Alvin Toffler, Author of ‘Future Shock,’ Dies at 87(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Alvin Toffler, Author of ‘Future Shock,’ Dies at 87
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/books/alvin-toffler-author-of-future-shock-dies-at-87.html
44 comments
I somehow avoided reading Shakespeare in school. As an adult, I finally picked one up to read. I was amazed at all the clichés Shakespeare used!
I'd say the clichés became so after Shakespeare.
Shakespeare invented them, and then they became clichés.
They became cliches after him, but he did not invent them.
"and then they became clichés"
as per my comment
"and then they became clichés"
as per my comment
I think you are right but wonder if it is just some kind of bias. Do you have other authors in mind who are leading the way today?
I've heard of Verner Vinge being spoken of in similar term btw.
I've heard of Verner Vinge being spoken of in similar term btw.
The writers and commentators of today tend to fall into niche categories or just write fiction. There is Nicholas Carr's and Douglas Rushkoff. The latter even wrote a book called Present Shock.
Most people I can think of are also of the past such as Vinge, Marshall McLuhan or Freeman Dyson (who came up with the idea of the Dyson sphere, not the vacuum) who were also brilliant. McLuhan is a joy to read or listen to. He has several interviews on YouTube.
Esther Dyson (Freeman's daughter) and Nicholas Negroponte were others I read growing up along the lines of Toffler. I remember the latter's Being Digital as being profound at the time but passe in today's world since all of the marvels of the future he talks about came to fruition. Negroponte also came up with the One Laptop Per Child which lost it's relevance in a world of smartphones.
Others I thought of were Neal Stephenson (his non-fiction works are awesome, especially In the Beginning... was the Command Line and that book-long article he wrote for Wired about wiring Cambodia). Stephenson's fiction is great too and puts William Gibson to shame when it comes to cyberpunk, but Gibson wrote his prior to the PC era. Rudy Rucker was also quite good at the time but his best non-fiction works such as Infinity and the Mind (a must read for you math geeks) are out of print. I also liked The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra a lot growing up.
I looked on Goodreads for authors that are similar to Toffler and while I recognized a couple of them I didn't see anyone worth mentioning.
Toffler's works were mostly dated after the mid 2000's, but predicted the consumer as producer (pro-sumer) culture we live in today and Revolutionary Wealth described how we would make a living with services like Patreon and GoFundMe in such a society.
I recommend everyone read The Third Wave. It provides great historical context for the present machinations of society, the media, and the political machine controlling the masses. Powershift discuss the shift of power to the masses and is also good if you like the idea of the death of the establishment.
Other people that come to mind are Nicholas Carr, Douglas Rushkoff, and Ray Kurzweil.
Most people I can think of are also of the past such as Vinge, Marshall McLuhan or Freeman Dyson (who came up with the idea of the Dyson sphere, not the vacuum) who were also brilliant. McLuhan is a joy to read or listen to. He has several interviews on YouTube.
Esther Dyson (Freeman's daughter) and Nicholas Negroponte were others I read growing up along the lines of Toffler. I remember the latter's Being Digital as being profound at the time but passe in today's world since all of the marvels of the future he talks about came to fruition. Negroponte also came up with the One Laptop Per Child which lost it's relevance in a world of smartphones.
Others I thought of were Neal Stephenson (his non-fiction works are awesome, especially In the Beginning... was the Command Line and that book-long article he wrote for Wired about wiring Cambodia). Stephenson's fiction is great too and puts William Gibson to shame when it comes to cyberpunk, but Gibson wrote his prior to the PC era. Rudy Rucker was also quite good at the time but his best non-fiction works such as Infinity and the Mind (a must read for you math geeks) are out of print. I also liked The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra a lot growing up.
I looked on Goodreads for authors that are similar to Toffler and while I recognized a couple of them I didn't see anyone worth mentioning.
