The history of industrial production
Although the notion of the Industrial Revolution suggests that industrialisation was a sudden and/or rapid sequence of events, commonly linked to the invention of the steam engine and a range of other inventions, notably in the production of textiles, it was a much more gradual process. The key feature is increased productive capacity by improving tools or machines with the same or even a reduced level of human labour. As such, the use of water and windmills in the 11th and 12th centuries,[1] the invention of the printing press, paper mills, sugar refineries and the production in small factories of alum, gunpowder, saltpeter, iron, and metal tools, among other, all in the 16th century, were earlier manifestations of increased productivity based on technological innovation.[2] Nonetheless, although there is still debate and uncertainty about the precise figures by which industrial production expanded and productivity (per worker) increased in the United Kingdom between the mid-18th and early 19th centuries, there is no doubt that in real terms the total production of goods increased substantially. This was most pronounced in cotton production, which increased more than thirty-five times between 1780 and 1830.[3]
While, initially, the cotton industry lay at the heart of the industrial revolution, it really got on its way in the 19th century by the combination of the expansion of factory production in the cities, powered by coal-driven steam engines, and improved modes of transport (canals, trains, shipping) offering access to new markets.[4] The creation of a world market for Britain’s industrial products with the help of the British government played a key role in the accumulation of capital and the expansion of the industrial system in the UK, which in turn made Britain the first global economic and military power. Since then, industrialisation has been sought by many governments worldwide as a stepping stone in the pursuit of economic development, with variable success, linked mainly to the extent of a country’s integration into and position within the global economic system.[5] However, industrialisation was also eagerly embraced by countries with socialist economic systems, notably the former Soviet Union and China (even before its capitalist turn). Although one may disagree on the (de-) merits of these political-economic systems, there can be no doubt about their enthusiasm for industrialisation and the development of science and technology that supports it. The main difference between the Soviet Union and China in this respect is that the pursuit of industrialisation has been more successful in the latter country, as it allowed space for capitalism to accelerate the process.
What is industrial production?
Here, I refer to an industrial production system as a system of large-scale production based on the application of science and technology and the use of foremost non-human energy inputs. Originating from a series of technological developments over centuries, industrial production systems became the dominant mode of production worldwide, displacing more traditional, small-scale production methods that, foremost, relied on human energy inputs, skills, and local consumption. It should be noted that industrialism is not just linked to factory production, but also occurs in the agricultural sector. It can also apply to the large-scale provision of services (for instance, health, education, and internet services in the mass tourism industry).[6] A common feature of industrial production is its reliance on experts, technology, and training. Although the requirements may vary greatly depending on the position of a worker in the industry (with few skills and training required in some jobs), those at the top of the hierarchy often claim or command specialist knowledge and qualifications (including managers) to make the whole process possible.
The adverse effects of industrialisation
The adverse social effects of industrialisation, as they first emerged in the United Kingdom and subsequently in many other parts of the world, have been well-documented and do not need to be elaborated upon here.[7] Similarly, the environmental consequences of industrial production, from large-scale mining of raw materials, their transport, the production processes, the unsustainable use of natural resources including water and energy, the kind of (hazardous) chemicals and materials invented and used, the pollution and waste generated, and the effects of the use of products and their end-of-life disposal hardly need discussion here. Despite 50 years of environmental discourse and policies, virtually all these problems have increased rather than diminished globally, while some of the worst industries have been shifted to industrialising countries with “emerging economies”. The environmental damage caused by industrial agriculture has been at least as bad, if not worse, given its role in the large-scale destruction of natural areas and biological diversity, its unsustainable management of natural resources (including soil and water), the heavy reliance on harmful chemicals and unsustainable external inputs (including fossil fuels and artificial fertilisers), severe environmental pollution resulting from their use, GHG emissions, and the cruel treatment of animals, among other things. To significantly reduce or eliminate these sources of environmental degradation and destruction requires addressing the material and biophysical nature of these problems and transforming production systems, whether practised in capitalist or socialist economic systems.
