40th Anniversary of Future Shock

I read it when it came out and still have it somewhere. I think a lot of it has come true. Sure, there are things that perhaps he couldn't have predicted, due to technology evolving in a different fashion (I read SF novels in the '50's that had dudes in space flying their spacecraft and whipping out their slide rules to calculate their next tranjectory!). Still, we're experiencing future shock, IMO.

Someone like me, for example, who grew up with the iconic AT&T heavy plastic phone that was damn near indestructable, absolutely hates the fact that we are now ruled by cell phone use, which has had an enormous impact on society. An impact that is still evolving. As I said recently in a Hangout thread, cell phones have taken away a great part of our individual freedom. How? It used to be that when you left the house and got into your car, regardless of what you told someone, no one really knew what you were doing, where you were going, and when you might be back, unless you used a pay phone or a phone somewhere else and told them. Even then, you could say whatever you like, and once you hung up, you were free. Today we are all slaves to the cell phone. Yes, you can turn them off, but then everyone knows you've turned the damn thing off, or been "stupid" enough to let the battery run dead. You're expected to be in communication at all times. That's not more freedom, but less.

 

i read it in paperback, probably a year after it came out- i remember it seeming incredibly dense, at least for a 12-13 y/o. honestly, i think the book is remembered more for it's title (and implied thesis) than for anything in the text itself.

and for some reason, whenever i picture alvin toffler, i see carl sagan...

 

Society has been moving more towards the abstract to the point where we have the power to alter reality.

The trend itself isn't regrettable, but what is is our preference of numbers and statistical significance over our imagination and passions.

It's not enough to have a tablet with every single bit of information inside it. It's always been what we could make out of it and how we use it to augment rather than to rely.

 

People make themselves slaves to the cell phone. Im pretty much known for not picking up my phone. Leave a message or text, and I will get back. If I know that person will have me off the phone in less than a minute or two, then I will answer it.

 

Whenever future shock/ technology run wild stuff comes up I always think of Vernor Vinge and his ideas on the technology singularity.

 

As someone who works on the periphery of the world's energy and financial markets, I can only say it is overwhelming at times to think about how much money is circulated throughout the globe, the velocity of transactions, the different interests, number of 'big fish' players etc.

 

“ Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended. ”

— "The Coming Technological Singularity" by Vernor Vinge, 1993

He's a crazy cat and a damned fine writer. I really enjoyed A Fire Upon the Deep, for which he won a Hugo award, science fiction's highest honor. Someone should turn Scribo onto Vinge, if he isn't already.

 

Yes, Fire Upon the Deep one of my all-time favorites -- he has a sequel set in that universe coming out very soon.

 

Far out! A Deepness in the Sky was the prequel. I guess he finally got around to doing the sequel. The guy isn't what you might call prolific.

 

I don't think we are overwhelmed with information - perhaps our generation is, but the younger folks seem quite on top of it.

You look at things like Facebook and twitter - and it demonstrates how people deal with the "inforamation overload" They find ways to filter it. People "Pull" information as they need it. The communicate when they want and are free to leave their house and not wait for a call. Cell phones give us more freedom - that seems obvious. So what if people know you are always reachable except when you are in a no coverage area - you can always escape by going to the mountains after all.

But even better when someone calls you, they have no idea where you are. You might be at home...or not. It use to be, people knew pretty much where you were.

Basic human tendencies have impacted the future more than the future has impacted basic human tendencies.

We still form communities and hierarchies - organically. This BBS is an example. Yet none of us feel overwhelmed by the information on here ya know...we seem to process it just fine.

Do people have less time to sit around and day dream? Compared to what? When the average person had to shovel coal 8o hours a week to make a living? There's more art then ever - it's a flood of the stuff.

People are more aware (well, with loads of exceptions), more in touch with the world, and more globally conscious then ever before.

And most of our problems that plague us aren't related to the future - but to our past.

Perhaps the true future shock is the end of ignorance. That those who choose not to participate in the vast amounts of information get left behind...and that's where the book made one great prediction that did indeed come to fruition. Information is a currency today.

