The Acceleration of Change: From Future Shock to Present Reality
In 1970, Alvin and Heidi Toffler introduced the concept of “future shock”—a psychological state affecting both individuals and societies, characterized by “too much change in too short a period of time.” Writing before the advent of the internet and mobile phones, their prophetic work anticipated the disorientation that would come to define our modern era. Their prediction that “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn” has proven remarkably prescient.
The Tofflers identified three fundamental shifts that would reshape society: the death of permanence, as institutions and relationships become increasingly temporary; the end of geography, as technology diminishes the importance of physical location; and the fragmentation of society into specialized subcultures. What they envisioned as future shock has become our present reality, marking a period of profound disruption in human history.
This disruption, however, was perhaps inevitable. Since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in 1859, change became the central paradigm of modern thought. Science embraced this new understanding, while religious institutions largely resisted it. Einstein’s theory of relativity further reinforced the primacy of change, demonstrating that even time itself is not absolute but relative to position in space. From the cosmic to the biological level, change is the fundamental constant of existence. Nature itself demonstrates an inherent creativity, constantly bringing forth new patterns of life under the right conditions.
Teilhard de Chardin, writing nearly a century ago, recognized the tension between rigid systems and the necessity of evolution. He argued that evolution represents “a general condition to which all theories, systems must conform.” Perceiving the growing rift between science and religion, he devoted himself to bridging this divide, seeking to create a unified field of knowledge that could guide humanity toward greater wholeness. His vision emphasized that “nothing holds together absolutely except through the Whole, and the Whole itself holds together only through its future fulfillment.” Like the Tofflers, he anticipated how computer technology could lead humanity toward greater convergence and complexity.
Today, we find ourselves at a critical juncture. The resistance of religious institutions to fully embrace scientific discovery, particularly evident in Christianity’s response to modern science, has created what Robert Geraci and David Noble identify as a paradox: while technology emerged from Judeo-Christian traditions that promise renewal and transformation, religious institutions have largely remained static, their doctrines essentially unchanged since medieval times.
This vacuum has been filled by technological advancement, particularly in artificial intelligence, which some argue could fulfill traditional religious promises of transformation and renewal. As Antje Jackelen quipped, the development of “techno sapiens” might be viewed as progress toward the religious vision of a transformed world, where “the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and the dead are at least virtually alive.”
We now find ourselves in an unprecedented period of accelerating change, driven by exponential developments in computer technology and artificial intelligence. This acceleration is rapidly transforming the very nature of human existence, potentially marking the twilight of homo sapiens and the dawn of something entirely new. The question remains whether we can navigate this transformation with wisdom and intentionality, or whether we will continue to hurtle blindly into an uncertain future.
In an era of accelerating artificial intelligence, many find themselves gripped by existential uncertainty. Some have turned to traditional religious frameworks—particularly Catholic and Evangelical fundamentalist traditions—seeking stable ground in turbulent times. Yet paradoxically, these same religious systems, with their emphasis on human dominion and a supernatural God, may have helped create the conditions for our current technological disruption.
This raises a profound question: Can traditional religious frameworks adequately address the challenges of an evolving technological world? As Alfred North Whitehead suggested, perhaps we need to reconceptualize divinity itself—not as an exception to natural processes, but as deeply interwoven with evolution and change.
Currently, we face multiple convergent challenges: the technological disruption championed by figures like Elon Musk, the political upheaval associated with Trump’s rise to power, and the neo-reactionary philosophies of Curtis Yarvin, among others. Many feel that human agency is being subsumed by algorithmic systems and vast data networks. Apocalyptic ideas are in the air.
However, rather than surrendering to technological determinism, we might consider countering these disruptions with another kind of revolution—one centered on the transformative power of love. This isn’t mere sentimentality, but rather a radical reimagining of how human connections and collective action might create new forms of power and meaning. Love, Teilhard de Chardin posited, is the core energy of the universe, not subject to the forces of entropy or disruption.
