What do you think?
Rate this book
Future Shock
Examines the effects of rapid industrial and technological changes upon the individual, the family, and society.
430 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
About the author
Alvin Toffler
52 books667 followersAlvin Eugene Toffler was an American writer, futurist, and businessman known for his works discussing modern technologies, including the digital revolution and the communication revolution, with emphasis on their effects on cultures worldwide. He is regarded as one of the world's outstanding futurists.
Toffler was an associate editor of Fortune magazine. In his early works he focused on technology and its impact, which he termed "information overload". In 1970, his first major book about the future, Future Shock, became a worldwide best-seller and has sold over 6 million copies.
He and his wife Heidi Toffler (1929–2019), who collaborated with him for most of his writings, moved on to examining the reaction to changes in society with another best-selling book, The Third Wave, in 1980. In it, he foresaw such technological advances as cloning, personal computers, the Internet, cable television and mobile communication. His later focus, via their other best-seller, Powershift, (1990), was on the increasing power of 21st-century military hardware and the proliferation of new technologies.
He founded Toffler Associates, a management consulting company, and was a visiting scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, visiting professor at Cornell University, faculty member of the New School for Social Research, a White House correspondent, and a business consultant. Toffler's ideas and writings were a significant influence on the thinking of business and government leaders worldwide, including China's Zhao Ziyang, and AOL founder Steve Case.
Toffler was an associate editor of Fortune magazine. In his early works he focused on technology and its impact, which he termed "information overload". In 1970, his first major book about the future, Future Shock, became a worldwide best-seller and has sold over 6 million copies.
He and his wife Heidi Toffler (1929–2019), who collaborated with him for most of his writings, moved on to examining the reaction to changes in society with another best-selling book, The Third Wave, in 1980. In it, he foresaw such technological advances as cloning, personal computers, the Internet, cable television and mobile communication. His later focus, via their other best-seller, Powershift, (1990), was on the increasing power of 21st-century military hardware and the proliferation of new technologies.
He founded Toffler Associates, a management consulting company, and was a visiting scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, visiting professor at Cornell University, faculty member of the New School for Social Research, a White House correspondent, and a business consultant. Toffler's ideas and writings were a significant influence on the thinking of business and government leaders worldwide, including China's Zhao Ziyang, and AOL founder Steve Case.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 414 reviews
December 3, 2016
This book is still in print!
To me, that's pretty amazing. It seems that many readers would rather look at someone's views about our "now" or "near now, plus or minus", written four decades ago, than opening their eyes and looking for themselves.
If I still had the book, I might be tempted to see what these old views of our "now" could have been that seem so ... prescient?
But I don't have it, got rid of it to make shelf space.
I admit that I only think I ever read the book. Someone below left an outraged comment about that - as if, had I rated the book a 5 instead of a 3, and written an effusive review, it would have made earth-shaking difference. Not my ratings/reviews! Oh well.
At any rate, the cover of my edition said something about "run-away best seller". And it was, iirc.
It's funny how books about the future are always so popular, even though everyone knows, if they think about it, that no one, including authors of said books, has a crystal ball. And without that little appliance it's pretty hard to see into the future with much accuracy.
I suspect that if one could comb through all the "future-looking" books written in past decades, it might be found that the very few which exhibited pretty remarkable prescience would have been books that, when they were published, created either hardly a ripple, or else a backlash (see below **).
Mostly we like visions of the future which are quite like our own wishes for both our own, and society's, future. But human wishes have a rather poor record of being fulfilled.
I took a quick look through the book before giving it away (to BetterWorldBooks). Toffler talks about such things as people traveling more (sure he was right about that), economists being the same as always (another bingo), technology having either unforeseen consequences (right again) or very specific predicted consequences (not so good, those predictions) - lots of things like that.
Missing are things about the triumph of Mega-capitalism, the existential threat of global warming, a world whose ecosystems are on the point of collapse, a population which is overwhelming the capacity of the earth to support it - little things like that.
** Actually a lot of those were pretty much nailed by The Limits to Growth. But while that book did create a small stir when it was published just a couple years after Toffler's, it was mostly a lot of scoffing.
So goes the future prediction industry. Not one to invest in, as far as I'm concerned. After all, we seem to have enough trouble deciding what happened in the past.
To me, that's pretty amazing. It seems that many readers would rather look at someone's views about our "now" or "near now, plus or minus", written four decades ago, than opening their eyes and looking for themselves.
If I still had the book, I might be tempted to see what these old views of our "now" could have been that seem so ... prescient?
But I don't have it, got rid of it to make shelf space.
I admit that I only think I ever read the book. Someone below left an outraged comment about that - as if, had I rated the book a 5 instead of a 3, and written an effusive review, it would have made earth-shaking difference. Not my ratings/reviews! Oh well.
At any rate, the cover of my edition said something about "run-away best seller". And it was, iirc.
It's funny how books about the future are always so popular, even though everyone knows, if they think about it, that no one, including authors of said books, has a crystal ball. And without that little appliance it's pretty hard to see into the future with much accuracy.
I suspect that if one could comb through all the "future-looking" books written in past decades, it might be found that the very few which exhibited pretty remarkable prescience would have been books that, when they were published, created either hardly a ripple, or else a backlash (see below **).
Mostly we like visions of the future which are quite like our own wishes for both our own, and society's, future. But human wishes have a rather poor record of being fulfilled.
I took a quick look through the book before giving it away (to BetterWorldBooks). Toffler talks about such things as people traveling more (sure he was right about that), economists being the same as always (another bingo), technology having either unforeseen consequences (right again) or very specific predicted consequences (not so good, those predictions) - lots of things like that.
Missing are things about the triumph of Mega-capitalism, the existential threat of global warming, a world whose ecosystems are on the point of collapse, a population which is overwhelming the capacity of the earth to support it - little things like that.
** Actually a lot of those were pretty much nailed by The Limits to Growth. But while that book did create a small stir when it was published just a couple years after Toffler's, it was mostly a lot of scoffing.
So goes the future prediction industry. Not one to invest in, as far as I'm concerned. After all, we seem to have enough trouble deciding what happened in the past.
June 29, 2008
This book was written 37 years ago, and Toffler's predictions have to a great degree come true. If you've never read Toffler, he's a must. A classic. Here Toffler speaks of a "Future Shock" in which people are not able to adjust to the quickening pace of society due to technological change. There are certain advantages to technology but are humans capable of keeping up emotionally, spiritually? He speaks of an increase in bizzar behavior (I remember reading about bizzar behavior in fiction that I thought I'd never see come to light, but to a great degree over time it has become more accepted and common), susceptibility to disease (an unexplained increase in cancer), and emotional breakdowns (which appear to be at epedemic proportions). This may be dated to some, but it's an essential read for those worried about their family and its future. If you want to read more about this then get The Third Wave and Tofflers most recent book, Revolutionary Wealth: How it will be created and how it will change our lives.
October 31, 2008
I read this years ago & liked it. It's worth reading again, almost 40 years after it was originally published. It's even more true. 'Future Shock' is based on the term 'Culture Shock' & Toffler's book deals with how the future is coming at us so fast that we're all in a state of shock from dealing with the changes. His writing is excellent, often illustrating large complex ideas with understandable examples, but he doesn't over-simplify nor repeat himself.
He's written several other books, at least two to update this one. I haven't read them & I'm not sure I will. There's a good article on him & this book on Wikipedia.
It's amazing how much this book still pertains today. It's heartening to see how many of the trends he wrote about have come true - it gave me confidence in his writing. It's a pity how some haven't come true - it defies logic & often points out areas where our society is too conservative.
He's written several other books, at least two to update this one. I haven't read them & I'm not sure I will. There's a good article on him & this book on Wikipedia.
It's amazing how much this book still pertains today. It's heartening to see how many of the trends he wrote about have come true - it gave me confidence in his writing. It's a pity how some haven't come true - it defies logic & often points out areas where our society is too conservative.
May 31, 2024
''Puşi in faţa unor sisteme de valori opuse, confruntaţi cu o gamă orbitoare de noi opţiuni în materie de bunuri de consum, servicii, învăţămînt, profesiune şi timp liber, oamenii viitorului sunt obligaţi să aleagă într-un mod nou. Ei încep să "consume" stiluri de viaţă tot aşa cum oamenii dintr-o perioadă anterioară, mai puţin sufocată de opţiuni, consumau produsele obişnuite.''
September 28, 2010
I cannot believe how much Future Shock is a part of my background. While reading it I remembered direct quotes spoken by my mother and teachers; it was hugely popular in the 70’s. Toffler’s overall thesis is that although technology has helped humankind in gaining more choices and freedom, the acceleration of change is more than the human mind can tolerate. One of the more interesting elements of the theory is the direct correlation between dramatic change (moving, changing jobs, death of a spouse) and a negative impact on health.
It is easy to pinpoint what he got wrong, like “parents” who raise children for professional couples who don’t have enough time, but he gets a lot more right. What he foresaw was a point in time where people could electronically collaborate across countries using computers, which is exactly what we do with the internet. If I had only read this 20 years ago and invested in AOL! The text is dated, speaking of women more frequently as housewives and secretaries, but the message still resonates 40 years later. We have distanced ourselves from each other because of technology, and we have had our “future shock” in regard to the unprecedented advance of technology, but overall the pluses have given us huge advances in collaboration, creative freedom, and entrepreneurship. Go into this knowing the original publication date and see a man who saw the future along before it happened.
It is easy to pinpoint what he got wrong, like “parents” who raise children for professional couples who don’t have enough time, but he gets a lot more right. What he foresaw was a point in time where people could electronically collaborate across countries using computers, which is exactly what we do with the internet. If I had only read this 20 years ago and invested in AOL! The text is dated, speaking of women more frequently as housewives and secretaries, but the message still resonates 40 years later. We have distanced ourselves from each other because of technology, and we have had our “future shock” in regard to the unprecedented advance of technology, but overall the pluses have given us huge advances in collaboration, creative freedom, and entrepreneurship. Go into this knowing the original publication date and see a man who saw the future along before it happened.
September 2, 2013
Alvin Toffler has put a huge amount of work in this book. It is basically about change, and he analyzes it in almost every aspect. The book was written 40 years ago, discussing how change and technological developments are shaping the future and influencing our lives. Toffler received a lot of praise for his highly accurate predictions of the future. Indeed he does deserve the praise, however he deserves even more praise for his analysis of the subject.