Therefore, it can be (and has been) argued that the development of industrialisation is the common root of many societal and environmental ills and that abolishing capitalism and/or introducing capitalism is not a sufficient condition for addressing the environmental challenge. As such, industrial production systems can be seen as more fundamental than economic systems, with their own rationale. Here, I briefly discuss two grounds for such an argument. First, industrial production systems are inherently unsustainable because they have a built-in growth imperative. Second, industrialisation has generated socio-cultural changes that led to the emergence of industrial societies that are antithetical to environmental imperatives. These changes include the widespread adoption of a view that sees nature only as a pool of resources (raw materials and energy) to be exploited for human ends, disregarding the importance of natural cycles and the intrinsic values of nature.
The industrial growth imperative
That industrialism involves large-scale production and has a built-in growth imperative seems undeniable and is almost a tautological assertion. Industrial production involves the creation of goods or services using tools or machines (physical capital) that significantly enhance productivity and scale of production. While the increase in productivity (the output per worker) makes it theoretically possible to produce the same number of units with less labour, industrial production systems have always led to increased production. A fundamental reason for this (apart from capitalist imperatives discussed elsewhere) is that, regardless of the economic system, it makes no sense to set up a large-scale production facility if there is no intention of using it. Setting up a system for large-scale production is costly, and making this economically and financially viable requires running it at (near) capacity. If a machine or factory has been designed and built to produce 200 units of something, economically it makes no sense to produce only 100 units, as this would double the fixed costs per unit. If technological innovations increase labour productivity by 100%, it is economically rational to increase production to 400 units (potentially doubling revenue and profits). These economies of scale apply regardless of who owns the machine or factory. Using machinery at full capacity is economically rational, especially if the capital costs are high and/or financed by credit (which needs to be repaid). As Polanyi noted, “Since elaborate machines are expensive, they do not pay unless large amounts of goods are produced”.[8]
At the same time, of course, increased production assumes the existence of sufficient demand and markets for the larger quantities produced. This requirement applies to the total (economic) lifespan of the machinery. Thus, with continuous and increasing production, ever-bigger markets must be found. Once domestic markets have been saturated, foreign markets must be opened up. The bigger and more efficient an industry, the greater the need for expanding markets, especially for more durable goods.[9]
While this is true for consumer goods, it also applies to the machines that make the consumer goods, commonly referred to as capital goods. Industrial capacity designed for making the machines that produce consumer goods (the capital goods industry) will also have to be used year upon year (ideally at full capacity), which implies that the market for capital goods (machines) must be expanded continuously. However, increasing consumer goods production capacity means the latter markets must expand even more. Hence, a primary driver behind the need to expand the market for consumer goods is the requirement to sustain the production of capital goods at ever-higher levels. Thus, industries that are in the business of mining, building factories, machines, roads, ports, power stations, oil exploration and production, ships, planes, trains and any other (infrastructural and capital) goods that are needed for making and selling consumer goods, require the continuous expansion of both production capacity and consumption. All these industries and industry sectors must continually find new buyers for their products every year, and this demand increases even more as efficiency and labour productivity rise. Once industrialisation has taken off, it creates a “treadmill of production” that also forces a continuous search for new markets.[10] The larger the scale of production, and the higher the growth rate of (labour) productivity, the more frantic the search for new markets becomes.
While all of this seems obvious, the key point is that an industrial production system’s inherent economic efficiency rationale or logic does not only apply to industrial capitalism. The treadmill of production applies to all production systems designed for large-scale production, using equipment that is itself produced industrially (the capital goods industry). While some (“post-Fordist”) machinery may offer the possibility of making a variety of products, this does not mean that this inherent logic or imperative no longer applies. The fundamental need to utilise machinery to recoup costs and continually find markets for what is produced remains unchanged. Similarly, a capital goods industry may be able to switch production from tractors or bulldozers, but will need to sell whatever is made to stay in business. If the market for one product declines or gets saturated, the need to sell more of the other goods increases.
Industrial societies
A second ground for arguing that industrialisation is an underlying source of unsustainability is that it has produced socio-cultural changes and led to industrial societies that are antithetical to environmental imperatives. Industrial societies are based on beliefs, values, and norms that define human progress in terms of ever-higher consumption, and the idea that humans can manipulate, dominate or even supersede nature.