What might a revolution in love look like in practice? How do we imagine a new world of shared spiritual power that could heal our relationship with the earth and each other—one that could make our current obsession with information systems feel secondary? Technology has captured human imagination by promising unlimited possibilities. Could a renewed, dynamic spirituality offer an equally compelling vision of human potential and planetary flourishing? God is the name of unlimited possibilities and those who live in God rest on the future. God is the power of creativity and Godly power doesn’t fear the future but creates it.
Our relationship with technology often feels like chasing an ever-receding horizon of possibilities. But what if we redirected that yearning toward a revolution in how we love—both each other and our planet? This revolution might begin by recognizing that our deepest innovations aren’t found in silicon and algorithms, but in the ways we open ourselves to connection. Imagine communities where spiritual practice is woven into how we grow food, build homes, make art, and care for each other. Where wisdom traditions don’t just survive alongside technology but help us use it more mindfully and ethically.
Consider a world where our metrics of progress shift from information processing speed to the depth of our relationships—with ourselves, our communities, and the natural world. Where we measure wealth not in data centers, but in restored ecosystems and healed social bonds. Where innovation means finding new ways to listen to the land and to each other.
Technology is amazing but it must be put in service of something greater: our capacity for love, wonder, and regenerative relationship with all life. The future isn’t just something that happens to us—it’s something we actively create through how we choose to live and love today.
View print-friendly version
38 Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Posts
Crisis and Hope
Myths are compelling stories that shape our lives. Our complex world is a mixture of myths—stories of how we got here, what governs our lives, and what determines good and…
The conflict between science and religion is not one-sided. The depths of this incongruity lies, for me, in how their intrinsic relationship has evolved or devolved.
Science – the art of ever questioning and capitalizing on its conditional conclusions tends to deny the existence of an ultimate answer. Religion (at least Roman Catholic Christianity) – seems to begin with ultimate answer and denies question. A broad characterization but, I think, reasonably valid. Yet, paradoxically both are intrinsically ‘incarnational’ in their foundation.
Despite its protestations and even its dogma, Christianity – not only Roman Catholicism -seems to have abandoned its incarantional foundation long ago. Beginning with an assumption of ‘ultimate answer’ renders religion free to define itself and all else in reference to its presumption and self-interest, in spite of and irrespective of demonstrable reality including its base, Jesus. (Just noticed the irony of the term ‘demonstration’ beginning with ‘demon-’?). One has only to reflect on the Bishop Barrons, Vance, Christian bigotry, enshrined misogyny….
Artificial Intelligence, exemplifies where science, in its unique way, is leading to its own form of abandoning its ‘incarnational’ foundation. It seems that ‘formula has replaced experiment, avatar has replaced person and rate of change has outstripped social reality.
Both of these deviations are fundamental to the success of misinformation, fake news, and dis-information. Fact, demonstration, accountability and transparency, ‘common sense’ and ‘common decency’ are no longer anchors for the broad spectrum of our existence. “Truth” seems to have become a meaningless concept.
This pessimism leads me to ask what is this “love” that is proposed as, the new revolution, the resolution. The answer does not lie with Chardin whether as scientist or as Catholic priest. In fact some have questioned his scientific credibility. With regard to his priesthood, I would suggest that his Jesuit foundation as more relevant but again limited.
The value of Chardin, is in his demonstration, as a model of integration. Integration of faith and reason based on their foundation in the reality of existence: matter and spirit, body and soul, spitualized matter and materialized spirit; spirit enlivened matter and materially anchored spirit. It is the ever cyclical rotation from ‘inspirited matter’ to question based upon quest and its return with incremental known – not merely to the select few but – to the many, the ‘we’ of embodied people. This is not love but the foundation for its ‘conception’.
The foundation of Jesuit spirituality is pursuing the greater glory of God (AMDG) in incarnation – in the world. It is not only ‘bringing’ the deity to humanity it is finding the deity in existence, in the world of simplicity and complexity. It is not ‘pretending’ ,it is the seeking the ineffable within the real, the ultimate within the possible. It is embracing what it finds. It is the ever-present questioning of the where and the how in the here and now.
