“Instant gratification takes too long.” –Carrie Fisher

Currently, every part of modern living is looking for a shortcut.  We are in a constant quest to getting something quicker out of our lifestyle.

Texting has gone from thank you to TY. Our icons on our computer are the shortcuts to getting where we want to go online faster.  Every part of our current existence is designed to speed things up.

It used to be just our cars and our love life needed to be faster, now it is everything. How is this truncated lifestyle changing who we are? Like a marriage vow, are we accepting that change is for better or for worse?

We’ve Got an App for That ⁽¹⁾

We are demanding more and more from our smart devices. Apps for banking, music, shopping, TV, gambling, not gambling—the list goes on ad infinitum.

We appear to be insatiable when it comes to new technology, which is all designed to get us someplace faster. We are in the midst of creating more and more time on screens and less and less time for face-to-face interaction with our fellow human beings.

Even in aviation now, pilots are noticing that there is more and more emphasis on the technological requirements of flying a plane than actually flying the plane.  Some pilots have complained that planes are now more like a computer with an airplane attached. 

Instead of what used to be an aid to flying, pilots are overwhelmed with making sure the computer is happy on approaches to landing for example.  When the computer is unhappy about something the pilots have to conform to the computer rather than their ability to fly the airplane, otherwise the computer will not allow the approach.  This is another example of how technology has both an up and a downside.

Expectations

What are the expectations of our newfound technology prowess? Can technology provide a better life? Will AI and analytics convert into a more meaningful and satisfactory human existence? Is a truncated lifestyle always better? Have you ever been disappointed by fast food?  Maybe by looking back, not moving back, we can get a clearer picture of the future.

Back to the Future Shock ⁽³⁾

Over 50 years ago, Alvin Toffler disturbed and challenged the world with his classic work Future Shock. Toffler predicted that the biggest issue facing future generations would be our ability to adapt to the accelerating pace of change. Does the modern world embody many of Toffler’s ideas? Toffler predicted that environmental overstimulation would not only impact our physical and social worlds, but also our psyche.

We have seen the results of overstimulation in survivors of war and natural disasters like earthquakes and floods. The psychologically overwhelmed are marked by confusion, anxiety, irritability, and withdrawal into apathy. Today, anxiety disorders are the most common mental illness in the United States, affecting some 40 million adults. Toffler predicted that people will attempt to cope with accelerated change through denial, specialism, reversion, and simplification ⁽²⁾.

Outright denial blocks out an unwelcome reality. Today’s examples for some might include climate change, artificial intelligence, self-driving cars, and genomics. The person in denial is not able to accept changes and believes that all evidence of change is incomplete and superficial. The denier, according to Toffler, sets themselves up for personal catastrophe because they will ultimately be forced to adapt to the denied change, which may be in the form of a massive life crisis.

Toffler described the specialist as someone who avoids change by becoming very insular within their profession or social passion. Ultra-conservative political advocates continue to lobby for the fossil fuel industry despite newer technology that appears to be a much better option. The specialist is rigid and closed to change, which makes them especially vulnerable in an accelerated world.

Revisionists are attempting to cope with change by seeking out past modes of action that may no longer be appropriate. Returning to the glories of yesteryear is the way they respond to rapid change. Authoritarian regimes, terrorist groups, white supremacists, and some religious groups are examples of revisionist thinking, according to Toffler.

The super-simplifier, according to Toffler, is someone who copes with change by oversimplifying anything perceived as too complex. Individuals who turn to addictive pastimes or violence may be subject to this type of coping mechanism.

“The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue.” –Edward R. Murrow

We are living in a world of social media that allows like-minded thinking to perpetuate permutations of truth very easily. The like-minded feel comforted by having camaraderie with little regard for the accuracy of the misinformation they purvey—especially when the information simplifies the complex. A simple message is easier to pass along.

Are we experiencing similar styles in coping with change in today’s supercharged technological boom? Are we witnessing a world obsessed with increased novelty and accelerated change? 

Is it possible that many of the psychological issues that we see people facing today, like anxiety, depression and suicide, are part of this shift to a more truncated lifestyle?  Perhaps, immediate satisfaction is not the solution to a better future for humankind.

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” - Abraham Lincoln

Longtermism

“Longtermism is about taking seriously just how big the future could be and how high the stakes are in shaping it.  If humanity survives to even a fraction of its potential life span, then strange as it may seem, we are the ancients: we live at the very beginning of history, in the most distant past.  What we do now will affect untold numbers of future people.  We need to act wisely ⁽⁴⁾.” 

It appears obvious that it is not the known knowns, or the known unknowns, but rather the unknown unknowns that need to be discovered and eventually mastered to deliver humanity and the world to a better future.  As always, the unknown unknowns will dominate because the knowns are finite and the unknowns are infinite.

^References

^{1-Paterson, A. (2017). We’ve Got an App for That.  Huffpost, August 30, 2017.}

^{2-Toffler, A. (1970).  Future Shock.  Random House.}

^{3-Wilson, B. (2019). Back to the ‘Future Shock.' The Psychologist (UK), March 12, 2019.}

^{4-Macaskill, W. (2022).  What We Owe The Future: A Million-Year View. Oneworld Publications.}