He revolves his discussion of change around three pillars: transience, novelty, and diversity. 1) Different aspects of life are becoming less permanent and more temporary (or transient), from the disposable products we use to the increased need for moving from city to city (for education or work), to changing the organizations where we work. This leads us to breaking up old relationships and creating new ones, moving from our old houses to new ones .. and so on. 2) Novelty increases unfamiliarity and hinders our ability to use past experience to judge the new situations we face. 3) The diversity of choice is expanding to the extent of overchoice. Toffler suggests that people follow certain lifestyles as a means to cope with the overchoice problem (I personally found this discussion very interesting and eye opening to people's behaviour ..)
Toffler emphasizes the urge to think about the future and to think differently. People (governments, educationalists, businesses, societies, parents ..) tend to face new problems with old mentalities. Toffler argues that bureaucracy is slowly being replaced with ad-hocracy, standardization with customization, the individual is loosing his attachment to his organization (work place) and replacing it with an attachment to his profession. And, in my opinion, the most critical discussion is how people's values change as they cope with change. Toffler concludes the book with strategies for survival. He emphasized, among other things, the importance of tentative goals as well as the importance of feedback in a constantly changing world.
I dont claim to have covered the main points of the book. The book is crowded with concepts and arguments which have been approached from different angles. It is a mind stretcher and a thought provoker. A huge effort has been put into it, and the fact that it was written 40 years ago multiplies the amount of praise it deserves.
He revolves his discussion of change around three pillars: transience, novelty, and diversity. 1) Different aspects of life are becoming less permanent and more temporary (or transient), from the disposable products we use to the increased need for moving from city to city (for education or work), to changing the organizations where we work. This leads us to breaking up old relationships and creating new ones, moving from our old houses to new ones .. and so on. 2) Novelty increases unfamiliarity and hinders our ability to use past experience to judge the new situations we face. 3) The diversity of choice is expanding to the extent of overchoice. Toffler suggests that people follow certain lifestyles as a means to cope with the overchoice problem (I personally found this discussion very interesting and eye opening to people's behaviour ..)
Toffler emphasizes the urge to think about the future and to think differently. People (governments, educationalists, businesses, societies, parents ..) tend to face new problems with old mentalities. Toffler argues that bureaucracy is slowly being replaced with ad-hocracy, standardization with customization, the individual is loosing his attachment to his organization (work place) and replacing it with an attachment to his profession. And, in my opinion, the most critical discussion is how people's values change as they cope with change. Toffler concludes the book with strategies for survival. He emphasized, among other things, the importance of tentative goals as well as the importance of feedback in a constantly changing world.
I dont claim to have covered the main points of the book. The book is crowded with concepts and arguments which have been approached from different angles. It is a mind stretcher and a thought provoker. A huge effort has been put into it, and the fact that it was written 40 years ago multiplies the amount of praise it deserves.
January 21, 2008
The book is divided into 6 parts. Part 1 introduces the basic program (death of permanence), Parts 2-4 explain the 3 factors that induce future shock: transience, novelty and diversity and Parts 5-6 bring in future shock and possibly coping strategies. For me, it was initially a very slow read, but for some reason it eventually took off into Part 3, and I found myself sold.
Toffler worries that we are hurtling towards mass feelings of "future shock" (akin to culture shock that travellers get when they go to a foreign country). The book serves as a tool for diagnosing the problem, i.e. why he thinks we'll be getting future shock, and also as a way of asking what we can do about it.
He makes some predictions (especially in the novelty section), and almost 40 years later, we see that he gets some of the wrong, at least for the time being. But that doesn't matter. It's just details, and for that matter, he himself says that although it's very easy to get things wrong, it is important to try looking into and anticipating the future.
Book is actually quite pro-technology and pro-change. Future shock comes because people today are experiencing too much change too fast. It's not that change is inherently bad, he says. Too little change and life is boring. But too much change, too much stimulation and we have trouble coping. And if you're worried about change, well there's a whole lot more of it coming right around the corner.
(Key anticipatory rebuttal: it's important to plan for the long term, but that doesn't mean that plans have to be rigid. You may very well have to revise your 20 year plans from one year to the next, or more, but it's ok. Plan fluidly, but plan ahead)
Some of his proposals don't seem terribly realistic: the idea of post-technocratic planning sounds swell and all, but I don't see any nation, democratic or otherwise sitting itself down for 5 years (he's thinking War Games and future-jury duty), taking stock and asking where it wants to be. In any case, Toffler wants to get us thinking about how we can manage change and assure humanity a soft landing into the future.
Nice read. Kinda funny to see links with No Logo and The Paradox of Choice and maybe even Getting Things Done.
Toffler worries that we are hurtling towards mass feelings of "future shock" (akin to culture shock that travellers get when they go to a foreign country). The book serves as a tool for diagnosing the problem, i.e. why he thinks we'll be getting future shock, and also as a way of asking what we can do about it.
He makes some predictions (especially in the novelty section), and almost 40 years later, we see that he gets some of the wrong, at least for the time being. But that doesn't matter. It's just details, and for that matter, he himself says that although it's very easy to get things wrong, it is important to try looking into and anticipating the future.
Book is actually quite pro-technology and pro-change. Future shock comes because people today are experiencing too much change too fast. It's not that change is inherently bad, he says. Too little change and life is boring. But too much change, too much stimulation and we have trouble coping. And if you're worried about change, well there's a whole lot more of it coming right around the corner.
(Key anticipatory rebuttal: it's important to plan for the long term, but that doesn't mean that plans have to be rigid. You may very well have to revise your 20 year plans from one year to the next, or more, but it's ok. Plan fluidly, but plan ahead)
Some of his proposals don't seem terribly realistic: the idea of post-technocratic planning sounds swell and all, but I don't see any nation, democratic or otherwise sitting itself down for 5 years (he's thinking War Games and future-jury duty), taking stock and asking where it wants to be. In any case, Toffler wants to get us thinking about how we can manage change and assure humanity a soft landing into the future.
Nice read. Kinda funny to see links with No Logo and The Paradox of Choice and maybe even Getting Things Done.
November 5, 2007
The author is a little long-winded, but this book is unintentionally hilarious at times. It was social commentary written in 1970 about how quickly society and people's lives are changing. He makes some interesting points about how temporary our relationships are becoming and how technology is facing us with an overwhelming amount of options. But my favorite parts are when he starts making predictions about the future. By the year 2000, half the population will live in underwater communities! We'll be turning into cyborgs! Who wear clothes made out of paper! Good times.
September 19, 2024
Alvin Toffler got it wrong. The basic premise of Future Shock, published in 1970, was that social and technological changes were accelerating so fast that people were becoming unable to cope, and the result was likely to be widespread violence and physical and mental illness, that “unless man quickly learns to control the rate of change in his personal affairs as well as in society at large, we are doomed to a massive adaptational breakdown.” Nope. The rate of change has continued its exponential rise and people are doing just fine. In fact, the number dropping out to live off the grid or in communes is probably smaller now that it was in Toffler’s time.
The book became a best seller, translated into twenty languages and selling over six million copies, but why read it now, half a century later? Partly because it’s just plain fun: predicting the future is tricky business and can lead to some strange places, such as IQ enhancing pills, semi-intelligent pet servants, and “embryo emporiums” where you can choose your child’s intelligence, sex, and appearance, and then have someone else handle the pregnancy. Toffler did get some things right, or almost right, but overall his ratio of successes to failures is no more than random chance.
But there is another reason to read Future Shock: to think about the paths not taken. Toffler believed that education to develop critical thinking skills would be vital for life in the emerging world. What if we had done that, insisting that all children get good educations, that schools be properly resourced and teachers appropriately paid? We might have more people able to understand the issues we face today without relying on pundits and the internet to feed them their beliefs. In fact it seems like we have gone in the opposite direction, deliberately starving schools of what they need, and have made a conscious decision that we only want them to produce worker drones who do their jobs and leave the thinking to others.
Before we look at the predictions he got so very wrong, let’s look at what he got eerily right. Many of these are non-obvious extrapolations from the world of 1970. In general, Toffler foresaw the explosive growth of computer power, but not how it would entwine itself in every aspect of modern life. After all, gps and satellite weather forecasting are also important technological advances, but they don’t dominate our lives the way cellphones and laptops do.
Some of what he predicted was not wrong, but premature, and is likely to show up in our own near future, such as “By the year 2000, if the pressure for food continues to intensify, biologists will be growing microorganisms for use as animal feed and, eventually, human food,” and “We shall, before many decades are past, implant tiny, aspirin-sized sensors in the body to monitor blood pressure, pulse, respiration and other functions, and tiny transmitters to emit a signal when something goes wrong.”
Here is Toffler channeling the idea of AI:
And here he is imagining Virtual Reality:
Telecommuting: “when advanced technology and information systems make it possible for much of the work of society to be done at home via computer-telecommunication hookups, communalism will become feasible for larger numbers.”
He summons the idea of the internet but could not conceive of personal computers as we have today:
Computer games: “Given enough time, money and, for some of these, technical skill, the men of tomorrow will be capable of playing in ways never dreamed of before. They will play strange sexual games. They will play games with the mind. They will play games with society,” and even internet trolls: “We can even see on the horizon the creation of certain anti-social leisure cults—tightly organized groups of people who will disrupt the workings of society not for material gain, but for the sheer sport of “beating the system”.… Such groups may attempt to tamper with governmental or corporate computer programs or re-route mail.”
Much of what he gets wrong is based on over-optimistic view of biomedical advances, though it is worth taking a moment and imagining about what the world would be like if he had been right.
He missed the mark on cloning, citing an expert who wrote: “It has already been done in amphibia...and somebody may be doing it right now with mammals. It wouldn’t surprise me if it comes out any day now. When someone will have the courage to try it in a man, I haven’t the foggiest idea. But I put the time scale on that anywhere from zero to fifteen years from now. Within fifteen years.”
If cloning does become feasible, Toffler raises an important issue which is not being discussed in our times, but should be:
Other things he predicted are, alas, still not close: “For cancer, diabetes, phenylketonuria there will be genetic therapy. The appropriate DNA will be provided in the appropriate dose. Viral and microbial disease will be easily met,” and “Professor R. M. Kenedi of the bio-engineering group at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow believes that ‘by 1984, artificial replacements for tissues and organs may well have become commonplace.’”
For something weirdly dystopian:
And finally, something truly strange. He starts with a prescient warning about global warming, “Our technological powers increase, but the side effects and potential hazards also escalate. We risk thermopollution of the oceans themselves, overheating them, destroying immeasurable quantities of marine life, perhaps even melting the polar icecaps,” and then, in the very next sentence, he writes what might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read: “On land we concentrate such large masses of population in such small urban-technological islands, that we threaten to use up the air’s oxygen faster than it can be replaced, conjuring up the possibility of new Saharas where the cities are now.”