Industrial production is rooted in a view that regards nature only as a pool of resources (raw materials and energy) that can be exploited for human ends, without regard for nature itself. This view, which goes back to the Enlightenment and the idea that nature can and should be subjugated, dominated, or tamed for human purposes, has arguably found its purest expression in the tools of industrial production. Tractors, bulldozers, diggers, pumps, grinders, drills, chainsaws, and all types of heavy machinery, especially when driven by fossil fuel energy, are designed to overpower nature, force it to surrender its resources, and shape it according to human wishes. “Raw materials” are exploited and processed to extract whatever is deemed useful, with the rest discarded as waste. Mass production’s sheer scale of exploitation and pollution makes it inherently impossible to avoid environmental destruction. This is further exacerbated by the harmful nature of many technologies, including hazardous chemicals and materials that are alien to nature and cannot be integrated into natural cycles.
The development of industrial production has also been driven and justified by another factor, the belief in progress made possible by the development of science and technology. Although the (relatively slow) development of science and technology was only one of the factors that contributed to the industrial revolution, it was accompanied and supported by a growing belief that societies can be improved by advancing and applying science and technology. Such Enlightenment views were shared by many of the critics of capitalism. Karl Marx and, even more so, Friedrich Engels, believed that industrialisation constituted the holy grail towards the workers’ paradise, a belief referred to as Industrialism. Communism, a system in which industrial capacity and production had been expanded to the extent that it was possible to provide for everyone according to their needs (compared to their labour contribution in a socialist system), could only be achieved by liberating the industrial forces of production from the contradictions (and irrationality) inherent to capitalism, and which would flourish under socialism. Engels, in particular, was adamant that the factory system must impose its rationale on the production process, assigning it despotic powers and requiring rigid labour discipline.[11] The ideology of industrialism, and the belief that increased consumption was desirable and an indicator of progress in terms of improvement in the standard of living was also embedded in actually existing socialist systems, even though there it justified an emphasis on the development of heavy industries first as a basis for higher levels of consumption later.
Industrialisation and urbanisation: pillars of the good life?
Urbanisation is another development that has accompanied industrialisation, bringing about significant social and cultural changes. Urbanisation, the migration from rural to urban areas, has arguably been one of the most critical consequences associated with industrialisation. On the one hand, as Polanyi analysed in The Great Transformation, the enclosure of common land in the United Kingdom for the development of larger-scale (proto-industrial) agriculture drove many people off the land and forced them to seek alternative means of survival. On the other hand, the expansion of industries in certain areas provided new employment opportunities, drawing many people into growing urban areas.[12] Thus, in many cases, migration to cities has not so much been a matter of choice but of necessity and survival, driven by the concentration of land ownership and rural impoverishment. Although towns and cities predate the industrial era, notably as centres of commerce, industrialisation, wherever it occurred, led to the rapid expansion of cities, often creating atrocious living conditions and immense social pressures and misery. Across the world, the process of urbanisation continues unabated, with more than half of the global population now living in cities, and the proportion is expected to reach more than 66% by 2050.[13]
Whether urbanisation is inherently unsustainable is open to debate. In theory, sound design and planning can mitigate the environmental effects of concentrating large numbers of people in relatively small areas. Compact cities that take on board the lessons that can be learned from the sustainability literature and good examples. This can minimise their environmental effects, even though the concentration of people, industries, and infrastructural requirements in a relatively small area will always pose significant challenges in respecting local and regional environmental limits. However, the reality is that most cities have not been designed and planned with the environment in mind, and have evolved or expanded without much, if any, consideration for environmental impact or controls, let alone environmental design. Only relatively recently has the idea of creating “eco-cities” gained some currency [14], but the extent to which cities can be made sustainable remains doubtful. Apart from local and regional biophysical conditions, other issues are related to the standard of living, consumption, and resource demands of urban populations (and the dependence on imports), existing structures, layout, and infrastructure, as well as the governance of cities in a broader political context.[15]
Apart from the biophysical environmental consequences and issues associated with city development, their socio-cultural effects are at least as important. Over time, the bright lights of the city, their association with freedom, diversity, action and excitement, entertainment, arts and culture, and the expectation of higher incomes and standards of living, turned them into social magnets, places that were considered to be more attractive to live and work compared to “backward” rural areas. Cities are almost entirely human-modified environments, detached and often located at a considerable distance from less or unmodified natural environments. Thus, the development of (huge) cities has driven a physical and mental wedge between humans and nature, contributing to their alienation from the natural world.[16] Not only has this given rise to the view that the urban (human-created) environment and way of life are preferable to that of rural societies, but it has also made many of the cities’ (distant) environmental effects invisible. Having become increasingly dependent on industrial (mass-) production and the continuous exploitation and supply of resources from elsewhere, even for the necessities of life, urban dwellers have little choice but to accept, take for granted, or ignore the environmental effects of the industrial production system.
