Computers and mobile phones. Supposedly the greatest inventions of modern times, right? Silicon sorcery that promised to transform society and turbocharge the economy. And they have… sort of. We can stream cat videos at lightning speed, doomscroll through headlines, and have meetings in our pyjamas. But when it comes to GDP – often treated as the holy grail of economic progress – these digital marvels haven’t delivered the punch of older inventions like steam power or the aeroplane.
While GDP remains a convenient benchmark, it overlooks broader measures like quality of life, innovation, and social connectivity, which better capture the true impact of modern technology.
Think back to the steam engine – that gloriously grimy, coal-fed beast. It didn't just speed up transport; it built the modern world. Factories sprang up, railways knitted towns together, and entire industries exploded into existence. The economy didn’t just grow – it sprinted, with GDP in industrialised nations increasing by an estimated 6-10% annually during the height of the Industrial Revolution, depending on the country and sector. Likewise, the aeroplane didn’t just make holidays easier; it reshaped global trade, business, and warfare. Innovations that changed the physical landscape and left GDP graphs looking like Everest.
Now, look at the digital revolution. Computers and mobile phones made things faster, yes – emails instead of letters, spreadsheets instead of ledgers. But GDP? Not much to shout about. Between 1980 and 2020, global GDP growth averaged around 2.8% per year, but the digital revolution itself has contributed only modestly to this, with productivity growth in advanced economies often lagging behind expectations. Robert Solow nailed it: "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics." We’ve built an economy where half the gains are in consumer surplus – free apps, cheap communication – rather than measurable growth.
While these gains remain sector-specific, the picture isn't entirely bleak. Technology is making waves in specific areas. Healthcare has seen massive advances through AI-driven diagnostics and telemedicine, while renewable energy systems are increasingly powered by smart grids and digital monitoring. The rise of e-commerce, turbocharged by mobile apps, has reshaped retail and logistics. Even agriculture has been transformed by precision farming tools that optimise yields while reducing waste. These gains are real, but they’re sector-specific rather than economy-wide.
There are glimmers of something more transformative on the horizon – nascent technologies with the potential to reshape economies as fundamentally as steam once did. Yet, their scalability, cost, and regulatory acceptance remain significant hurdles, making their promise far from guaranteed. Fusion energy could revolutionise industries by delivering abundant, clean power. Artificial General Intelligence, if realised, could automate complex decision-making across sectors.
Quantum computing promises breakthroughs in materials science, healthcare, and climate modelling. Synthetic biology might reinvent agriculture and medicine, while advanced robotics and space industrialisation could unlock new frontiers. If any of these reach maturity, they could finally deliver the sweeping economic transformation that mobile tech has promised but never quite achieved.
Mobile phones and computers have transformed how we live, not how much we produce. They’ve revolutionised leisure, communication, and convenience (not to mention marketing) – but try measuring that in pounds and pence. It’s hard to quantify the value of FaceTiming your grandkids or bingeing a Netflix series. Meanwhile, the physical economy – the one steam and flight built – plods along, barely breaking into a jog.
And there’s a darker side. Mobile technology is a prime driver of the polarisation of politics, largely due to social media algorithms that amplify divisive content and reinforce echo chambers. This 'us versus them' mentality deepens ideological divides and fuels political extremism. The smartphone has become a battleground, not just for attention but for ideological warfare. It’s hard to argue that this kind of "progress" is an unalloyed good.
Then there’s the rise of the tech-bros, the self-styled "sovereign individuals" who see themselves as untethered from traditional society, thanks to their digital wealth and mobility. The term comes from the 1997 book The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg (yes, Jacob's dad), which predicted a future where technology would allow the wealthy to transcend national boundaries and social obligations. Today’s crypto millionaires and remote-working venture capitalists embody this vision, flitting between tax havens and gated communities while preaching disruption to the rest of us.
These tech-bros aren’t just floating above society – they’re concentrating GDP in their hands while doing it. Their wealth stifles competition, skews economic growth, and drains resources from local communities and small businesses, amplifying inequality. The digital monopolies they helm shape markets to their advantage, creating ecosystems where profits flow upwards, leaving the broader economy with fewer gains to share.
Their platforms extract value from every corner of the economy – ride-shares undercutting traditional taxis, online marketplaces squeezing local shops, app-based gig work sidestepping labour protections. This concentration of wealth not only entrenches inequality but also undermines innovation, leaving fewer opportunities for smaller players. It’s a new kind of industrial capitalism, except this time the factories are cloud servers, and the workers are algorithms and precarious gig workers.
Even today’s headline-grabbing tech – drones, AI, blockchain – remains tethered to the digital infrastructure built decades ago. They're evolutionary, not revolutionary. The aeroplane didn’t need a century of platforms and ecosystems to change the world; it just flew, and everything changed. Drones are impressive, but they’re more "fancy remote-controlled helicopter" than "industrial revolution."
So, while mobile phones and computers have undoubtedly transformed society, they’ve done so in a subtle, digital way, changing the feel of life rather than the foundations of the economy. They’ve connected us, entertained us, distracted us… but they haven’t propelled us into the same economic stratosphere as steam, steel, or flight. The hype promised another industrial revolution; the reality gave us TikTok and better spreadsheets.
Revolution? Hardly. More like an upgrade – superficial, uneven, and firmly under corporate control.
6 comments:
What was global average GDP growth between 1780 and 1920?
Life for the mafority didn't improve during the Industrial Revolution it worsened.
Between 1780 and 1920, global GDP grew at around 1 to 1.8% a year – but that hides a lot. Britain and a few others sprinted ahead with 2–3% growth, while much of the world barely moved. Most people were still farming, colonised, or both. Per capita growth? Slower still – maybe 0.5 to 1%. So yes, there was progress, but it was patchy and deeply uneven.
Life did get worse for many during the Industrial Revolution – long hours, low wages, filthy cities. But over time, wages rose, health improved, and access to goods, transport, and education expanded. It was a grim transition, but one that laid the groundwork for modern living standards. Painful, yes – but not pointless.
The post is about economic growth, not morality. While the Industrial Revolution was socially harsh, it triggered unprecedented GDP growth – soaring output, productivity, and innovation. Claims that life got worse may have emotional weight, but they miss the point: in terms of economic impact, steam power launched a transformation the digital age has yet to match. It's not about fairness – it's about scale.
LOL
Post a Comment