So he got some things right and some wrong, and while modern society faces the possibility of any number of civilization-ending catastrophes, future shock is not going to be one of them. But Toffler also possessed a keen insight into human nature, and had the ability to articulate important ideas in simple English. For instance:
- Tomorrow’s illiterate will not be the man who can’t read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn.
- The psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term “cognitive dissonance” to mean the tendency of a person to reject or deny information that challenges his preconceptions. We don’t want to hear things that may upset our carefully worked out structure of beliefs.
- Whatever trace of impact the Peloponnesian War left on the genetic structure, the ideas, and the values of today’s Europeans is now exported by them to all parts of the world. Thus today’s Mexicans and Japanese feel the distant, twice-removed impact of that war even though their ancestors, alive during its occurrence, did not.
- “For the first time in our history,” says Dr. Harold Leavitt, professor of industrial administration and psychology, “obsolescence seems to be an imminent problem for management because for the first time, the relative advantage of experience over knowledge seems to be rapidly decreasing.”
- No man’s model of reality is a purely personal product. While some of his images are based on first-hand observation, an increasing proportion of them today are based on messages beamed to us by the mass media and the people around us. Thus the degree of accuracy in his model to some extent reflects the general level of knowledge in society.
- of the estimated 450,000 “usable” words in the English language today, only perhaps 250,000 would be comprehensible to William Shakespeare. Were Shakespeare suddenly to materialize in London or New York today, he would be able to understand, on the average, only five out of every nine words in our vocabulary. The Bard would be a semi-literate.
- The year 2000 is closer to us in time than the great depression, yet the world’s economists, traumatized by that historic disaster, remain frozen in the attitudes of the past Economists, even those who talk the language of revolution, are peculiarly conservative creatures. If it were possible to pry from their brains their collective image of the economy of, say, the year 2025, it would look very much like that of 1970—only more so.
- The assertion that the world has “gone crazy,” the graffiti slogan that “reality is a crutch,” the interest in hallucinogenic drugs, the enthusiasm for astrology and the occult, the search for truth in sensation, ecstasy and “peak experience,” the swing toward extreme subjectivism, the attacks on science, the snowballing belief that reason has failed man, reflect the everyday experience of masses of ordinary people who find they can no longer cope rationally with change.
- The horrifying truth is that, so far as much technology is concerned, no one is in charge.
- When critics charge that technocratic planning is anti-human, in the sense that it neglects social, cultural and psychological values in its headlong rush to maximize economic gain, they are usually right. When they charge that it is shortsighted and undemocratic, they are usually right. When they charge it is inept, they are usually right.
- Democratic political forms arose in the West not because a few geniuses willed them into being or because man showed an “unquenchable instinct for freedom.” They arose because the historical pressure toward social differentiation and toward faster paced systems demanded sensitive social feedback.
Is Future Shock still worth reading? Maybe, and it is certainly a cut above much of the social commentary available in bookstores today, but there is a strangeness to it, the disconcerting feeling of looking at a society that is looking back at you. In passages I highlighted but are not included in this review, things can get weird, such as Toffler speculating on the ability to genetically engineer “super-mammaries.” Nevertheless, I enjoyed it. I learned some things and it gave me much to think about. What more can we ask of the books we choose?
The book became a best seller, translated into twenty languages and selling over six million copies, but why read it now, half a century later? Partly because it’s just plain fun: predicting the future is tricky business and can lead to some strange places, such as IQ enhancing pills, semi-intelligent pet servants, and “embryo emporiums” where you can choose your child’s intelligence, sex, and appearance, and then have someone else handle the pregnancy. Toffler did get some things right, or almost right, but overall his ratio of successes to failures is no more than random chance.
But there is another reason to read Future Shock: to think about the paths not taken. Toffler believed that education to develop critical thinking skills would be vital for life in the emerging world. What if we had done that, insisting that all children get good educations, that schools be properly resourced and teachers appropriately paid? We might have more people able to understand the issues we face today without relying on pundits and the internet to feed them their beliefs. In fact it seems like we have gone in the opposite direction, deliberately starving schools of what they need, and have made a conscious decision that we only want them to produce worker drones who do their jobs and leave the thinking to others.
Before we look at the predictions he got so very wrong, let’s look at what he got eerily right. Many of these are non-obvious extrapolations from the world of 1970. In general, Toffler foresaw the explosive growth of computer power, but not how it would entwine itself in every aspect of modern life. After all, gps and satellite weather forecasting are also important technological advances, but they don’t dominate our lives the way cellphones and laptops do.
Some of what he predicted was not wrong, but premature, and is likely to show up in our own near future, such as “By the year 2000, if the pressure for food continues to intensify, biologists will be growing microorganisms for use as animal feed and, eventually, human food,” and “We shall, before many decades are past, implant tiny, aspirin-sized sensors in the body to monitor blood pressure, pulse, respiration and other functions, and tiny transmitters to emit a signal when something goes wrong.”
Here is Toffler channeling the idea of AI:
There appears to be no reason, in principle, why we cannot go forward from these present primitive and trivial robots to build humanoid machines capable of extremely varied behavior, capable even of “human” error and seemingly random choice—in short, to make them behaviorally indistinguishable from humans except by means of highly sophisticated or elaborate tests.
And here he is imagining Virtual Reality:
One important class of experiential products will be based on simulated environments that offer the customer a taste of adventure, danger, sexual titillation or other pleasure without risk to his real life or reputation. Thus computer experts, roboteers, designers, historians, and museum specialists will join to create experiential enclaves that reproduce, as skillfully as sophisticated technology will permit, the splendor of ancient Rome, the pomp of Queen Elizabeth’s court, the “sexoticism” of an eighteenth-century Japanese geisha house, and the like.
Telecommuting: “when advanced technology and information systems make it possible for much of the work of society to be done at home via computer-telecommunication hookups, communalism will become feasible for larger numbers.”
He summons the idea of the internet but could not conceive of personal computers as we have today:
Joseph Naughton, a mathematician and computer specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, suggested a system that would store a consumer’s profile—data about his occupation and Interests—in a central computer. Machines would then scan newspapers, magazines, video tapes, films and other material, match them against the individual’s interest profile, and instantaneously notify him when something appears that concerns him. The system could be hitched to facsimile machines and TV transmitters that would actually display or print out the material in his own living room.
Computer games: “Given enough time, money and, for some of these, technical skill, the men of tomorrow will be capable of playing in ways never dreamed of before. They will play strange sexual games. They will play games with the mind. They will play games with society,” and even internet trolls: “We can even see on the horizon the creation of certain anti-social leisure cults—tightly organized groups of people who will disrupt the workings of society not for material gain, but for the sheer sport of “beating the system”.… Such groups may attempt to tamper with governmental or corporate computer programs or re-route mail.”
Much of what he gets wrong is based on over-optimistic view of biomedical advances, though it is worth taking a moment and imagining about what the world would be like if he had been right.
He missed the mark on cloning, citing an expert who wrote: “It has already been done in amphibia...and somebody may be doing it right now with mammals. It wouldn’t surprise me if it comes out any day now. When someone will have the courage to try it in a man, I haven’t the foggiest idea. But I put the time scale on that anywhere from zero to fifteen years from now. Within fifteen years.”
If cloning does become feasible, Toffler raises an important issue which is not being discussed in our times, but should be:
We are hurtling toward the time when we will be able to breed both super- and sub-races. As Theodore J. Gordon put it in The Future, “Given the ability to tailor the race, I wonder if we would “create all men equal,’ or would we choose to manufacture apartheid? Might the races of the future be: a superior group, the DNA controllers; the humble servants; special athletes for the ‘games’; research scientists with 200 IQ and diminutive bodies…” We shall have the power to produce races of morons or of mathematical savants.
Other things he predicted are, alas, still not close: “For cancer, diabetes, phenylketonuria there will be genetic therapy. The appropriate DNA will be provided in the appropriate dose. Viral and microbial disease will be easily met,” and “Professor R. M. Kenedi of the bio-engineering group at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow believes that ‘by 1984, artificial replacements for tissues and organs may well have become commonplace.’”
For something weirdly dystopian:
Future experience designers will, for example, create gambling casinos in which the customer plays not for money, but for experiential payoffs—a date with a lovely and willing lady if he wins, perhaps a day in solitary confinement if he loses. As the stakes rise, more imaginative payoffs and punishments will be designed. High rollers may play to win a free heart or lung transplant at some later date, should it prove to be necessary. Losers may have to forego a kidney.
And finally, something truly strange. He starts with a prescient warning about global warming, “Our technological powers increase, but the side effects and potential hazards also escalate. We risk thermopollution of the oceans themselves, overheating them, destroying immeasurable quantities of marine life, perhaps even melting the polar icecaps,” and then, in the very next sentence, he writes what might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read: “On land we concentrate such large masses of population in such small urban-technological islands, that we threaten to use up the air’s oxygen faster than it can be replaced, conjuring up the possibility of new Saharas where the cities are now.”
So he got some things right and some wrong, and while modern society faces the possibility of any number of civilization-ending catastrophes, future shock is not going to be one of them. But Toffler also possessed a keen insight into human nature, and had the ability to articulate important ideas in simple English. For instance:
- Tomorrow’s illiterate will not be the man who can’t read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn.
- The psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term “cognitive dissonance” to mean the tendency of a person to reject or deny information that challenges his preconceptions. We don’t want to hear things that may upset our carefully worked out structure of beliefs.
- Whatever trace of impact the Peloponnesian War left on the genetic structure, the ideas, and the values of today’s Europeans is now exported by them to all parts of the world. Thus today’s Mexicans and Japanese feel the distant, twice-removed impact of that war even though their ancestors, alive during its occurrence, did not.
- “For the first time in our history,” says Dr. Harold Leavitt, professor of industrial administration and psychology, “obsolescence seems to be an imminent problem for management because for the first time, the relative advantage of experience over knowledge seems to be rapidly decreasing.”
- No man’s model of reality is a purely personal product. While some of his images are based on first-hand observation, an increasing proportion of them today are based on messages beamed to us by the mass media and the people around us. Thus the degree of accuracy in his model to some extent reflects the general level of knowledge in society.
- of the estimated 450,000 “usable” words in the English language today, only perhaps 250,000 would be comprehensible to William Shakespeare. Were Shakespeare suddenly to materialize in London or New York today, he would be able to understand, on the average, only five out of every nine words in our vocabulary. The Bard would be a semi-literate.
