Cascio on Shirky and drivers behind change

It is enough… It is time I to stop thinking deeper on how and what to write on this blog and start writing something. It is just a blog for Gods sake! OK, let’s go…

I will start softly by commenting on Jamais Cascio’s post: An Insufficient Present where he argues that

the future belongs to those who find the present insufficient

in opposition to what Clay Shirky argued in the post: the future belongs to those who take the present for granted. Shirky seems to be argue along the lines of

…while some people still argue about whether Wikipedia is a good thing, folks at Metaweb are already building a next-generation collaborative knowledge base

and

[...] people who can accept the (technological) conditions of the present are better-able to see what’s next than people who are still wrestling with whether those conditions of the present make sense

He also make a reference to Forrester Research results published in New York Times and Business Week, and asks the relevant critical question about how much of the answer that really delves in the measurement on how different generations answers question on how they relate to different media.

Cascio’s argument is that it isn’t enough to take the present for granted to be a catalyst for change.

Dissatisfaction with the present, not simply acceptance of it, drives change.

From my perspective I think both are right but you have to be a bit more nuanced to understand how. I would say that Shirky’s argument is enough if you also argue that it is the use and diffusion of new technology and new ideas, which is the key component in change.

If you on the other hand gravitate towards that the key component in change is the innovation of a new technology or a new concept, then I would give Cascio right.

The problem as I see it is that it is really a complex relation between innovations and the process by which the innovation is diffused. So why not make a paraphrase from both statements:

Dissatisfaction with the present, not simply acceptance of it, drives the urge to innovate, the first necessary key to change. People who can accept the (technological) conditions of the present are better-able to see what’s next and are more willing to adopt and use the new technology which is the second necessary key to change.

Or maybe I missed the point completely, but I at least wrote a post again!! I’m baaaack!