The dawn of the post-literate society – and the end of civilisation
29 comments
·September 20, 2025aDyslecticCrow
sema4hacker
>Keyboards, instant messaging, blogs, social media.
I've got a 29-year-old employee from whom I receive texts and emails every day. The grammar and auto-spell word substitutions are frequently so bad I have to respond "do you mean X or Y?", and sometimes so confusing I can't parse their message at all.
>I think the average person reads and writes as much as always
Perhaps, but the writing quality has definitely taken a dive.
Djonckheere
What a sobering indictment of our screen-obsessed world. It seems all roads lead back to the introduction of the smartphone —the mid-2010s, a critical turning point:
> "Never before has there been a technology like the smartphone. Where previous entertainment technologies like cinema or television were intended to capture their audience’s attention for a period, the smartphone demands your entire life. Phones are designed to be hyper-addictive, hooking users on a diet of pointless notifications, inane short-form videos and social media rage bait."
> "The average person now spends seven hours a day staring at a screen. For Gen Z the figure is nine hours. A recent article in The Times found that on average modern students are destined to spend 25 years of their waking lives scrolling on screens."
HPsquared
Seven hours is the average person. I'm closer to 12 hours a day. The rest is sleeping / driving / walking / cooking. And during those times, I'm usually listening to something.
mallowfram
We're symbol sleepwalkers, their arbitrariness is a meaning sink. Literacy is essentially mind-control by severely limiting the semantic resources words and narratives provide. Literacy makes us into minions. Post-literacy should have arrived with Chinese or Mayan glyphs (900BC/800AD) and conformed the West's sense of individualism with the concatenation capabilities of the East/MesoaAm, but the West's valuation of the arbitrary extractive processes and potentials of symbols and metaphors for economic and political control were much too addictive and sedative. Our only chance is to overthrow symbols and literacy to engage in direct perception of reality. This is a postcard from the edge by a medieval scribe.
Hnrobert42
In high school debate, I found a killer piece of evidence to counter any given doomsday argument.
From Eric Zencey:
There is seduction in apocalyptic thinking. If one lives in the Last Days, one’s actions, one’s very life, take on historical meaning and no small measure of poignance.
nabla9
That's not evidence.
You just used a type of Ad hominem fallacy called appeal to motive fallacy.
BolexNOLA
Not to mention it’s an assumed motive at that.
z7
List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...
woopsn
I recommend The Image by Daniel Boorstin. Smart phone is not the dawn at all but I guess more like high noon. The world is replaced by graphics (more generally , images) for a century at least. Books by "digests", heroism by celebrity and so forth. A little bit of media theory goes a long way to making the world "legible" again. Since we are absolutely steeped in media culture.
firefax
Fahrenheit 451 didn't get as embedded into popular culture as 1984, but does a good job depicting a society brain rotted on reality TV and war propaganda.
begueradj
"the world has been replaced by graphics (more generally, images)"
Humankind started to record its history by images (google for instance about the city of Sefar, Algeria). Nowadays, even in tech we use graphics (diagrams and so on)
This is not my field but even the first letter of the latin alphabet is simply the image of the head of a cow rotated a bit to the left.
deadbabe
I think the most optimistic future we could hope for now is some kind of Star Wars like future where incredible technology could be all around us but the vast majority of people do not participate much in its creation or maintenance, so the technology just becomes part of nature and we see people use it in illogical or anachronistic ways, because they don’t know any better. Life becomes something like the Middle Ages but with shiny tech instead of iron and stone. People can’t read because they just talk to their interfaces or communication devices. Most people have menial subsistence type jobs. And ruling over everything is some vast empire that is cartoonishly evil, because the people running it are as simple minded as the people they govern.
cjs_ac
This essay attributes rather too much to literacy. The end of feudalism, for example, started with the Black Death, and the journey to modern democracies involved centuries of concessions by kings to the emerging middle classes. Sure, mass literacy was key to enabling universal suffrage, but the end of absolute monarchy started long before that.
The present decline in literacy is probably the consequence in a temporary prestige given to other forms of media. We are very much heading into a great crisis, but the old social order where knowledge is valued by the elites will re-emerge once the crisis is resolved. The Second World War emerged from the chaos of the 1920s and 1930s, and the reason why so many people who lived through the war said they enjoyed it was the common purpose that swept away the prior disorder. This is why the 1950s were so socially conservative and repressive.
