Future Shock, published in 1970, was a tour de force of eerily prescient predictions that have been completely borne out in the decades since. In it, he predicted the rise of the rental economy, digital nomads (long before the internet was invented), designer babies, virtual reality, the rise of “lifestyle designers,” increased tribalism, infinite entertainment, technology backlashes… and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The book isn’t just a list of predictions, though. These disparate predictions all revolve around the singular idea of what Toffler calls Future Shock:
“It is the thesis of this book that there are discoverable limits to the amount of change that the human organism can absorb, and that by endlessly accelerating change without first determining these limits, we may submit masses of men to demands they simply cannot tolerate. We run the high risk of throwing them into that peculiar state that I have called future shock.”
Future shock is a certain psychological state imposed on individuals and entire societies by rapid change. What does this state look like? Toffler describes two dimensions: the physical and psychological. He cites a number of studies purporting to show a link between rapid change and ill effects on health. In one study, participants were scored on the number and intensity of significant life changes (such as deaths in the family, moving, career changes, etc.) they had experienced. There was a correlation between the amount of change a person experienced and the likelihood of illness in the following year.
Another section describes the effects of sensory stimulation. External stimuli trigger an “orientation response.” The pupils dilate. Hearing becomes more acute. We lean towards sound and squint our eyes. Our palms sweat. These facts are well-known, but Toffler makes the claim that as the rate of change increases, people will find themselves spending more and more time in this mode.
I found this to be the weakest section of the book; the replication crisis in psychology has left me skeptical of these sorts of sweeping claims. That changed when I reached the next section.
He goes on to split the victims of future shock into various groups:
- The Denier attempts to block out reality. He cannot accept the severity of the changes around him, and comforts himself with phrases like “young people have always been rebellious” and “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
- The Specialist is a bit better - he keeps up with changes in a specific domain (often career-related), while ignoring changes elsewhere in society.
- The Reversionist wants to turn back the clock to previous routines that are now inappropriate and irrelevant.
- Conservative reactionaries are the obvious examples, but Toffler also points out that political liberals often have their own strain of reversionist thinking. He specifically predicts a resurgence in “Antique Marxist ideas.”
- Finally, the Super-Simplifier attempts to shoehorn all the changes of the day into a single, tidy theory. All of our problems are caused by capitalism, communism, conformity, or a lack of “traditional values,” depending on one’s political bent. They believe in a silver bullet that would solve all of society’s problems, such as “participatory democracy” and “content moderation.”
This section was much harder for me to dismiss. When I read these descriptions, they map perfectly onto the current moment. I know people, many people, who fall neatly into these categories. It articulates something that I’ve been struggling to express - that the modern culture war is a reaction against the rapid changes that technology, and particularly the internet, have brought about.
Future Shock ends with a section on methods of coping with this world of rapid change. There was a predictable section on Why We Must Reform Education, which, with the benefit of hindsight, we know did not happen.
The advice to individuals is more applicable.
Cultivating an awareness of one’s own stress response was probably a revolutionary idea in 1970, but in 2022 “mindfulness” has grown so popular as to become a cliché. Be aware of the symptoms of future shock (listed in part 1) if you find yourself dealing with incredible amounts of change, it helps to ration things out. Create “stability zones” where you can, so you have the bandwidth to handle change where it matters. Stability zones are enduring relationships that are carefully maintained despite all kinds of other changes.
He also recommends mapping one’s obligations out in advance and allocating time and energy accordingly. These obligations could include health, occupation, leisure, marriage, parental relations, filial relations, and more. Try to map out how much of your time and energy you’re willing to devote to each of these - and make sure that these numbers do not cumulatively surpass 100%.
Most predictions about the future suck. This is one of the few books of predictions that was actually correct on most of its claims. I wanted to figure out how he did it. Many of his specific, technology-based predictions usually followed the following logic:
Identify the direction that a given technology is moving.
Apply basic economic reasoning to these technologies.
Don’t forget about the human element.
Do not shy away from radical conclusions, as long as they are consistent with the above principles.
Here’s an example. If automated clothing production is growing more efficient, then supply will increase, and prices will lower. However, people don’t just want cheap clothing - they want to look good. The growing sophistication and shrinking costs of clothing production would lead to things like cheap, automated tailoring - just give the manufacturer your measurements and you can buy a custom-fitted garment. There are now tons of websites in which you can do exactly that. The idea of simply typing your measurements into a computer and receiving a custom-tailored item was considered an incredible claim in 1970 - now, we take it for granted.
I think that #4 is where people make the most mistakes. Often the logical conclusions of a technological trend can be something radically different than the present - even when faced with these trends, people still balk. Take crypto as an example. At its most basic, blockchain technology allows people to solve the double-spending problem without needing a trusted third party (i.e. a bank). The logical conclusion is that blockchains could be used to create cryptocurrencies that serve as an alternative to state-backed fiat currencies. Yet, it took over a decade for crypto to penetrate the mainstream (and even now, it’s far from ubiquitous). The idea of cryptocurrencies was just so strange that people continually dismissed it, regardless of the underlying logic.
When you’re evaluating future trends, pay attention to your feelings. When you recoil from an idea, thinking “no, there’s no way that could be right,” that is a signal that you should be paying very, very close attention.