In 1709 Abraham Darby invented a way to produce cast iron in a furnace fired by coke. Prior to this charcoal had been used a product requiring coppicing of forests that proved limited in supply.
The cheap production of iron led to the Industrial Revolution. It bloomed in England, not only because of native ingenuity, but because raw material was readily available. By the middle of the nineteenth century Britain dominated the world commercially and ruled a vast empire.
Developments of the Industrial Revolution were uneven, socially, and with hindsight things could have been managed better. However, it cannot be disputed that industrialisation lifted millions out of poverty, created jobs and generated a stream of inventions that have mostly been beneficial.
Industrialisation made the world smaller and a degree of interdependence crept into states' relations. Britain still had Coal and from the 1970's oil. The world's first Nuclear Power Station to produce electricity commercially was Calder Hall at Sellafield in Cumbria. With such an amazing head start one might wonder what went wrong. Politics? Globalisation? Perhaps both. Increasingly a new world order was appearing. It was one where dependency would ensure peace. A world order based on counting material not people. According to this 'new-think' it did not matter where something was made all that mattered was the price. Skilled factory workers unwilling to downgrade and get a less skilled job would simply be replaced with immigrants. The brave new global world would produce such riches that bread, if not, circuses would keep the displaced quiet.
If rather than angst and cold war rhetoric someone had bothered to look at the USSR with a serious eye they would have noted the reason for its eventual implosion. The reason was Globalisation. The USSR Global model dictated that each part of the empire must benefit. Factories were built to produce goods. Typically the raw materials were far away. I worked as a consultant during the 90s. Part of my brief was to find investors and restart derelict factories so that employment would allow taxpayers to join in democracy. It was hopeless. One factory depended on a raw material that was shipped in from 4,000 km away. It was unaffordable. Global supply chains knitted the empire together in mutual need. They ensured its destruction too.
In a concerted effort to prove Bismark's "The only thing we learn from history, is that no one learns from it" right. The leaders of the free world, besotted by globalisation have placed our digital future as a hostage in the hands of those who wish us harm. China controls 70% of the world's rare earths and processes more than 90% of them. Taiwan, threatened by China, dominates the production of semiconductors. In an extraordinary act of self harm the UK has allowed Chinese state companies to buy British chip manufacturers. Lincoln-based Dynex Semiconductor has stopped making its high-voltage chips in Britain. The production has been moved to China.
In October the Dutch government took over Nexperia a manufacture that had been sold to the Chinese. They accused its owners of stealing its secrets, Nexperia employs about a thousand in the UK. The chip it makes is a vital component in the car industry. According to a report in the Telegraph dated November 1st 2025; "The crisis threatens to bring car production lines across Europe to a halt. Nexperia's power chips are crucial to modern cars and particularly in electric vehicles, and their supply has slowed to a trickle. Volkswagen has warned it only has enough chips to last until the end of next week".
According to its protagonists, AI is going to change the world. Apparently, it will do all our writing, composing, law, accounting, ruling. Well just about everything except plumbing, brick laying and electrical instillation. In the same way that the Globalisation obsession has left us exposed to considerable danger the rush to AI increases the risk. Is it possible to stop and ask a simple question? 'What is the point of humanity?' Why are we here? Will AI fight our wars, pay our taxes, buy things we produce? What's the plan? A revamped version of the Roman Bread and Circuses model, this time based on Chicken nuggets and Candy Crush? The Luddites had a point and it was answered by increased opportunity, better jobs and more money and a secure social model. That does not seem possible with a system designed to take away jobs.
The Lemmings have once more led us to a cliff edge. It really is time to drawback and take a long hard look at where we want to go.