Download As PDF

Two apparently unrelated events tell us something important about the decline of the industrial era.

A technical failure in Britain’s air traffic control system caused delays and cancellations across the country. At the same time, Jaguar Land Rover announced plans to remove about 4,000 jobs over two years as it seeks £1.7 billion in savings. Its difficulties include competition from Chinese manufacturers, tariffs, high costs and the immense expense of developing new electric vehicles.

Neither event means that aviation or motor manufacturing is about to disappear. Both, however, illustrate the vulnerability of an industrial economy that has become extraordinarily complex.

A small failure with national consequences

Britain’s airspace did not run out of aircraft, pilots, fuel, airports or air traffic controllers. The disruption arose because of a failure in the flight-processing system operated by NATS.

That single system sits at the centre of an enormous network. It must receive flight plans, identify aircraft, calculate routes, avoid conflicts and pass reliable information to controllers. It connects airports, airlines, pilots, computers, communications networks and control centres.

When it falters, the consequences spread almost immediately. An aircraft that cannot leave Heathrow may be needed for a later flight from Edinburgh. Its crew may exceed permitted working hours. Passengers miss connections. Baggage is separated from its owners. Hotels fill. airline booking systems become overloaded. Disruption spreads to airports in other countries.

NATS said that the fault on 8 September was in its flight-processing system and that, although a fix had been implemented, recovery would take time. NATS statement

This is the nature of a highly interconnected system. The immediate fault may be small, but its consequences are not.

The efficiency trap

Industrial civilisation has spent two centuries increasing productivity by increasing specialisation.

An airline does not make its own aircraft, engines, computers or aviation fuel. A motor manufacturer does not produce all its own steel, glass, electronics, batteries and software. Each depends upon thousands of specialists, scattered across many countries.

This arrangement can be wonderfully efficient. Components are produced wherever skills, labour and capital can be most profitably combined. Stocks are kept low. Machinery is used intensively. Computer systems coordinate everything.

But efficiency and resilience are not the same thing.

A resilient system contains spare capacity, alternative suppliers, duplicate equipment and stocks that may never be used. These appear inefficient when accountants examine them. The pressure to reduce costs therefore removes much of the redundancy that could protect the system when something goes wrong.

The result is a tightly coupled economy. Almost everything depends upon everything else.

Jaguar Land Rover and the complexity of the modern car

The same problem can be seen at Jaguar Land Rover. The company is reportedly planning about 4,000 voluntary redundancies, nearly a tenth of its worldwide workforce, as it attempts to reduce costs. Reuters report

A modern Land Rover is no longer simply a mechanical vehicle. It is a computer-controlled system incorporating semiconductors, sensors, software, cameras, emissions equipment, communications technology and electronic safety systems. An electric version requires batteries, critical minerals, power electronics, charging equipment and an adequate electricity network.

The factory itself is only the visible centre of a much larger organism. Around it are toolmakers, component manufacturers, software companies, energy suppliers, transport businesses and specialist engineers. If one essential component is unavailable, a production line costing millions of pounds may have to stop.

JLR’s experience of a damaging cyberattack in 2025 demonstrated another aspect of this dependence. Digital systems make production quicker and more controllable, but they also create new ways in which an entire business can be interrupted. The more activities that are joined through one computer system, the more extensive the consequences when it fails.

Its present difficulties are not caused by complexity alone. Chinese competition, American tariffs, changing consumer demand and the costs of electrification all matter. Yet these pressures themselves reveal the scale of modern industrial dependence. A British factory can be placed in difficulty by decisions made in Washington, subsidies paid in Beijing, minerals mined in distant countries and software failures that may originate almost anywhere.

Complexity requires a large surplus

Complexity does not maintain itself for nothing.

Air traffic control requires secure buildings, computers, communications equipment, software, electricity, trained engineers and constant updating. Motor manufacturing requires mines, refineries, chemical works, ports, roads, electricity networks, research laboratories and global finance.

All of this depends upon the economy producing a substantial surplus beyond the immediate requirements of food, shelter, heat and basic care.