Thus, industrialisation, linked to the development of science and technology, and urbanisation have brought about significant socio-cultural changes that have led to the emergence of industrialism and industrial societies. The complex economic, socio-cultural, and technological effects that have accompanied and/or been produced by these processes are not just material and biophysical, but also comprise the socio-cultural fabric that has evolved with this development. Analysts of these developments have raised much concern and debate about their social and psychological consequences.[17] However, while many of these social and cultural changes are problematic, they have also created a basis for socio-cultural support for the industrial production system. This should not be interpreted as materialistic determinism, as these developments interact and sustain each other.
Materialism, consumerism, and the expectation of continuous innovation and ever-rising living standards, defined as progress, have become socio-cultural pillars of industrialisation. It must be acknowledged that increased production and consumption have significantly improved the standard of living of many people. Whatever one’s views on consumerism and the consumer society, it seems undeniable that most people around the world, when given the opportunity, buy happily into a lifestyle with washing machines, televisions, cars, computers, mobile phones, and many other mass-produced consumer goods, and relatively few people would be willing to forego such items once they have become an integral part of their lives. Also, who could claim the moral right to deny access to such products to many (millions or billions of) people who would like to but cannot afford such items? Such questions about equity and equality must be addressed in the political arena. However, they also raise highly troubling questions about society’s addiction to unsustainable industrialism.
Arguably, many or even most people in modern societies, which have become so dependent on the products and technologies created by this system, have come to accept its drawbacks and adverse effects as a necessary price to be paid for progress. Also, one cannot deny the impressive achievements of science and the marvels of modern technologies that can do things that would have been considered miracles in the past. People can come under the spell and magic of technology as much as they can be enchanted by nature. This has become most apparent by the extent to which people have become virtually addicted to information and communication technologies (ICT), notably computers and mobile phones, without which many would find life unthinkable. The idea of progress has become inextricably linked to the continuous advancement of science and technology, which enables the development of ever-smarter technologies that change, manipulate, and control nature for human purposes. This idea is supported by developments in almost all areas of science, but has become perhaps most widely accepted in the realm of medical research, where much hope and faith are invested in the development of cures for cancer and many other diseases that afflict humanity. However, this faith is not limited to combating diseases; it has also been extended to the idea of enhancing humans through technological manipulation, thereby considerably extending their capabilities and lifespan, to the point where death may become a matter of choice rather than an inevitability.[18]
You can’t stop progress?