- The year 2000 is closer to us in time than the great depression, yet the world’s economists, traumatized by that historic disaster, remain frozen in the attitudes of the past Economists, even those who talk the language of revolution, are peculiarly conservative creatures. If it were possible to pry from their brains their collective image of the economy of, say, the year 2025, it would look very much like that of 1970—only more so.
- The assertion that the world has “gone crazy,” the graffiti slogan that “reality is a crutch,” the interest in hallucinogenic drugs, the enthusiasm for astrology and the occult, the search for truth in sensation, ecstasy and “peak experience,” the swing toward extreme subjectivism, the attacks on science, the snowballing belief that reason has failed man, reflect the everyday experience of masses of ordinary people who find they can no longer cope rationally with change.
- The horrifying truth is that, so far as much technology is concerned, no one is in charge.
- When critics charge that technocratic planning is anti-human, in the sense that it neglects social, cultural and psychological values in its headlong rush to maximize economic gain, they are usually right. When they charge that it is shortsighted and undemocratic, they are usually right. When they charge it is inept, they are usually right.
- Democratic political forms arose in the West not because a few geniuses willed them into being or because man showed an “unquenchable instinct for freedom.” They arose because the historical pressure toward social differentiation and toward faster paced systems demanded sensitive social feedback.
Is Future Shock still worth reading? Maybe, and it is certainly a cut above much of the social commentary available in bookstores today, but there is a strangeness to it, the disconcerting feeling of looking at a society that is looking back at you. In passages I highlighted but are not included in this review, things can get weird, such as Toffler speculating on the ability to genetically engineer “super-mammaries.” Nevertheless, I enjoyed it. I learned some things and it gave me much to think about. What more can we ask of the books we choose?
October 2, 2008
Read decades ago. Wasn't impressed by Toffler high opinion of himself nor the uniqueness of his "vision" for the future. That said, his theme seemed to be right.
In fact, as a certifiable Old Foogie, I am now experiencing the kind of "shock" he spoke of then: not just with the rapid rate of technological change but the revolution in morals and mores which is now happening.
Of course, the other aspect of this is how shockingly stupid we are about history. Not just ancient history but recent American history. Almost daily the media and academics breathlessly announce some great revelation about what happened twenty to fifty years ago. I chuckle. To those of us alive (and paying attention) then, it's not news.
In fact, as a certifiable Old Foogie, I am now experiencing the kind of "shock" he spoke of then: not just with the rapid rate of technological change but the revolution in morals and mores which is now happening.
Of course, the other aspect of this is how shockingly stupid we are about history. Not just ancient history but recent American history. Almost daily the media and academics breathlessly announce some great revelation about what happened twenty to fifty years ago. I chuckle. To those of us alive (and paying attention) then, it's not news.
April 12, 2012
Full of insightful ideas, many of which are just as relevant now in 2012 as they were when the book was written in the 70’s – some perhaps more so. The main barrier to my enjoyment of the book is that a lot of effort is spent easing the reader into each set of ideas, and in some cases it felt huge chunks of a chapter were devoted to an idea which was concisely dealt with in a few paragraphs. The chapter on mobility, as well as the final chapter were particularly gruelling for me.
Cut away the fluff but keep the ideas (even the ideas that haven’t panned out are fascinating to read – the hit rate is very impressive), and I think in a volume of maybe 100 pages you would have an exceptional read. As it is the book asks for quite a bit of effort, but there is reward to be had if you persevere.
Cut away the fluff but keep the ideas (even the ideas that haven’t panned out are fascinating to read – the hit rate is very impressive), and I think in a volume of maybe 100 pages you would have an exceptional read. As it is the book asks for quite a bit of effort, but there is reward to be had if you persevere.
June 19, 2017
странное впечатление от книги: с одной стороны, ничего принципиально нового (половина описанного уже сбылась, про другую половину постоянно везде говорят), с другой стороны, идеи кажутся настолько фунтаментальными и важными, что не возникает сомнений, что читать надо
меня, как работника ИТ-индустрии, конечно же, волнует идея непоспевания этики за технологиями - и того, что на это по-прежнему всем наплевать. тоффлер пишет: "решения о развитии технологий - политические, поэтому их больше не должны принимать инженеры". но, как мы знаем, инженеры не просто продолжают рулить - они захлебываются собственным интеллектуальным превосходством над "гуманитариями", и не просто не приблизились к осознанию последствий своих действий, а придумали кучу причин, почему этого делать не нужно
это видно везде - и то, как сложно инженерам рассказывать про функционал собственных приложений, особенно отвечая на вопрос "зачем это нужно пользователю", и то, как задорно в ИТ-сообществе травят "иных" - уровень расизма, сексизма, гомофобии, ксенофобии в индустрии чрезвычайно высок, при этом уровень рефлексии недалеко ушел от депутатов государственной думы, а уровень эмпатии - от жителей третьего рейха. почему я связываю это с развитием технологий? потому что они на полном серьезе говорят we're making the world a better place, представляя технологическое решение, и на полном же серьезе считают, что это оправдывает сексуальные домогательства на работе
конечно, мы как индустрия тоже в это вложились. развели культуру детских садов для программистов - вот тебе гамак, вот тебе качели, вот тебе игрушки, первое, второе и компот, только приходи к нам писать код. в итоге вырастили поколение тридцатилетних инфантилов, которые устраивают истерику, что их не предупредили, что бесплатная корпоративная футболка полиняет, если её постирать на 60 градусах. ожидать от таких людей, что они задумаются, как миру навредит бигдата? увольте
короче, антиутопия сбывается, а всё потому, что мы мало читаем тоффлера
меня, как работника ИТ-индустрии, конечно же, волнует идея непоспевания этики за технологиями - и того, что на это по-прежнему всем наплевать. тоффлер пишет: "решения о развитии технологий - политические, поэтому их больше не должны принимать инженеры". но, как мы знаем, инженеры не просто продолжают рулить - они захлебываются собственным интеллектуальным превосходством над "гуманитариями", и не просто не приблизились к осознанию последствий своих действий, а придумали кучу причин, почему этого делать не нужно
это видно везде - и то, как сложно инженерам рассказывать про функционал собственных приложений, особенно отвечая на вопрос "зачем это нужно пользователю", и то, как задорно в ИТ-сообществе травят "иных" - уровень расизма, сексизма, гомофобии, ксенофобии в индустрии чрезвычайно высок, при этом уровень рефлексии недалеко ушел от депутатов государственной думы, а уровень эмпатии - от жителей третьего рейха. почему я связываю это с развитием технологий? потому что они на полном серьезе говорят we're making the world a better place, представляя технологическое решение, и на полном же серьезе считают, что это оправдывает сексуальные домогательства на работе
конечно, мы как индустрия тоже в это вложились. развели культуру детских садов для программистов - вот тебе гамак, вот тебе качели, вот тебе игрушки, первое, второе и компот, только приходи к нам писать код. в итоге вырастили поколение тридцатилетних инфантилов, которые устраивают истерику, что их не предупредили, что бесплатная корпоративная футболка полиняет, если её постирать на 60 градусах. ожидать от таких людей, что они задумаются, как миру навредит бигдата? увольте
короче, антиутопия сбывается, а всё потому, что мы мало читаем тоффлера
May 4, 2010
Alvin Toffler is by far the most prescient author i have read; his bold predictions in this book, written 4 decades ago, are largely manifesting themselves today
January 8, 2017
کتابی تمام نشدنی از معدود آثاری که تونست رو جهان بینی من تاثیر مثبت بگذاره
تلفیقی از روانشناسی، جامعه شناسی، تاریخ، فلسفه و....
بیش از 350 رفرنس
متن داستانی و علمی :)
تلفیقی از روانشناسی، جامعه شناسی، تاریخ، فلسفه و....
بیش از 350 رفرنس
متن داستانی و علمی :)
July 12, 2019
من يقرأ الكتاب بالتزامن مجموعة السيولة لزيجمونت باومان يحسبه من المجموعة ، خاصة بحديثه عن التطور السريع التغير اللامتناهي ، و ما يصحبه من تأثيرات على علاقة الإنسان بنفسه و أحبته و بممتلكاته و ذكرياته و مكانه و بكل شيء حوله ، حيث تصبح المشكلة مع اللا انتماء ، و عدم المبالاة ،و مضاعفة الاستهلاك مما يؤثر في جودة الصناعات المعدة لما يوائم التخلص السريع ،كيف للعقل ان يستوعب كل هذا التسارع ...
الكتاب يعرض هذه المعضلة و هي من أهم عيوب الحداثة ، كما يعرضها باومان بشكل موسع كما في سلسلة السيولة خاصته.
الكتاب يعرض هذه المعضلة و هي من أهم عيوب الحداثة ، كما يعرضها باومان بشكل موسع كما في سلسلة السيولة خاصته.
July 11, 2021
Ця книга змушує замислитись. Всі ми боїмося майбутнього, не зрозуміло, що чекає попереду. Ця книга вже не нова, деякі прогнози з неї збулися, а деякі ні. Наприклад прогноз про стрімке зростання населення, яке за сучасними даними сповільниться. Технології, медицина, сільське господарство - це ті галузі, які показали значний ріст. Після прочитання мені захотілось ознайомитись з іншою працею автора - «Третя хвиля».
January 31, 2022
Students in Berlin and New York, in Turin and Tokyo, capture their deans and chancellors, bring great clanking education factories to a grinding halt, and even threaten to topple governments. Police stand aside in the ghettos of New York, Washington and Chicago as ancient property laws are openly violated. Sexual standards are overthrown. Great cities are paralyzed by strikes, power failures, riots.
This is an amazing book; amazing both because of how clearly he showed the failure of bureaucracy as technological and social advancement speeds up, and amazing because of how he cannot see beyond more bureaucracy as the solution. This book reminds me a lot of David Goldhill’s Catastrophic Care. He clearly sees the problem, and then prescribes: more of the same, but harder.
There is a tendency to assume that change is perennial, that generations have always seen completely different worlds than their parents, that the generation gap has been with us since we’ve been human. But from a technological standpoint, that isn’t true. As Norbert Wiener wrote in Cybernetics and Society:
One of Columbus’ sailors would have been a valuable able seaman aboard Farragut’s ships. Even a sailor from the ship that took Saint Paul to Malta would have been quite reasonably at home as a forecastle hand on one of Joseph Conrad’s barks. A Roman cattleman from the Dacian frontier would have made quite a competent vaquero to drive longhorn steers from the plains of Texas to the terminus of the railroad, although he would have been struck with astonishment with what he found when he got there.
