emphasis on representative governmentnand a corresponding desire for participatoryndemocracy; 8. a change from organizationalnhierarchies to networking;n9- a geographic exodus from the Northnand Midwest to the West and Southwest;n10. a proliferation of cultural choicesnfrom few to many. These trends are men-n”How seriously stiDiiltlwi.’ t:iki-ali llii>V Not er. I wxmkl s:i-.ntioned as morsels to be devoured withoutncareful scrutiny. They are claimed tonbe healthful, though they actually requirena second look. For example, Naisbittnstates that the decentralization trend isnnot merely existent, but is “the great facilitatornof social change.” Yet if peoplenrely on local decisions to establish annenergy policy, as he seems to maintain,nit is possible that the diverse local reactionsncan imperil the high-tech societynthat Naisbitt predicts is on our horizon.nSimilarly, if one simply accepts the visionnof many cultural options—^a Balkanizationnof culture—what is to prevent anSchumpeterian scenario in which culturenundermines the vitality of the economy?nHow is the informational society thatndepends on a weU-educated populacengoing to flourish when mathematicalnand scientific illiteracy is pandemic? Howndoes a society develop a long-termndecision-making mode in an atmospherenof participatory democracy? Are referendumnand initiative the best means tonenact a foreign policy? Is the one-issuenparty the wave of the fiiture or the ebbnIn the Mailnof the past? If, as an example of decentralizationnand personal choice, Naisbittnoffers cable TV stations as a response tonnetwork domination, then why are stationsnlike C.B.S. Cable facing such financialnproblems? If economic connectionsnreduce the fear of war—an old bromide—nthen how does Mr. Naisbitt explain then-Andrew HackernForhnienresponse of the Eastern-bloc nations tonthe United States after years of generousn(overly generous?) trade arrangements?nHas our bail-out of Poland decreasednthat government’s hostility to the UnitednStates? The unanswered questions andncontradictions abound. Qiches becomensubstitutes for observations to the extentnthat it seems that Naisbitt’s exercise innmoral relativism is a device for avoidingnhard decisions based on values and socialnorder.nH owever, Naisbitt is on to something.nWe are certainly changing in somenvery notable ways, adjusting in the facenof formidable problems that now—^andnwill continue to—exist. The key pointnmade, which Naisbitt admittedly borrowsnfrom Daniel Bell, is that a linear extrapolationnof present conditions justncaimot provide a description of the future.nAttitudes do change, and the indomitablenhuman spirit makes simple predictionsnillusory. However, for at least angeneration observers have claimed thatneconomic disaster is imminent; the worldnMere Morality: What God Expectsjrom Ordinary People by Lewis B. Smedes; Wm. B.nEerdmans; Grand Rapids; MI. The author, who notes that he is from southern California, saysnthat “The commandments in the Bible… do not offer a detailed and up-to-date road map.” Manynof those who live in southern California and deal with the modem roadways wish that they couldngo back to simple, enduring maps.nHumanities in Review, Volume I edited by David Rieff; Cambridge University Press;nNew York. Michel Foucault, Harold Bloom, Richard Seimett, and similar contributors belie thengenerality of the title.nnnwill fece overpopulation and diminishednfood supply; pollution problems are intractable,nand, as Kafka so ominously putnit, “there is always hope, but npt for us.”nIt is no wonder that the young dancednthe necrophilic bop to Barry McGufre’sn”Eve of Destruction” in the 1960’s andnAC/DCs “Highway to HeU” in the 1980’s.nIt is no coincidence that a generationnfed the pabulum of despafr and mushroomnclouds is now pessimistic aboutnthe fiiture. It is hardly surprising thatnprophets of gloom attract overflowncrowds at universities with the messagenthat the sky is falling. In the world ofnfoundations and universities, the gloomnbusiness is thriving. It is therefore withnsome modest rejoicing that Naisbitt’snbook should be welcomed. It isn’t thenprimer for the 80’s, one describing wherenour sophisticated technology is takingnus—book-jacket notes notwithstanding.nSurely all these trends won’t evolve thenway Naisbitt indicates. Certainly somenof die trends will create more problemsnthan they solve. But he is infinitely morenrealistic about the future than the doomsayers.nHe does salute the extremelynpowerfiil sway of the marketplace. He isnsensitive to the demand for new products.nAnd he does recognize the scopenof American ingenuity.n1 his is indeed a transitional period.nOne doesn’t have to be Pollyannish tonbe hopeful about the fiiture. There are,nas Naisbitt amply illustrates, good reasonsnfor optimism. It is time someonenpointed out that futurists from Nostradamusnto Jean Dixon have gazed intonthefr crystal balls to discover that thenworld is coming to an end. Yet it survives.nIn the course of human history therenwill always be catastrophes. They arenunavoidable. However, mankind is notncomposed of lemmings that throw themselvesninto the abyss to oblivion. Humansnseek answers, adjust to new conditions,nand explore unique solutions as theynalso create new problems. Naisbitt maynnot really tell us where we are going, butnhe does remind us the trip may not be allnthat bad. DnJuly 1983n