No, the present model of (my) religious structure does not lead me, nor does it heal, or help. I only know that I (we) need … Love, it seems, is something els..
Seems to me, the conflict between science and religion is only a perceived conflict, one born of dualistic thinking (separation consciousness), a property of the carnal mind which by nature divides the already integrated perceptual field, and therefore cannot see in wholes.
The remedy for same is not to come up with a new Spirit-Science paradigm, as if the subject matter of both were siloed as is, but to attain unitive consciousness, a property of the Christ mind that the apostle Paul underscores in the Book of Romans 12:1-2.
Short of same, the universal mortal belief that the two disciplines are separate, remains just that, another false human belief among many. Seeing things as WE are, not as THEY are is the main problem. Since Teilhard suggested spirituality is foremost about seeing, best start there.
In her book, “The Monastic Heart,” Sister Joan Chittister pointed out that monasteries helped rebuild local communities after the fall of the Roman empire. I wonder if monastic life is a pattern that our faith communities could adapt to help us better model how to love one another as Christ has loved us (John 12:13). I asked Bing CoPilot to explain how monasteries supported the building up of local communities in the Middle Ages. The response is below. I’m curious what our community thinks of this idea.
***
Monasteries played a crucial role in the development and support of local communities during the Middle Ages. Here are some key ways they contributed:
1. **Education and Knowledge Preservation**: Monasteries were centers of learning and education. Monks copied and preserved manuscripts, including religious texts, classical works, and scientific knowledge. This helped maintain and spread knowledge throughout Europe.
2. **Agricultural Innovation**: Monasteries often owned large tracts of land and were involved in farming. They introduced new agricultural techniques and crops, improving food production and sustainability for local communities.
3. **Healthcare and Social Services**: Monasteries provided medical care and social services to the local population. They operated hospitals, cared for the sick, and offered shelter to travelers and the poor.
4. **Economic Support**: Monasteries engaged in various economic activities, such as brewing, milling, and crafting. They provided employment opportunities and stimulated local economies through trade and production.
5. **Spiritual and Moral Guidance**: Monasteries served as spiritual centers, offering religious services, guidance, and support to the local population. They played a significant role in shaping the moral and ethical values of the community.
6. **Cultural and Artistic Contributions**: Monasteries were hubs of cultural and artistic activity. They produced illuminated manuscripts, religious art, and music, enriching the cultural life of the community.
Monasteries were not just religious institutions; they were integral to the social, economic, and cultural fabric of medieval society. Their contributions helped build and sustain local communities in numerous ways.
My name is Jesse Calvillo and I have been reading and reflecting on Sr. Delio’s publications since 2020. If anything, she was the one who got me to read and reflect on Teilhard’s publications.
Her current article on our Musk-Trump-AI challenges and as major disruptions to our sense of Being and reality, I am inclined to view them as “discontinuities”, which to a number of scientists, philosophers and theologians is what perceives the unleashing of one’s sudden awakening of imagination, creativity and problem resolution.
Let me know if I am off on what Delio is trying to convey in her book – The Not-Yet God?
Recall the late 70’s speaking to a high school class about Alvin and Heidi Toffler musings. I was a fresh university graduate working in informational technology. My message was about moving the application of technology from ‘operations’ (repeatable iterations) to ‘informing’ (analytics of Indus River flows to predict flooding).
After 40 years in financial services (Pakistan and Canada) and now 19 years as ordained Deacon of the Catholic Church it amazes me of the divide between science AND religion. Why amazement? It is the ability to ignore reality that keeps the divide as no one wants to bridge it. Instead of fearing the loss of position, we must be forward looking, like the first nano seconds from the big bang through to the Tiktaalik some 350 million years ago the first fish walking on land…
We ain’t seen nothing yet…
Now that I am reaching out to the marginalized to accompany, Illia’s words are meaningful:
“our capacity for love, wonder, and regenerative relationship with all life. The future isn’t just something that happens to us—it’s something we actively create through how we choose to live and love today.”
Let us become co-creators…