The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900

This book presents a large assortment of facts which support some of my favourite arguments, yet aren't really brought together to say anything conclusive. So I give it an intermediate rating, boosted partly by being an easy read, even while frustrated that it doesn't really get anywhere. Are we supposed to be surprised that historical memory is uneven, subject to political whim and fashion? Is the author concerned that innovators gain disproportionate hero status? Surely there is more cause for concern with entertainers and sports stars, let alone those whose only realised motivation is accumulation of money. Maybe a good part of my annoyance came from his trying to measure the importance of innovation primarily in terms of impact on gross economic measures.At one level, I'm happy to point out how many areas of technology are stagnating or regressing after earlier prominence, far from converging on some singularity. At another, the author underplays the inescapable rise of information and communications technologies (ICT) still tracking Moore's Law and more so ICT's influence in other areas where it changes how things are done. Sure there are false promises, but even some of those can change how we thing about things. My big lesson in the pervasive influence of ICT came 20 years ago when a survey form about technologies in higher education came in from a prominent laboratory equipment maker incredulously claiming they weren't a technology business. While the author seems to want to treat ICT as yet another overplayed innovation and I'd like to agree, by not addressing its perceived ubiquity he fails to nail it.

A long overdue work that addresses a problem first identified by Toffler when studying societies at different levels of development. Evolving technology and practices produce a loss of understanding and expertise of that what was abandoned, creating downstream disruptive effects when the old reappears, for instance in a commercial, political or military clash between societies or groups using the previous versus the contemporary technology or practice. This book works through a plethora of examples and case studies.

This book tends to get excited about things but not full follow through as to why you should. However, it is rather good and its unfashionable 'Rest of World' (not USA) approach to the topic of 'technology' is refreshing. I particularly like the discussion about how in the 20th Century warships may have the same hull but were constantly 'refitted' to match the changes in navy requirements. The discussion on "maintenance', the hugely expensive 'long tail' on many unwise capital purchases was excellent.

I enjoyed the many background stories of various 20th century technologies. Of particular interest is Edgerton's debunking a number of notions about the "information age," as is mentioned in the summary.I found nothing with which to disagree in this book, so perhaps I am not the best person to review it. Still...read it for yourself, and see whether you come away with the same feeling.

The history we are taught in school, held to be common knowledge, is almost always wrong, and nowhere is this more true than with the history of technology. Growing up in the United States, I was taught that everything was invented in America: that Howe invented the sewing machine, Fulton the steamboat, Morse the telegraph, and Edison invented the incandescent light bulb everything else. Of course, none of that is true, and my favorite books are everything-you-know-is-wrong books which correct our assumptions of how modern life came to be. "The Shock of the Old" is one of the best of these, and it is full of examples of how inventions developed in unexpected places. For example, he points out that in 1895, there were more automobiles running on the streets of Barcelona than there were in New York (or Detroit).But is it all accurate? For the most part, detailed source notes are provided, but then Edgerton makes such statements as that prior to 1939 only Great Britain and Germany had broadcast television. I suppose that by 1939, he refers to the public demonstration of television at the New York World's Fair, but prior to that Britain's broadcast television was from the Baird Television company, which employed the *mechanical* capture and reproduction of a moving image using a spinning disk system invented in 1883 by German engineer Paul Nipkow.This is the second book I've read (the other being  The Industrial Revolutionaries: The Making of the Modern World 1776-1914 ) that was written by a Brit whose intent seems to be to counteract the collective egotism of Americans by minimizing (or ignoring) American innovations. Can't anyone simply state the facts without a hidden agenda? I am certainly no great patriot, but I think that it's undeniable that Edgerton means to take America down a notch here.In addition to that, the book is poorly organized. Yes, there's a wealth of information worth knowing, but it seems to be in no particular order -- certainly not chronological. This makes for fun reading for short periods, but then the avalanche of facts begins to pall.On the plus side, Edgerton writes in clear, flawless English, something seemingly beyond the capability of many American authors.

Much of the technology that we used today has much deeper connections to the past. Recency bias often overwhelms too much of our thinking. Worth a read.

An amazing account of the way in which the history of technology should be studied.

good

This book almost defines the term 'labouring a point'. The basic idea, that old technology hangs around a while after new technology is available, could be summed up in this sentence. Everything else is just repeated historical examples to illustrate the same point over and over and over again. The many and varied reasons why this might be the case are hinted at but then cast aside as they appear to get in his way. As each page goes by, it gets more tedious. By page 44 I had a flick forward to see if he came up with anything more substantive and found it was still chugging along in the same vein. Went to find another book.

Provides a comprehensive narrative dispelling much of the current thinking on the value of 'innovations' versus technology and their use. Well written and easy to follow arguments. Good read.

Happy with purchase – many thanks. Good book.

Interesting and clarifying perhaps little biased towards war history

Loved it. The basic thesis is that "new" technologies often aren't immediately disruptive as we think, but take many years or decades to fully realize their potential. The world actually runs on technologies and inventions which, though upgraded and updated, have been around a very long time. That synopsis doesn't do justice to the book which makes a number of interesting points as illustration. For example, the author notes that while it's accepted wisdom that the atomic bomb ended the war against Japan, in fact a typical B29 raid could have inflicted as much damage for vastly less investment than the immense cost of the Manhattan Project. The real reason Japan surrendered was elsewhere. He also notes that there's not necessarily an economic benefit to a nation for being a technological leader. Great book, and unusual perspective.