Toffler's works were mostly dated after the mid 2000's, but predicted the consumer as producer (pro-sumer) culture we live in today and Revolutionary Wealth described how we would make a living with services like Patreon and GoFundMe in such a society.
I recommend everyone read The Third Wave. It provides great historical context for the present machinations of society, the media, and the political machine controlling the masses. Powershift discuss the shift of power to the masses and is also good if you like the idea of the death of the establishment.
Other people that come to mind are Nicholas Carr, Douglas Rushkoff, and Ray Kurzweil.
Gibson did not write "prior to the PC era", whether you mean PC either to be "personal computer" or IBM's brand. I was using both by 1984. He was writing prior to the Internet as we know it existed, though (although its precursor ARPANET already did).
As for Stephenson, he was writing parodies of cyberpunk, not cyberpunk itself, and unlike Gibson, his work required no foresight of the future because he just had to look around existing geek culture to get his ideas -- online communities and multi-user dungeons already existed by 1992.
As for Stephenson, he was writing parodies of cyberpunk, not cyberpunk itself, and unlike Gibson, his work required no foresight of the future because he just had to look around existing geek culture to get his ideas -- online communities and multi-user dungeons already existed by 1992.
On the topic of Stephenson, i can't help wonder if his "cyberpunk" was more satire. After all the guy actually knew computers, and thus was perhaps irked by the "imagery" used by cyberpunk authors. He also basically pureed the prototypical cyberpunk during the opening chapter of Diamond Age.
And the opening of _Snow Crash_, too, was clearly a loving parody of an already-florid imagery. Cyberpunk as a fiction genre originated in the mid-80s and by 1990 people were calling it dead.
Like ideonexus says, Vinge for sure. You might also try Minsky, particulary Society of Mind (http://aurellem.org/society-of-mind/index.html).
I think Vinge deserves to be spoken of in similar terms. "A Fire Upon Deep" was so incredibly ahead of its time, and the virtual-reality-real-world mashup of "Rainbow's End," written almost 10 years ago, sounds like the inevitable way we will experience the world in the future with augmentation... At the same time, he made some outright silly predictions... so it's a matter of what you choose to focus on.
Toffler's the same. I've only read "Future Shock," but his predictions in that book can either seem completely ridiculous and off-base or like someone outside of our present culture giving you the perspective only an outsider can give. Here's some quotes from the book. Remember, these were written in 1970, but I leave it to the reader to decide if these quotes a prescient, insightful, or absurd:
The techno-societies, far from being drab and homogenized, are honeycombed with just such colorful groupings—hippies and hot rodders, theosophists and flying saucer fans, skindivers and skydivers, homosexuals, computerniks, vegetarians, bodybuilders and Black Muslims... Today the hammerblows of the super-industrial revolution are literally splintering the society. We are multiplying these social enclaves, tribes and minicults among us almost as fast as we are multiplying automotive options. The same destandardizing forces that make for greater individual choice with respect to products and cultural wares, are also destandardizing our social structures. This is why, seemingly overnight, new subcults like the hippies burst into being. We are, in fact, living through a "subcult explosion."
.....
One response to the loss of control, for example, is a revulsion against intelligence. Science first gave man a sense of mastery over his environment, and hence over the future. By making the future seem malleable, instead of immutable, it shattered the opiate religions that preached passivity and mysticism. Today, mounting evidence that society is out of control breeds disillusionment with science. In consequence, we witness a garish revival of mysticism. Suddenly astrology is the rage. Zen, yoga, seances, and witchcraft become popular pastimes. Cults form around the search for Dionysian experience, for non-verbal and supposedly non-linear communication. We are told it is more important to "feel" than to "think," as though there were a contradiction between the two.
.....
