While reading a history book about the Twentieth Century I realized more vividly than I ever did before just how fast the world has changed in little over a hundred years. We can travel to any corner of the world with unthinkable speed, and we can communicate instantly with people everywhere. The average person alive today possesses a much greater amount of knowledge and is exposed to much larger amounts of information than was the case at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Life expectancy is unbelievably higher, the planet is overpopulated, and natural resources are overexploited.
All this has wreaked havoc on many of the assumptions, prejudices and mentality patterns that had previously endured unchecked for centuries, if not for millennia. The problems we face today are caused at least in part by the fact that we, as a global society, haven't quite caught up yet with this vertiginous change. Many of our old ideas and ideologies are being perpetuated untried and untested as we try to adapt to ever more rapid change.
My question to you is: do you think we'll ever catch up? Will we ever develop a new mentality, a new set of ideas and expectations, a new set of values and beliefs, and perhaps a new form of government that will be suited to the reality of the times (and to all or most areas of the world) or are we destined to lag behind as the world around us keeps changing faster than we can cope?
My favorite r/askhistorians post of all time is as follows, roughly: Q: what did Roman citizens think would happen in the next 20 years, in the next 100? Did they make predictions like we do? A: it didn't occur to them that the world would change in the next 20 or 100 years, because in many ways it hadn't changed in the previous 100. So, no, they weren't future-obsessed like we were, not even close. I've been doing a lot of reading lately by a man named John Kautsky (this among others). The gist is that when we study history and especially the social sciences and even more especially political science, we start in about 1600. Rousseau is about as early as we go. We tend to think that the modern form of government is the best form, as opposed to the next form, and thus we are blinded. Kautsky points out that before that, much of humanity had the same government -- the traditional and to a lesser extent the commercial aristocracy -- for almost 5000 years. And yet who draws any modern political science conclusions from that? There was no change. Biologically, never mind mentally, we simply haven't been equipped to cope with change up to now. You're right. Occasionally I sit and think about the internet. I make an active effort to think about all the things I can do with the internet. And yet the next day I inevitably waste some of my time on something, maybe a phone call, or asking someone a question, or even driving somewhere, that I could have used the internet for in a third of the time. That's a microcosm of society's attempts to handle the unprecedented changes that arguably began when the steam engine was invented (or Henry Ford, or IBM, etc) and haven't stopped. I'm still learning, as are we all, but I think there's hope. I have a pet theory about this, I'm not just rambling (I don't think). My parents are pretty good with understanding technology, which is to say that while they're nowhere near me, they're just as far in the other direction from their parents. What I wonder is whether someday I'll be in the same situation as my parents, with my children. But I don't think I will be, for one critical reason. I think in this generation we've finally grasped that change, especially with regard to technology, isn't going away anytime soon. We've left the Space Age and entered the Information Era. Growing up with change has fostered an understanding and an acceptance of change and new ideas that was previously not present in our society (so yes we're starting, finally, to catch up, I think). This should in turn make it easier and easier to adapt to new changes, until we've fully caught up (if that's possible). I honestly believe, and this may be wishful, that this is the generation where we turn the corner. I see no reason why I, in 30 years, shouldn't be able to keep up with change just as well as people born in 2020. It really just depends what atmosphere you grow up in, and we've grown up in an atmosphere of wilder change than any other generation ever. EDIT: I should note I've written this out in some form or another elsewhere on hubski but I can't remember where.
How did I miss this?! Great response flagamuffin and really interesting answer from that historian re: future predictions. It is something I've been thinking about a lot lately re: Global Brain.
I agree, I think from now on we'll be better at dealing with change at a personal level. I wonder whether it'll be possible for institutions, governments, and laws to catch up any time soon.I think in this generation we've finally grasped that change, especially with regard to technology, isn't going away anytime soon. We've left the Space Age and entered the Information Era. Growing up with change has fostered an understanding and an acceptance of change and new ideas that was previously not present in our society (so yes we're starting, finally, to catch up, I think). This should in turn make it easier and easier to adapt to new changes, until we've fully caught up (if that's possible). I honestly believe, and this may be wishful, that this is the generation where we turn the corner. I see no reason why I, in 30 years, shouldn't be able to keep up with change just as well as people born in 2020.
I think that governments and institutions will continue to lag behind by a few decades for a while, as our tendency for higher trust in older people puts people in charge much later than when they would be most effective. What will be interesting is when growth reaches the point where the governments are far enough behind that they aren't in control any more, but they don't realise it.