We live in interesting times, but the world will again be boring.
hash872
>the journey to modern democracies involved centuries of concessions by kings to the emerging middle classes
Eh, sort of disagree. The journey to modern democracy started with centuries of concessions by kings, first to other nobles (Magna Carta, etc.) Then, to other local power brokers like large landowners, business elites, etc. None of these parties wanted one single figure to have absolute power over their affairs & finances, mostly because they tended to make terrible decisions (random wars, taxation, and so on). Early proto-parliamentary systems in the UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Japan in the 19th century etc. were just a council of local, powerful elites who wanted to check the power of the king. The 'middle class' part came absolutely last
syntaxing
I took a mandatory college requirement in environmental studies. The class argues that a lot of the big changes we remember in human history came from environmental changes. The medieval started the growth and end of feudalism, the little ice age started the enlightenment period and industrial revolution.
logicchains
>The class argues that a lot of the big changes we remember in human history came from environmental changes.
Of course it's going to argue that, it's an environmental studies class. But those environmental changes were global, while changes like the enlightenment and the industrial revolution only happened in a small number of countries that had the political and economic systems to support them.
jkaplowitz
Both statements could be right, no? The environmental changes could have been necessary (or greatly probability-increasing) for the human history changes but not by themselves sufficient to trigger those without the right societal context. Most changes like the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution have multiple causes or prerequisites.
IgorPartola
More than that, it seems pretty clear that big events in history are moved by a relative minority of usually privileged individuals who then harness the will of the masses. Major achievements were accomplished while most people in the world did not know how to read and had never traveled more than 20 miles from where they were born. That isn’t to say these achievements were aimed at the most good for the most people. Genghis Khan’s conquest of Asia and Eastern Europe was not to bring peace and prosperity to the conquered. But literacy played little role in that huge endeavor. In 1928, when Alexander Fleming first identified penicillin in his lab, the worldwide adult literacy rate was around 20%.
The only thing we seem to be forgetting is that the intellectual capability of a group of people is measured by the intellectual capability of the smartest person there, not the average of all the people.
bee_rider
That seems like the ‘great man’ model of history (unless I’ve misread you). It is one of the models that was used to interpret history, but it isn’t “pretty clear” that it is true at all, there are plenty of competing models.
walleeee
> the intellectual capability of a group of people is measured by the intellectual capability of the smartest person there, not the average of all the people.
Nonsense. The capacities of an organized group of people are very different from the capacities of any individual in it or the averaged capacities of its members. Even an absolute dictatorship where the dictator is resident genius.
inglor_cz
"The only thing we seem to be forgetting is that the intellectual capability of a group of people is measured by the intellectual capability of the smartest person there, not the average of all the people."
Looking at various intellectual and artistic hotspots in history, be it Bell Labs or ancient Athens or Florence in the Renaissance or even Silicon Valley today, what seems to matter is the ability to find the smartest people, put them together and let them stimulate one another.
And plenty of such people come from the peripheries. How many Ramanujans lived and died at Fleming's time while not being discovered?
mortsnort
And yet thousands of people have liked (and presumably read) his long article and hundreds have replied. Substack provides levels of information sharing that a book can't provide.
With books, some small amount of people read difficult works while most people read beach lit. With phones, some small amount of people are learning at rates never possible before, while most people consume Tik Tok.
I agree that social media may be causing a collapse in society, but not that a lack of book reading is causing societal collapse.
dash2
I only wish that Substack were a good substitute for books.
I’m off social media. I don’t even have Safari on my phone usually. I consume Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, and Substack essays.
It turns out I’m just as able to mindlessly consume this media for hours a day, and although it is not as superficial, emotive or corrosive as X, it is still no substitute for the deep book-length reading I used to do and now do increasingly less.
Literate intellectuals are stuck in the shallows too.
MontyCarloHall
>With books, some small amount of people read difficult works while most people read beach lit. With phones, some small amount of people are learning at rates never possible before, while most people consume Tik Tok.
Same with gen-AI. A small amount of people have become autodidacts like never before, while others just use it to replace their own reasoning capabilities, which atrophy as a result. I know someone who self-taught graduate-level math courses using ChatGPT as a personal tutor, and I can confirm they actually learned the material well. I also know college students for whom gen-AI wrote every single word of every assignment.
