Why  did the modern scientific and industrial revolutions occur in Europe?
140710
Because in China, all the inventors were working separately, trying to impress and gain favor with the Emperor and build a reputation for themselves.  Europe is the only place where the inventors and intelligent people could meet to discuss and develop ideas freely with each other.  It was this collaboration of people and ideas that allowed the start of the modern scientific era, which led to the industrial revolution.
180577
I think there is some bed effect and obstacles for industrial revolution but there is good effect too. I think industrial revolution makes people to walk beyond his capacity, achieve his goal within his lifetime, enrich the world with smooth time and good harmony
1053842
Tough question....\nMuch of Europe, particularly in the north, was growing rapidly though industrialization.  This was an era of urbanization and more overland trade, as the railroads allowed for transport across the country, rather than just coastal towns shipping oversea.\nGermany was brought together for the first time as a unified entity, rather than just a collection of disparate principalities, setting the stage for big conflict in the 20th Century.\nIn southern and eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire was in great decline, as was the Austro-Hungarian.  Both were supplanted by the growing influence and wealth of the English and French colonial empires, with resources from abrouad fueling finance and manufacturing at home.
355583
There is the Colonial 1700's and such, we refer to the 1800's as Victorian/industrial revolution - taken by the style of building which we copied.  The Gold Rush. The roaring twenties/Art deco.  The depression.  As a younger country they tend to break it apart by decade for easy reference in the 1800's and throughout the 1900's.
179285
It increased productivity and led to increased wealth eventually as GDP per capita rose. This created the conditions for the rise of the middle class such as more professional and management jobs. In turn, bourgeois and mercantile views became more powerful as opposed to that of the aristocracy. This led to reforms as the Reform Act of 1832 shifting representation to the industrialised areas.
442054
This was the period when the Industrial Revolution was beginning. The working class were, up to this point, mostly rural farm workers. They would have worked hard in the summer, harder at harvest and less hard in the dark winter months. \nThe Industrial Revolution effected a large scale movement of people to the towns, where they worked in factories, often for very long hours and very little pay. The environemnt they lived in was often polluted and unhealthy (coal dust in coal mining / cotton dust in textile industry)\nThe exploitation of the factory workers was a subject discussed at length by Karl Marx.
1125263
its a huge question.  You can write books to fill a library.  \nIn Europe, it opened up new lands and great wealth.  In the Americas, destruction and loss of land, people, cultures, natural wealth etc. etc. etc.  In Africa, slavery like no other seen before it and more of the same as the Americas.  Asia, Colonization, stripping away of natural resources etc.  \n\nUnfortunately, sometimes one man's boon is another man's bust.
999673
the person who wrote industrial revolution is wrong. the industrial revolution did not come about until the late 1800s. \n\nhere is a good answer:\n\nthe english colonies were separated by the mother country by an ocean, yet the mother country wanted these colonies for their natural resources. they took these natural resources and traded them for other goods or for money. this was how the colonies financed themselves and how the british crown made the colonies worthwhile and profitable. one of the most famous trade routes was the triangle trade, where tobacco, furs and other goods would come from north america to africa, where they would trade for slaves, which would then go to the caribbean for rum.
674261
"Before pollution" implies before the Industrial Revolution. Is that what you meant?  I believe it was still heart disease (as it is today) and accidents.\n\nThis site has specific statistics:
736951
I don't think this is a very good thesis. The UK was the first country to go from non-industrial to industrial, but the conditions then were very different from what they are now. An LEDC faces completely different conditions than the problems that Britain had to face back then.\n\nBut some things that were the same would be: poor transportation (in the early 1800s, not in 1900), uneducated workforce (although Britain had a fairly high literacy rate by 1900), poor power infrastructure, poor health care system, lack of reliable and stable democratic government (in early 1800s, not 1900)\n\nA widely recognized expert on this topic is E. J Hobshawm who wrote a book "Industry and Empire" specifically about this. If you need to do a term paper, that would be a good source.
525484
In 1914 all of Europe was connected by various treaties.  The Germans to the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Britain to Belgium; Belgium to France etc.  This meant that one small local disagreement would quickly drag in lots of other countries.
388981
if you are talking about the Italian Renaissance, then it was because of the humanist ideas, which differed greatly from those of the middle ages (or dark ages because of little cultural progress).  the humanists had new ways of thought, such reformation included new behaviorial guidelines, such as the Prince by Machiavelli.
475438
Curing Black Plague?  Huh?  The French Revolution was in the 1780s, the Black Plague in the 1320s.  Why do some people feel qualified to answer questions who, apparently, have never opened a history book?\n\nAnyway, little developed if anything, apparently, other than a change in terminology with the revolutionaries trying for egalitarianism in everything.  If you want to call this "key" be my guest -- I'm sure the French think highly of it.\n\nThe real developments in medicine didn't occur until close to the end of the 19th century -- everything before that we would consider fairly barbaric.