"I believe that, as a society, we're most comfortable living about ten years in the past." - William Gibson, No Maps For These Territories (paraphrased) So... there's a lot of unfounded assertions in your statement. Let's take a few statements and look at them before we begin: We can travel from major air hub to major air hub at a substantial percentage of Mach 1. That's a long way from "unthinkable." Stand in a parking lot next to a tall building. Clap your hands once. That echo you hear? It's traveling faster than you can. Sure, they couldn't do that a hundred years ago. But really, in the grand scheme of things, how much does it affect your life? Yeah, you're a couple grand and a week invested into a trip to Australia. How much world travel do you do? How much does it affect your life? Most of the world still lives within 30 miles of where they were born. Americans, if we're going to be specific, have been wandering for 150 years... and are here because of wanderlust. We've been nomads since the Reformation. And hey - if you want to visit the Empty Quarter it's just as much of a bitch for you as it was for TE Lawrence once you break clear of Riyadh. You aren't going to, though, so it doesn't much matter. And you have superficial relationships with disparate people all over the globe but you have fewer superficial relationships with people in your neighborhood. You've traded neighbors for usernames. It makes a difference, but it, too, is superficial. I'll top that - the average edition of the New York Times contains more information than a seventeenth century was exposed to in their lifetime. But again - how much of that information do you use? You filter it for what you need and ignore the rest. How much Internet usage did it take before you learned to ignore the ads to the left and right of the page? And how long did it take you to alter your browsing habits to avoid the sites that go more aggressive? You've adapted twice to information overload. It's just a thing. Overpopulation has been a concern since Malthus. Overexploited natural resources are why Iraq, Lebanon and Israel are largely deserts. Yeah, we're living longer but the life expectancy of men in Russia dropped twenty years with the fall of the Soviet Union. Don't get me wrong - lots of changes on this here planet. The past 100 years have included cars, indoor plumbing, telephones, widespread use of electric light, air travel, nuclear weapons and the Internet. But I was born in 1974 and the only one of those I've had to get used to was the Internet. And trust me - I'm acclimatized. My grandfather was born in 1917. He told me about the time his dad got a toilet put in. He didn't particularly marvel at the toilets in his house - after all, he'd had 80 years to get used to them. And I think that's what you're missing - holy fuck 100 years ago we rode horses is every bit as relevant as holy fuck a thousand years ago we were Saxons. I don't know what "mentalities" you think you need to "catch up", but the last adaptation I made was "shit - a lot of the people who hire me are on Facebook, I better set up an account." Sorted! The thing you're missing is that victory belongs to those who adapt. The world you live in is being dictated by people who have figured out how best to take advantage of the situation. Are they acting selflessly? Hell no. But they also aren't acting in unison, either and pointing to your competitor and saying "that man there is destroying the commons, stop him!" is fair game. The kids are alright, man. Watch a few episodes of Connections. You will understand, beyond a reasonable doubt, that "adapting" is what we do.We can travel to any corner of the world with unthinkable speed
we can communicate instantly with people everywhere
The average person alive today possesses a much greater amount of knowledge and is exposed to much larger amounts of information than was the case at the beginning of the Twentieth Century
It was unthinkable by most people at the start of the Twentieth Century. That's the sense in which I meant it. In many ways. I was born in one country, I lived for several years in another country, and now I live in yet another country. But I wasn't talking about my personal possibility for travel. I was thinking of businesses, and goods being transported around the world in a way that wasn't possible at the start of the Twentieth Century. Some of the food I eat, most of the clothes I wear and all of the products I use are not made locally, but they're made somewhere else entirely, and that's only because faster transportation has made this possible. What was that thing about unfounded assertions? I travel a lot, I live in a country that's not my native one, and I'm not American. Once again, it's not about my own vantage point. I was referring to how other people (everyone) can communicate with anyone else. Before the era of mass communication, few people had a clue of what it meant to live in a different country or even a different city. Few people could imagine what it meant to live in a different social class, or to lead a different kind of life. Throughout the Twentieth Century governments have fallen, the rights of women and minorities have gained more prominence, and several other aspects of everyday life have been revolutionized in ways that have only been made possible by an increase in the possibilities of communication. This is analyzed brilliantly by the sociologist Joshua Meyrowitz in his book "No Sense of Place". Here are a few examples of mentalities that need catching up: - Religious beliefs and practices don't make any sense in light of the current scientific progress, but many people still think they do. Additionally, many people still believe that an ethical behavior can only stem from religious beliefs, but that's false, too. These beliefs in turn leads people to cause damage to other people (or to inhibit their freedom) in the name of religion or a "higher power". Of course the situation is not the same everywhere. - Patriotism and excessive nationalism don't make sense either, and at the very least they need to be revisited. When many corners of the world are getting every day more alike, being "proud" of having been born in one place rather than another, and assuming certain "rights" because of that, is an unfounded prejudice that can only have negative results. - The idea, that many have, that there is a nearly-perfect form of government and that form is a democratic republic is well-intentioned but naive. The best form of government hasn't been invented yet. And when it does get invented, it might be too late because technology (and society with it) will have changed again in the meantime. For millennia the world hasn't changed much, and there were just a handful of forms of government to choose from. Now none of them suits our society, but change in that department is much much slower than technological change, so we live in the present surrounded by institutions created by our great-grandfathers and run by our fathers and grandfathers. No, it's dictated by their parents and grandparents – by people who managed to adapt to the TV and the remote control, but not quite to the Internet. Until a few years ago, George W. Bush was one of the most important men in the world in terms of the power he held; would you say that his mentality is adapted to the realities of our present time? I don't think so.We can travel from major air hub to major air hub at a substantial percentage of Mach 1. That's a long way from "unthinkable."
