The Industrial Revolution that began around 1750 in one country, Britain, dramatically influenced the shape of the modern world. Yet Britain quickly lost its early technological dominance – new technology was soon originating in other countries and spreading rapidly across borders.

Why did the Industrial Revolution begin in Britain, rather than somewhere else? And does the international character of modern technology provide us with any lessons?

Two key developments led to Britain’s remarkable Industrial Revolution, according to Northwestern University economic historian Joel Mokyr: the earlier scientific revolution and British scientists’ deliberate efforts to popularize those scientific discoveries that might find applications in industry. British scientists made special efforts to communicate the new knowledge to craftsmen, using scientific societies, Masonic lodges, and coffeehouses.

This new knowledge could be communicated within 18th-century Britain more easily than before. New standard weights and measures were assisting communication of technical information. And the postal service was improving: By 1764 most of England and Wales received mail daily. Mokyr asserts that “the knowledge revolution … was not just the emergence of new knowledge; it was better access to knowledge that made the difference.”

The British inventions resulting from these efforts laid the basis for modern technology. One key invention was Thomas Newcomen’s steam engine, which was powered by coal and pumped water from mines, replacing dozens of horses. James Hargreaves’ spinning jenny could spin more cotton thread than eight workers.

Following Britain’s early lead, science and technology have progressed together internationally, giving rise to new products, more efficient production methods, and ultimately prosperity for millions of people in many countries. You can see early 19th-century American machinery, some inspired by British inventions, in Augusta at the Maine State Museum’s marvelous “Made in Maine” exhibit.

Two later advances illustrate the international nature of innovation. Thomas Edison drew on the ideas of Britain’s Michael Faraday when he built the first steam engine for electricity generation in 1880. Like Newcomen’s early steam engine, Edison’s plant was powered by coal. The U.S. built the first atomic bombs, but our scientists drew on discoveries by Albert Einstein, born in Germany, and Niels Bohr, a Dane.

These innovations show that the technological grandchildren of the Industrial Revolution can inflict disaster as well as confer great benefits. Atomic weapons killed roughly two hundred thousand people in 1945 and might be used again, killing many millions. Electricity generation based on coal is one of many technologies now producing the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Just as the threats posed by atomic weapons and greenhouse gases originated internationally, they can inflict damage internationally. Neither terrorists nor greenhouse gases respect national boundaries.

We should draw this important lesson: International threats require international solutions. The threats require us to strengthen our ties with allies, treating them as equals, and to encourage other countries to become allies.

The Kyoto Treaty was designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and Japan and Western Europe support it. But the treaty is ineffective, partly because the U.S. – the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases – rejected it. Two other key countries, China and India, also rejected the treaty and now are building hundreds of coal-powered electricity plants. China may surpass the U.S. in emissions this year.

While the problem is international, the damage will often be local. Maine’s waterfront, for example, is vulnerable to global warming. Maine’s Natural Resources Council has found that a 1-meter rise in the sea level – considered quite likely – would cause the flooding of 20,000 acres of coastal Maine, including parts of downtown Portland.

The threat of nuclear weapons will be dramatically heightened if terrorists acquire them, and intelligence reports indicate that al-Qaida hopes to do just that. Dick Cheney and John Edwards agreed during the 2004 vice-presidential debate that one of the gravest threats we face is the possibility of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

Guarding against this threat is not a job for the U.S. acting alone. A Congressional Research Service study finds that terrorists conceivably could smuggle a nuclear device onto an oil tanker by bribing security officials at a Middle Eastern port; and it reminds us that neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard has any authority over foreign ports. Strengthening existing international agreements on oil tanker security would be one effective policy against such smuggling.

More fundamentally, Americans should reject actions that help terrorist organizations recruit young jihadists. The CIA itself has warned that the Iraq war helps al-Qaida attract new recruits.

So the technological grandchildren of the Industrial Revolution are numerous and varied. Some could bring us prosperity, while others could bring death and destruction. There is no simple formula for defeating the destructive offspring – but an effective fight clearly requires close cooperation with other countries.

Edwin Dean, an economist and seasonal resident of Vinalhaven, writes monthly about economic issues.