During the expanding industrial era, abundant fossil energy made that surplus possible. Coal, oil and gas enabled machines to perform work that would otherwise have required enormous amounts of human and animal labour. Increasing energy use supported longer supply chains, greater specialisation and more layers of administration.

In a shrinking economy, the difficulty is not necessarily that energy or materials cease to exist. It is that their cost consumes a growing share of what the economy produces. Less surplus remains to maintain the complicated systems built during the age of expansion.

Maintenance is then postponed. Old computer systems are patched instead of replaced. Skilled workers are lost. Spare capacity is removed. Manufacturers reduce staff and suppliers operate on narrow margins. Organisations may still appear to function normally, but their resilience gradually declines.

Failures become more frequent and recovery becomes more difficult.

Failure does not remain in one sector

We often discuss aviation, manufacturing, electricity, telecommunications, finance and public services as though they were separate activities. In reality, they form a single interdependent system.

A factory depends upon electricity. The electricity network depends upon digital control and telecommunications. Telecommunications depend upon electricity and imported equipment. Employees depend upon transport. Suppliers depend upon banks and computerised payments. All depend upon people being fed, housed and cared for.

This creates the possibility of cascading failure:

• A computer fault disrupts flights.
• Cancelled flights prevent workers and components reaching their destinations.
• A factory closes temporarily because a component has not arrived.
• Its suppliers lose income.
• Employees reduce their spending.
• Local shops and services lose customers.
• Government receives less tax while demands for assistance increase.

No single event causes the decline of the industrial economy. Decline emerges from the accumulating interaction of thousands of such difficulties.

Can technology solve the problem?

The conventional answer is to add more technology. Old computers will be replaced by newer ones. Artificial intelligence will monitor networks. Vehicles will become more automated. Factories will use more robots. Supply chains will be digitally mapped.

Some of this will undoubtedly help. But every new technological layer also requires energy, hardware, communications, software, skilled maintenance and protection against cyberattack.

Technology can reduce one form of complexity while creating another. A mechanical control that can be understood and repaired locally may be replaced by software that is more efficient but depends upon distant specialists and systems. The immediate task becomes easier, while the supporting structure becomes larger.

The question is therefore not simply whether a new technology works. We must ask whether the whole system required to support it can remain affordable and dependable in a shrinking economy.

From maximum efficiency to sufficient resilience

The lesson is not that Britain should abandon aviation, advanced engineering or motor manufacturing. Some large and complicated systems will remain essential. But we may have to operate fewer of them and protect them more carefully.

Critical national systems need genuine fallback arrangements. Businesses need alternative suppliers, stocks of vital components and the ability to continue some operations when digital systems fail. This will cost more and may reduce apparent productivity. It will nevertheless make the economy less vulnerable.

At the same time, activities that do not need to be organised nationally or globally should be brought closer to the people who depend upon them.

Food production, repair, care, small-scale manufacturing and many everyday services can be organised within localities. Shorter supply chains will not eliminate failure, but they will make failures easier to understand and contain. A locality that retains practical skills, workshops, food production and human relationships possesses forms of resilience that cannot be downloaded from a distant computer.

The economy of the future may therefore contain two distinct levels.

There will remain a national core responsible for such things as air traffic control, telecommunications, intercity rail, defence and specialist medicine. Around it, a much larger part of everyday life may gradually become more local, simpler and less dependent upon continuous long-distance coordination.

The warning

The grounded aircraft and the difficulties at Jaguar Land Rover are not isolated misfortunes. They are warnings from a system approaching the limits of affordable complexity.

The industrial era taught us to admire scale, speed, specialisation and efficiency. The coming era may place greater value upon durability, repairability, spare capacity and local competence.

Complex systems will not vanish overnight. Nor should they. But as the economic surplus contracts, we will be forced to choose which complexity is essential and which can no longer be afforded.

Localism is not an attempt to recreate the past. It is a practical response to a future in which the enormous supporting structures of industrial civilisation can no longer be taken for granted. The aim will not be to preserve maximum consumption at any cost. It will be to secure a sufficient and worthwhile life with systems that ordinary people and their localities can understand, maintain and trust.