Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2009-07-28 09:07 pm
l33tminion) wrote2009-07-28 09:07 pm
Megatrends: DIY FTW?
(A few months ago, I had been doing a series of chapter by chapter posts on John Naisbitt's Megatrends. Then I got busy / distracted. But since I'm not one to leave things half-finished, I'm going to get back to that.)
The sixth trend Naisbitt cites is "Institutional Help to Self-Help". While the title seems similar to that of the previous chapter, that chapter primarily discussed shifts from federal to local government, while this chapter is focused on a wider set of organizations and the behavior of individuals. Strangely, while the last chapter focused on government more overtly, this chapter seems far more political. In the intro, Naisbitt notes that the Depression was a "trauma" which shook "our traditional faith in ourselves", motivating people to ask government to "provide food, shelter, and jobs" and eventually to "regulating the environment and much of the economy", functions which in Naisbitt's view don't fall under the government's purpose "to safeguard citizens". Pointing out that that the Great Depression shook faith in large financial institutions and big business would have also fit the theme of the chapter, but Naisbitt seems a bit eager to paint government as the villain.
Some of the predictions in the chapter seem hard to evaluate: Did the proliferation of self-help groups in the early 80s continue, and to what extent did such groups make a meaningful difference in society? Did dissatisfaction with the public schools in the 80s lead to meaningful improvements (even though widespread dissatisfaction persists today)? (And do the trends in SAT scores that Naisbitt cites mean anything?) Small business remains important and entrepreneurship remains a buzzword, but the late 90s and early 2000s seem full of economic-bubble entrepreneurs, not looking to become the next [household name here] but just looking for a big company buyout, so to what extent did that represent a "self-help" trend?
There is one area where Naisbitt seems to have gotten things wrong. Regarding healthcare, Naisbitt notes that in the early 80s, more people were getting structured exercise, more people were thinking about nutrition, smoking had dropped, the idea of holistic medicine was gaining ground, and businesses were springing up to support such endeavors. Smoking, at least, continued to decline, but as to the rest... I don't know to what extent such trends have been effective in improving health, but since Naisbitt cites "diet" and "exercise", it's worth pointing out that obesity, at least, continued to rise.
I think Naisbitt makes a mistake in citing the rise of supporting businesses in this area as a supporting trend. Business can certainly support that sort of social change, but it can also co-opt it for marketing purposes. The 90s were full of "low-fat" processed "foods", fad diets, and "just a few minutes a day" exercise machine infomercials. While there's lots of sound stuff under the umbrella of holistic medicine, that too has been drowned in a sea of commercially-motivated woo ("detox pads", homeopathic remedies, etc.).
Furthermore, given political issues that are getting lot of attention recently, it's worth mentioning that there are some healthcare related problems that self-help simply doesn't solve. Sure, preventative care may reduce the rate of serious illness, but that doesn't mean insurance becomes a poor investment (especially since reducing the proportion of people ill at any one time will make insurance cheaper). Avoiding the risk of being seriously ill and financially ruined is worth some regular expense. Insurance prevents catastrophe by sharing risk, and sharing risk is something that cannot be done individually.*
* I have more than that to say on the current debate, of course. But that will wait for a future post.
The sixth trend Naisbitt cites is "Institutional Help to Self-Help". While the title seems similar to that of the previous chapter, that chapter primarily discussed shifts from federal to local government, while this chapter is focused on a wider set of organizations and the behavior of individuals. Strangely, while the last chapter focused on government more overtly, this chapter seems far more political. In the intro, Naisbitt notes that the Depression was a "trauma" which shook "our traditional faith in ourselves", motivating people to ask government to "provide food, shelter, and jobs" and eventually to "regulating the environment and much of the economy", functions which in Naisbitt's view don't fall under the government's purpose "to safeguard citizens". Pointing out that that the Great Depression shook faith in large financial institutions and big business would have also fit the theme of the chapter, but Naisbitt seems a bit eager to paint government as the villain.
Some of the predictions in the chapter seem hard to evaluate: Did the proliferation of self-help groups in the early 80s continue, and to what extent did such groups make a meaningful difference in society? Did dissatisfaction with the public schools in the 80s lead to meaningful improvements (even though widespread dissatisfaction persists today)? (And do the trends in SAT scores that Naisbitt cites mean anything?) Small business remains important and entrepreneurship remains a buzzword, but the late 90s and early 2000s seem full of economic-bubble entrepreneurs, not looking to become the next [household name here] but just looking for a big company buyout, so to what extent did that represent a "self-help" trend?
There is one area where Naisbitt seems to have gotten things wrong. Regarding healthcare, Naisbitt notes that in the early 80s, more people were getting structured exercise, more people were thinking about nutrition, smoking had dropped, the idea of holistic medicine was gaining ground, and businesses were springing up to support such endeavors. Smoking, at least, continued to decline, but as to the rest... I don't know to what extent such trends have been effective in improving health, but since Naisbitt cites "diet" and "exercise", it's worth pointing out that obesity, at least, continued to rise.
I think Naisbitt makes a mistake in citing the rise of supporting businesses in this area as a supporting trend. Business can certainly support that sort of social change, but it can also co-opt it for marketing purposes. The 90s were full of "low-fat" processed "foods", fad diets, and "just a few minutes a day" exercise machine infomercials. While there's lots of sound stuff under the umbrella of holistic medicine, that too has been drowned in a sea of commercially-motivated woo ("detox pads", homeopathic remedies, etc.).
Furthermore, given political issues that are getting lot of attention recently, it's worth mentioning that there are some healthcare related problems that self-help simply doesn't solve. Sure, preventative care may reduce the rate of serious illness, but that doesn't mean insurance becomes a poor investment (especially since reducing the proportion of people ill at any one time will make insurance cheaper). Avoiding the risk of being seriously ill and financially ruined is worth some regular expense. Insurance prevents catastrophe by sharing risk, and sharing risk is something that cannot be done individually.*
* I have more than that to say on the current debate, of course. But that will wait for a future post.