Such ideas have been driven by spectacular advances in the ability of science and technology to manipulate nature, including developments in genetics and biotechnology, nanotechnology, and robotics. While these developments, and their (potential) applications in industries (such as agriculture) and to humans have raised considerable concern and fundamental questions about the ethics and aims of science,[19] it appears that they are very difficult to control. The idea that “you can’t stop progress” (meaning the development of science and technology) has become firmly entrenched in many societies. Critics who draw attention to the drawbacks of modern technology tend to be pejoratively accused of being anti-progress, (neo-) Luddites, or “technophobes”.[20]
Moreover, the view that nature is dead and that we have already reached the stage where humans have no choice but to play God to keep the Earth liveable for humans has gained considerable currency with the recognition of the Anthropocene as the latest geological era. If nature is no longer an autonomous force of its own, ultimately, it appears, the aim of science and technology is not just to dominate or control nature, but to supersede nature. Increasingly, science and technology are considered our only hope for saving the planet, for instance, by producing lab-grown meat and dairy products and mitigating climate change. Ultimately, this logic leads to the creation of a completely artificial (human-made) world that does not need nature, even though that world may have to be controlled by artificial intelligence, as it would be too complex for humans to manage.[21] This is also, of course, one of the main themes in science fiction. It hardly needs pointing out that such ideas and associated practices are at the opposite end of the view that humans need to (learn to) adapt their behaviour and practices to environmental imperatives, the notion of environmental integration. They constitute an ultimate form of hubris and, to the extent that they become (or have already become) dominant, they are bound to lead to the demise of the human species.
References
[1] White, Lynn (1967), “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, Science, Vol . 155, No.3767, pp.1203-1207, 1204.
[2] Nef, John U. (1958), “Not One, but Two Industrial Revolutions”, in P. A. M. Taylor (ed.) The Industrial Revolution in Britain. Triumph or Disaster? Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 7-15.
[3] Jackson, R. V. (1992), “Rates of Industrial Growth During the Industrial Revolution”, The Economic History Review, Vol . 45, No.1, 1-23.
[4] Braudel, Fernand (1984), The Perspective of the World. London: William Collins Sons & Co Ltd, Chapter 6; Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1962, 1996 ed.), The Age of Revolution 1789 – 1848. New York: Vintage Books, Chapter 2.
[5] Frank, Andre Gunder (1966), “The Development of Underdevelopment”, Monthly Review, Vol . 18, No.4, 17-31; Rodney, Walter (1982), How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington, D.C.Howard University Press; Braudel, Fernand, The Perspective of the World.
[6] Although internet services are often thought of as intangible, they are in fact highly material intensive, with the hardware on which these services are based requiring large-scale mining of a range of minerals, some of which are relatively scarce, large-scale production facilities (for computers, cables, data storage devices), and large amounts of energy. The latter also applies to, for instance, so-called cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. It is therefore misleading to think of the provision of such services as being “post-industrial”. Crawford, Kate (2021), Atlas of AI. Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; Schmidt, Stephan (2010), “The Dark Side of Cloud Computing: Soaring Carbon Emissions”, The Guardian, 30 April 2010; Hern, Alex (2021), “Bitcoin Rise Could Leave Carbon Footrpint the Size of London’s”, The Guardian, 10 March 2021.
[7] Engels’s work is a classic on this front. Engels, Friedrich (1845, 1892 ed.), The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. However, the exploitation of, and harsh working conditions for, workers is a theme that has accompanied industrial development throughout the world, persisting to the present, especially in so-called developing countries. For a few accounts, see the documentary by John Pilger: Pilger, John (2001), The New Rulers of the World a Special Report by John Pilger, Carlton Television, SBS; Watts, Jonathan (2012), When a Billion Chinese Jump: How China Will Save Mankind–or Destroy It. London: Faber & Faber, Chapter 6; International Labour Office (ILO) (2017), Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage. Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO); Theuws, Martje and Pauline Overeem (2014), Flawed Fabrics. The Abuse of Girls and Women Workers in the South Indian Textile Industry. Amsterdam: Stichting Onderzoek Multinational Ondernemingen (SOMO).
[8] Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 41.
[9] The faster produced goods are consumed, the less need for new markets, although there is a limit to how much people can consume, even perishable goods. One well-known way to speed up the consumption rate of relatively durable goods is the practice of “built-in obsolescence”, a phenomenon that all consumers of, for instance, electronic goods such as mobile phones, will be familiar with.
