[kragen]

this is an interesting point of view, but after thinking about it for several years, i think it's mistaken. some of the reasons can't be put into words, but here's what i can explain

geothermal energy (so-called egs) and solar are each individually far more abundant than fossil fuels ever have been; wind energy is comparable to fossil fuels and easier to harness. hydropower is a smaller resource but still one that's sufficient for industrialization

fossil fuel exploitation for mass production of steel in blast furnaces was widespread in song china 800 years ago but didn't lead to the industrial revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Song_dynasty#St...

contrary to kris de decker's wishful thinking, medieval and early modern holland didn't have an industrial revolution either, despite wind power

the industrial revolution still hasn't reached much of the planet; consider how many people still subsist on agriculture or unskilled, non-mass-production urban labor, in places like my own country (my experience here is the part that's hard to put into words) but most especially in the regions where fossil fuels are most abundant

the hard part of the industrial revolution was probably science, liberalism, and capitalism; superstition and kleptocracy are the human default