Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Our mission, as
always, is pretty simple. We take these huge,
complex topics and we try to distill them down
into the key insights you really need. And today
the topic is, well, it's a big one, the first
industrial revolution. Right. That that massive
shift that basically dragged humanity from making
things by hand slowly. to this world of efficient
machine -based manufacturing. It's honestly hard
to overstate its importance. I mean, if you talk
to economic historians, they'll tell you there
were really only two events that fundamentally
reset humanity's material existence. Okay, what
are they? The first was when we adopted agriculture,
and the second was this, the Industrial Revolution.
It's on that level, truly. Wow. So let's define
the scope here. We're talking mostly about the
period from, what, around 1760? Roughly 1760,
yeah. That's when things really start kicking
off in Great Britain. And it runs through to
about 1840, by which point it's, you know, jumped
across the Channel to Europe and over the Atlantic
to the U .S. And it's defined by a few key things,
right? The move to machines. New chemical processes
harnessing steam power. Exactly. And crucially,
the rise of machine tools and the birth of the
factory system itself. But I've seen that timeline
debated. Some historians argue about the start
and end dates. Oh, absolutely. It's a huge debate.
T .S. Ashton, for example, he likes the 1760
to 1830 span. But then you have someone like
Eric Hobsbawm who argues the real. the real transformative
changes didn't become obvious until the 1780s.
So it depends on what you're measuring, the first
invention or the point where society really starts
to feel the effects. Precisely. But what they
all agree on is the speed. Before this, you might
have little bursts of prosperity here and there.
But on the whole, per capita income was basically
flat across the globe for centuries. And this
is where that changes. This is the moment you
see the beginnings of sustained growth for the
first time in human history. Now, we should be
clear. The average person, the average worker
might not have felt a huge improvement until
much later, maybe the late 19th century. We'll
get into that. But the system that made that
future prosperity possible, it was born right
here. It's fascinating. We're talking about an
event that completely rewrote the rules for humanity.
But the name we use for it, Industrial Revolution,
that came much, much later. It did. Here's a
great little historical nugget for you. The first
time anyone wrote that phrase down was in 1799.
Okay. And it wasn't a British academic. It was
a French envoy, Louis -Guillaume Oleto. He used
it in a letter basically saying that France needed
to get its act together because it was in an
industrial race with Britain. So the name was
born out of international rivalry. In a way,
yes, but it didn't catch on. It stayed pretty
obscure until the 1880s when the historian Arnold
Toynbee gave a series of lectures and really
popularized the term. So the people actually
living through it, seeing the smokestacks go
up, they didn't have a name for what was happening
to them. No, they were just living through this
incredible chaotic change. So that's our mission
for this deep dive. We're going to unpack why
this all started in Britain. of all places then
we'll get into the engine room you know the core
inventions that powered the whole thing and then
we have to grapple with the human side of it
the social upheaval the new cities the controversies
because it wasn't just about machines it was
about people okay so why britain the simple answer
you always hear is well they invented the scheme
engine right and the spinning jenny but that's
that's only a tiny piece of the puzzle an invention
is useless if the conditions aren't right What
do you mean? Well, think about it. You can't
build a revolution on one machine. You need capital.
You need workers. You need a market. You need
raw materials. Britain, kind of by luck, had
all of these preconditions already in place.
And it starts, weirdly enough, with farming.
The British Agricultural Revolution. It's the
absolute indispensable foundation. You can't
have an industrial revolution without it. The
key was a massive leap in productivity. Through
new technology. Exactly. You have things like
Jethro Tull's seed drill back in 1701. Before
that, you just scattered seeds by hand. A lot
got eaten by birds. The drill planted them neatly
and deeply. Then you get the Rotherham plow,
which was lighter and more efficient. And Andrew
Meikle's threshing machine in 1784. OK, so better
farming tech means more food. What does that
allow a country to do? Two crucial things. First,
you have a stable food surplus. This means you
can support a large population that doesn't work
on farms. People can move to cities to work in
factories without starving. And the second thing.
It frees up labor. That threshing machine, for
instance. Hand threshing took up about a quarter
of all agricultural labor time. Suddenly, one
machine does the work of dozens of people. So
you have a huge number of people who no longer
have jobs in the countryside. And they become
the workforce for the new industries. It's a
massive and often very painful migration of labor.
