A Flat World (for AccessLine Iowa)

A Flat World (for AccessLine Iowa)

17 January 2013

Tony E Dillon-Hansen

There are many people who like to describe the world as “flat”, notably New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman. This is supposed to describe globalization as a measure of the growing competitiveness and interdependence between cultures and countries of the world that has been a feature of modern society. This supposedly indicates that cultures are working together more while relegating national borders to mere dots on a map. In contrast, others suggest that these claims are quite exaggerated compared to actual data.  Their assertion is that there are relatively small interactions between cultures and countries.  We can see examples of this in our own community where we do not have to look far to see that true global interaction is far from realized due to the divided nature our society is embroiled. 

With some empirical observation, we can see how some markets and communities have changed from local to global in scope as espoused by Friedman’s allies.  Some aspects of capital markets may be spread across the globe, however, the places people go to buy the finished product is local. As well, the interactions that we have are with our selected communities.

Friedman further argues that the current globalization trend is primarily driven by individuals creating and collaborating through a common flat technology platform across the vast networks.  With social media that allows interactivity and connections to span multiple continents between billions of people that were previously unable to connect, there is reason to believe that people are much more connected as a global community through a simple button-click. While some networks, like Facebook, have expanded to over 500 million across several continents and supply chains have allowed for global connections, there is a bit of generalization based upon hopeful perceptions.

The overstatement is evident in how people interact within and outside of their respective communities. There may be a common technology (e.g. social media, currency, telecommunications and others), but people are self-selecting their conversations they wish to participate.  This inhibits the true realization of globalization.

As I have argued before, we can consider the quick action of making a connection via social media versus the action of having a conversation with someone from across the ocean and learning the culture. We know that people, in the same room, can have totally different conversations in complete opposition to each other without ever saying a word to each other. We can cross the globalization threshold only if we are willing to learn from others regardless whether we agree with the different ideas. 

We are more likely to agree, participate and rally around points that favor our own perceived interests based upon notions of philosophical openness and growth. Yes, we should affirm truths, and we should not be afraid to call out erroneous ideas. Listening only to what we want to hear and yelling above the opposition, however, limits our own ingenuity, resourcefulness and expansion.

We may live in a world that enjoys accessibility to ideas, but we find ourselves contained within our own realm of thinking, sometimes deliberately.  Whether called the “big sort” or “wisdom of the flock”, people tend to get their desired information and opinions from the people around them. We can see this in how people organize throughout different parts of the country, the state, and within cities. Even religious organizations that claim the same denomination, within a few blocks of each other, do not want to understand the other religious opinions and priorities (e.g. marriage or other traditions). 

People want to believe they have the correct ideas (regardless of logic) and will reject anything that conflicts with that.  When leaders promote conflicting ideas, they get rejected as not leading (e.g. Obama) because they do not align with those paradigms. Those who never found themselves considered lower class do not want to understand the pride of those wanting to be included in the Promised Land of equality and fairness, even when pride is all you have. Being beholden to biases and traditions can destroy the fortunes of merit. 

Technology can help to overcome supposed localizations, physical limitations, as well as outdated ideas that people have built over time. Yet, to claim that people are actively reaching across various barriers is muted if only 10% do the stretching when using the technology. Whether with the LGBT community, local city, school or family, one only has to look at your own connections to see with whom you and your friends interact and the events you participate. We self-select, intentionally or not, to be parts of those communities. 

Now, capable leaders may be able to transcend barriers.  Effective leaders not only transcend deterrents, but they are the workers that get people to think in terms of a community of action and cooperation. Moreover, they help to focus minds and discussions. They simply do.

There are more issues that have global impacts like equal rights, climate change, oil supply, and expansion of technology. Still, we cannot insist to hear solutions only from people like us. Any issue that impacts more than one community requires cooperation. Those issues require more drastic actions than a button click, and leaders to do the work.

Globalization can teach us much about ourselves and our expectations, but we have to go beyond our own perceptions. The technology and capacity is ready if we are willing to expand. Of this I agree with Mr. Friedman, we should do what we think is possible, however improbable, because someone somewhere will do it, and they will be the leaders.