[10] Schnaiberg has been credited with developing a “theory of the treadmill of production” that identifies the source of the rapid environmental degradation after WWII in technological innovation driven by big corporations seeking to increase production and profits. However, although this theory rightly emphasises production rather than consumption as the primary source of environmental problems, it seems to ignore the imperative for growth inherent to industrial systems. Schnaiberg, Allan (1980), The Environment, from Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press; Gould, Kenneth Alan, et al. (2008), The Treadmill of Production: Injustice and Unsustainability in the Global Economy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
[11] Winner, Langdon, The Whale and the Reactor. A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 16-17.
[12] Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
[13] United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environmental Outlook GEO-6. Healthy Planet, Healthy People. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6, 31.
[14] China has been referred to as an example on this front, but there also remains a fringe development. See Pearce, Fred (2006), “Master Plan”, New Scientist, Vol.. 190, 2556, 17 June, 43-45; Chang, I. Chun Catherine and Eric Sheppard (2013), “China’s Eco-Cities as Variegated Urban Sustainability: Dongtan Eco-City and Chongming Eco-Island”, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol.20, No.1, 57-75. See also Low, Morris (2013), “Eco-Cities in Japan: Past and Future”, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol . 20, No.1, 7-22.
[15] For a rather pessimistic (or realistic?) view on this question, see Atkinson, Adrian (2007), “Cities after Oil—1: ‘Sustainable Development’ and Energy Futures”, City, Vol . 11, No.2, 201-213. On the issue of governance in a broader political context, see Bulkeley, H. and M. M. Betsill (2005), “Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the ‘Urban’ Politics of Climate Change”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 14, No.1, 42-63.
[16] An unoriginal indication of this is the urban child who has never seen a cow and thinks that milk comes from a pack bought at the supermarket. The irony is that lab-grown dairy products may become the norm in a decade. See Hall, Rachel (2021), “Lab-Grown Dairy Is the Future of Milk, Researchers Say”, The Guardian, 31 July.
[17] For critical analyses of these developments, see Kasser, Tim (2002), The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; Kassiola, Joel Jay, The Death of Industrial Civilization. Albany: State University of New York Press; Marcuse, Herbert, One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press; Sphere Books; Mishan, E. J., The Costs of Economic Growth. London: Staples Press; Heilbroner, Robert L. (1991), An Inquiry into the Human Prospect. Looked at Again for the 1990s. New York: W.W. Norton, Chapter 3; Fromm, Erich, The Sane Society. New York: Fawcett World Library.
[18] Such beliefs have been referred to as Transhumanism and appear quite popular among Silicon Valley techno-billionaires, including Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. McKie, Robin (2018), “No Death and an Enhanced Life: Is the Future Transhuman?”, The Observer, 6 May 2018; O’Gieblyn, Meghan (2017), “God in the Machine: My Strange Journey into Transhumanism”, The Guardian, 18 April. See also Harari for an upbeat view of this prospect, referring to the possibility of “upgrading Homo sapiens”, which raises the “final” question: “what do we want to become?” Harari, Yuval N., Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. London: Vintage, Chapter 20.
[19] Fukuyama, Francis. Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. London: Profile Books; Rees, Martin J., Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind’s Future in This Century – on Earth and Beyond. New York: Basic Books.
[20] Luddism refers to the 19th-century movement that arose in England (ascribed to Ned Ludd) that attacked the machines that were (rightly) blamed for destroying the livelihood of those who depended on small-scale production. See Douthwaite, Richard (1993), The Growth Illusion. How Economic Growth Has Enriched the Few, Impoverished the Many, and Endangered the Planet. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Council Oak Books, Chapter 6. Wikipedia (2020), Neo-Luddism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism (Accessed: 30 December 2020); Wikipedia (2020), Luddite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite (Accessed: 30 December 2020).
[21] This may seem far-fetched, but ICT has already created an artificial world in which many people have become totally absorbed. Facebook’s launch of its “Metaverse” is another step toward creating a virtual reality (world) where people may spend much of their lives. Milmo, Dan (2021), “Enter the Metaverse: The Digital Future Mark Zuckerberg Is Steering Us Toward”, The Guardian, 28 October; Wakefield, Jane (2021), “Facebook’s Metaverse Plans Labelled ’Dystopian’ and ’a Bad Idea’”, BBC News, 4 November.