Alvin toffler's book future shock pdf

Upon completing the reading of Future Shock and the three discussions you have with your group throughout the quarter, you will conclude your thoughts in a final essay. This paper should do the following:

Decide whether or not you think the symptoms of Future Shock affect society currently (if ever).
Reference the discussions, ONE CLASS JOURNAL ARTICLE, and EACH part of the book to explain your case.
Conclude by integrating your PPP to describe final thoughts on anticipating the future on an individual and societal level.My discussion post: Future Shock Parts 1 and 2 - Future 2 Traditionally, people have been divided by religion, nation, gender, ethnic groups, and race among other groupings. However, Alvin Toffler, in his book "Future Shock," believes that another dimension that can be used to divide people is time. There are still people living in the past, others in the present, and a few in the future. Those living in the future have more access to technologies and industrial advancements that the rest will be enjoying in their tomorrow. The present discussion relates Toffler's concept of "Future Shock" to the idea of futuristic robots as explored by Güttler et al. in the article "Towards a future robotic home environment: a survey." The idea of futurism and modularity will be linked to arguments drawn from the eleventh paragraph of "People of the Future" in Chapter 3 (Part I) and the third paragraph of "The Modular Fun-palace" in Chapter 4 (Part II). The journal article propounds the idea of futurism, in particular, in the field of home robotics. As people get aged, there is a tendency to face challenges in the execution of their activities of daily living (Güttler et al. 269). The need for robotics in the home environment is thus rising- at an astronomical rate. Toffler tends to have a dream on the possibility of robotics when he argues that the elder members of the society need "structured enclaves for them in which the pace of life is controlled," (Toffler 30). Befittingly, he describes the kind of trauma they go through as they get disconnected from the public environment that they had gotten used to in their prime years. Despite being punctuated by debilitating shocks, the future has a solution for them in the form of a robotic home environment. The arguments of both Toffler and Güttler et al. do not only converge at the point of the possibility of robotic home environments but also on the principle of modularity on which these technologies will be founded. Toffler discusses this modularity in the third paragraph of "The Modular Fun-palace," where he argues that the modifiability of home interiors is an indispensable technology (30). This idea perfectly dovetails with Güttler's conception of the robotic kitchen. Modularity paves the way for optimization by multi-functionality and transformation in space and architecture (Güttler et al. 272). In such a world, a few tools like screwdrivers or remote controls would be enough to convert the entire space into something completely different. In conclusion, this relationship between the idea of the future as contended by both Toffler and Güttler et al. implies that ideations about the future started developing many years ago. Some of these ideas, like Toffler's, were miraculously accurate. The kind of advancements that have been achieved, in particular, in IT-controlled robotics, could only be described as flights of fancy during the time of Future Shock's publication. The current progress in that field, however, is enough proof that no dream should be labeled invalid. Güttler's idea of future robotics also takes the mantle of prophecy from Toffler and promises to maintain the truthfulness that Future Shock has, perhaps in the next one or two centuries. The only downside of Güttler's analysis is that they fail to anticipate the 'shock' that robotics would bring around when they come into full force as Toffler did in his works. It is, however, worth heeding that the challenges brought about by technology are commonplace and thus need not be addressed in an article focusing on the technical aspects of such technologies. Works Cited Güttler, Jörg, et al. "Towards a future robotic home environment: a survey." Gerontology 61.3 (2015): 268-280. Toffler, Alvin. "Future shock." Amereon Ltd., New York (1970).