So agriculture gives you the food and the workers.
Then there's just the luck of geography. Cure
luck. Britain is an island with a huge coastline
and tons of navigable rivers. In the 18th century,
the cheapest way to move anything heavy like
coal or iron was by water. It's an instant distribution
network. An instant network connected directly
to their incredible natural resources. They were
sitting on the highest quality, easiest to access
coal reserves in the world at the time. The fuel
for the revolution. Literally. Yeah. And they
also had plenty of iron, lead, copper and fast
flowing rivers for water power in the early days.
It's almost like the island was designed for
it. And there's this line in the source material
about Britain being the largest coherent market
in Europe. Sounds kind of dry, but it seems really
important. It's vital. It means that within the
borders of Great Britain, there were no internal
tariffs, no tolls charged by local lords, nothing.
So a producer in Manchester could sell to someone
in London or Bristol with no extra costs or paperwork.
Exactly. It allowed for production on a massive
scale. In Germany, which was still a patchwork
of little states, or even France, you couldn't
do that. The fragmented market held them back.
Okay, so you have the resources and the market.
But you're not going to invest millions in a
new factory if you think a war or a revolution
might cause you to lose it all tomorrow. And
that's where political stability comes in. After
the glorious revolution of 1688, Britain had
a remarkably stable political system. Critically,
it had a robust rule of law that protected private
property and enforced contracts. Your investment
was safe. Your investment was safe. And the legal
system made it easy to form joint stock companies,
sort of the ancestor of the modern corporation.
And that spreads the risk around, right? It completely
changes the game. Instead of one or two rich
guys risking ruin to build a factory, you could
pool capital from hundreds of investors, each
with limited liability. It was a financial innovation
just as important as the steam engine. This all
paints a picture of a system ready to ignite.
But there's one last piece, a cultural one, this
idea of an entrepreneurial spirit. Right. And
it has a really specific, interesting source,
dissenting Protestant sects. Like the Quakers
and Presbyterians. Exactly. These groups. were,
by law, excluded from a lot of mainstream life.
They couldn't hold major political offices. They
couldn't attend universities like Oxford or Cambridge.
So they were pushed into other fields. They were
pushed into business, banking, and manufacturing.
And they set up their own schools, the dissenting
academies, which didn't teach the classics. They
taught practical subjects, mathematics, chemistry,
engineering. The exact skills you'd need for
an industrial revolution. It's this incredible
irony. By excluding them, the establishment accidentally
created a highly educated, highly motivated and
often very wealthy class of entrepreneurs who
were perfectly positioned to lead the charge.
So when you put it all together, it really does
feel like a perfect storm. It wasn't just one
thing. It was everything all at once, only in
Britain. That's why it happened there first.
All right. So let's move into the engine room,
the core technologies. And it all seems to start
with cotton. Textiles were the first truly modern
industry. And the reason is simple. Britain was
trying to compete in a market where they were
at a huge disadvantage. How so? In 1750, India
was the global leader in cotton textiles. Their
labor costs were six times lower than Britain's.
British producers couldn't compete on price with
hand labor. They had to compete on technology
and volume. So necessity becomes the mother of
invention. It's a classic case. The first big
step was John Kay's flying shuttle in 1733. It
basically doubled how fast a weaver could work.
Which sounds great. It was, but it created a
massive new problem. The weavers were now consuming
yarn twice as fast as the spinners could make
it by hand. It created a huge yarn shortage,
a bottleneck. And that pressure led to the next
breakthrough. The spinning jenny, invented by
James Hargreaves in 1764. It was the first machine
that could spin multiple spools of thread at
once. And it was a relatively simple machine,
right? Small enough to be used in someone's home.
Exactly. It was cheap, made of wood, and it dramatically
scaled up cottage industry production. But the
thread it made was still quite weak. Good for
the weft, the crosswise threads, but not the
warp, the strong lengthwise threads. So you still
couldn't make a purely British cotton cloth?
Not a high quality one. The real revolution,
the one that gives birth to the factory, is Richard
Arkwright's water frame in 1769. Okay, what was
different about the water frame? It used rollers.
And it was powered by a water wheel, which meant
it was big and needed a power source. But critically,
the thread it produced was strong, strong enough
for the warp. So for the first time. For the
first time, Britain could produce 100 % cotton
cloth that could compete with Indian textiles.
