The overall structure of this article is quite compelling, as the writer starts with an abstract. The abstract is important because it summarizes the whole idea of the essay hence essential for the reader. The author goes on to explain the concept through the paragraph and supports the evidence with logical evidence. At the end of the article are references which indicate the outside sources used in the article. Jan De Varies’ primary central idea in this article is to demonstrate the difference between the industrial and industrious revolutions based on the concepts of demand and supply. The industrial revolution’s positive effects included increased wealth, product creation, and higher living standards. Without such, people may have better housing, more affordable goods, a healthier diet, etc. The industrial revolution also saw a rise in schooling. During the industrial revolution, there was an adequate surplus of goods, resources, and money, resulting in new technology. To support this idea, this article proposes the issue of increased population, urban development, and the rise of civilization.
The accomplishments of demographic history during the industrial revolution are evident. It is simply by noting that no one can draw the broad curves of declining mortality and fertility that make up the demographic transition of the 19th and 20th centuries by not observing the starting point of those trends; pre-transition culture was never there. Early modern Europe was endowed with significant mortality and historical fertility change due to due increased marriage patterns in Europe; thus, population increased almost accidental discovery of ubiquitous immigration, and other accomplishments linked to improving households and from a stale history,” “although the great enforcer—the Malthusian positive checks that kept society in check—was not entirely gone” (De Vries, p. 252)
Iren’s current history, the premise that Europe’s cities, which had ancient vitality, had vanished. It was confronted with the dreadful option of immobility till manufacturing civilization roused them from their slumber to usher in urban expansion has been abandoned. Hopefully, Europe’s cities’ work in Europe, tying them together within concepts of advertising intercultural activities, was a success in the contemporary modern period. It created a local economic growth system where industrialization could occur. That was better, instead of merely a natural consequence of that industrialization (De Vries, p. 250).
Ultimately, a new tradition of civilization that emerged during the Industrial Revolution has developed over the last twenty-five years to adopt a renowned but peculiar book title from Germany. Few of us would challenge the importance of the discussion concerning the term “quasi-rapid urbanization” in revealing the substantial underwater part of the ‘glacier.’ It was, before rapid industrialization, wholly immersed in a primarily rural setting where anyone could work. It is accurate that sure researchers discovered the delayed Mendel’s description of “proto industrialization” is one of the impacts of civilization. The Great Awakening is the only idea in American civilization with the socio-historical significance to warrant a connection to the Industrial Revolution in development economics. Similar to the manner that the Industrial Revolution purported to characterize the fundamental driving forces behind the rise of industrial civilization, it asserts to describe the beginning of modern civilization and its enduring features.
However, the industrial revolution faces controversy, and some believe it has more negative effects than positive. The industrial revolution resulted in negative aspects such as child labour, poor living conditions, and poor working conditions. Bouwsma compares the industrial revolution to the Renaissance and the mediaeval periods. Bouwsma described the breakdown of the Renaissance’s conceptual underpinnings, which removed the main support structure for western history’s spectacular system. Further on, he claimed that “the Medieval historical appellation is becoming somewhat of a political expediency, a type of cover under which we snuggle around. It is like one fruit, pounded three times, and nothing more. Consequently, the beloved Industrial Revolution is condemned to a similar destiny. The Industrial Revolution is criticized as a “meaningless phrase,” a “fantasy” in the colloquial and historical connotations, and labelled as one of a “dubious series of upheavals,” as per Patrick O’Brien (De Vries, p. 250).
The author’s motive is to bring to light what the industrial revolution is. Understanding the industrial revolution concept has been a great challenge for many writers. Despite these difficulties, academic research on the subject has continued apace; there have been a remarkable lot of literature, articles, and scholarly journals lately. However, it is abundantly evident from this article. De Vries aims to shift the subject of this discussion into specifics and demonstrate the true nature of the industrial revolution. What causes the slump? The revolutionary economic and financial study that resulted in a substantial decrease in an adjustment of the degree of development of the “British economy” appears to be the primary reason for the late crisis in the “industrial revolution” (De Vries, p. 250).
With the help of other researchers, De Vries successfully addresses the issue of the industrial revolution through a historical context. These researchers, however, were not working on a cynical undertaking that would leave us hunched beneath a cover without anything to munch but fruit that had been squeezed three times, except if I had significantly misinterpreted their research. Most individuals are excellent people with a healthy dose of optimism. They weren’t concerned with ripping down the structures; instead, they wanted to rid the sanctuary of the “pseudo deity of the rip away.” Suppose their predictions of lesser 18th-century growth and, consequently, a previously appeared industrial production in Britain have loosed the lips and sparked the writing of a swarm of sceptics. In that case, it is due to their significant contributions that encouraged new analyses of a rising corpus of study on the economics of eras that preceded and followed the traditional British Industrial Revolution as well as territories beyond it. It is as if a plant’s cutting enabled for the inaugural moment the flourishing of seedlings that the gloom had previously restricted. The ramifications of these theories—which aren’t so much new as they are more confident to communicate to an audience who are more open to hearing them—go far beyond the consequences of the updated development on the basis alone (De Vries, p. 251).
De Vries’s article is in the historical context because it gives the reader information about past events. The planners at the Italian conference in Plato declared the concept to be a summary of the achievements of those 20 years in the disciplines of agricultural society collective memory. A segment of the population changes, cities genealogy, and the practical approach of producing in the Early contemporary era as it was to be the 20th commemorative conference, “Club Med” for professional economists. These achievements included the majority view that a renaissance and the Industrial Revolution happened simultaneously started to crumble two decades ago in the face of believable assertions that a rise in agricultural output deserving of the moniker “agricultural revolution” took place in the 100 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution. A few agricultural revolutions have been declared since then. Notwithstanding the chaos brought on by this plenty, one fact is inevitable: the notion of a functioning society wherein traditional peasants was encouraged to take the lead by legal changes and improved landlords following 1750 has now irrevocably been destroyed (De Vries, p. 251).
To conclude, the author brings out the aspect of the industrial revolution and its positive effects, including wealth increases, the production of products, and improved living standards. Additionally, education increased during the industrial revolution. With the help of other researchers, the concept of the industrial revolution is brought to light. However, there have been some controversies regarding the industrial revolution, such as; child labour, poor living conditions, and poor working environment.
Work Cited
De Vries, Jan. “The industrial revolution and the industrious revolution.” The Journal of Economic History 54.2 (1994): 249-270.
write