Skip to main content

The Toffler Scorecard Part 1 - Disposability

My rather battered
version of Future Shock
Way back in 1970, when the world was very different 'futurologist' (I hate that word) Alvin Toffler produced an immensely popular book called Future Shock that predicted what he believed life would be like in the twenty-first century. In a series of posts I'm looking back at some of Toffler's predictions to see how they've turned out and what that can tell us about then and now.

Reflecting the change, particularly in America, that had brought in more and more of a throw-away society, Toffler envisaged a future where this approach was taken to the extreme. Apparently, in 1970 paper dresses were all the rage (I can't say I remember this), and wear-once-then-throw-away clothes were something Toffler assumed would become the norm. I don't know if he lived in Florida or California, but realistically paper clothes were always a non-starter as anything more than a gimmick - certainly in Manchester or Scotland, say. But is certainly true that the current young generation does think of clothes as more short-term purchases than a generation that bought clothes and kept them until the wore out. (My raincoat is over 30 years old and still going strong.)

However, what Toffler missed is the way that an awareness of green issues would become a natural background to life. While the younger generation don't hang onto clothes they way some older folk do, they also don't just throw them away. Instead they resort to recycling, whether via charity shops or services like eBay and Depop. And the same goes for much of our everyday things. Yes, we do change some products a lot more than we used to, but equally we tend to recycle them, ideally for money. It would have seemed crazy in 1970 to change your phone ever two years, say (it would, have course, have been a landline phone), but when we do make the change, we trade in the old one, or sell it.

On balance, then, this is a 50:50 prediction. Neither a hit nor a miss. We certainly do treat far more things as temporary than we used to. With technology, particularly, we feel driven to upgrade. I do have one bit of ICT kit that is over 10 years old (an HP LaserJet printer that simply does the job), but the average age of my ICT is probably about 2 years. Strangely, though, despite this, we are in a society less inclined to throw-away than Toffler's. We reuse, repurpose, recycle. Where he described a tendency to increasingly knock down old buildings, we (at least in the UK) now tend to treasure them and reuse them more than was the case in the 70s. It's ethical disposability. And that's rather interesting.

If you want to discover Toffler's predictions for yourself, you can buy Future Shock at and


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope