The article begins by suggesting that the (“first”) industrial revolution remains much more important and revolutionary than the “later” (2nd, 3rd, 4th) industr

The article begins by suggesting that the (“first”) industrial revolution remains much more important and revolutionary than the “later” (2nd, 3rd, 4th) industrial revolutions by appealing to a general sense that the later ones dont feel as impressive, but weirdly he doesn’t seem mention (at least based on my skim) the objective sense in which the original industrial revolution was overwhelmingly more notable: growth rates went from ~0.1%/year to ~4%/year, a speed up of roughly 50 times, which has not happened since. (Growth has now probably slightly slowed.) Like, you dont have to think that everything about automobiles is great to still need to acknowledge that one super important part of cars being developed is that they were waaaay faster than horses.