654757
there have been a number of reform movements in history.  the most likely ones you might be talking about are The Protestant Reformation or the social reform movement of the 19th century that followed on the heels of the industrial revolution.
1163288
If I understand what I've read of the term correctly, a technological singularity is what happens when several innovative or radical technologies come together in a way that basically *changes everything* about a civilization.\n\nFor example, James Watt was one of the people who invented the steam engine, so folks knew what pistons moving inside  cylinders were for decades.  Folks knew what assembly-line production was too, as it was first used on Colt firearms in the U.S. Civil War, and Leonardo DaVinci *had plans for a horseless carriage* centuries before anyone knew what a car was....\n\nAnd yet it nearly took until the dawn of the 20th century for all the pieces to gel together in the right way to make cars.  Once that happened, however....\n\nBOOM! that piece of tech changed *everything*, and now we can't imagine America without cars.\n\nThing is, this has been the trend for innovation with us half-wit humans since the dawn of civilization...we get the pieces, sit on them for a bit, and when the time is right, *then* some genius gets them together and changes everything.\n\nBut the trend is on a non-linear, accelerating curve....meaning at some point in the near future, things will accelerate to such a point, and the developed world at least will have *so many* pieces in place that *multiple* "this changes everything" moments just might happen all at once at a rate *unprecedented* in human history.\n\nIt's hitting that point on the curve that most folks are talking about when they say "singularity".  I think.  :S
417412
Birmingham and Manchester are good starts. Both contributed greatly to the Industrial Revolution in GB. The Canal system was a major contributing factor.
75707
In the history of science, the scientific revolution was the period that roughly began with the discoveries of Kepler, Galileo, and others at the dawn of the 17th century, and ended with the publication of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 by Isaac Newton. These boundaries are controversial, with some claiming that the proper start of the scientific revolution was the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543, while others wish to extend it into the 18th century.\n\nThe seventeenth century was a period of major scientific change. But at that time the word "science" did not have its current meaning, and "scientist" had not been coined; Newton was called a natural philosopher. Not only were there major theoretical and experimental developments, but even more importantly, the way in which scientists worked was radically changed. At the beginning of the century, science was highly Aristotelian; at its end, science was mathematical, mechanical, and empirical.\n\nAbout 1600, Ideas and People who emerged:\n\n    * Uniform acceleration of falling bodies (Galileo)\n    * Inertia and inertial frames of reference\n    * The Earth as a magnet\n    * Theory of lenses\n    * Kepler's laws of planetary motion (Kepler), coupled with Copernicus' publication of Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.\n    * Telescopic discoveries: moons of Jupiter, lunar mountains, phases of Venus, etc. (Galileo)\n    * Laws of hydrostatics\n    * Constant period of the pendulum (Newton)\n    * Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) published On the Fabric of the Human Body (1543), which discredited Galen's views. He found that the circulation of blood resolved from pumping of the heart. He also assembled the first human skeleton from cutting open cadavers.\n    * William Harvey (1578-1657) solved how blood circulates via disections.\n    * Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler searched for understanding of the stars. Although the Danish Brahe rejected the Copernican belief that the earth revolved around the sun, his assistant Kepler, a German, proved that Copernicus' theory had validity. He established, using trigonometry and geometric algebra, laws of planetary motion.\n    * William Gilbert (1544-1603), an English scientist, published a book describing the magnet in 1600.\n    * Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), whose greatest scientific experiment amounted to stuffing snow into a dead chicken, nevertheless penned inductive reasoning, proceeding from observation and experimentation. This contrasted with Rene Descartes who took a more theoretical approach to science.\n    * Galileo was tried for his belief of the Copernican system because he lived in Italy, a Catholic state at the height of an inquisition that prosecuted heresy. Because the pope was a personal friend of Galileo's, he fortunately escaped death and instead lived the rest of his life in house arrest if he chose to renounce his support for Copernicus's views, which he did. He is perhaps best known for his law of falling bodies, which he proved not only theoretically through a thought experiment, but also through experimentation, uniting both the inductive observational part of science with the theoretical and logical branch.\n    * René Descartes(1596-1650) and Isaac Newton(1642-1727): Descartes pioneered Deductive reasoning, publishing in 1637 Discourse on Method. He is widely known for issuing the statement, "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito, ergo sum). Newtonian Synthesis, on the other hand is built upon Kepler, Galileo and Descartes--Newton believed that scientific theory should be coupled with rigid experimentation. Newton postulated the theory of Universal Gravitation. Newton became a wealthy hero--knighted by the king and elected to Parliament in 1689 representing Cambridge University. However, Newton did clash with Goetfried Leibniz on various issues, including who first invente