The following is just disingenuous:
>industrialisation of printing processes led to paperback genre fiction
>industrialisation of agriculture led to ultraprocessed junk food
>industrialisation of digital image sensors led to user-generated video
Industrialization of printing was the necessary precondition for mass literacy and mass education. The industrialization of agriculture also ended hunger in all parts of the world which are able to practice it and even allows for export of food into countries which aren't (Without it most of humanity would still be plowing fields in order not to starve). The digital image sensor allows for accurate representations of the world around us.
The framing here is that industrialization degrades quality and makes products into disposable waste. While there is some truth to that, I think it is pretty undeniable that there are massive benefits which came with it. Mass produced products often are of superior quality and superior longevity and often are the only way in which certain products can be made available to large parts of the population.
>This is not because producers are careless, but because once production is cheap enough, junk is what maximises volume, margin, and reach.
This just is not true and goes against all available evidence, as well as basic economics.
>For example, prior to industrialisation, clothing was largely produced by specialised artisans, often coordinated through guilds and manual labour, with resources gathered locally, and the expertise for creating durable fabrics accumulated over years, and frequently passed down in family lines. Industrialisation changed that completely, with raw materials being shipped intercontinentally, fabrics mass produced in factories, clothes assembled by machinery, all leading to today’s world of fast, disposable, exploitative fashion.
This is just pure fiction. The author is comparing the highest quality goods at one point in time, who people took immense care of, with the lowest quality stuff people buy today, which is not even close to the mean clothing people buy. The truth is that fabrics have become far better and far more durable and versatile. The products have become better, but what has changed is the attitude of people towards their clothing.
Lastly, the author is ignoring the basic economics which separate software from physical goods. Physical goods need to be produced, which is almost always the most expensive part. This is not the case for software, distributing software millions of times is not expensive and only a minuscule part of the total costs. For fabrics industrialization has meant that development costs increased immensely, but per unit production costs fell sharply. What we are seeing with software is a slashing of development costs.
