A Flat World 3.0?

A Flat World

9 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 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.  This presents an interesting discussion about the nature of globalization and cultural interactions both globally and locally because we do not have to look far to see that true global interaction is far from realized. 

The points made by Mr. Friedman’s allies have been readily absorbed by many in academics, economics and politicians. With some empirical observation and interviews with a few entrepreneurs, we can see the world through the eyes of those who work on a global level. Through these, we see how some markets have changed from local to supra-national markets that span OECD countries as well as some non-OECD countries.  We can see vast supply chains that stretch across the globe whereas the previous generation tended to keep those supply chains within domestic borders. 

These long supply chains require a consideration of foreign disruptions, competitions, and government policies that differ from local markets.  American companies (doing business overseas) along with government had to change how they managed competition and economics due to the rapid expanse of foreign companies and governments. We should find this to be curious when capital markets have spread the chain (or web) across unfriendly and competitive regions of the globe when the ultimate sale is local. The supply chain may be spread across the globe, however, the places people go to buy the finished product is local, and conversations we have are with our selected communities.

Friedman, using his showcase stories, argues that the current globalization trend is driven by individuals creating and collaborating primarily using a “common” flat technology platform spanning vast networks.  With the explosion of social media, interactivity and connections span multiple continents between billions of people that previously were unable to connect. There is reason to believe that people are much more connected globally as well as locally. This is a bit of overstatement and generalization based upon perceptions.

The exaggerated perception shows in how Americans perceive larger budget portions dedicated to foreign aid versus actual figures or even in comparison to domestic aid and spending. We can see the changes in news reporting over the years that contain dwindling amounts of international news (unless you listen to NPR). 

As well, we can consider the quick action of making a connection via social media versus actually having a conversation with someone from across the ocean. Is that connection just based upon a profitable network opportunity or are we truly seeking to learns different ideas? We may be crossing the globalization threshold espoused by Mr. Friedman’s allies if we are willing to learn from others especially regardless if we agree or comprehend the premise of their ideas. Yet, the West is more likely to visit and to discuss news from the West, as opposed to say Central Africa, based upon distorted notions of technical and philosophical growth. This limits our own ingenuity, resourcefulness and expansion to ideas of supposedly superior cultural growth and assumptions. 

We can see the result of this in the rejection of the West by Arabic countries. There are divergent opinions and priorities between people in different parts of the country, the state, and even between churches that claim the same denomination within a few blocks of each other. The LGBT community cannot understand why some do not see the connection of marriage as love between people rather than an exclusive tradition. People who have never understood the feeling of being considered second-class do not understand the pride of wanting to be part of the promised-land that is equality. We may live in a world that enjoys accessibility to ideas, but we are comforted when contained within our own familiar realm of thinking, sometimes deliberately.  Whether it is called the “big sort” or “wisdom of the flock”, people tend to get their desired information and opinions from the selected sources and people.

Technology can help to overcome supposed localizations and physical limitations that people have built over time (e.g. nation-state, religion, high schools, neighborhoods, political parties). Yet, to claim that people are using technology to actively reach across various barriers is muted if less than 10% do the stretching. One only has to look at your own social media to see with whom you interact, the events and the places you go. Even more, consider how many conversations with people outside of your community (whether LGBT, local city, school or family) that you have participated. We self-select, intentionally or not, what places we go and with whom we interact. 

We have to question Mr. Friedman’s ideas because the idea of a flat world cannot be realized when most people do not go beyond their realms, regardless of a global web or the few entrepreneurs. There are issues with global impacts like climate change, oil supply, and expansion of technology. Still, we prefer to hear solutions from people like us.  Those global problems require global cooperation and discussions rather than simply giving orders and expecting everyone to fall in-line. Those issues require more drastic actions than a button click.

Globalization can teach us much about ourselves and our expectations, but how do we 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.

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?