If a smaller number of families raise children, however, why do the children have to be their own? Why not a system under which "professional parents" take on the childrearing function for others? Raising children, after all, requires skills that are by no means universal. We don't let "just anyone" perform brain surgery or, for that matter, sell stocks and bonds. Even the lowest ranking civil servant is required to pass tests proving competence. Yet we allow virtually anyone, almost without regard for mental or moral qualification, to try his or her hand at raising young human beings, so long as these humans are biological offspring. Despite the increasing complexity of the task, parenthood remains the greatest single preserve of the amateur.
I have more quotes here if anyone is interested in reading more. I apologize for the website style and formatting. It's an old application I wrote for myself to keep notes:
http://mxplx.com/reference/1525/
Toffler's the same. I've only read "Future Shock," but his predictions in that book can either seem completely ridiculous and off-base or like someone outside of our present culture giving you the perspective only an outsider can give. Here's some quotes from the book. Remember, these were written in 1970, but I leave it to the reader to decide if these quotes a prescient, insightful, or absurd:
The techno-societies, far from being drab and homogenized, are honeycombed with just such colorful groupings—hippies and hot rodders, theosophists and flying saucer fans, skindivers and skydivers, homosexuals, computerniks, vegetarians, bodybuilders and Black Muslims... Today the hammerblows of the super-industrial revolution are literally splintering the society. We are multiplying these social enclaves, tribes and minicults among us almost as fast as we are multiplying automotive options. The same destandardizing forces that make for greater individual choice with respect to products and cultural wares, are also destandardizing our social structures. This is why, seemingly overnight, new subcults like the hippies burst into being. We are, in fact, living through a "subcult explosion."
.....
One response to the loss of control, for example, is a revulsion against intelligence. Science first gave man a sense of mastery over his environment, and hence over the future. By making the future seem malleable, instead of immutable, it shattered the opiate religions that preached passivity and mysticism. Today, mounting evidence that society is out of control breeds disillusionment with science. In consequence, we witness a garish revival of mysticism. Suddenly astrology is the rage. Zen, yoga, seances, and witchcraft become popular pastimes. Cults form around the search for Dionysian experience, for non-verbal and supposedly non-linear communication. We are told it is more important to "feel" than to "think," as though there were a contradiction between the two.
.....
If a smaller number of families raise children, however, why do the children have to be their own? Why not a system under which "professional parents" take on the childrearing function for others? Raising children, after all, requires skills that are by no means universal. We don't let "just anyone" perform brain surgery or, for that matter, sell stocks and bonds. Even the lowest ranking civil servant is required to pass tests proving competence. Yet we allow virtually anyone, almost without regard for mental or moral qualification, to try his or her hand at raising young human beings, so long as these humans are biological offspring. Despite the increasing complexity of the task, parenthood remains the greatest single preserve of the amateur.
I have more quotes here if anyone is interested in reading more. I apologize for the website style and formatting. It's an old application I wrote for myself to keep notes:
http://mxplx.com/reference/1525/
>>" Why not a system under which "professional parents" take on the childrearing function for others? ...."
We already have these. We call the system 'schools' and the professionals 'school teachers'
We already have these. We call the system 'schools' and the professionals 'school teachers'
[deleted]
Very Nice. Thank You.
He called gay marriage in the 1972 movie 'Future Shock' when homosexuality was still listed as a mental illness
Never knew there was a movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVJrJk3q3MA
(Now that's the thing that no one could predict in 1970. That one day you would be able to summon up a movie with a few keystrokes.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVJrJk3q3MA
(Now that's the thing that no one could predict in 1970. That one day you would be able to summon up a movie with a few keystrokes.)
You'll find that concept in Arthur C. Clarke's Imperial Earth, published in 1975, and written a during the years earlier. (It draws strongly on OPEC, the 1973 oil embargo, Nixon, and petrodollars.)
Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" from 1974 also touches on this.
I read Toffler's Third Wave in high school as part of a class. A lot of what Alvin Toffler talked about was over my head at the time. Still, the material was very interesting to me and I looked forward to the new world he described. Only later on in college did it all come together as I learned about business and got involved with the early web.
