🌱 Consider supporting us during our June Fundraiser—a call for integral ecology in an age of AI.
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
Integral Ecology in an Age of AI
In 1972, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess proposed a new paradigm based on the holistic view of interconnected nature. He coined the term “deep ecology” to challenge humanity to ask…
So it is that we must make peace with creation itself — and with the process of evolution that calls us to become who and what we’ve been created to be. I hear an echo of the prophet Isaiah (11: 6) here: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.” My tradition assumed that that child was Jesus; but (as Sister Delio has rightly pointed out to us), he was the archetype of what it must mean to be a fully human being. We, too, must learn how to live with care and compassion for all of life around us; only that will finally bring peace to our planet. To refuse such a path will only lead to our extinction as a species as evolution takes yet another direction. Our time is now. If we don’t use it wisely and in the ways that make for true shalom — wholeness, health, well-being, self-actualization…peace — some other being will take our place.
I am not a professional educator or a psychologist, but I am very open to the evolutionary idea that progress can be made. Supposing that those open to learning, especially children, can be taught real things, not just facts and figuring, but also some basic behavioral psychology and moral values, people could be persuaded to think and act cooperatively rather than competitively. People could learn to appreciate that differences are good, not distinctions that put people above and below, as if on a scale of dignity or excellence. People could also learn about cultural values, sharing, working toward common goals.
Only love will work as an attraction. Science, logic, mathematics, and the rest are within the power that love can attain. Separating them is like separating the cones or iris from eyes.
Yes. Stronger will often win, but how did Jimmy Carter last so long, years after glioblastoma “should” have killed him? There are things here that ignore laws. Some defy them.
Of course we must obey what science suggests we do, but we can do it in love, and outlast the filter among us. Societies which help weak and poor, that gather together for the good of all outlast societies that believe in survival of the fittest.
Thank you! Very important article. Certainly religion must examine its attachment to rigid belief systems and dogmatic thinking. Here in America, we see this in the Christian Nationalist movement and the Evangelical Fundamentalist movement. We also are seeing the introduction of integralism, the idea that American government should be based on the Bible.
Because of the Christian insistence that it alone is the true religion and all others are false, the above movements represent extremely dangerous, backward-moving impulses, which could result in religious authoritarianism similar to that of Iran and Saudi Arabia, or even of the Taliban.
However, all this said, I think the rigidity and dogmatic thinking that is most problematic currently is not religious, but scientific. The science of today is hopelessly mired in a dying paradigm- physicalism – the doctrine that nothing exists but “matter.” This is the rigidity that is holding us back from real progress, not that of religion, which has been all but irrelevant for over 200 years. Science has come to the point where it is basically asserting that consciousness is an illusion, that we are robots, that concepts like “love” (as mentioned above) are meaningless outside of personal experience. This will all have to change before a society based on the idea that love is primary can ever blossom.
Love is the very essence of life, of all life. As Wilber, Delio, Merton, et alibi have written, this is the teaching that was vaporized by the Ënlightenment in our Western culture. Living with only scientific materialism, we fight our culture wars not realizing that half of our knowledge, viz. the interior half of our paradigm, i..e. beauty, truth, goodness, etc. evaporated. When will we awake?
Yes! Yes! Yes! Let all the Light/Love in! To let what we envision, and what we are afraid to envision, penetrate the nucleus of every cell in our body is to truly be alive. And we live in that wonderful childhood moment of, “what if”. That’s not an escape from life, but a full immersion and participation in it! It is Awareness.
Religion isn’t the only one mired in its own stasis, resistant to change. Science, including academia, hasn’t fared much better in that department, with each discipline leaving a gaping hole for other allurements to fill, like entertainment, technology, and other post-modern addictions. Further, because science has yet to enter and effectively embrace the wisdom phase of its development, wisdom continues to be found in the place where it always has been, far outside of science, even further away than the dominant culture. That would include current cosmogenic paradigms, which because of this wisdom-deficiency remain incomplete and stalled, wanting for same.
This is from an engineer’s perspective. At our best we are practical and humble people. We listen to what mother nature “says” and we make systems that work within “her” framework. Things are what they are, and failure to humbly recognize this, and work with it, produces devices that are not accepted. The Segway was a marvelous piece of engineering and worked flawlessly, but people couldn’t figure out how it stayed balanced so they rejected it. I own one, I’ve heard the comments over and over. I have data. I designed many things. The ones that were successful were made for non-scientific people. More data.
It’s a fact, most people can only change so much, and so fast. It is the human condition.
It is also true that what we learn as children becomes largely embedded in our psyche. Only great disruptions (suffering typically) seems to be able to break us out of these belief systems. Like “rock bottom” for addicts. Even then, most do not really challenge their childhood belief systems (their basic programming). Here again, I have data from my personal life.
This is the condition of humans as mother nature has presented it to us. The question is how do we design a society that adapts to the rapid change of the few scientific people, while most are stuck in their basic superstitious training box with very low probability of ever escaping?
My idea:
Move training of the scientific method and the logical psychology of it into kindergarten and earlier. Replace kids “basic training” in superstition, shame, and punitive justice. If kids are raised on a logical, scientific basic training belief system they will act on it their whole life.
Unfortunately natural selection is also a fact of nature. Those that don’t embrace science will likely die out. The people who embrace it will also embrace things that keep them alive longer. Look at the vaccine deniers. There are many examples. It’s not that we aren’t willing, and trying to help them, they are trapped in denial and its consequences. It’s evolutionary suicide basically. It’s so sad, but the box is nearly impenetrable. Strictly speaking this is not unkind, only logical and practical. I talk about this incessantly, and try very hard to accept people where they are so they don’t feel judged, but most people I know simply shut me out. Contemplative thinking is marvelous, but very few people are interested. More data.
The hope:
I believe the “scientific method” people will eventually be chosen by evolution because they are clearly superior at survival.
John 3:19
And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
“Preferred” is probably better said as “are trapped in” darkness. “Evil” might be better said “individual control”
Unity is power
Acceptance is golden
Love never fails
Thank you. That quite definitely is “an engineer’s perspective.”
We are not alone as we traverse these major shifts in consciousness. Thank you for your accompaniment too.
This is exactly what I think, know and am trying to live. I have just discovered this Center. I am looking for others who do not “glaze over” when I talk this way. I am looking for ways to speak these revelations in the groups where I belong. I am looking for the language that can be heard with established Episcopalians.
The way I put it now is that Love is seeking life that.can love Love back. I practice being love everyday. It gets me out of bed. I want to live on that edge with Love, learning how to love.
Phoebe — Your words, ‘I am looking for others who do not “glaze over” when I talk this way.’ resonate deeply with me. I have found these “others” by joining a Franciscan Book Club. We choose spiritual books by authors like Ilia Delio, Richard Rohr, Gregory Boyle, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Isabel Wilkerson, Valerie Kaur, Ronald Rolheiser, Deray McKesson, Brene Brown, the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu. We meet on Zoom, share the book on the screen and read the book out loud to each other, lectio-divina-style. This way we are all, quite literally, on the same page. We are currently crawling through The Not Yet God and learning its lessons together. If anybody glazes over, they say so and we all slow down and re-read the current page and explain it to each other as we each understand it. It’s a wonderful thing — and nothing short of life-changing. Who knew we could learn a whole new way of talking about God — one that we can accept on the deepest levels just because it’s as natural as love itself? Who knew we could explain the Big Bang in terms of love, attraction and evolution? Who knew God could evolve and change and grow? Who know that the compassion of God was the same as our own compassion? (i.e., based on feeling someone else’s pain). This is truly the Good News.