Toffler makes the point that if you look at generations, our current technological change has been breathtaking:
…if the last 50,000 years of man’s existence were divided into lifetimes of approximately 62 years each, there have been about 800 such lifetimes. Of these 800, fully 650 were spent in caves. Only during the last 70 lifetimes has it been possible to communicate effectively from one lifetime to another—as writing made it possible to do. Only during the last six lifetimes did masses of men ever see a printed word. Only during the last four has it been possible to measure time with any precision. Only in the last two has anyone anywhere used an electric motor. And the overwhelming majority of all the material goods we use in daily life today have been developed within the present, the 800th, lifetime.
Of course, he wrote this in 1970, almost a lifetime ago. Since he wrote that, we’ve gotten personal computers, cell phones, and the Internet. Video arcades didn’t exist then; they rose and fell in the lifetime after he wrote this book. Watergate hadn’t happened yet. The word appears once, in a footnote halfway through the book, referring only to one of the buildings in the Watergate complex.
But he manages to avoid the problem that so many hard science fiction writers face, that if you only write about things that are possible, you miss the solutions you can’t see. When he talks about the burgeoning diversification of choice when listening to the radio, he projects a future that is almost literally impossible with the technology of radio. He simply assumes that some technology will fill the human need for more diverse music and talk. He doesn’t even talk about how it will get there, although he clearly does see the potential in computer networks, that they allow us to “assemble situational groups swiftly” and abandon them as quickly.
He foresees the limited swing back to educational pluralism, especially home education, at a time when this could literally land you in jail.
He coins lots of terms, most of which were not adopted; some of which should have been. Celebrity image bombs, for example.
In a society in which instant food, instant education, and even instant cities are everyday phenomena, no product is more swiftly fabricated or more ruthlessly destroyed than the instant celebrity. Nations advancing towards super-industrialism sharply step up their output of these “psycho-economic” products. Instant celebrities burst upon the consciousness of millions like an image bomb—which is exactly what they are.
And, critically, he recognizes what few recognized at the time: that the rise of computers and automation threatened not to crush us under a giant bureaucracy but rather to overthrow bureaucratic authority.
…bureaucracies are well suited to tasks that require masses of moderately educated men to perform routine operations, and, no doubt, some such operations will continue to be performed by men in the future. Yet it is precisely such tasks that the computer and automated equipment do far better than men. It is clear that in super-industrial society many such tasks will be performed by great self-regulating systems of machines, doing away with the need for bureaucratic organization. Far from fastening the grip of bureaucracy on civilization more tightly than before, automation leads to its overthrow.
What he does miss, however, is significant. He recognized, for example, the psychologization of the economy, that people would buy not just clothing and food for its psychological value, but that “Great, globe-girdling syndicates will create super-Disneylands of a variety, scale, scope, and emotional power that is hard for us to imagine.”
He extrapolated this partly from the psychic loading that airlines used to do to entice business travelers to use their service over their competitors. He makes the mistake many science fiction authors do, as Harlan D. Mills noted in the foreword to BASIC with Style, that “in 1900 it was possible to foresee cars going 70 miles an hour, but the drivers were imagined as daredevils rather than grandmothers.”
He imagines sexoticism and super-Disneylands, but what we got was affordable air travel. For much of the super-industrial world, the world itself is our super-Disneyland. It isn’t limited to businessmen and jet-setters today.
What he missed was that the reason the airlines appealed in the way that they did is that they were a heavily regulated industry that didn’t have much leeway outside of the bounds of the government bureaucracies that controlled them. He knew that those bureaucracies were dying; he didn’t put together that this meant that airlines would be able to compete on getting from point a to point b—their core function—at lower prices, rather than on the extras that don’t get us where we want to go. Every once in a while someone nostalgic for the stewardesses and food of the old days tries to start up an old-style airline. And it fails, because for all our complaints about airlines, what we mostly want is to get where we’re going with money left over to enjoy it.
The problem is that too much is changing too fast and all of us are running the risk of a PTSD-like ailment he 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.

Different people react to future shock in different ways. Its symptoms also vary according to the stage and intensity of the disease. These symptoms range all the way from anxiety, hostility to helpful authority, and seemingly senseless violence, to physical illness, depression and apathy. Its victims often manifest erratic swings in interest and life-style, followed by an effort to “crawl into their shells“ through social, intellectual and emotional withdrawal. They feel constantly “bugged“ or harassed, and want desperately to reduce the number of decisions they must make.
The solution? First, we need large bureaucracies to decide now what skills will likely be needed fifty years from now. And because large bureaucracies tend to produce monocultures, we need to have lots of them, and they need to pay people to live in experimental communities. In other words, we need to maintain the factory mindset that he decries throughout the entire first three quarters of the book, with authority setting the factory in motion.
Second, we need a large bureaucracy to decide what scientific and technological breakthroughs are allowed. It would be immoral to end technological and scientific progress. But in the face of a crisis this big, a little immorality is justified.
When he talks about government funding, he almost hits the issue: government research funding overwhelms all other funding and is directed by bureaucrats rather than by what most people want their future to be. This is what results in self-driving cars that can’t tell humans from non-humans. High resolution television sets that can’t handle a car driving past your house. Dishwashers that take hours to complete their cycles.
But stuck as he is in the factory mindset, his only solution to government bureaucrats is more government bureaucrats. He fears a “techno-managerial elite”, and so wants to set up bureaucracies whose purpose is managing technological advance. Someone has to block the future equivalent of the car and the transistor and clean clothes.
…we must also design creative new political institutions… for promoting or discouraging (perhaps even banning) certain proposed technologies. We may wish to debate its form; its need is beyond dispute.
He becomes just one more seventies crisifier, falsely yelling that if we don’t turn over our freedom now, we will all go into a coma and die. It goes against almost everything he wrote in the first part of the book.
His technology blockers must ask “how will a proposed new technology affect the value system of the society?” But he does not ask “how will such a dictatorial system affect our value system?” He sidesteps this question in a passing reference, but never addresses it head-on, and it’s the most important question that should be asked of such a solution. He becomes a parody of Chesterton’s dictum in Heretics that
the weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones.
He denigrates letting people buy what they want to buy as the means of choosing which technologies succeed; he calls this econocentric, but doesn’t seem to understand what this means. When companies adjust their products to meet the demands of potential customers, such as when mutual funds invest only in certain sectors, he calls these “non-economic considerations”. He seems confused by the “increasing intimacy of the links between the economic sector and powerful cultural, psychological and social forces”. By the latter, he means “customers”.
I was reminded of the excitement over the Segway several years ago. The “public agencies and corporations” thought it would revolutionize cities and change their very design. The people who would have to use them disagreed. Imagine if his proposed government-corporate partnership had decided to promote the Segway with legal force, or had wasted time discouraging a product that wasn’t going to take over anyway.
He assumes as a given that government planners are econocentric, oriented only to improving the economy, then makes the obvious observation that this is a failed model—without considering that perhaps his assumptions are wrong, even though he recognizes that government social programs tend to bring the opposite of what they were supposed to do when started.
He seems to mistake a disenchantment with technocratic planners for a disenchantment with science.
His giant bureaucracies would not operate entirely above the masses. He would implement vast games—literally, games, vaguely similar to the role-playing games that came a few years later—to draw the public, currently “political eunuchs”, into “a continuing plebiscite on the future”—in an advisory capacity. Artists might be shown the technologies of the future to advise the bureaucrats on what should be available to them.
But even if the politicians and bureaucrats were to listen to this advice, the people who say that they want better-looking stewardesses but only pay for getting from point a to point b are not going to provide the advice that gives us better air travel.
This is a big book with big ideas that transforms itself into a small book with small ideas, and would transform the world in the same way.
October 15, 2022
The best judgement of a Future gazing book written decades ago is to simply see how the world has unfurled with respect to the predictions made by the author, and in this Toffler was alarmingly prescient with respect to changes in human behavior and societal trends that would arise as a result of greater technology that approached sentience.
However, the later chapters veer off into random tangents around the politics, culture and various other musings which are perilously close to cuckoo territory.
However, would still suggest the book as a must read for those following AI/Technology for the first 100 pages!
However, the later chapters veer off into random tangents around the politics, culture and various other musings which are perilously close to cuckoo territory.
However, would still suggest the book as a must read for those following AI/Technology for the first 100 pages!
April 19, 2020
First the good:
- Very interesting book, which makes you think about a lot of things. It gives you insane amount of awakening about the future, although the book was written way back in the day.
- A lot of the predictions were accurate enough
- The Author has interesting style and I would even say unique. Sometimes it might be considered way too repetitive, but since his ideas are often uncommon, I would say that it might be necessary.
The bad:
Towards the end of the book he is way too utopic. As we might see today, we are far from his ideas about the right of all to decide our future. Sadly enough, we are still in the technocratic style of governments, schools, universities etc...
Some final words:
It was really hard to me to decide whether I should give 5 stars or 4, but I would put it this way...
The book might have been way better if it was summed up in less pages. Reading 430 pages of constant repetitions isn't an easy task. Other than that - definitely good book and worth reading.
- Very interesting book, which makes you think about a lot of things. It gives you insane amount of awakening about the future, although the book was written way back in the day.
- A lot of the predictions were accurate enough
- The Author has interesting style and I would even say unique. Sometimes it might be considered way too repetitive, but since his ideas are often uncommon, I would say that it might be necessary.
The bad:
Towards the end of the book he is way too utopic. As we might see today, we are far from his ideas about the right of all to decide our future. Sadly enough, we are still in the technocratic style of governments, schools, universities etc...
Some final words:
It was really hard to me to decide whether I should give 5 stars or 4, but I would put it this way...
The book might have been way better if it was summed up in less pages. Reading 430 pages of constant repetitions isn't an easy task. Other than that - definitely good book and worth reading.
February 4, 2015
One amazing ride from history ( civilization) to future!!! To get a broad and deeper view about family, relationshipd, education, technology, politics, psychology, biology, inventions, life pattern..etc..etc...one must read this book and ofcourse to get a glimpse of future . One hell of a read about "CHANGE" .
December 19, 2016
One of the best book by one of the best author.
November 9, 2021
A wonderful read, Alvin Toffler has given us a broad scope of the potential futures we will encounter in this technocratic, Hyperindustrial age.I feel more confident moving forward in these times.
September 28, 2024
There's something fascinating about reading a futurism book written 50 years ago. So much of it is either part of the accepted reality or obviously ridiculously wrong.
