the other hand, this use of free materials has allowed an organization of the labour process that has kept workers under control. Productivity for the industrial economy has generally meant labour productivity rather than resource productivity, and technological innovation has been geared far more toward the displacement of labour than of materials. Industrial capitalism has had to adapt these relationships to new circumstances as industrialization inevitably moved into the realm of culture: via white-collar work, science-based production, mass education, service industry, etc. But despite growing potentials for qualitative development, industrialism has still maintained its essential character of a system of quantitative development and material accumulation. Key elements of nature and of human work remain invisible and/or undervalued. Despite a concern with cultivating consumption, the system still remains one of production-forproductions-sake (or for-moneys-sake). This is especially problematic today because of the destructive impacts of open-ended growth. At least the quantitative accumulative thrust of early industrialism, however exploitative, served to meet societys most basic needs for food, shelter, clothing and basic infrastructure. Today, no such case can be madematerial accumulation is eroding the planets capacity to provide for the basic needs of millions of people. As elaborated in my previous book, quantitative development is paradoxically reinforcing scarcity, primarily in the interest of maintaining the power of industrial elites. Nevertheless the popular mythology of industrial efficiency is widely believed despite the revelations of economist Robert Ayres who estimates that only 6 percent of minerals and renewable resources extracted gets embodied in final productsthat is, 94