Powershift - an engrossing book for the examples. The author presents a case study based on past events making certain assumptions on a future. However, I found the assumptions to be dry and staid especially as you would have come across them everyday. True, some of the predictions he made about the future are true, but then I too can make a few, I guess. As for Alvin, no he doesn’t Always vin with his predictions. I read this book since it was a bestseller in the 90’s as a follow up to Future shock and Third wave. I spent 300 bucks for the book but think it to be worth 150/- due in part to the assumptions. Seriously does he need a PhD to state them?
Let me clarify why you don’t need a PhD to state what the author has. Below are a few assumptions from the book.
a. Power is inherent in all social systems and in all human relationships among people. It is inescapable, neither good nor bad.
It looks pointless to state that. Every five years, we pay hafta to 543 Sambas who elect a Gabbar Singh. Of course, that’s not necessarily bad. Even thieves do need a leader, whichever faction they belong. Otherwise, how will we say, ’Sojaa munna, Gabbar Singh aarela?’ A necessary evil
b. Same person may be power rich at home and power poor at work.
Eheheh… Heard of Ghar ka Raja Bahar Bheegi Billy? He states it conversely Ghar ka raja, kaam pe nikamma.
c. Conflict is an inescapable social fact.
True, it is. But what do we do to avoid or bypass it? Or tell me how do I get Scootty to rate everyone VU? That would avoid half the conflicts at MS.
d. Power struggles are not necessarily bad.
We at MS know that Faisal is (All hail) the powerful CEO with the tool that goes snip delete*. Yes, that is inescapable. But we also know that Faisal is a reasonable man, so it’s fine (not necessarily bad). Moreover he’s got a business to run (If I were you, I’d butter him for better).
e. Over concentration of power is dangerous.
Well, ok, it doesn’t seem too bad an observation, but still…the author must take us readers to be some sort of dweebs… (ex., Hitler, Stalin)
f. In a world in which millions starve, idea of stopping change is futile and immoral.
Now that one definitely passed o’er my head. I took reasonable amount of time thinking about it. Still, ok, agreed, millions starve, but what is the connection between starvation and change? Agreed change is a constant, but after reasonable changes will the millions stop starving? (But the same is apparently substantiated with an example)
g. There is a moral basis for opposing or even overthrowing state imposing surplus order.
I guess this one merits an explanation. Suppose Misba bhaisaab manufactures high quality leather in surplus, then the government would restrict his quota. Any government which allows surplus manufacture would be overthrown. Sez who? That’s what the author says.
Hmmm… I don’t see that happening in China. They manufacture in surplus and export it despite the quota restrictions. So with India. They should overthrow the government for allowing production of excessive people taking over other’s jobs… LOL
h. Chance matters. The more unstable the system, the more chance matters.
We all know that chance has a major factor to play in our lives. The meeting with our crush, celebrity moments, our jobs too. But then in an unstable system? Ok, Let’s take this one… It’s just our rotten luck that AIDS was transmitted to humans. But the chance of this assumption - ‘the people of Africa usually have sex with chimpanzees which brought AIDS virus to get activated strongly in the human immuno system causing severe damage to human immuno cells…’ (That made my day actually. Guess which review?) is a wild guess till proven. So till then it remains a chance, a remote chance in an unstable system. (unstable because, Errm...read the review...)
A book to read and delve. Most points in the book are a natural after thought. You end up pondering on some of the assumptions after reading the examples. This book basically talks about the impact of the information age. Earlier, social change was controlled by force militarily or through money. But now, the author states that knowledge is the key to power. The one who controls access to knowledge has the most power. That was a useful take and true. He collectively depicts the knowledge, wealth and violence scenarios replete with adequate examples. And the stories are interspersed with incidents which have occurred in the recent past. They make worthwhile reading especially for people in the tech sector. For every assumption there is an example. Lots of them.
For ex., when a factory is set fire to, the boss makes his own arrangement using the law of the jungle. It’s not always that policing is effective and here the law of the jungle is applicable. In this case the Boss taped a conversation with a co worker in which the worker agreed that he was disgruntled and set fire to the factory. So he is asked to quit immediately and leave town at the earliest. Rule of the jungle? No, that’s practicality in this day and age. I guess now we know why Jan Adalats are here to stay.
There is no single significant chapter dedicated to any topic, each example has it’s own message to convey. For ex., Western Union’s monopoly on Telegraphy. They tried to stifle the growth of telephones by putting a clause prompting action against telephone instruments. It meant anyone installing phones faced a monetary penalty. In spite of which AT&T grew up to be the giant it is today. And Western Union? A shadow of it’s former self. This substantiates the idea of stopping change. He further adds that any country with the highest telephony base would also be economically powerful or rich. Yes, there are lots of other such examples, which are true and proven. Read it at your leisure and an interesting insight into the future.