Right: We're identified more by our careers than our employers, we struggle to adjust to change and it causes a lot of cognitive load, family structures are a lot more flexible.
Wrong: We're not colonizing the undersea, we appear to have dodged a lot of the worst of the eugenics, and education has tried some of those ideas and discarded them.
Just weird at this point: Command-and-control structures at work that prohibit peer-to-peer comms.
This book was very relevant to the book I'm writing right now, but none of us realized it until a co-author's dad said, "oh, you're writing the new version of Future Shock" and we were all confused, and then we read it, and we are, a bit. Then I asked _my_ dad if he had read it, and not only had he read it, but it was "one of the most influential books in his life" and we had some great conversations about it. So if you have a boomer dad you want to have a cool conversation with, ask him about this book, I guess?
It's full of really cool gems like this:
The day is already in sight when books, magazines, newspapers, films and other media will, like the Mustang, be offered to the consumer on a design-it-your-self basis. Thus in the mid-sixties, Joseph Naughton, a mathematician and computer specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, suggested a system that would store a consumer’s profile— data about his occupation and Interests— in a central computer. Machines would then scan newspapers, magazines, video tapes, films and other material, match them against the individual’s interest profile, and instantaneously notify him when something appears that concerns him. The system could be hitched to facsimile machines and TV transmitters that would actually display or print out the material in his own living room. By 1969 the Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun was publicly demonstrating a low cost “Telenews” system for printing newspapers in the home, and Matsushita Industries of Osaka was displaying a competitive system known as TV Fax (H). These are the first steps toward the newspaper of the future— a peculiar newspaper, indeed, offering no two viewer-readers the same content. Mass communication, under a system like this, is “de-massified.” We move from homogeneity to heterogeneity.
Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock (pp. 281-282). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
There's also this, which is culturally ancient, but relevant if you swap in "influencer" for "protester"
The college boy who chooses the Student Protester Model wastes little energy agonizing over whether to vote for Wallace, carry an attaché case, or invest in mutual funds.
Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock (p. 315). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The book is massive, and a little repetitive. I think an abridged version might not be the worst idea in the world, but Toffler was hugely influential through the 90s, and when you learn to see his fingerprints, it casts a lot of things into a new light.
Read if: You want to talk to your boomer dad about change and how fast it happens, you want some interesting views of future-past.
Skip if: Eugenics, slightly weird race stuff, and the reflexive white male centerpoint are going to get right up your nose.
Also read: Drive by Daniel Pink
Right: We're identified more by our careers than our employers, we struggle to adjust to change and it causes a lot of cognitive load, family structures are a lot more flexible.
Wrong: We're not colonizing the undersea, we appear to have dodged a lot of the worst of the eugenics, and education has tried some of those ideas and discarded them.
Just weird at this point: Command-and-control structures at work that prohibit peer-to-peer comms.
This book was very relevant to the book I'm writing right now, but none of us realized it until a co-author's dad said, "oh, you're writing the new version of Future Shock" and we were all confused, and then we read it, and we are, a bit. Then I asked _my_ dad if he had read it, and not only had he read it, but it was "one of the most influential books in his life" and we had some great conversations about it. So if you have a boomer dad you want to have a cool conversation with, ask him about this book, I guess?
It's full of really cool gems like this:
The day is already in sight when books, magazines, newspapers, films and other media will, like the Mustang, be offered to the consumer on a design-it-your-self basis. Thus in the mid-sixties, Joseph Naughton, a mathematician and computer specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, suggested a system that would store a consumer’s profile— data about his occupation and Interests— in a central computer. Machines would then scan newspapers, magazines, video tapes, films and other material, match them against the individual’s interest profile, and instantaneously notify him when something appears that concerns him. The system could be hitched to facsimile machines and TV transmitters that would actually display or print out the material in his own living room. By 1969 the Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun was publicly demonstrating a low cost “Telenews” system for printing newspapers in the home, and Matsushita Industries of Osaka was displaying a competitive system known as TV Fax (H). These are the first steps toward the newspaper of the future— a peculiar newspaper, indeed, offering no two viewer-readers the same content. Mass communication, under a system like this, is “de-massified.” We move from homogeneity to heterogeneity.
Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock (pp. 281-282). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
There's also this, which is culturally ancient, but relevant if you swap in "influencer" for "protester"
The college boy who chooses the Student Protester Model wastes little energy agonizing over whether to vote for Wallace, carry an attaché case, or invest in mutual funds.
Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock (p. 315). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The book is massive, and a little repetitive. I think an abridged version might not be the worst idea in the world, but Toffler was hugely influential through the 90s, and when you learn to see his fingerprints, it casts a lot of things into a new light.
Read if: You want to talk to your boomer dad about change and how fast it happens, you want some interesting views of future-past.
Skip if: Eugenics, slightly weird race stuff, and the reflexive white male centerpoint are going to get right up your nose.
Also read: Drive by Daniel Pink
May 22, 2021
Nigdy nie zabierałem się tak długo do napisania opinii o książce. Co ciekawe, wydaje mi się, że to moje ociąganie się i fakt, że minął już tydzień (ku mojemu zdziwieniu, bo myślałem, że maksymalnie kilka dni) koresponduje z tematem książki.
"Szok przyszłości" czy też "przyszłościowy" jak pojawia się w tekście stanowi z jednej strony analizę sytuacji w jakiej znalazł się człowiek współczesny. Bezprecedensowe przyspieszenie życia czy to w aspekcie społecznym, gospodarczym czy też technologicznym stanowi nie lada wyzwanie dla możliwości adaptacyjnych naszego gatunku. Nigdy dotąd w historii świat nie był tak duży i tak szybki. To w tym zderzeniu i wynikającym z niego zagubieniu Toffler upatruje zwrócenie się w stronę różnych nietypowych narracji: filozofie wschodu, nacjonalizm, ale też kultury silnie związane z używkami (hippisi). Z drugiej strony to zestaw prognoz na temat tego jak będzie wyglądał świat przyszłości oraz pomysłów, jakie rozwiązania można wprowadzić, żeby wyjść im na przeciw.
To co podczas lektury "Szoku..." uderza najbardziej to fakt, że książka ta została po raz pierwszy wydana w roku 1970. Zdumienie wzbudza z jednej strony trafność niektórych prognoz Tofflera, z drugiej fakt, że problemy, na które zwracał wtedy uwagę pozostają aktualne, ba, przybrały na istotności, bo najwidoczniej mało kto wziął sobie jego przewidywania do serca.
Lata 70' dają o sobie znać również w częściach, w których książka Tofflera zdecydowanie gorzej się zestarzała. Co kilka stron pojawiają się hippisi, którzy dla autora byli zjawiskiem nowym i ważnym, dla nas są raczej ciekawostką sprzed lat. Widoczne są też pewne mentalne schematy, którymi autor operuje czy to w podejściu do mniejszości ("Murzyńskie getta" pojawiają się niemal równie często co ludzie-kwiaty) czy kobiet (chociaż Toffler w wielu aspektach swoich rozważań wyprzedził swoje czasy, to widać u niego wpływ niezakwestionowanego jeszcze patriarchatu).
"Szok przyszłości" to lektura wciąż niestety aktualna. Niestety, bo 50 lat to jednak dużo czasu na wyjście na przeciw pewnym zjawiskom, których zauważenie było możliwe, co Toffler udowadnia. Być może w czasach społeczeństwa informacyjnego (u Tofflera jeszcze "superprzemysłowego") jest ona nawet bardziej aktualna niż w latach 70'. Jesteśmy bowiem w momencie, w którym nie tylko nie podjęliśmy przeciwdziałań, żeby oswoić społeczeństwa z "szokiem przyszłościowym", ale poprzez zwiększenie przyspieszenia rzeczywistości naraziliśmy je na niego, jeszcze bardziej.
"Szok przyszłości" czy też "przyszłościowy" jak pojawia się w tekście stanowi z jednej strony analizę sytuacji w jakiej znalazł się człowiek współczesny. Bezprecedensowe przyspieszenie życia czy to w aspekcie społecznym, gospodarczym czy też technologicznym stanowi nie lada wyzwanie dla możliwości adaptacyjnych naszego gatunku. Nigdy dotąd w historii świat nie był tak duży i tak szybki. To w tym zderzeniu i wynikającym z niego zagubieniu Toffler upatruje zwrócenie się w stronę różnych nietypowych narracji: filozofie wschodu, nacjonalizm, ale też kultury silnie związane z używkami (hippisi). Z drugiej strony to zestaw prognoz na temat tego jak będzie wyglądał świat przyszłości oraz pomysłów, jakie rozwiązania można wprowadzić, żeby wyjść im na przeciw.
To co podczas lektury "Szoku..." uderza najbardziej to fakt, że książka ta została po raz pierwszy wydana w roku 1970. Zdumienie wzbudza z jednej strony trafność niektórych prognoz Tofflera, z drugiej fakt, że problemy, na które zwracał wtedy uwagę pozostają aktualne, ba, przybrały na istotności, bo najwidoczniej mało kto wziął sobie jego przewidywania do serca.
Lata 70' dają o sobie znać również w częściach, w których książka Tofflera zdecydowanie gorzej się zestarzała. Co kilka stron pojawiają się hippisi, którzy dla autora byli zjawiskiem nowym i ważnym, dla nas są raczej ciekawostką sprzed lat. Widoczne są też pewne mentalne schematy, którymi autor operuje czy to w podejściu do mniejszości ("Murzyńskie getta" pojawiają się niemal równie często co ludzie-kwiaty) czy kobiet (chociaż Toffler w wielu aspektach swoich rozważań wyprzedził swoje czasy, to widać u niego wpływ niezakwestionowanego jeszcze patriarchatu).
"Szok przyszłości" to lektura wciąż niestety aktualna. Niestety, bo 50 lat to jednak dużo czasu na wyjście na przeciw pewnym zjawiskom, których zauważenie było możliwe, co Toffler udowadnia. Być może w czasach społeczeństwa informacyjnego (u Tofflera jeszcze "superprzemysłowego") jest ona nawet bardziej aktualna niż w latach 70'. Jesteśmy bowiem w momencie, w którym nie tylko nie podjęliśmy przeciwdziałań, żeby oswoić społeczeństwa z "szokiem przyszłościowym", ale poprzez zwiększenie przyspieszenia rzeczywistości naraziliśmy je na niego, jeszcze bardziej.
January 16, 2021
The concept of "future shock" and wide use of the term was an important concept introduced in the management and business literature in the early seventies. In this book published in 1970, futurist Alvin Toffler defined the concept, describing its meaning as the effect of too much change in too short a period of time. The term “future shock” was not necessarily new but it was not in wide use. It was in this book that Toffler introduced the term to a wider public and popularized the concept.
