Future Shock: Predictable Present

Alvin Toffler was an author and a futurist, best known for two best-seller non-fiction books which he published in 1970 and 1980 entitled "Future Shock" and "The Third Wave", respectively.

"Future Shock" discussed the psychological and sociological impact of the ever-advancing rate of change (due mostly to technology).  It was in this book that Toffler first coined the term "information overload".  The book discussed numerous examples of ways in which the industrial society of the sixties and seventies was morphing into what Toffler called a"post-industrial society" in which disposable goods increasingly replace durable goods (i.e. goods that no longer function properly are simply replaced rather than being repaired), whole industries die out to be replaced by entirely new ones and people change employers and even professions with increasing frequency; in short, everything becomes less permanent and more temporary from goods, to jobs and even human relationships.

Sound familiar?  So far, I'd have to say that Toffler hit the nail right on the head.

"The Third Wave" discussed the transition from the industrial age to the information age and what effect this would have on society and individual lives.   In several ways, "The Third Wave" was more optimistic than "Future Shock" as it actually discussed how the information age might change peoples' lives for the better.  For example, in this book, Toffler predicted that the five-day work week would likely be reduced to a four-day or even three-day work week with no loss of income for the very practical reason that information technology made it possible for people to be just as productive in three days as they used to be in five.

Ah, but Toffler forgot about one thing; corporate greed.  The reality is that, when one demonstrates that one is able to do the same amount of work in three days that formerly took five days, one's employer simply expects that much productivity after five days.  Put another way, rather than being content with the previous level of productivity in less time, the employer expects increased productivity in the same amount of time for the same pay and reaps the cost savings benefit for themselves.  In fact, most companies, on seeing a 40% increase in productivity, will push for 50% or even 60%.  And when that level of productivity is achieved, the company will demand 70%.  Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile, as the old saying goes.

Sorry Dr. Toffler but, had you thought it through, you could have predicted that as well.

We're Bigger Than This

Hi.  Remember me?  I haven't written in a while, I know.  Somehow, I just haven't found much to inspire me to write.  I consider myself to be something of an introvert and, as an introvert, I don't tend to speak unless I have something to say.

As I write this, the corona-virus, or COVID-19, is spreading inexorably around the globe, causing a fair degree of angst.  It's not a particularly dangerous virus.  Most people who it has infected have recovered from it after experiencing only modest symptoms of illness.  But it's extremely contagious and it's dangerous to the elderly and the infirm.  Even for the younger and stronger among us, a positive diagnosis means at least two weeks of social isolation.  So people have started to take precautions.  Some are appropriate, such as frequent hand washing, avoidance of unnecessary large gatherings and unnecessary touching such as shaking hands, and some are less appropriate, such as stockpiling and hoarding things such as food, water, cleaning supplies and toilet paper.

COVID-19 itself has not directly caused any shortages of the aforementioned goods; we have done that.  Ordinary people who, out of fear and paranoia, feel the need to stockpile as though the end of the world were at hand. 

Since there is no shortage of goods and supplies, I assume that this is largely driven out of over-cautiousness.  "If I get the virus, I need to quarantine myself for about two weeks, and during that time I can't go out and buy the supplies that I need, so I had better stock up just in case".   While this is a legitimate concern and sounds reasonable at  first blush, I think people are reacting disproportionately.  Look at toilet paper, for example.  If you were forced to isolate yourself, how much toilet paper would you need to last you for two weeks?  How many rolls to you go through in a day?  Two?  (That's probably generous).  Okay, so 14 days times two rolls a day ... you might need 28 rolls of toilet paper.  That's about two twelve packs, plus a bit.  Heck, let's be generous and round it up to three.  But some people have been seen leaving bulk warehouse stores with two and three and more packs of 40 rolls each!  The problem, of course, is that this leaves less for the rest of us.  So you get line-ups, and empty store shelves, and arguments.  At one warehouse store in my vicinity, a fist fight actually broke out over toilet paper according to a recent news report.

The irony is that we are only making it harder on ourselves.  We are taking a small problem and making it into a much bigger one.  We are making a mountain out of  a proverbial molehill, if you'll forgive the cliché.  Much of our misery is self-inflicted.  What worries me is that if a relatively benign problem such as this one brings out the worst in us, causing us to act with no more reason or grace than our simian cousins, then what will we do when we have a real crisis?  What if this virus was truly deadly, like ebola or anthrax?  What happens when global warming causes inevitable shortages of food and water?

I'm reminded of a story I once heard, a modern day parable if you will:  A man dreamed that he was shown the afterlife.  First he was shown hell.  In hell,  there was a long banquet table laden with delicious food of all sorts, but the only utensils available for eating were chopsticks that were three feet long (and if someone tried to eat with their fingers, Satan chopped them off, I suppose).  Everybody at the table wept because the chopsticks were too long.  They couldn't bring the food to their mouths, and  so they went hungry, even as they had to look at all that enticing food sitting right there in front of them.

Then the man was shown heaven.  Strangely enough, there was the same sort of banquet table and everyone had the same three-foot chopsticks for utensils.  But the people in heaven picked up the food with the end of their chopsticks, and offered it to their neighbor across the table, and everyone was satisfied.

This story illustrates beautifully how things can be so much better when we cooperate and work together rather than against each other or think only of ourselves.  We needn't be "picking holes in each others' coats" as Dickens' charwoman so eloquently put it in his immortal novella, "A Christmas Carol".  We're bigger than this.