And because the machine was so big and expensive,
you couldn't have it in your cottage. You had
to put a bunch of them together in one building
next to a river. The first factory. And Arkwright
is often called the father of the factory system,
not just because he invented the machine, but
because he organized the whole system. The building,
the workers, the shifts, the discipline. It was
a new way of life. And the innovation just kept
accelerating after the water frame came the spinning
mule. Right. Samuel Crompton's invention in 1779,
it was basically a hybrid of the Jenny and the
water frame, and it was the best of both worlds.
It produced huge quantities of yarn that was
both very fine and very strong. The numbers you
see from this period are just... Insane. They're
staggering. The productivity of a single spinner,
thanks to these machines, increased 500 fold.
Britain went from consuming about 2 .5 million
pounds of raw cotton in 1750 to nearly 600 million
pounds a century later. And that flood of cheap
machine made cloth just. decimated traditional
industries elsewhere. It completely destroyed
India's hand weaving industry. They just couldn't
compete on price. It was a brutal economic conquest.
And we can't talk about this cotton boom without
talking about where all that raw cotton was coming
from. No, you can't. The connection to slavery
is absolute and direct. The insatiable demand
from the mills in Manchester created an insatiable
demand for raw cotton. Which was then met by
another American invention. Eli Whitney's cotton
gin in 1792. Before the gin, cleaning the seeds
out of upland cotton was an incredibly slow manual
process. The gin increased productivity by 50
times, making cotton cultivation wildly profitable
and creating an explosive demand for enslaved
labor on plantations in the American South, in
Brazil and the West Indies. The fortunes of Manchester
were built on the backs of enslaved people. The
two are inextricably linked. Okay, let's shift
from textiles to iron, another core industry.
What were the big limitations holding back iron
production at the start of this period? Two main
things. First, fuel. Iron smelting used charcoal,
which is made from wood, and Britain was running
out of forests. Second, power. The bellows used
to blast air into the furnaces were powered by
water wheels, which were often unreliable. So
who tackles the fuel problem? That was Abraham
Darby way back in 1709. He figured out how to
use coke, which is a purified form of coal, in
his blast furnaces. And Britain had a lot of
coal. They had mountains of it. So this was a
huge breakthrough. It dramatically lowered the
cost of fuel. And what about the power problem
for the bellows? Well, this is where the industries
start to feed each other. In the 1750s, they
started using the early, inefficient steam engines
to power the bellows. This gave them a constant,
powerful blast of air, which allowed them to
build much bigger, more efficient furnaces. And
this brings us to a really key sort of nerdy
invention that enabled everything else. John
Wilkinson's boring machine. It sounds like a
footnote, but it is absolutely fundamental. James
Watt, who we'll get to, needed to build a steam
engine cylinder that was bored to a near -perfect
circle so steam wouldn't leak out. And that was
impossible with the tools they had. Completely
impossible. Wilkinson's machine, invented in
1774, was the first tool that could bore a large
iron cylinder with that kind of precision. Without
it, the efficient steam engine simply doesn't
happen. It's amazing how one problem in one industry
gets solved by a break. That's the story of the
revolution. Then you have Henry Court's puddling
process in 1784, which allowed for the mass production
of high -quality wrought iron. And this was famously
brutal work. Unbelievably brutal. The puddlers
had to stand in front of a furnace and stir molten
iron with these long rods. The heat and fumes
were so intense that very few of them lived past
40. But it worked. It made Britain a net exporter
of iron. And then even later, another big efficiency
leap with the hot blast. James Bromont Nielsen
in 1828. His idea was so simple, it's brilliant.
He realized that if you preheated the air before
blasting it into the furnace, the furnace would
burn hotter and more efficiently. And it would
work. It cut fuel consumption by up to two -thirds.
It was a massive cost saving that made iron cheaper
than it had ever been. Which you then start to
see used everywhere, even in architecture. Yeah.
The famous iron bridge from 1781. A perfect symbol
of the new age of metal. Right. This brings us
to the invention everyone knows, steam power.
But before James Watt, there was another engine,
wasn't there? There was. Thomas Newcomen's atmospheric
engine from before 1712. And it was actually
a huge success, but in a very specific niche,
pumping water out of deep coal mines. It was
a huge, clunky, incredibly inefficient machine.