This is a good lesson: full comprehension is not immediately necessary but there is a lot future value in plodding through unfamiliar content.
This is a good lesson: full comprehension is not immediately necessary but there is a lot future value in plodding through unfamiliar content.
Your last point is the secret to enjoying a lot of great, "difficult" things.
Also excellent is 1975's proto-cyberpunk novel "The Shockwave Rider" by John Brunner, which was directly influenced by "Future Shock."
Thirding. At least 15 years ahead of its time, and there's still some bits I'm waiting for. The concept of "Hearing Aid" as a distributed universal ombudsman is something we have parts of, maybe, in things like Wikileaks and the Tor network, but the idea of implementing them as essentially a self-replicating worm that runs on hundreds of millions of machines still hasn't been attempted to my knowledge.
I'd like to second that recommendation. The Shockwave Rider is a great book. I definitely recommend it for any of the HN crowd who haven't read it yet. I only just read it about two years ago, and I really wish I'd read it sooner. It's not exactly "cyberpunk" but you can kinda see the influence it had on subsequent cyberpunk authors.
The best books that I've read in my life give you a framework to make sense of individual events going forward. Third Wave was one of the best books of its kind.
I'm currently reading Kevin Kelly's, the Inevitable, and he's another author with similar power. Kelly in the early nineties was the first to make the connection between software and biology.
I'm currently reading Kevin Kelly's, the Inevitable, and he's another author with similar power. Kelly in the early nineties was the first to make the connection between software and biology.
Also read the Third Wave (well most of it anyway). Was a very intriguing concept -- the general idea is applicable to any intelligent species -- it will evolve through the Agricultural 1st Wave, the Industrial 2nd Wave and then the Informational 3rd Wave.
I own many of his books. A highly recommended author.
The Third Wave is probably my favorite, especially in the way it accurate anticipates the information age, which in his opinion, begins with the invention of the barcode.
The Third Wave is probably my favorite, especially in the way it accurate anticipates the information age
E. M. Forster predicted YouTube in the early 20th century Sci-Fi novella, The Machine Stops.
begins with the invention of the barcode
The original Internet of Things.
E. M. Forster predicted YouTube in the early 20th century Sci-Fi novella, The Machine Stops.
begins with the invention of the barcode
The original Internet of Things.
I read "Future Shock" years ago. Very prescient and worth a read even now. What a great thinker.
As a kid I was engrossed by Previews and Premises. His background and early experiences quite significant. https://www.amazon.com/PREVIEWS-PREMISES-Alvin-Toffler/dp/05...
It is also worth mentioning that he worked in partnership with his wife. One can debate whether she got a fair share of the credit.
It is also worth mentioning that he worked in partnership with his wife. One can debate whether she got a fair share of the credit.
Futureshock was a book I picked out of a box of books put out to the trash one day a bit more than 10 years ago. I read it and was amazed at the accuracy. And just now when I read he died I thought to maybe read it again and the blue color of the cover is strongly still in my mind.
It's weird for me in way, because I feel like the biggest impact of his work on my life was second hand, hanging out on the SL4 mailing list back in the day. I have no doubt that many of the denizens of that mailing list will go on to shape large parts of our civilisation's technological future, hopefully in ways that aren't completely insensitive to the sociological forces described by Toffler.
Toffler is way ahead of Kurzweil. Especially when you consider the first Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 and mass print communication emerged ~400 years later. The web was invented ~1990. We may not get it right for a looong time yet.
Not hugely known, but he also had a consulting firm: http://tofflerassociates.com/
>He foresaw the development of cloning
But we don't have commonplace human cloning. Or in fact practical human cloning of any kind.
>“The roaring current of change,” he said, was producing visible and measurable affects in individuals that fractured marriages, overwhelmed families and caused “confusional breakdowns” manifested in rising crime, drug use and social alienation.
