Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 1901917" data-attributes="member: 6533">See, I just can't credit this theory with much.  On the one hand it seems like a fairly generic argument, on the other I really don't know that you could claim that Europe had a better sense of private property, or rather a better system of ownership, than the rest of the world.  I'm not saying that developments in the idea of private property weren't significant, just that they don't seem unique.The Roman empire probably had a better idea of public and private property and they were crap for technology, and during the period of the scientific revolution the most common landholding classes were largely eliminated.  The industrial revolution in Britain really seemed to depend on people loosing their land, becoming poorer, and suddenly creating an unskilled and desperate work force.  And everyone had highly competitive landholding nobles.  Probably condition, but certainly not a cause.Were I to attribute a single factor as significant it would be the odd aspects of European literary culture, monks being both contemplative and practical is a distinctly Latin thing, and, honestly, the tension between absolutism and democracy throughout the period.  Both forms have their benefits to technological development and meantime the complexity of the issue probably had a lot of benefits.</blockquote>