Guns and Weed

Guns and Weed: Perspectives of Personal Liberty vs Public Health 

Tony E Dillon-Hansen

14 December 2012

The recent referendums in Colorado and Washington to legalize recreational use (in addition to medical use) of marijuana restarted a long-standing conversation about whether cannabis is 1) truly a destructive substance and 2) whether the government should be prohibiting the use, sale or possession of this substance. In addition, the country has witness multiple seemingly random mass killings of people in public venues within the past few months. These seemingly divergent issues are affecting aspects of personal liberty in contrast to whether government should regulate those aspects. 

In the debate over legalizing recreational marijuana use, we see claims of personal liberty being expanded by the recent votes in the two states. We see this apparent expansion of rights in stark contrast to long-standing government regulation against cannabis use. There is a claim that the individual intoxicating use of marijuana is, in effect, a public health menace that must be controlled. The intoxicating effects of cannabis are readily related to alcohol, but the use of that cannabis results in far less deaths than alcohol. Also, the substance supposedly is a “gateway drug” to more hardcore substances or even a “life of crime”. Of this, one argues that stems from the often shady environment where people have to go to get their cannabis due to the illegal nature of that substance. People using pot are not doing themselves any favors if they abuse that drug (similar to alcohol abuse). Yet, cannabis usage does not generally result in catastrophic results (without something like a car being involved). 

With the recent shootings, the country has been pondering whether the second amendment is allegedly carried too far if people are allowed, without question, to own or to carry any type of weapon. No one is proposing to take away people’s rights to have a gun, but perhaps, we should consider if particular persons should be allowed to carry certain weapons. (Who is the judge?) Unlike marijuana, guns have been used in far more deaths. Also we know that no simple test will gauge whether a person is sane enough to warrant a purchase. This is evidenced by the recent shooting in Connecticut where the murderer used the weapons purchased by his mother. The shooter was readily taught by his mother to shoot those weapons even though she may not have taught how to plan a mass killing spree. Yet, this son was able to gain access to weapons that murdered an entire first grade class. Aurora, Colorado also saw what can occur when people get access to lots of weapons. Still folks want to say that there should be no prohibitions on weapons of any sort upon firearms. 

 

Each of these discussions shares a concern for the public well-being in contrast to personal liberties. The question is then begged at what point do these converge and which is the preferred position with respect to the convergence. Would legalizing pot allow people to find their substance in less shady places that ultimately lowers exposure to criminal activity or exposure to other more intense substances? This might even lower overall criminal activity. Does the ban on marijuana find justification when a person, wholly sober, can buy any caliber automatic weapon and then use such to destroy the peace of communities?

Most argue the right to bear arms is enshrined for citizens to be able to protect themselves from others and the government. Yet, the most literal interpretation of this amendment might suggest that people should be able to bear nuclear arms without restriction from the federal government. That would be ridiculous to most reasonable people because the ability to inflict harm upon indeterminate numbers of people warrants some limits. If “guns don’t kill people”, how many must die as a result of a firearm usage before there are limits? How many bullied individuals will realize mass murder as a means to end the taunting, threats and harassment before we intervene?

Now, if people are concerned about the criminal elements surrounding a particular element like cannabis, they might want to consider what loan-sharks do around legal gambling. Also today, alcohol is ranked as the third-leading cause of preventable death in America and a leading cause of automobile collisions. Gun usage has been linked to over 70,000 deaths a year (without regard to motive). Yet, cannabis is the one prohibited.

I am not advocating cannabis use, but we need to consider the legitimacy of laws in relevance to the actual impacts and goals of those laws were designed to achieve (e.g. lower crime and a secure public).

All guns do not have to be available to any buyer who wishes them, and their sellers should be willing to ask questions or to refuse service. Possibly, a reasonable thing to do is to follow some of limits on alcohol upon these other areas because we have many laws on the books that limit alcohol use without prohibition. Could this not be extended to cannabis use? Additionally, bartenders can and do refuse service to customers. Bartenders and retailers can also be held accountable for an improper sale that results in a death or serious injury of another. Should we consider the “right to bear arms” versus to sell arms? Should we not also consider the liability of a weapon sale? 

Public well-being collides with personal liberty within written policy statutes and policy desires. Yet, that does not mean we have to be extreme in application especially when statistics show there is a clear difference between the goal and the applied policy. Maybe, we could apply common sense to laws for once. Certain weapons are not a necessity to own, and cannabis is less of a threat than alcohol. How many more senseless and tragic deaths will we have to endure before we realize this?