Toffler believed that science, technology and society were making so many advances so quickly that it was affecting all areas of contemporary life. People were struggling to cope with the changes that affected every area of their lives from the society they lived in, to their workplaces where they struggled with new technology to their personal lives in what used to be known as the nuclear family. It never stopped or even slowed down. Before they successfully coped with one set of changes, more were already on their doorstep, the pace of new change moving relentlessly forward without them. Although some changes made life easier, many were not asked for or welcomed and most were the result of changes in the marketplace. People were feeling a sense of shock from the rapid change that was beginning to constantly surround them, with newer changes coming more quickly every year.
Toffler examined what happens when people can no longer cope with the fast pace of change, becoming stressed, feeling overwhelmed and becoming disoriented. They begin to suffer both mentally and physically, exhibiting symptoms that range from depression to bizarre behavior and becoming increasingly susceptible to physical disease and emotional breakdown. At the same time, people were losing their connection to the institutions they used to depend on in their time of need. Family, community and religion were important foundations for society but even these longstanding bulwarks were being eroded by the fast pace of change.
Toffler provides some examples for readers to consider, describing how some industries die off and new ones rise from the ashes, often affecting unskilled workers who must move to find work. Professionals who found their work had become outdated, were forced to change their careers and take on something new. Unlike years in the past, jobs that used to last a lifetime were now quickly disappearing and it was becoming more common for people to have several careers in a lifetime. People moved their residences to take on new jobs leaving the comfort of their neighborhood friends and their community behind. Those close friendships and their community were supports they depended on for comfort in times of trouble. In their new environments, they developed a larger number of relationships, but they were more casual in nature without the years of experience behind them that had bonded them with their close friends. Toffler suggests that as the rate of change continues to increase, people will be surrounded more and more by a temporary world with everything around them constantly in flux giving them little stability and providing little support to those who were struggling.
He discusses how computerization has brought so much change to business, manufacturing and everyday living but is a double-edged sword. It has made businesses more efficient, facilitated widespread communication and increased our manufacturing efficiency and capacity. On the other hand, it has generated so much information, no one can absorb it all and people have begun to feel overwhelmed by all they are expected to know and understand.
Toffler insists that change is not a bad thing but experiencing it all at once can be. He describes the warning signals to watch for when the pace of change becomes more than people can tolerate.
Toffler’s writing perfectly captured the angst of the time as people were beginning to be affected by the speed and relentlessness of change. Looking back over what he wrote at the time, those rereading this book will note that much of what he predicted has occurred. He didn’t get everything right but his ability to look into the future and predict some of it, helped people understand what was happening to them and those around them. His writing challenged the thinking that change was always a good thing and he made a compelling argument for taking accelerating change seriously, so businesses, society and people in general could learn to manage it more effectively.
The book was very readable, warned readers about the pace of change and encouraged them to learn ways to manage it to protect their lives, their health, their businesses and their environment. The book sold widely, the term “future shock” became an accepted part of our vocabulary and word spread as book sales topped over five million copies.
Toffler believed that science, technology and society were making so many advances so quickly that it was affecting all areas of contemporary life. People were struggling to cope with the changes that affected every area of their lives from the society they lived in, to their workplaces where they struggled with new technology to their personal lives in what used to be known as the nuclear family. It never stopped or even slowed down. Before they successfully coped with one set of changes, more were already on their doorstep, the pace of new change moving relentlessly forward without them. Although some changes made life easier, many were not asked for or welcomed and most were the result of changes in the marketplace. People were feeling a sense of shock from the rapid change that was beginning to constantly surround them, with newer changes coming more quickly every year.
Toffler examined what happens when people can no longer cope with the fast pace of change, becoming stressed, feeling overwhelmed and becoming disoriented. They begin to suffer both mentally and physically, exhibiting symptoms that range from depression to bizarre behavior and becoming increasingly susceptible to physical disease and emotional breakdown. At the same time, people were losing their connection to the institutions they used to depend on in their time of need. Family, community and religion were important foundations for society but even these longstanding bulwarks were being eroded by the fast pace of change.
Toffler provides some examples for readers to consider, describing how some industries die off and new ones rise from the ashes, often affecting unskilled workers who must move to find work. Professionals who found their work had become outdated, were forced to change their careers and take on something new. Unlike years in the past, jobs that used to last a lifetime were now quickly disappearing and it was becoming more common for people to have several careers in a lifetime. People moved their residences to take on new jobs leaving the comfort of their neighborhood friends and their community behind. Those close friendships and their community were supports they depended on for comfort in times of trouble. In their new environments, they developed a larger number of relationships, but they were more casual in nature without the years of experience behind them that had bonded them with their close friends. Toffler suggests that as the rate of change continues to increase, people will be surrounded more and more by a temporary world with everything around them constantly in flux giving them little stability and providing little support to those who were struggling.
He discusses how computerization has brought so much change to business, manufacturing and everyday living but is a double-edged sword. It has made businesses more efficient, facilitated widespread communication and increased our manufacturing efficiency and capacity. On the other hand, it has generated so much information, no one can absorb it all and people have begun to feel overwhelmed by all they are expected to know and understand.
Toffler insists that change is not a bad thing but experiencing it all at once can be. He describes the warning signals to watch for when the pace of change becomes more than people can tolerate.
Toffler’s writing perfectly captured the angst of the time as people were beginning to be affected by the speed and relentlessness of change. Looking back over what he wrote at the time, those rereading this book will note that much of what he predicted has occurred. He didn’t get everything right but his ability to look into the future and predict some of it, helped people understand what was happening to them and those around them. His writing challenged the thinking that change was always a good thing and he made a compelling argument for taking accelerating change seriously, so businesses, society and people in general could learn to manage it more effectively.
The book was very readable, warned readers about the pace of change and encouraged them to learn ways to manage it to protect their lives, their health, their businesses and their environment. The book sold widely, the term “future shock” became an accepted part of our vocabulary and word spread as book sales topped over five million copies.
Shelved as 'own-but-unread'
February 25, 2021Adding to my BookMooch inventory 2/25/2021: http://bookmooch.com/m/inventory/jonmoss
Condition notes: Fair condition; Yellow cover; 6th printing by Bantam Books/Random House (561 pages); purchased from local library book sale in 2009 and never cracked it open.
Condition notes: Fair condition; Yellow cover; 6th printing by Bantam Books/Random House (561 pages); purchased from local library book sale in 2009 and never cracked it open.
Read
March 30, 20232023 reads, #29. DID NOT FINISH. This infamous book from 1970 popped up recently in some article somewhere I was reading, and I thought it would be fun to read it for the first time a full 50 years after it was originally published, to see how Toffler's predictions about how the scary future world of the 2020s actually turned out. Unfortunately, though, this is not really what the book is about; or, I should say, predictions are sprinkled into these densely packed 400 pages of small type, but the majority of it is written in a much more academic style, using the examples to motivate us to think about the bigger sociological issues going on in our "modern days" (i.e. 1970s) of "future shock," by which he means when things progress so fast in a society that it literally makes us feel ill and disoriented, much like the term "culture shock" which had come into vogue not long before this book was written, after jumbo jets suddenly let people be in an entirely new and often bizarre culture in mere hours after leaving home, instead of weeks and months like it used to take in an age before jetliners. That made this book not nearly as much fun as I thought it was going to be, and I have to confess that I got bored with its dry, fact-filled tone quite fast, literally after Chapter 2.
For what it's worth, when you read just the chapter titles, it actually looks pretty solid that he actually got a lot of his predictions right, even though they're way more general of predictions than I realized this book was made of -- that in the future, things will become so cheap that many people will just throw stuff away instead of getting it fixed, that people will be much bigger nomads who live farther and farther away from where they were raised, that businesses will not be run in the kind of strict, authoritarian hierarchies that pre-war companies like Ford were, that we'll get a lot more of our information from video than by the printed word, that there will be artificial organs to replace faulty biological ones, that entire industries will exist not to sell a product but an "experience," that the nuclear family will be only one of many valid options for a familial unit, that there will be a LOT more people with attention deficit disorder, and all kinds of other interesting predictions that sound blase to us but must've blown people's minds half a century ago when this book first came out. So, you know, if you want to read Toffler go into excruciating detail about all this, based on reams of data from the late 1960s, knock yourself out! Otherwise, you can probably just read a synopsis online to get everything you need from this fascinating volume but the literal definition of "outdated."
For what it's worth, when you read just the chapter titles, it actually looks pretty solid that he actually got a lot of his predictions right, even though they're way more general of predictions than I realized this book was made of -- that in the future, things will become so cheap that many people will just throw stuff away instead of getting it fixed, that people will be much bigger nomads who live farther and farther away from where they were raised, that businesses will not be run in the kind of strict, authoritarian hierarchies that pre-war companies like Ford were, that we'll get a lot more of our information from video than by the printed word, that there will be artificial organs to replace faulty biological ones, that entire industries will exist not to sell a product but an "experience," that the nuclear family will be only one of many valid options for a familial unit, that there will be a LOT more people with attention deficit disorder, and all kinds of other interesting predictions that sound blase to us but must've blown people's minds half a century ago when this book first came out. So, you know, if you want to read Toffler go into excruciating detail about all this, based on reams of data from the late 1960s, knock yourself out! Otherwise, you can probably just read a synopsis online to get everything you need from this fascinating volume but the literal definition of "outdated."
October 16, 2013
I've read the first 40 pages, then quit.
The ideas in those 40 pages could have been expressed in three paragraphs --if they were worth being expressed.
Toffler describes the properties and consequences of the worst illness of our time: the future shock. In our time, live changes so fast that we no longer know how to act; to quote the author:
and again
The truth is, now in 2013, 40 years after the book, that humans are the same as always. Their problems, their preoccupations, their feelings are the same as Plato had, as Seneca had. Technology, its fast change, doesn't change the way we are; changes our lives, but not our essence.
The author described technology, 40 years ago, as our saviour. The truth is that technology doesn't serve humans any more, technology doesn't worry about making our lives better, we live now to buy technology, to buy phones and tables and computers. We work to have technology, we sell our time to buy it, when technology should be working for us to give us free time.
The author's abuse of the argument from authority doesn't make the points strong, and some times it is just a plain unqualified authority fallacy. That when he isn't using other fallacies, like slippery slope, begging the question or false cause.
He states at the beginning that his theory doesn't have to be right but useful. I don't know if it is any.
