The Industrial Revolution is Underrated
AI hype merchants might learn a thing or two from watching the reality TV show Clarkson's Farm.
Why? Because it gives us a glimpse into modern farming. Admittedly it's a tongue-in-cheek glimpse, not to be taken too seriously. But a glimpse nonetheless.
Diddly Squat, the farm that Clarkson owns and attempts, often hilariously badly, to run, comprises 1000 acres. Clarkson runs the whole operation with his assistant Kaleb and his girlfriend Lisa - as well as the occasional outside contractor.
OK, this is a TV show, so we can't take it too seriously. But the truth is not too far from what's on screen: most British farms are owned and run by a single family, who work the land with heavy machinery and a small workforce.
Before the Industrial Revolution, most farms in Britain were small holdings of 10 acres or less. The families who worked on them did so primarily to feed themselves, and sold whatever surplus they had at local markets. A farm the size of Diddly Squat would have sustained around 100 such families.
It was hard, back-breaking work, and the only labour-saving devices available were beasts of burden and basic tools such as ploughs and scythes.
Today farms are equipped with tractors, combine harvesters, seed drills and an endless array of other heavy machinery. With a combine harvester and a tractor-trailer, two people can harvest a wheat field in an afternoon - a task that would have taken dozens of people days to complete prior to mechanisation.
It's easy to underestimate the impact that the Industrial Revolution had on food production, because it's something we take for granted. A single family can manage a farm that previously would have needed hundreds of workers, thanks to industrial farming and heavy machinery.
Beyond that, there is also a vast network of infrastructure that helps to deliver food from farm to consumer: abattoirs, processing plants, factories, transportation, and supermarkets.
All of this combines to create a colossal increase in productivity compared to pre-industrial times. Far fewer people are needed in the process of food production, freeing everyone else to do other jobs that didn't exist before, from computer programmers to air traffic controllers.
This is why we are materially richer than our ancestors.
Collectively, we can produce far more stuff with far fewer people.
To build a road in the 1700s you would have needed 200 people equipped with pick-axes and spades. Today you need 20, equipped with diggers and bulldozers. Those 20 people are exponentially more productive than their ancestors, thanks to the technology of heavy machinery.
Industrialisation has led to staggering gains, from which we all benefit.
So when people claim that AI is going to lead to productivity gains that equal or even surpass the Industrial Revolution, I take those claims with a pinch of salt. Not because it's impossible, but simply because that is a tall hill to climb.
But if the past is anything to go by, there should be nothing to fear if AI does make us more productive. That productivity makes everyone richer, because as we become more productive we can collectively create more stuff. And jobs that disappear have always been replaced by new ones that simply didn't exist before.
We didn't have 3D artists 50 years ago, but we do now. If AI makes some of us redundant, there will be other ways to make a living, if the past is anything to go by.
In the 19th century the Luddites were fearful of a future of mass unemployment, brought on by industrialisation. We now know that things didn't pan out that way. In fact, the machines they opposed brought increased prosperity for all.
If AI does end up making us more productive, it will be a good thing. But first, let's see if it can live up to that promise, because I'm not so sure.