September 9th, 2025
I am just now reading Alvin Toffler’s seminal work and I am much surprised at how he anticipated many of the points I make in the previous essay. This is a commonplace for me; I have re-invented a number of wheels, sometimes before others found them, sometimes after. I independently figured out neural networks (1970), Fermi’s Paradox (1973), the "Mayan algorithm" for faking long division (1979), and the utility of “junk” DNA (1995).
Toffler makes two points that are key parts of my essay. First, he notes the network effects of technological progress:
“…technology feeds on itself. Technology makes more technology possible…”
The second point he makes is that rapid change imposes stresses upon people. This is, I think, the main point he wanted to make in writing his book. I think it fair to condense his entire book down to this statement:
“The accelerating rate of change in our society will put so much strain upon people that we’ll not be able to cope with it.”
Differences
There are also quite a few differences between our theses. The most important is that he was warning us of the dangers facing humanity, where I claim that those dangers apply to any civilization anywhere in the universe. His arguments are empirically based, and thus more solid than my theoretical arguments. I claim as a postulate that all civilizations must have limitations on their ability to restructure themselves to cope with a changing environment. Some readers may reject this postulate out of hand; I address it here.
Catty comments (MEOW!)
Toffler really blew it in Chapter 9, “The Scientific Trajectory”, in which he assembled his predictions for future scientific and technological progress. He predicted:
“The New Atlantis”: Economic exploitation of the oceans (undersea mining, oil, vast fisheries)
“Sunlight and Responsibility”: Weather modification
“The Biological Factory”: using bacteria in manufacturing
“The Pre-Designed Body”: cloning, genetically designed babies
“The Transient Organ”: organ transplants
“The Cyborgs Among Us”: humanoid robots
Toffler concludes the chapter with a collection of quotations from skeptics denying the possibility of technological advances that in fact were achieved shortly after the denial — as if the errors of denial proved the viability of his predictions.
His predictions were not entirely erroneous; we did make good progress in offshore oil platforms and organ transplants. The bulk of his predictions, though, were wide of the mark. Especially noteworthy is his failure to anticipate any of the most important technological developments that we have seen since 1970: personal computers; the integration of electronics into automobiles and other equipment; solar cells and windmills as economically viable sources of energy; climate change; the Internet; electric vehicles; the deflation of the population explosion; videogames and the huge expansion of video resolution.