Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 6, 2020 at 22:12 comment added Mark @tbrookside, there was a distinct lost of life expectancy -- a combination of poor sanitation and high disease rates meant that until about the mid- to late-1800s, European cities had a negative natural growth rate, being sustained by migration from the countryside. The migration to cities was driven by the countryside being effectively filled up: you could stay in the country and work a fractional share of your parents' already-too-small farm, or you could go to the city and look for a job.
Jan 6, 2020 at 16:45 comment added tbrookside The industrial revolution was a disaster for most people in terms of longevity, quality of life and workers rights. This psatoralist fantasy is rebutted by the simple and incredibly obvious demographic fact that literally everywhere rural subsistence agriculture workers had the opportunity to move to industrial jobs in cities, they took it.
Jan 6, 2020 at 16:18 comment added David Hambling I'd say the big step for the serf is not being a serf. I'm not familiar with the Russian industrial revolution, but I suspect hours were longer and conditions worse -- and, unlike their agricultural brethren, they lacked direct access to food which was vital in times of shortage. Even in the early 20th century in the UK living in the country meant being better fed.
Jan 5, 2020 at 22:19 comment added Mark The loss of longevity during the early industrial revolution was the fault of cities, not industry -- the sanitation techniques of the Romans were forgotten and had to be re-learned. Loss of workers' rights was a regional phenomenon -- in England, it might be a step backwards for a freeholding farmer to work in a factory, but for a Russian serf, it's a step forwards.
Jan 3, 2020 at 22:15 history answered David Hambling CC BY-SA 4.0