 

That's not true. It used to be true, pre-cell phone, but no longer. In fact, you can be found with your cell phone signal, if the government wants you found, like in an emergency. If a device hasn't been invented for the general public's use to track a particular cell phone, whether you want to be tracked, or not, it is only a matter of time. We'll have the same cycle as we've seen with radar detectors. The cops come up with a new version and within weeks the private sector has a new detector out. What's OnStar, from GM? Constant contact. There will be those who'll claim that they can ignore the calls, screen the calls, or turn the cell phone off, but societal pressure, pressure from work, pressure from family, pressure from school, etc. almost demands that you stay in touch. The internet is becoming increasingly the same way, in my opinion.

 

When information becomes ubiquitous it loses it's value. Value is in rarity.

How does the model continue when no one will pay for news, music or information because they can find what they want for free?

 

does knowing that 1+1 = 2 have no value? It's ubiquitos after all but necessary to so many functions in life.

What about the knowledge to read? Or use a computer. ubiquitas? Yes. Not of value?

 

That study may be human nature - not the impact of inforamation. We humans filter far more information in real life than the internet exposes us too. When you walk down the street, there are literally 1000's of pieces of information being tossed at your brain. Most of it gets filtered, most people can only recall a few things - if even. That's major filtering. But filtering doesn't lower the value of any piece of information - it actually increases it.

But we also aren't these passive sea cucumbers feeding on what comes by - we reach out and find information on our own. We learn. We seek out info, and today there's more to seek out then ever before. Google is a case in point.

I hardly think people look things up that just confirm their beliefs - they do it to learn and obtain new information (unless it's basso looking up stuff to support his opinion)...but for everyone else, it's to learn. And that runs contradictory to the notion that the information age makes us more stubborn. If anything, I serve witness that posters here have not become more extreme in their view but rather more open minded accross the board.

I think that is true with any piece of information. NOt just a flood. If anything, the more info someone gets contrary to their belief, the more they will have to face the reality their belief is false. I doubt someone who believes in Santa Claus is more persuaded by some random person telling them it's not real versus everyone they know and respect indicating it's not real.

Again, that was true in 1929 as well. It all happened faster than humans could adjust too. And markets crash as a result of human reacting to what's going on.

When you enable the functionality.

Of course not. But I get what I need in terms of info from the GARM. When something big happens, I come to the GARM to get the inside scoop Or read about what's happening to players - or what they might have said and such. In otherwords, I filter and scann to read what I want

Yes, people use to agree on basic facts all the time. Across national and continental boundaries....the fact that we don't agree creates discussion which creates greater awareness. It's because some accuse Obama of not being born in the U.S. that I understand the challenges he faces. When everyone agrees, there are no new ideas, no increase in knowledge.


[/QUOTE]

 

This reminds me of another ongoing debate on whether the internet is making us dumber
[rQUOTEr]
Nick Carr and Clay Shirky recently waged a head-to-head battle — via dueling Wall Street Journal essays — over whether the Internet is making us smarter or dumber. Carr reiterated some of the points made in his recent book The Shallows, saying the web continually distracts us, and that this distraction is making us less smart (and less interesting). Shirky, however, argued that the explosion of media the web has brought us contains a lot of noise, but also has a lot of value for society.[/rQUOTEr]

Google gives us instant info without any of the messiness of context. But who's to say I would want the info if I had to work for it? Some studies have been claiming that the interwebs is making us more impatient and more antisocial and it transfers through in the real world. On the other hand, our brain has shown to be very plastic and adaptable to new inventions that it comes across. Even novels were once considered dangerous and brain damaging.

And knowing is half the battle....

The odds are stacked against us and our monkey brains to end ignorance. We still cling onto stereotypes and generalities. Our emotions and gut instincts, the bane of every rationalist, are primitive mechanisms that our brains use to sift our relevant choices and decisions. Without it, we could sit for hours trying to choose a jelly donut from a bowl of cereal for breakfast.

I agree with the balkanization of information. During the boom years, I thought people were overworking themselves to death to the point where "boring news" was a luxury. But with more unemployed and angry teabaggers who have the time and passion yet are still woefully stupid and ignorant wrt their interest level, I'm leaning towards people seeing what they want to see.

There's a general fear that the world is growing smaller and faster. The next new innovation will be augmenting ourselves to handle it, maybe like Ghost in the Shell.