How much does it affect your life?
Americans, if we're going to be specific, have been wandering for 150 years... and are here because of wanderlust. We've been nomads since the Reformation. And hey - if you want to visit the Empty Quarter it's just as much of a bitch for you as it was for TE Lawrence once you break clear of Riyadh. You aren't going to, though, so it doesn't much matter.
And you have superficial relationships with disparate people all over the globe but you have fewer superficial relationships with people in your neighborhood.
I don't know what "mentalities" you think you need to "catch up", but the last adaptation I made was "shit - a lot of the people who hire me are on Facebook, I better set up an account."
The thing you're missing is that victory belongs to those who adapt. The world you live in is being dictated by people who have figured out how best to take advantage of the situation.
Sez who? Scientific American ran an article on bullet trains 150 years ago. "Unthinkable" is a hyperbolic term used when one wants to dismiss all debate. Nope. Not lettin' ya. The same was true for Benjamin Franklin. Hell, son, for someone born in Serbia in 1919 the same is true without the dude having to move houses! Which would be unique except for the fact that "country" is a modern term anyway and duchies in Germany used to change hands every ten years or so. So nobody had an imagination prior to the invention of television? As I recall, more people read James Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking tales than read Victor Hugo... and in more languages. Been to the Empty Quarter? No? Then it's a "founded assertion." My grandparents grew up without telephones. They adapted just fine. Say it again. It will remain just as false. I'm going to let you have this one, not because I agree, but because it's more important to get you back on track - so what? How does this "average person" that you insist you are not care a whit about the methodology employed to topple Mossadegh? Now let's get to your examples: Has been true since Galileo at least. Has been true since Sargon of Akkad or earlier. 'K, here's where you show your ass and demonstrate that you read a book about the 20th century with no understanding of the context of the 19th and earlier centuries. "Nationalism" was a product of The Enlightenment. Germany has been a "country" since 1871. Italy ceased to be a bunch of warring nation-states in the 1860s. As an "OMG CHANGE" example, "nationalism" is a recent adaptation. I was unaware that the world had adopted democracy, and further unaware that we've had to "adapt" to it. I like to quote Churchill on this one - "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other one." This is a bizarrely ignorant statement. I'm gonna say the burden of proof is on you. Every form of government suited every society it had or it was replaced by revolution. QED. Whatever, dude. Obama's got a Blackberry. Are you trying to argue that if GWB had Facebook the world would be a better place? 'cuz I'd like to see that. * * * Look. I responded because you clearly had a lot of despair in your post. Based on your response, you clearly have a lot of affection for that despair. Fine. Keep it. Just allow me to point out that when you insist on a perspective against all evidence to the contrary, you are - wait for it - ...failing to adapt. Good day.It was unthinkable by most people at the start of the Twentieth Century. That's the sense in which I meant it.
I was born in one country, I lived for several years in another country, and now I live in yet another country.
Before the era of mass communication, few people had a clue of what it meant to live in a different country or even a different city
What was that thing about unfounded assertions? I travel a lot, I live in a country that's not my native one, and I'm not American.
I was referring to how other people (everyone) can communicate with anyone else
Few people could imagine what it meant to live in a different social class, or to lead a different kind of life.
Throughout the Twentieth Century governments have fallen, the rights of women and minorities have gained more prominence, and several other aspects of everyday life have been revolutionized in ways that have only been made possible by an increase in the possibilities of communication.
Religious beliefs and practices don't make any sense in light of the current scientific progress, but many people still think they do.
Additionally, many people still believe that an ethical behavior can only stem from religious beliefs, but that's false, too.
Patriotism and excessive nationalism don't make sense either, and at the very least they need to be revisited.
The idea, that many have, that there is a nearly-perfect form of government and that form is a democratic republic is well-intentioned but naive.
For millennia the world hasn't changed much, and there were just a handful of forms of government to choose from.
Now none of them suits our society,
No, it's dictated by their parents and grandparents – by people who managed to adapt to the TV and the remote control, but not quite to the Internet.