Aren't those issues mostly caused by the sharp neoliberalization of society?
>He was among the first authors to recognize that knowledge, not labor and raw materials, would become the most important economic resource of advanced societies.
Under what accounting system is that actually true?
>Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House, met the Tofflers in the 1970s and became close to them. He said “The Third Wave” had immensely influenced his own thinking and was “one of the great seminal works of our time.”
This does not speak at all well of Toffler's work.
>He advised readers to “concern themselves more and more with general theme, rather than detail.” That theme, he emphasized, was that “the rate of change has implications quite apart from, and sometimes more important than, the directions of change.”
This does not speak at all well for Toffler's work.
The bell tolls and it tolls for us all, but I can't help but wish he'd taken the time to recant some of his more explicitly reactionary work.
But we don't have commonplace human cloning. Or in fact practical human cloning of any kind.
>“The roaring current of change,” he said, was producing visible and measurable affects in individuals that fractured marriages, overwhelmed families and caused “confusional breakdowns” manifested in rising crime, drug use and social alienation.
Aren't those issues mostly caused by the sharp neoliberalization of society?
>He was among the first authors to recognize that knowledge, not labor and raw materials, would become the most important economic resource of advanced societies.
Under what accounting system is that actually true?
>Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House, met the Tofflers in the 1970s and became close to them. He said “The Third Wave” had immensely influenced his own thinking and was “one of the great seminal works of our time.”
This does not speak at all well of Toffler's work.
>He advised readers to “concern themselves more and more with general theme, rather than detail.” That theme, he emphasized, was that “the rate of change has implications quite apart from, and sometimes more important than, the directions of change.”
This does not speak at all well for Toffler's work.
The bell tolls and it tolls for us all, but I can't help but wish he'd taken the time to recant some of his more explicitly reactionary work.
>> >He was among the first authors to recognize that knowledge, not labor and raw materials, would become the most important economic resource of advanced societies.
> Under what accounting system is that actually true?
It's not that controversial idea anymore. See, for example [1]
Contrary to economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx to Thomas Piketty, our riches cannot be explained by the accumulation of capital, as the misleading word capitalism implies. The Great Enrichment did not come from piling brick on brick, or bachelor's degree on bachelor's degree, or bank balance on bank balance, but from piling idea on idea. The accumulation of capital was of course necessary. But so were a labor force and the existence of liquid water. Oxygen is necessary for a fire. Yet it would be unhelpful to explain the Chicago Fire of October 8–10, 1871, by the presence of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere.
[1] "Bourgeois Equality", Deirdre McCloskey, https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/12/bourgeois-equality
> Under what accounting system is that actually true?
It's not that controversial idea anymore. See, for example [1]
Contrary to economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx to Thomas Piketty, our riches cannot be explained by the accumulation of capital, as the misleading word capitalism implies. The Great Enrichment did not come from piling brick on brick, or bachelor's degree on bachelor's degree, or bank balance on bank balance, but from piling idea on idea. The accumulation of capital was of course necessary. But so were a labor force and the existence of liquid water. Oxygen is necessary for a fire. Yet it would be unhelpful to explain the Chicago Fire of October 8–10, 1871, by the presence of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere.
[1] "Bourgeois Equality", Deirdre McCloskey, https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/12/bourgeois-equality
>our riches cannot be explained by the accumulation of capital, as the misleading word capitalism implies. The Great Enrichment did not come from piling brick on brick, or bachelor's degree on bachelor's degree, or bank balance on bank balance, but from piling idea on idea.
"brick on brick, or bachelor's degree on bachelor's degree, or bank balance on bank balance" does not have anything to do with neither Marx's nor Adam Smith's definition of capital. And both already knew the importance of ideas...
"brick on brick, or bachelor's degree on bachelor's degree, or bank balance on bank balance" does not have anything to do with neither Marx's nor Adam Smith's definition of capital. And both already knew the importance of ideas...
