen
in, say, Song Dynasty China
between the 10th and 13th centuries?
So, we know:
And China has had both for a long time.
The medieval Chinese had much more advanced
agricultural methods than Europe.
They paid attention to weeding and growing crops
in rows and frequently used tools like the seed drill.
And they were doing it all centuries
before that stuff was even heard of in Europe.
In the 900s, the spread of wet rice farming
in southern China raised the carrying capacity even further
because rice fields simply produce more food.
They are more efficient.
Also, rice is easier to prepare
than the laborious European process
of turning wheat into bread.
So during the 10th and 11th centuries,
the Chinese population increased from about 50 or 60 million
to about 120 million.
That's a lot of new innovators.
So many, in fact, that Song China came close
to having a modern revolution of its own.
I mean, coal was used to manufacture iron.
Production increased from 19,000 metric tons per year
around 900 CE to 113,000 metric tons by 1200 CE.
The Song Dynasty was the first to invent and harness the power
of gunpowder, and then later in the 15th century,
Zheng He conducted overseas explorations decades
before Columbus.
Textile production showed the first ever signs
of mechanization in ways similar to the European spinning jenny.
But China had dry coal while the British
needed to pump water out of their coal mines
in order to mine coal, which led the British
to build steam engines.
So why didn't the modern revolution start
in China around 1000 CE?
Well, it might have been the cultural and political climate
and the shift away from innovation and commerce
at the end of Song China in 1279.
Possibly because they hadn't united the world zones
in a network of trade and unified collective learning.
And possibly because the right combination
of cultural innovations required
to launch a Cambrian-style explosion
of growth just didn't happen.
The point is that collective learning
is such a powerful force that,
from the explosion of the world population
from only six million people 10,000 years ago
to the 954 million by the end of the Agrarian Era,
the right combination of ideas that lead
to the industrial explosion
might have happened almost anywhere.
So long as there are brains to think and exchange ideas,
so long as there are energy flows on the earth...
The modern revolution was accompanied
by explosive growth in human population.
It took 250,000 years for humanity
to achieve its first billion people.
By 1900, the world's population was 1.6 billion.
Today there are over 7 billion potential innovators
who are now connected by the lightning speed of the internet,
and collective learning is more powerful than ever.
Humans now have unprecedented control
and power over the Earth's biosphere
which has prompted some scientists and scholars
to claim that the Holocene is over
and we now stand on the threshold of a new era,
the Anthropocene.
During this age, we may continue to raise complexity
in our little pocket of the universe to wondrous new levels,
hopefully to the growing benefit of all humans
rather than just a privileged few.
Thanks to collective learning, our potential is awesome.
Unless, that is, we hit a wall,
like agrarian societies did every few centuries
when their population growth outstripped their rates
of agricultural innovation.
We are now in an era of immense danger
where the modern global system of humanity
might exhaust the resources of the earth
in the same way that agricultural societies
often exhausted the resources of the field.
More on that next time.