It burned a colossal amount of coal. So it was
only economical if you had free fuel. Exactly.
You could only really run it at the head of a
coal mine where you could burn the low quality
coal that wasn't worth selling. But it did its
job, and it was vital for the coal industry.
But it was James Watt who made steam power truly
revolutionary. What was his big breakthrough?
The separate condenser? It's a bit technical,
but in Newcomen's engine, they cooled the steam
by spraying cold water right inside the main
cylinder. Which cooled the whole cylinder down
every time. Wasting a huge amount of energy to
heat it back up on the next stroke. Watt's genius
was to create a separate small chamber just for
condensing the steam. The main cylinder stayed
hot all the time. And the efficiency gain was?
Monumental. It used 75 to 80 percent less fuel.
Suddenly, a steam engine was economical enough
to be used anywhere, not just at a coal mine.
And he didn't stop there. He figured out how
to make it useful for factories. By 1783, he'd
developed the rotative engine. It used a crank
and a flywheel to turn the up and down motion
of the piston into a smooth circular motion.
The exact motion you need to drive machinery.
Exactly. This is what frees the factory from
the riverbank. Now you could build a factory
in the middle of a city as long as you could
get coal to it. And one swat's patent ran out
in 1800. The floodgates opened. People like Richard
Trevithick developed smaller, lighter, high -pressure
engines. They were perfect for putting on wheels.
For locomotives and steamboats. The beginning
of mobile power. By 1815, the total steam horsepower
in Britain was just exploding. It was powering
everything. So you have these core industries.
Textiles, iron, steam all booming. But they create
all these new problems and demands that need
solving. Right. You can't build a precision steam
engine with wooden parts that warp in the humidity.
You need precision metal parts, screws, bolts,
gears. Things we just take for granted. But back
then, every screw was made by hand with a file.
Every single one was unique. It was a craftsman's
job. And that's where the machine tool revolution
comes in. We mentioned Wilkinson, but Henry Maudsley
is another key figure. Maudsley is a giant. He
perfected the screw cutting lathe in the 1790s.
It was a machine that could cut identical perfect
screws over and over again. The birth of standardization.
It's the birth of interchangeable parts. And
he proved the concept by building all the machines
for the Royal Navy's Portsmouth block mills.
They made pulley blocks for ships. Right. And
with his machines, you could take any part from
one block and it would fit perfectly in any other
block. This idea, which the Americans later perfected
for making firearms, becomes the foundation of
all modern mass production. And it snatches metal.
The textile boom created huge bottlenecks in
the chemical industry. A massive one. You're
producing millions of yards of cloth, but you
still have to bleach it, which used to take months
of laying it out in fields in the sun. So they
needed industrial -scale chemicals. Sulfuric
acid, soda ash for soap and glass, and most importantly,
bleach. The breakthrough was Charles Tennant's
bleaching powder in 1800. And what did that do?
It let you bleach massive amounts of cloth quickly,
indoors, in a factory setting. It completely
revolutionized the finishing end of the textile
industry. It's just amazing how every advance
in one area forces an advance in another. It's
a chain reaction, and it even extends to building
materials. Joseph Aspden patents Portland cement
in 1824. This is the strong, reliable concrete
that lets you build massive new infrastructure
projects. Like the first tunnel under the Thames
or the London sewer system later on. Exactly.
Projects that would have been impossible before.
Of course, all this stuff, the coal, the iron,
the finished textiles, it all has to be moved
around. The whole system is useless without a
transportation revolution. And the first step
was canals. A horse pulling a cart on a road
can move maybe a ton. That same horse pulling
a barge on a canal can move 30 tons. The efficiency
is just off the charts. So in the first really
successful one, the Bridgewater Canal, opened
in 1761, it cut the price of coal in Manchester
in half overnight. That set off what they called
canal mania. A frenzy of canal building. All
across the country. And roads are getting better
too, thanks to engineers like John McAdam and
his new McAdam Road Surface. But the real game
changer. The technology that defined the age
was the railway. The railway is the ultimate
synthesis of the whole revolution. You need cheap,
mass -produced iron for the rails, and you need
the compact, high -pressure steam engine to power
the locomotive. And once you put them together?
The world shrinks. The first major intercity
line, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, opened
in 1830 and was an instant, massive success.