Connection or Technology

Connection or Technology

Tony E Hansen

10 Nov 2012

Technology has been helpful with increasing our communication capability and has undeniably altered the way people interact.  With the increased capability via the myriad of devices, we have seen a change in how people interact and in how people view patience. Further, people seem to have replaced compassion with a text. We forgo the personal interaction for the instant communication through our devices, and we forget how to self-reflect.

In Sherry Turkle’s TED talk “Connected, but alone”, she describes the profound nature of technology intersecting with human intimacy that is worth our attention.  She asserts that messages can be like getting a hug when you need it, but too many can be a problem. Turkle posits that “if we’re not able to be alone, we’re going to be more lonely” because we have used technology to replace the human intimacy and connection. This is a revelation about how people have turned toward using these devices to building connections rather than understanding parts of our inmost being. 

With chat rooms, messenger programs, social media, and our devices, technology has provided ample opportunity for communication. Technology can be exciting so much that we sleep with the devices and we take them on vacation with us. Yet, is that technology helping us to understand ourselves? 

Technology changes what we do as well as our perspectives, and if we do not take care, it can change who we are.  Etiquette of using these devices has changed what we consider as proper behavior. Consider the perspective of being able to get instant communication on 2-to-5 inch diagonal screen. Your focus is there in that semi-private conversation (regardless of where you are) rather than observing what is around you and learning from that. 

It was only a few years ago that this instant communication was not possible, but easily, one can find a group of friends that are together in a room but having their conversations with completely different people not even in the same city.  Whether at funerals, at the dinner table, during a movie, or during work meeting, messaging removes us from the location and the experience of what we are doing (whether grief or enjoyment). We should think about what is so important that we forgo the experience before us with the often grammatically incorrect bursts coming from our devices. 

In Star Wars, Master Yoda spoke to Luke Skywalker, “All his life has he looked away… to the future, the horizon. Never his mind on where he was” and later, “always with you what cannot be done.”  Luke was so focused with what was missing (regardless of relevance) that he would easily forget the graces and resources that were there with him. 

We are lost in our many bursts through our devices that we cannot see what is beautiful here. Where does self-reflection happen if you are never alone? Further, real-time observations and notations are not required because we can present things in the way we want to present them at the pace we can control.  Real-time conversations and human relationships lose their richness and rewards but instead become more like annoying attention demanders. 

Messaging is good for getting small bits like saying “thinking of you”, but they do not help us truly gain a context for the person (learning and understanding differences). Yet, people will easily prefer texting over talking. As well, if a message response is not fast enough, people may be offended via the assumption that the bits of texting is automatically more important than the other person enjoying or learning where they are at that moment (never mind possibly driving).  Thus, enjoyment and learning of the moment are forever lost in the inferred priority of perpetual bursts from unrelated elements. 

We can attempt to “hide” our real emotions by ignoring the current circumstance via instant gratis with people through our devices.  Contrastingly, some vividly show their pain and vulnerability in the online-self that you would think their world is infinitely a disaster. Do these not ultimately reflect what people expect from the technology or from others? What scares us that we immerse ourselves in our technology instead of intimacy? What illusions trap us in the technology that we avoid our basic humanity?

Perhaps, we think “no one is listening”. Perhaps, we must “spend time with machines that seem to care.” Maybe, something is happening in the world (drawing our attention) that we would rather be doing at that moment. These can be captivating questions about personal vulnerability and comfort. We could choose to “unplug” for a while and attempt to rediscover the humanity within ourselves. Whether one intentionally chooses to “unplug”, people will ridicule those for being “offline”, but again, why is that considered odd behavior? Consider why people go fishing or hunting. Some enjoy the game, but many will relate to the quietness of being somewhere without disturbance, of being able to self-reflect without noise. 

Ms. Turkle also advocates “reclaiming” spaces at home and work where conversation is primary. I can relate to this because my kitchen table is a place for dinner or coffee with conversation, often over a card game of gin-rummy. Here, my husband and I can relate with and learn about each other. Here, we can build upon each other without technology interfering. 

Consider your holiday rituals and festivities, remember why you are there, and enjoy the moment fully.  Escape the technology for the intimacy of family and friends (regardless of irritations or boredom). Those are moments that make us human and they teach us to use what we have rather than worry about what we do not have. Those are moments that teach us etiquette, compassion and mental reflection.  Those moments are the ones that teach us real understanding and love.