products. systems. strategy.

Chuck Klosterman on agreeing with the Future

Added on by spencer wright.

 Chuck Klosterman from his 2013 book "I Wear the Black Hat: Grappling with Villains (Real and Imagined)." The key (to me) is the second paragraph; emphasis mine. (n.b., the text below is transcribed (carefully) from the audiobook. Punctuation may vary.)

And the worst part is that there is no other option. If a father stops his son from embracing the online universe, he is stopping him from becoming a competitive adult. It's like refusing to teach him how to drive a car, or boil water. You may worry about al the ancillary consequences, but you can't take away the experience. Avoiding the internet is akin to avoiding everything that matters. This is even true for adults. An author I know once explained why writing became so much more difficult in the 21st century: "The biggest problem in my life," he said, "is that my work machine is also my pornography delivery machine." The future makes the rules.
The future makes the rules, so there's no point in being mad when the future wins. In fact, the easiest way for any cutthroat person to succeed is to instinctively and relentlessly side with the technology of tomorrow - even if that technology is distasteful. Time will eventually validate that position. The only downside is that until that validation occurs, less competitive people will find you annoying and unlikeable. The future will retire undefeated, but it always makes a terrible argument for its own success.
The argument is inevitably some version of this: You might not like where we're going, and tomorrow may be worse than yesterday, but it's still going to happen whether you like it or not. It's inevitable. And this is what people hate. They hate being dragged into the future. And they hate that technocrats remind them that this is always, always, always happening. We tend to dislike cultural architects who seem excited that the world is changing, particularly when those architects don't seem particularly concerned whether those changes make things worse. They know they will end up on the right side of history, because the future always wins. These are people who have the clearest understanding of what technology can do, but no emotional stake in how its application will change the lives of people who aren't exactly like them. They know the most, and they care the least, and they kinda think that's funny. Certainly, this brand of technophobia has always existed. As early as 1899, people like H.G. Wells were expressing apprehension about a future "ruled by an aristocracy of organizers, men who manage railroads and similar vast enterprises." But this is different. This is about the kind of person who will decide what the future is.