Are we Living in the Age of Future Shock?

One of the biggest challenges of writing a book on the topic of artificial intelligence is the rapidly evolving nature of this technology. As authors, the struggle to keep pace with the headlines and emergent issues around AI was an omnipresent battle. At the current rate of change, our work can only be considered a mere snapshot—an ephemeral reckoning of the implications of artificial intelligence as it unfolded between May 2023 and March 2024.

In 1971, Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Future Shock whose main thesis was that the development and release of new technologies has outpaced the human biological capacity to cope. Toffler pointed out then—over 50 years ago—that the time between the original concept and practical use of a technology had dramatically shrunk in his lifetime. Consider that Toffler was writing about the phenomenon of ‘future shock’ before the Digital Revolution! He offers many examples of how our ancestors, both distant and recent, may not have seen the impacts of a new technology in their lifetimes. One memorable illustration was the typewriter. The first English patent for a typewriter was issued in 1714. But a century and a half elapsed before typewriters became commercially available.

As Toffler pointed out, new ideas are put to work much more quickly than ever before in human history. In the past 20-30 years, we have seen technological changes that would have made Toffler’s head spin. He accurately predicted that the time between the idea and application of a technology would be even more radically reduced simply because technology feeds on itself. Technology makes more technology possible.

Toffler worried that this rapid acceleration of change in society—the “fantastic intrusion of novelty, newness into our existence” —was surpassing our capacity to cope. He argued that co-arising shifts in both social norms and technological advances were profoundly affecting the way we, as humans, experienced reality, our sense of commitment, and our ability—or inability—to cope. Toffler maintained that the ever-shrinking cycle of DISCOVERY—APPLICATION—IMPACT—DISCOVERY, combined with increasing newness and complexity in the environment, is precisely what strained our capacity to adapt and created the danger of future shock.

Toffler defines ‘future shock’ this way:

Future shock is the dizzying disorientation brought on by the premature arrival of the future. It may well be the most important disease of tomorrow.

Do you think too much change in too short a period of time makes it increasingly difficult to thoughtfully process these changes? Is ‘future shock’ contributing to the seemingly widespread apathy about ethical AI on the part of everyday citizens?

Chime in with your thoughts below.