Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2009-12-29 12:23 am
l33tminion) wrote2009-12-29 12:23 am
Entry tags:
Megatrends: A Little From Column A...
(Because today is evidently blog too much day, I'll wrap up my chapter-by-chapter series on Megatrends, John Naisbitt's futurist analysis from 1982.)
The tenth and final trend that Naisbitt cites in his book is "Either/Or → Multiple Options".
The chapter starts by focusing the rise of alternate family structures, citing two-career families and the influence of feminism in the workplace (both in terms of the entrance of women into formerly men-only occupations and women delaying marriage and children in favor of career goals) as important causes. He also notes that the meaning of "family" is being expanded and correctly expects that conflict between conservatives and liberals over the term will be an increasing source of contention. Furthermore, he predicts that "the basic building block of society is shifting from the family to the individual". Reminds me of an essay I read recently, suggesting exactly that is at the root of much of the conflict between liberals (who view society (including things like family) as based on free association between individuals) and conservatives (who view society as based on traditional structures and inherited obligations).
Naisbitt does somewhat less well with the second half of the chapter. He notes the explosion of choices in art and other creative goods, but does not identify the potential of rising information technology (though he talks about such technology quite a bit earlier in the book) to connect eclectic art consumers with obscure art producers. He notes the huge boom in selection at the supermarket, but fails to identify some of the potential downsides: Further decline of local and seasonal eating, erosion of food culture that allowed the nutritional science / marketing fads of the 80s and 90s to finish replacing most of the American diet with soy and corn, plus other consequences of importing food from all over the world that you'd think would be more obvious with the energy crises of the 70s not that long gone. He notes the rise of cable television, and while that has indeed become somewhat "like the special-interest magazines", the whole market is still dominated by just a few companies (with even closer to monopoly conditions locally). Finally, he cites the increasing trend towards ethnic diversity and multiculturalism, but does not seem to expect that will continue to be a source of significant political conflict decades later.
So, will we see this trend continue into the future? When it comes to media production, will the long tail prevail or the few corporate players at the fat head? When it comes to social structure, will liberal free association and heterogeneous structures prevail or will conservatives be able to convince America to return to "traditional family values"? Don't know.
Certainly when it comes to consumer goods, energy constraints will limit the space of choices, but I'm not sure to what extent that will limit the number of options actually available to consumers. For one thing, I still don't think the potential of information technology to affect the outcome of this problem has been fully explored.
The tenth and final trend that Naisbitt cites in his book is "Either/Or → Multiple Options".
The chapter starts by focusing the rise of alternate family structures, citing two-career families and the influence of feminism in the workplace (both in terms of the entrance of women into formerly men-only occupations and women delaying marriage and children in favor of career goals) as important causes. He also notes that the meaning of "family" is being expanded and correctly expects that conflict between conservatives and liberals over the term will be an increasing source of contention. Furthermore, he predicts that "the basic building block of society is shifting from the family to the individual". Reminds me of an essay I read recently, suggesting exactly that is at the root of much of the conflict between liberals (who view society (including things like family) as based on free association between individuals) and conservatives (who view society as based on traditional structures and inherited obligations).
Naisbitt does somewhat less well with the second half of the chapter. He notes the explosion of choices in art and other creative goods, but does not identify the potential of rising information technology (though he talks about such technology quite a bit earlier in the book) to connect eclectic art consumers with obscure art producers. He notes the huge boom in selection at the supermarket, but fails to identify some of the potential downsides: Further decline of local and seasonal eating, erosion of food culture that allowed the nutritional science / marketing fads of the 80s and 90s to finish replacing most of the American diet with soy and corn, plus other consequences of importing food from all over the world that you'd think would be more obvious with the energy crises of the 70s not that long gone. He notes the rise of cable television, and while that has indeed become somewhat "like the special-interest magazines", the whole market is still dominated by just a few companies (with even closer to monopoly conditions locally). Finally, he cites the increasing trend towards ethnic diversity and multiculturalism, but does not seem to expect that will continue to be a source of significant political conflict decades later.
So, will we see this trend continue into the future? When it comes to media production, will the long tail prevail or the few corporate players at the fat head? When it comes to social structure, will liberal free association and heterogeneous structures prevail or will conservatives be able to convince America to return to "traditional family values"? Don't know.
Certainly when it comes to consumer goods, energy constraints will limit the space of choices, but I'm not sure to what extent that will limit the number of options actually available to consumers. For one thing, I still don't think the potential of information technology to affect the outcome of this problem has been fully explored.