You are the reason why I steer clear of Facebook on days when a prominent death is the top headline.
"'X' had ties to a politician I don't like, ergo he sucked. Q.E.D.", is of course a rather ridiculous criticism. Far more importantly though, the time for such criticism is either when 'X' is alive, or when 'X' is brought up in the future. The comments section of an obituary is really not the time.
"'X' had ties to a politician I don't like, ergo he sucked. Q.E.D.", is of course a rather ridiculous criticism. Far more importantly though, the time for such criticism is either when 'X' is alive, or when 'X' is brought up in the future. The comments section of an obituary is really not the time.
I'd long classed Toeffler into the group of generally overhyped futurologists, and in particular found his endorsement by Gingrich anything but salutory.
And then I ran across a copy of FutureShock a few months back. I've only skimmed through it and read a few select passages, but what I saw impressed me. I've been doing a great deal of reading on the future and past, and in particular, on past predictions of the future. Many are silly, or specious, or profoundly wide of the mark. Toeffler managed to capture an intersection of technology and psychology in a way that few others had.
He wasn't chasing the starry-eyed dreams of Vannevar Bush and Arthur C. Clarke. He wasn't simply touting the business advantages of endless information. Among other things, Toeffler has one of the earlier discussions of information overload I've seen, one I found quite intelligent and discerning. I'm hoping to have time to go back and dig through his work for more, looking for both his accurate predictions and goofs.
But don't dismiss him out of hand.
That said: your skepticism is refreshing here.
And then I ran across a copy of FutureShock a few months back. I've only skimmed through it and read a few select passages, but what I saw impressed me. I've been doing a great deal of reading on the future and past, and in particular, on past predictions of the future. Many are silly, or specious, or profoundly wide of the mark. Toeffler managed to capture an intersection of technology and psychology in a way that few others had.
He wasn't chasing the starry-eyed dreams of Vannevar Bush and Arthur C. Clarke. He wasn't simply touting the business advantages of endless information. Among other things, Toeffler has one of the earlier discussions of information overload I've seen, one I found quite intelligent and discerning. I'm hoping to have time to go back and dig through his work for more, looking for both his accurate predictions and goofs.
But don't dismiss him out of hand.
That said: your skepticism is refreshing here.
I've only read a couple of his works, but I'd always thought they were overrated. His work seemed to have a "The horror" (while staring with sick fascination) vibe that I associate with the 70's. Not that there isn't plenty to be horrified by in this world, but the key is to do something about it, not just stare at it.
I more tend to consider his works overrated in that he successfully "prevented" the "terrifying" future of never-ending, ever-accelerating change he foretold by managing to make sure that very little at all was allowed to change.
Call it a generational difference and also disrespect for the deceased, but being a child of the late '80s who grew up with Gingrich a major figure and "future shock" a commonplace concept, I've reached the 2010s and managed not to be future-shocked because people keep acting on their "future" shock by keeping things largely the same.
Worse, the social problems he was preaching about happened despite the lack of flying cars and techno-singularities, because it turned out they were largely about underlying slow shifts in social conditions anyway rather than about the shock of an ever-accelerating technological change that never happened.
Call it a generational difference and also disrespect for the deceased, but being a child of the late '80s who grew up with Gingrich a major figure and "future shock" a commonplace concept, I've reached the 2010s and managed not to be future-shocked because people keep acting on their "future" shock by keeping things largely the same.
Worse, the social problems he was preaching about happened despite the lack of flying cars and techno-singularities, because it turned out they were largely about underlying slow shifts in social conditions anyway rather than about the shock of an ever-accelerating technological change that never happened.
If you read their books soon after they are published, you see the world developing trough the the lens of his ideas.
If you first read their books several decades afterwards, you nod in agreement and are amazed how well this kindred spirit writes down what you have had in your mind, without realizing that you have been exposed to his ideas all this time and they are originally his.