The ideas in those 40 pages could have been expressed in three paragraphs --if they were worth being expressed.
Toffler describes the properties and consequences of the worst illness of our time: the future shock. In our time, live changes so fast that we no longer know how to act; to quote the author:
We no longer "feel" life as men did in the past. And this is the ultimate difference, the distinction that separates the truly contemporary man from all other.
and again
We have cut ourselves off from the old ways of thinking, of feeling, of adapting
The truth is, now in 2013, 40 years after the book, that humans are the same as always. Their problems, their preoccupations, their feelings are the same as Plato had, as Seneca had. Technology, its fast change, doesn't change the way we are; changes our lives, but not our essence.
The author described technology, 40 years ago, as our saviour. The truth is that technology doesn't serve humans any more, technology doesn't worry about making our lives better, we live now to buy technology, to buy phones and tables and computers. We work to have technology, we sell our time to buy it, when technology should be working for us to give us free time.
The author's abuse of the argument from authority doesn't make the points strong, and some times it is just a plain unqualified authority fallacy. That when he isn't using other fallacies, like slippery slope, begging the question or false cause.
He states at the beginning that his theory doesn't have to be right but useful. I don't know if it is any.
May 18, 2015
One of the best books I’ve read recently. I remember reading this as a 18/19 year old but this made a lot more sense to me now. Its about the future and the change of pace we are experiencing. Like a faster delivery from a fast bowler if were not carefully were gonna get caught out. The book discusses so many different things but the essence of the book is around how we need to manage the change around is rather than letting it happen willy-nilly. If you’re read Musil’s “man without qualities” – a group of people who can come together from different parts of society to guide it is what the book implies is needed. No room for ludditism here at all but it does ask us to question our use of technology and our abandonment to it. (I’ve recently given up using my iphone on the week ends as a result of the arguments put here). There are 2 excellent chapters near the end on education and technology and for those 2 alone the book is worth reading. The book also covers time and change, knowledge as fuel, people of the future, the concept of transience, impermanence, rental revolution, fads, demise of geography, duration of human relationships, friendships in the future, the new ad-hocracy, the denial of change, mystique of motherhood, temporary marriage, demands of freedom, hippies, beatniks, power of style, free society and overstimulation.
This was written in 1970.
This was written in 1970.
January 17, 2024
I have created a new shelf DID NOT FINISH. I don’t know if I will use this shelf regularly but I think that in this new year I need to have that option. This book was published in 1970 and I am listening to the audible version. It seems really out of date and archaic or antique or something. I am going to include a couple of AI reviews here just for one way to bulk up the words without having to listen to the rest of this 15 hour long book myself.
Following paragraphs are by ChatOn AI which thinks more of this book than I do!
"Future Shock" is a book written by Alvin Toffler and published in 1970. It explores the concept of "future shock," which refers to the psychological state of individuals and societies experiencing rapid and overwhelming change. Toffler's predictions in the book have been subject to retrospective analysis over the years. While some of his ideas have proven to be accurate, others have not fully materialized or have evolved in unexpected ways.
Toffler accurately predicted the rise of information overload and its impact on individuals and societies. He discussed the challenges of adapting to rapid technological advancements and the resulting disruptions in various aspects of life, including work, family, and education. With the advent of the internet and digital technologies, we can see how these predictions have come to fruition.
However, some of Toffler's predictions have not fully materialized as anticipated. For example, he predicted the widespread use of telecommuting and the decline of traditional office spaces. While remote work has gained popularity, it has not completely replaced physical office spaces. Additionally, Toffler envisioned the emergence of personalized education through technology, which has seen some progress but has not completely transformed the education system.
Overall, while "Future Shock" may not have accurately predicted every specific outcome, it successfully highlighted the challenges and psychological impact of rapid societal change. It remains a thought-provoking book that encourages us to critically examine the consequences of technological advancements and societal transformations.
The recent Covid era has had a profound impact on various aspects of society, including how we live, work, and interact with one another. In many ways, the pandemic has both accelerated and reshaped some of the predictions made in "Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler.
One prediction in "Future Shock" was the rise of telecommuting and remote work. The Covid-19 pandemic forced many organizations and individuals to quickly adapt to remote work arrangements to ensure safety and social distancing. This sudden shift has demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of remote work on a large scale. It has also highlighted the importance of technology in enabling remote collaboration and communication.
Another prediction that has been impacted by the Covid era is the concept of information overload. Toffler discussed how the rapid influx of information could overwhelm individuals and societies. During the pandemic, we have witnessed an unprecedented amount of information being disseminated through various channels, including news outlets, social media, and online platforms. This has heightened the need for critical thinking and information literacy to navigate through the abundance of information and combat misinformation.
The pandemic has also brought to the forefront the importance of resilience and adaptability in the face of unexpected disruptions. Toffler emphasized the need for individuals and societies to be flexible and adaptable to cope with rapid change. The Covid era has underscored the necessity of these qualities as we navigate through the uncertainties and challenges posed by the pandemic.
Overall, while the Covid era has influenced and accelerated some of the predictions made in "Future Shock," it has also brought forth new challenges and considerations that Toffler did not explicitly anticipate. The pandemic has served as a reminder of the interconnectedness of our world and the need to continually reassess and adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
"Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler, first published in 1970, continues to be a thought-provoking and influential book even after 53 years. While some specific predictions may have become outdated, the core ideas and concepts presented in the book continue to resonate and provide valuable insights into our rapidly changing world.
Toffler's central thesis in "Future Shock" is that the pace of technological and societal change is accelerating at such a rapid rate that it creates a sense of disorientation and anxiety, which he calls "future shock." This concept remains relevant today, as advancements in technology and globalization continue to shape our lives and challenge traditional structures.
The book's exploration of the impact of technology on various aspects of society, such as work, education, and relationships, remains highly relevant. Toffler's discussions on the rise of information overload, the decentralization of power, and the need for adaptability in the face of change still resonate with contemporary issues.
Furthermore, "Future Shock" has influenced subsequent works and thinkers in the field of futurism and sociology. Toffler's ideas have sparked debates and discussions about the consequences of rapid change, the role of technology, and the need for societal resilience.
While some specific predictions made in the book may not have materialized as envisioned, it is important to understand that predicting the future with absolute accuracy is a challenging task. The value of "Future Shock" lies not only in its specific predictions but in its ability to provoke critical thinking and stimulate conversations about the impact of change and our ability to adapt.
In summary, "Future Shock" has weathered the 53 years since its publication by continuing to be a significant work in the study of societal change and its implications. Its core concepts and insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by rapid change make it a valuable resource for understanding and navigating our ever-evolving world.
Following paragraphs are by ChatOn AI which thinks more of this book than I do!
"Future Shock" is a book written by Alvin Toffler and published in 1970. It explores the concept of "future shock," which refers to the psychological state of individuals and societies experiencing rapid and overwhelming change. Toffler's predictions in the book have been subject to retrospective analysis over the years. While some of his ideas have proven to be accurate, others have not fully materialized or have evolved in unexpected ways.
Toffler accurately predicted the rise of information overload and its impact on individuals and societies. He discussed the challenges of adapting to rapid technological advancements and the resulting disruptions in various aspects of life, including work, family, and education. With the advent of the internet and digital technologies, we can see how these predictions have come to fruition.
However, some of Toffler's predictions have not fully materialized as anticipated. For example, he predicted the widespread use of telecommuting and the decline of traditional office spaces. While remote work has gained popularity, it has not completely replaced physical office spaces. Additionally, Toffler envisioned the emergence of personalized education through technology, which has seen some progress but has not completely transformed the education system.
Overall, while "Future Shock" may not have accurately predicted every specific outcome, it successfully highlighted the challenges and psychological impact of rapid societal change. It remains a thought-provoking book that encourages us to critically examine the consequences of technological advancements and societal transformations.
The recent Covid era has had a profound impact on various aspects of society, including how we live, work, and interact with one another. In many ways, the pandemic has both accelerated and reshaped some of the predictions made in "Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler.
One prediction in "Future Shock" was the rise of telecommuting and remote work. The Covid-19 pandemic forced many organizations and individuals to quickly adapt to remote work arrangements to ensure safety and social distancing. This sudden shift has demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of remote work on a large scale. It has also highlighted the importance of technology in enabling remote collaboration and communication.
Another prediction that has been impacted by the Covid era is the concept of information overload. Toffler discussed how the rapid influx of information could overwhelm individuals and societies. During the pandemic, we have witnessed an unprecedented amount of information being disseminated through various channels, including news outlets, social media, and online platforms. This has heightened the need for critical thinking and information literacy to navigate through the abundance of information and combat misinformation.
The pandemic has also brought to the forefront the importance of resilience and adaptability in the face of unexpected disruptions. Toffler emphasized the need for individuals and societies to be flexible and adaptable to cope with rapid change. The Covid era has underscored the necessity of these qualities as we navigate through the uncertainties and challenges posed by the pandemic.
Overall, while the Covid era has influenced and accelerated some of the predictions made in "Future Shock," it has also brought forth new challenges and considerations that Toffler did not explicitly anticipate. The pandemic has served as a reminder of the interconnectedness of our world and the need to continually reassess and adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
"Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler, first published in 1970, continues to be a thought-provoking and influential book even after 53 years. While some specific predictions may have become outdated, the core ideas and concepts presented in the book continue to resonate and provide valuable insights into our rapidly changing world.
Toffler's central thesis in "Future Shock" is that the pace of technological and societal change is accelerating at such a rapid rate that it creates a sense of disorientation and anxiety, which he calls "future shock." This concept remains relevant today, as advancements in technology and globalization continue to shape our lives and challenge traditional structures.
The book's exploration of the impact of technology on various aspects of society, such as work, education, and relationships, remains highly relevant. Toffler's discussions on the rise of information overload, the decentralization of power, and the need for adaptability in the face of change still resonate with contemporary issues.
Furthermore, "Future Shock" has influenced subsequent works and thinkers in the field of futurism and sociology. Toffler's ideas have sparked debates and discussions about the consequences of rapid change, the role of technology, and the need for societal resilience.
While some specific predictions made in the book may not have materialized as envisioned, it is important to understand that predicting the future with absolute accuracy is a challenging task. The value of "Future Shock" lies not only in its specific predictions but in its ability to provoke critical thinking and stimulate conversations about the impact of change and our ability to adapt.
In summary, "Future Shock" has weathered the 53 years since its publication by continuing to be a significant work in the study of societal change and its implications. Its core concepts and insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by rapid change make it a valuable resource for understanding and navigating our ever-evolving world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 414 reviews