It triggered railway mania. And these railways
didn't just move goods. They moved people. They
moved ideas. They built the modern world. And
they had a fascinating side effect. The huge
armies of laborers who built the railways, when
they finished a line, they often didn't go back
to the farms. They stayed in the cities, providing
yet more labor for the factories. Which brings
us to the human side of all this. We've built
this incredible economic engine. But what was
it like for the people caught inside it? It was,
for most, a brutal and disorienting experience.
The factory system concentrated labor, which
meant people had to move. It triggered a wave
of urbanization the world had never seen. Manchester
is a classic example, right? Cottonopolis. The
world's first industrial city. Its population
grew sixfold in 60 years. And this was happening
all over. In 1800, maybe 3 % of people on Earth
lived in cities. By 2000, it was 50%. This is
the moment. That shift begins. And it creates
this huge, ongoing historical argument, the standard
of living debate. Did life actually get better
for the average person during this first wave?
The evidence is so contradictory, it's a debate
that's still raging. Okay, let's take the pessimistic
view first. The pessimists point out that real
wages barely went up for decades, maybe 15 %
between the 1780s and 1850s. They also point
to physical evidence. Average heights actually
declined in some places, which suggests widespread
malnutrition. And life expectancy. It didn't
really start to rise significantly until the
1870s after the big public health improvements
kicked in. So for the first two generations,
life was, by many measures, getting worse. So
what's the optimistic counter -argument? The
optimists say, look, this is the first time in
history you have sustained growth in per capita
income. It created the potential for a better
life down the road. And they point to some specific
improvements, like infant mortality in London,
which dropped dramatically. But that potential
was set against the reality of the urban slums,
which were just horrific. Unimaginable. The growth
was so fast and so unplanned, you had entire
neighborhoods with no clean water, no sanitation,
just... Filth. Friedrich Engels wrote about it
in 1844, describing families in Manchester living
on dirt floors and shacks. Disease was rampant.
Cholera. Typhoid. And it took a scientific discovery
to even begin to fix it. It took Dr. John Snow
and the cholera outbreak of 1854. He famously
traced the outbreak to a single contaminated
water pump on Broad Street in London. Proving
that the disease was waterborne, not spread by
bad air. Exactly. And that discovery, that proof,
is what finally led to the massive public works
projects, like Joseph Bazalgette's London sewer
system, which began construction in 1859. But
that was decades after the cities had already
exploded in size. Let's talk about the work itself.
The factory imposed a completely new kind of
discipline. A total change. Your life was no
longer governed by the sun and the seasons. It
was governed by the clock and the factory whistle.
The pace was set by the machine. Long hours,
12, 14 hours a day were common. And this had
a huge impact on family structures and gender
roles. A huge and debated impact. Some historians
argue that it lowered women's status by separating
work outside the home done by men for a wage
from unpaid domestic work inside the home done
by women. But others argue it was a step toward
emancipation. Yes, because for the first time
it offered many women, especially young, unmarried
women, a chance to earn an independent wage outside
the home. The reality is complex, but we know
a huge portion of the early factory workforce
was made up of women and children. And the use
of child labor is probably the darkest stain
on the whole era. It was just endemic. The new
machines often needed quick fingers, not strength,
so children were ideal. And they were cheap.
You could pay a child a tenth of what you paid
a man. The stories are just horrifying. They
are. In 1788, two -thirds of the workers in the
British cotton mills were children. The reports
of injuries, exhaustion, and abuse eventually
led to such a public outcry that Parliament had
to act. Which is where the Factory Acts come
in. Starting in the 1830s, these laws began to
place limits on child labor setting a minimum
age, limiting hours, and banning night work.
It was the very beginning of government regulation
of the workplace. But amidst all this darkness,
there's another side to it. The birth of modern
consumerism. The great contradiction. Life could
be grim, but for the first time, ordinary people
could afford things that were once luxuries.
Cast iron stoves, decent clothes, even nice ceramics,
thanks to people like Josiah Wedgwood. And shopping
itself became a new activity. Absolutely. You
get window shopping, department stores. It's
the birth of modern retail culture. And culture
itself was being mass produced. Cheap printing
meant cheap books, the penny dreadfuls, which
fueled mass literacy. Now, with all these workers
concentrated in one place, facing these harsh
conditions, resistance was inevitable. It was.
This is the birth of the trade union movement.