Until a few years ago, George W. Bush was one of the most important men in the world in terms of the power he held; would you say that his mentality is adapted to the realities of our present time? I don't think so.
I find it humorous that while pointing out a supposed means used to dismiss an opponents view point in a debate, you yourself use a technique that also could be seen as intending to dismiss an opponents view point. Your whole post is also unnecessarily argumentative."Unthinkable" is a hyperbolic term used when one wants to dismiss all debate. Nope. Not lettin' ya.
You can find it humorous all you want - it does not change the fact that the argument was dismantled in my previous post (it's not only "thinkable" to travel as fast as a jetliner, it's easily demonstrable). No, it is dismissive. My original post was hopeful but apparently, that is not permitted when one is busy wringing one's hands about the future because one has read a Penguin Classics "History of the 20th Century."I find it humorous that while pointing out a supposed means used to dismiss an opponents view point in a debate, you yourself use a technique that also could be seen as intending to dismiss an opponents view point.
Your whole post is also unnecessarily argumentative.
How much does it affect your life?
I would suggest that the ability to quickly travel far distances, affects our lives in ways outside of personal travel much more so. For example, shipping a package, receiving goods from other parts of the country and world are all things that were very difficult to do in the not-too-distant past. -These are every day conveniences. These conveniences allow goods and services to be more efficient and cost-effective. The car I am parked in right now is full of products and is itself made of components that likely came from all over the world.
...and how much different would your life be if that car were 100% made in Detroit? How much different would your life be if instead of buying your clothes at BigMart you bought them at the local tailor's? How much different would your life be if your caesar salad came from vegetables grown an oxcart ride away, rather than Mexico? Yeah, it's a geopolitical change, but it's still a salad.
From a cost perspective it could be very different. I was at Target yesterday and I bought tennis balls, shaving cream, Annie's pizza rolls, a cup of coffee and pens. Without the ability to quickly source those products, a store with that many varried products at a low cost might not exist. It saved me time. No doubt. My life would be different. Not saying for the better or worse, but different.
100 years ago, would you need tennis balls? Shaving cream? Pizza rolls? Pens? That's my point. The gadgets and greebles in your life are different, but the gadgets and greebles do not materially impact your life. Now, if we were talking contact lenses or insulin there'd be an argument. At the same time, 100 years ago there was a lot less myopia and diabetes. This whole thread is desperately lacking perspective.
This reminds me a lot of a of an idea that Venkatesh Rao wrote about a year or so ago, an idea he calls the "manufactured normalcy field". His hypothesis (I think) is that technology only becomes main stream when it isn't disruptive. That is, that no one will ride an airplane until it's not different from riding in a car, and no one will ride in a car until it's qualitatively similar to riding in a carriage, etc. I think the quote above, is a bit simpler way of putting this."I believe that, as a society, we're most comfortable living about ten years in the past."
I think technology is going bring a whole lot more change. People clamored to cities to be closer to the economic action, to get a bit of juice from the thing that was sucking the country dry, little by little (with country i mean any developed/ing nation, really). These especially new transformations of communications and logistics mean goods will be available in increasingly remote areas, and we'll feel close to people even when we're far away. Poets have for centuries written on the crushing inhumanity of cities. Plenty of studies confirm different aspects of its detrimental effects on us as individuals and as a society. People will catch on to the fact that they can live in small towns again—but it'll have to be a cultural thing too. It's almost like Faust could soon return back to his "little world", bringing with him all the knowledge in the world. And if that were to happen on a wide scale I think we'll be a little better off. We'll adapt, we'll make it work. I've been lead by my experiences to believe that the Baby Boomers will have to die before real progress like this can take place, and papers like "The Post 9/11 Split" certainly alludes to a more civic future. Done right and it'll tailor down our challenges quite neatly—which, don't get me wrong, we'll still have enough of, but I think they'll be less terrifying. That's the paradigm shift I think we'll see in this coming century.
I very much enjoy these sketches by Cote and others envisioning what this century would be like from the vantage point of the last. http://publicdomainreview.org/2012/06/30/france-in-the-year-.../ What interests me is that some of the ideas are reasonably accurate, although they are using antiquated technology in an antiquated setting (e.g. the steampunk synthesier concert to a polite parlour audience) whereas some are laughable because the entire concept has been superseded: flying postal workers delivering letters to rural inhabitants, risible for much different reasons.
I don't know that we'll ever catch up, but I do think that either way, we'll have to learn to adapt. Somehow, we'll have to figure out how to maintain empathy and compassion, though our social circles may become very large and diverse in ways that we might be unprepared for. I'm not sure that we CAN ever feel like we've got everything under control, especially when so many people and organizations are vying for it.