Having said that, while that top 5% pushes to be nimbler and more efficient, the rest of us doesn't really need the cool tech that keeps us wired. It's more out of choice and boredom than necessity.

Which you can opt out or remove your batteries.

Your premise is framed in the sense that we need this information. The stuff on here covers a broad spectrum of interests that isn't relevant outside our whims. For a guy like Morey, I doubt he hooks himself up to a machine like Cerebro to sift rivers of information for some juicy nuggets. It's all done by machines to help them process more information generated by more machines and media. Morey and Les Alexander pay some brilliant people to tell how those machines work.

One of the more interesting points in Nicolas Taleb's Black Swan is how the more we absorb in the news, the less we really know about it. It may very well be that the interesting flood of minutia on GARM and other boards doesn't amount to a lick of real actionable information such as information that could predict the future. Then what do we have left?

Art was originally contracted and maintained by aristocrats and the elite as a matter of prestige. Not only did they have the time and money to create or buy it, but also the time to learn and appreciate it.

If you look at our culture and what we value, it is about time and money and the means to extract it in the most efficient and painless manner. Our school system gears us towards this track, and we expect that just because art and information is more accessible, that we are better for it?

So let's just give whomever Freedom and Liberty to whereever we point on a map and expect those people to love us for it.

I don't think a shared worldview is possible. Forget information overload, people can't even agree to the details of their Holy Books. Have I lived in your shoes to know what you know? We're Americans, but what does that mean to you?

Understanding and knowing can only go so far. To share a worldview, you need to share an experience.

A while back, the head librarian of the ALA criticized Google for digitizing books and making it easier to dissemble without context, nuance or relevance.
[rquoter]
In 2004 Google announced its plan to digitize the collections of five major research libraries. This would allow both Google and the libraries in question, The University of Michigan, Oxford, New York Public, Harvard and Stanford, to have access to digitized copies of millions of texts. Michael Gorman, then ALA president, responded to this announcement with an article in the Los Angeles Times 'Google and God's Mind' where he made clear his disapproval of the digitisation project. This disapproval was based on what he sees as a clear distinction between information and real knowledge. Gorman defines information as facts, data, images and quotations that can be used out of context, while real knowledge denotes literary and scholarly texts. This distinction informs Gorman’s observations about online information retrieval which he characterises as being more focused on quick and easy access to facts [40].

In his later article, Gorman argues that to “Google boosters”, speed is of the greatest import: "...just as it is to consumers of fast “food”, but, as with fast food, rubbish is rubbish, no matter how speedily it is delivered".[41] However, he suggests that real knowledge is acquired through a traditional scholarly approach to books.[42]

Gorman was characteristically blunt when voicing his opinions on digitising books:

...massive databases of digitized whole books, especially scholarly books, are expensive exercises in futility based on the staggering notion that, for the first time in history, one form of communication (electronic) will supplant and obliterate all previous forms.[43]
[/rquoter]

Which is awesome because I used the wiki instead of his original article.

 

"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
~Isaac Asimov

"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
~ Carl Sagan

Who is the vast amount of information being proliferated to? Or who SHOULD it go to? Does the western world get all of it and everyone else left behind even more? There's already "Third Worlds" out there and the smallest of small tribes that have never seen an electric device.

There's just so much info floating out there and constantly being churned out, just seems like a big hamster wheel or treadmill of info to me. We've designed consumers but not really thinkers or thoughts to how it should be implemented. It is like currency, its the next guy knows something I dont, so I have to catch up. Also, as we know, the people with all the info are more able to manipulate the ignorant masses with what they know.

Gathering info in itself isnt bad. Its the "better me than him" approach that presents problems. It helps people be smart and know a bunch of things, but it doesnt necessarily make them better people. People and science are still wanting to be "EPIC", and "First!", rather than GOOD. You can't help but think there's always some knew "progressive" finding on the horizon thats gonna UNDERCUT people who are still trying to settle in.

The world has been turning as its always been. Natural evolution still going its ridiculously slow pace, as its always been doing. Its humans and the science fields finding out whatever it can find, reporting whatever it can report. With the purpose of...just finding more knowledge. I think those who dont keep up should CHOOSE like like tribesman and Amish to not want to keep up. The current world in the future can be the archaic world to some who want to keep its "traditions". Pure steampunking it