I love your comparison and observation as to the “big picture” and how it relates as a modern building block per say in the greater structure largely attributed to the Greeks. So little of that mentioned in general conversation.

I agree with you in part about society being slow to adapt and accept change, especially relative to those in power. It’s the fringe elements though, the grass root movements that enact it though, and the real question is how organized/powerful/enabled they are. All across the world in every culture those same barriers exist, some are more established than others, but the real question is not if, but who is able to overcome those obstacles first.

I see things like Digg, Reddit and the social media as one major enabler for bucking/forcing change. The issues they’ve been able to mobilize/force since widespread adoption has been amazing. Adding voice that previously would have required years of effort and an easily stopped/neutralized organization.

I think we can take it as self evident that
1)Technology is transformative to our society and our culture. Some connections between technological change and societal change are obvious, others are more indirect but just as disruptive.
2) The pace of technological change is rapid and it is accelerating. Meanwhile, our religious beliefs and institutions go back thousand of years. Our legal system–as it relates to property rights and contract law has been evolving for thousand of years. The US Constitution is over two hundred years old, with many of the ideas behind it go back to the ancient Greeks. There is huge disconnect between the pace at which technology can force changes and the pace at which society adapts and adjusts to accommodate change.
That gives rise to the question of
how do you go about re-”industrializing” ourselves in order to be re-positioned as a governmental/business superpower as things continue to be re-defined.
the particular problem is that people and groups who have power and influence under the current system will have either have to willingly allow that power and influence to be re-defined away from them or they will have to lose it unwillingly. It is rare in history for any individual or group to willingly cede power, wealth and prestige.
Toffler and others have written entire books on this subject, so I don’t expect to make a complete point in a couple of paragraphs.
Yours is a place of musings. I offer this up as food for thought

Thanks for the feedback and info. As I’m not directly familiar with the book you mentioned I’ve done a little quick reading before responding [sparknotes form I'm afraid] so please correct me if i’m off base in any way.

From what I’ve been able to briefly figure out – the fundamental concepts are without question similar. The details are very different though which is one of the reasons I wish there was a more fitting/less used title that still fit the bill of sale.

As you mentioned the book was written in 1970 and while it focuses on major changes in technology the mass adoption of the internet and its staggering changes to our social structure had not occurred yet and in many ways I think were not even imagined.

While that psychological shock element is definitely a major element of what I’m arguing, my focus is more on re-”industrializing” ourselves in order to be re-position as a governmental/business superpower as things continue to be re-defined. As I understand it his book explores the psychological impact of change, while I’m arguing a more political/governmental explanation.

Then again without actually having read the book it’s difficult to really clarify. That and my lack of first hand experience during that time period [Born in 85] definitely effects my perception and the way I relate/perceive things.