At first, it was illegal. The Combination Acts
banned unions. But workers organized anyway.
And the authorities came down hard on them. Very
hard. The story of the Toll Piddle Martyrs in
1834 is a famous example. Six farm laborers in
Dorset formed a union, and they were arrested
and transported to Australia for it. Their punishment
caused a massive public backlash, but it shows
how scared the establishment was of organized
labor. And then you have the most famous resistance
movement of all. The lights who are so often
misunderstood. They weren't just simple minded
people who hated technology. They were highly
skilled artisans whose livelihoods were being
destroyed by new machines that produced, in their
view, inferior goods with low skilled labor.
So it was an economic protest, not just a technological
one. It was a fight for their way of life. And
it was serious. At one point, the British government
had more soldiers fighting the Luddites at home
than fighting Napoleon in Spain. So Britain gets
this massive head start. But the technology,
the ideas, they inevitably start to spread. They
do. And this is what creates what historians
call the Great Divergence. What's that? It's
the massive economic gap that opens up between
the industrialized West and the rest of the world.
In 1750, places like China and India produced
almost three quarters of the world's manufactured
goods. By 1900, that number had fallen to just
over 10%. A complete reversal of global economic
power. An absolute flip. The first to follow
Britain was Belgium. Why Belgium? They had their
own coal and iron reserves, and they got a lot
of expertise from British engineers who moved
there, like John Cockerell. They became a real
industrial powerhouse very quickly. And Germany.
They were slower to start. Much slower, mainly
because they weren't a unified country yet. But
once they unified in 1871, their industrialization
was incredibly fast and focused. They poured
resources into railways and, crucially, into
scientific education, which is why they came
to dominate the chemical industry. What about
across the Atlantic in the United States? The
U .S. started out very agricultural, but industrialization
took root in New England, powered by their fast
-flowing rivers. They got a big boost from Samuel
Slater, a British mill worker who illegally emigrated
and basically rebuilt a British textile mill
from memory in Rhode Island. Slater the trader,
they called him in Britain. Exactly. But the
real American contribution was a focus on efficiency
and standardization, what became known as the
American system of manufacturing, with its emphasis
on precision. machine -made interchangeable parts.
And finally, a very different case, Japan. A
fascinating case. Japan industrialized very late,
starting around 1870, but it was a deliberate,
top -down, state -led effort. The Meiji government
decided Japan had to industrialize to avoid being
colonized by the West. So the government itself
drove the change. They funded the first factories,
built the railways, reformed the education system.
It was a crash course in modernization, and it
was stunningly successful. So as we wrap up this
massive story, what's the core takeaway? I think
it's that the first Industrial Revolution wasn't
just about a few inventions. It was a complete
convergence of technology, geography, politics
and finance that happened in one place at one
time. And the result was this incredible explosion
of wealth and productivity. But a wealth that
came with a staggering human and social cost.
The slums, the child labor, the social dislocation.
And an environmental cost. This is the beginning
of large -scale air and water pollution from
burning coal and from industrial chemicals. It
got so bad that they had to pass the first modern
environmental laws, like the Alkali Act in 1863,
to try and control it. It's this incredible paradox,
isn't it? A system that would eventually lift
billions out of poverty, but its birth was just
brutal for so many. And that tension, that brutality,
it created an immediate intellectual backlash.
It wasn't just the Luddites breaking machines.
It was poets and thinkers, the romantic movement.
William Blake's dark satanic mills. Or Mary Shelley's
Frankenstein, which is really a story about the
dangers of unchecked scientific ambition. There
is this deep cultural anxiety about what this
new, unnatural, machine -driven world was doing
to humanity. So if that first wave of technology
created such a profound shock and a century of
struggle to balance progress with human welfare.
It makes you think about today. It absolutely
does. We are living through our own technological
revolution right now. And the industrial revolution
teaches us a crucial lesson. The technology always
moves faster than our social and political institutions
can adapt. We're always playing catch up. Always.
So as we face our own waves of automation and
systemic change, the question that leaves us
with is what do we need to do to make sure our
ethics. our laws and our sense of human well
-being can actually keep pace with the power
of the technologies we're unleashing. That's
the unfinished work of the Industrial Revolution.
A powerful thought to end on. The debate they
started back then is still the one we're having
today. Thank you for joining us on this deep
dive. We'll see you next time.