The question lingers unanswered: Why do we stand and watch; why aren’t we doing something? Perhaps it has been answered.
Fifty-five years ago, Alvin Toffler wrote “Future Shock”; 55 years later, we are living it. How are we reacting? About as Toffler predicted. Alvin Toffler wrote about the psychological reactions to shock—that is, the reaction to too much change in too short a time.
In his 1970 book, Toffler anticipated our world and, with confidence, predicted the psychological impacts that rapid change has on individuals and societies. He anticipated that technological advances would increase that impact.
He wrote, “reactions to shock are stress and disorientation.”
In the first month of 2025, we stood slack-jawed as our house was set on fire. Perhaps we are waiting until the arsons leave and we can rebuild. With that strategy, problems abound. The house can burn in minutes; rebuilding can take a lifetime. Our house is in a neighborhood of nations—fire spreads. The more time passes before the arsons leave, the more damage. Why do we stand and watch? Why do we not act?
Mental health professionals are so certain that stress follows shock that they use the diagnostic terms “in shock” and “acute stress disorder” interchangeably.
Stress may take different forms. Some may find it hard to focus at all or focus and maintain concentration. Some may feel physically uncomfortable, perhaps nauseous. Some are unable to fall asleep or stay asleep. Some may experience an irresistible desire to run away. Others may feel very angry. As with the five stages of grief, we may feel all of those things and find any one or the combination debilitating.
Rapid change disrupts. It can disrupt and alter social norms. It can call into question the correctness of the usual reactions. It may interfere with simple decision-making processes. Rapid change causes disorientation, and in turn, disorientation can cause a change in daily activities and habits.
Stressed and disoriented, we stand and watch. So, what happens next in Toffler’s shocking world? Burn out, brain fatigue, and an odd absence of caring. To cease caring is the polar opposite of solving the problem. We even stop watching; we look away.
Since it took 55 years to get here, technology has had half a century to advance. It has advanced to the point where Toffler thought it would be if we did not manage its growth. In what ways did that exacerbate the situation?
Here are the psychological impacts of unchecked technological development as Toffler defined them:
- Creates the feeling that modern life is temporary as it undermines the notion of permanence and continuity. That sense of impermanence can affect personal relationships and societal structures and cause feelings of instability and uncertainty.
- Creates information overload which in turn causes difficulty in processing the relevant bits and making decisions. Experiencing stress and a sense of “I don’t know what to believe.” Translation? I am dismissing the whole lot—a pox on both their houses.
- Causes adaptation challenges—that is, the need to change becomes constant and therefore tiring. The struggle to keep up creates anxiety.
- As technology takes over, it creates feelings of powerlessness and loss of autonomy.
Technology facilitates information overload—that is, when the amount of information presented exceeds our capacity to process it; Toffler wrote that it causes “analysis paralysis.” So, paralyzed, we stand and watch as Rome burns.
Well, that sounds awful. So, what solution did Toffler offer? He said societies must manage technological change and must ensure technology serves human values rather than humans adapting to technological values. Has that boat sailed?
Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps the real question is: Why are we shocked? If Toffler told us the ensuing problem and the necessary solution half a century ago, why are we shocked?
If the critical difference between the two political parties, for more than a century, has been the obligation of a caring community to provide a social safety net versus the necessity for individuals to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or perish trying, why are we shocked? If Franklin Delano Roosevelt was called “a traitor to his class” when he instituted programs that lifted people out of poverty, why are we shocked? If Ronald Reagan demonized the government, challenged the possibility of a benevolent government, and called government the problem not the solution, why are we shocked? If the internet was described as true democracy and hands-off regulations, why are we shocked? If they killed Biden politically, the only prominent politician in 40 years to stem the flow toward oligarchy, why are we shocked?
Will we put down our phones, stop taking calls, stop taking photographs? Will we close our computers and stop looking at a screen as if it were the real world? Will we then see what is right in front of us? Will we then stop being shocked and immobilized and be able to act?