Any social collapse will be caused by technology further accentuating this bifurcation. The exponential increase of information readily available to us, whether gold or slop, means that the motivated will get exponentially smarter and knowledge while the less-motivated get exponentially more distracted, which will lead to unprecedented levels of social inequality.
efavdb
If literacy is what prevents monarchy / dictatorship, what explains China and Russia?
ants_everywhere
According to Wikipedia, Soviet Russia promoted literacy specifically to make propaganda more effective
> After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Anatoly Lunachersky, the Soviet People's Commissariat for Education made a conscious effort to introduce political propaganda into Soviet schools, particularly the labour schools that had been established in 1918 under the Statute on the Uniform Labour School.[20] These propaganda pamphlets, required texts, and posters artistically embodied the core values[21] of the Soviet push for literacy in both rural and urban settings, namely the concept espoused by Lenin that "Without literacy, there can be no politics, there can only be rumors, gossip and prejudice."[22] This concept, the Soviet valuing of literacy, was later echoed in works like Trotsky's 1924 Literature and Revolution, in which Trotsky describes literature and reading as driving forces in the forging of a New Soviet Man.[23]
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez
Soviet Russia also obviously killed people in large numbers if they disagreed with the party line, starting immediately after the revolution. If you kill people who disagree with you while promoting specific state-approved propaganda then literacy is indeed not enough.
That's why free speech and in particular the freedom to criticize and disagree with the government is fundamental.
What matters is that (1) people are able to read, (2) people are free to read what they want, and (3) people have access to cheap nonfiction reading material that is likely to be true and accurate. You can attack at any of these points and reduce the ability of literacy to prevent dictatorship.
Fricken
>Numerous studies show that reading is in free-fall. Even the most pessimistic twentieth-century critics of the screen-age would have struggled to predict the scale of the present crisis.
Marshall McLuhan, the media theorist, began his academic career as a scholar of Medieval history, but his attention soon turned to the Gutenberg press and the rise of literacy (over 3 centuries), and how it changed the way we think. He then applied his theories to radio, film, TV etc.
In the 1960s McLuhan was invited to tour the skunkworks at IBM, Xerox Parc, and Bell Labs where they were working on the early iterations and basic building blocks of what would become the internet we know today.
They showed him their vision for "Peer to peer electronic media", and McLuhan applied his theory of media to the not-yet-realized notion of social media.
He definitely saw it as something that would bring a death knell to the literary age, and recognized that social media was inherently tribalistic. According to McLuhan we would all be "marching to the beat of the tribal drums". And that brings us to today, wherein America is officially under the spell of state sponsored tribalism, and reading in the literary sense no longer holds court as the driver of our discourse and thinking.
The dude skated to the puck a good 30 years before it arrived, and he was extremely pessimistic. Mark Zuckerberg has claimed to be a McLuhan fan, but if he actually understands what McLuhan was saying, that's scary:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/amnesty-report-finds-face...
mallowfram
He didn't grasp that speech and text were the same in terms of arbitrariness, and he couldn't see that narratives are basically illusions in terms of their meaning-load. We know from neurosci any event has two dimensions of meaning, where it carries in past memories already formed, and how it creates local memory in formation. Both are probably limitless, yet narratives ascribe intent and cause and effect to essentially turn us into meaning zombies, forever revisiting the same unidimensional intents and meanings as if they are applicable to real events. They simply aren't. Literacy is dead for reasons McLuhan could not have imagined. He never reached the leading edge of demythologization, which is where we are, and how literacy dies.
This is a very verbose essay that i don't feel quite says much. I want to put question the presented statistics a bit in particular.
The essay quotes studies showing the leisure-reading prevalence among teens and adults dropping. I do not see how this is relevant at all to "death of intellect and reason". Reading fiction can give a person new perspectives on life, but so could a movie or a manga or radio-show. It's a leisure activity. I'm far more worried about drop in reading and writing *proficiency* overall. Writing proficiently is dropping with LLMs in school, and reading proficiency is worse than the early 2000s. But i don't think this tells the whole story either.
I think the average person reads and writes as much as always thanks to the prevalence of technology. Keyboards, instant messaging, blogs, social media. Writing is easier than ever, and reading is more worthwhile than ever. But the *format* has and media has shifted. This shift in format is not reflected when asking people "how often do you read" (people read constantly, but much fewer books).
And to question the very premise further; Reading isn't that brought the revolution in science and intelligence; better storage, spreading and access to knowledge is. That this came in the format of text should matter. If people engage with thought provoking reason through audio or visuals instead of text, what does that matter?
now, i AM worried about some of this. In particular the decline of news quality and consumption, rise in (seemingly) acquired ADHD, and a drop in writing proficiency (which i think is vital for deep thought and contemplation), but this article really does not discuss the issue fairly or well.