Why the world isn't flat… yet
Let's fast forward the clock to the year 2100. Computers will have intelligence similar to that of humans, writes physicist and futurist Michio Kaku in his book "The Physics of the Future" (Doubleday Publishing, 2011), it will be possible to surf the Internet using contact lenses, nanorobots will eliminate tumors Crustaceans, space tourism will be cheap and widespread and humans will colonize Mars. We will become a global culture capable of consuming 1017 watts of the sun's energy reaching the earth to meet our energy demands. The Internet will serve as a worldwide telephone system. English and Chinese will compete with each other for the preeminence as the language of the earth. the preservation of a unified culture of food, of fashion and of films; And a truly global economy would operate through more free trade areas, such as those we see today in the European Union and NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement].
Kaku predicts how the exchange of science, technology and ideas between all nations will create a global culture in which weakened nation-states will exist and almost no wars will break out. It is a vision of bold spirit and epic scope. Many hoped for such a united and peaceful future through globalization. I also imagined a similar vision in my book The Mind of the Market (Holt Publishing, 2009). One of my sources of inspiration was Thomas Friedman's successful book "The World is Flat" (published by Aryeh Nir 2006, from English by Inga Michaeli) in which he calls for a "global playground, which is made possible through the Internet, and enables many forms of real-time collaboration on research and work issues, Regardless of geographical location, distance and in the near future even language."
The problem for Kaku, Friedman, Shelley, and other proponents of globalization (and even its opponents) is that such a future may not be attainable because of the tribal nature we have developed throughout history. In fact, all this is a collection of nonsense, writes Pankaj Gemwat, professor of strategic management and the holder of the Anselmo Robirlata Chair of Global Strategy at the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Navarra in Barcelona, in his new book "World 3.0: Global Prosperity and How to Get It" (Harvard Business Review Press) , 2011). Gamwat claims that only 10% to 25% of economic activity in the world is international activity (and most of it is regional and not global). Take for example these rates of international activity (out of the total activity of any type): International mail: 1%; International phone call minutes: less than 2%; International Internet traffic: 17%-18%; Foreign-owned patents: 15%; The rate of exports from the gross domestic product: 26%; Shares owned by foreign investors: 20%; First generation of immigrants: 3%. And as Gamwat emphatically rules, 90% of the people in the world will not leave the country of their birth for the rest of their lives, a really flat world.
The problem, says Gamwat, is that globalization theories do not take into account the real factors of distance (both geographical and cultural). He processed these factors in his book and created a mathematical distance coefficient, similar to the coefficient in Newton's law of gravity. He calculated, for example, and found that "increasing the geographic distance between two places by 1% results in a decrease of about 1% in trade between them," meaning that the sensitivity to distance is -1. The calculation shows that "the volume of trade between the USA and Chile is only 6% of the volume that would exist if Chile were as close to the USA as Canada." And similarly, "the volume of trade between two countries that share a common language will be on average 42% higher than two similar countries that are not related in this way. The member states of the same trade area (such as NAFTA) will trade at a higher volume by 47% than similar countries that are not members of the same area. A common currency (like the euro) increases the volume of trade by 114%.
In fact, this analysis sounds quite encouraging if we use Kaku's time frame of 2100. But Gamwat reminds us of the deep-rooted tendencies within us that make us want to interact with our relatives and people like us and preserve our local customs and culture. It is therefore possible that these tendencies will eventually crush any globalization plan. In 2004, researchers at the Center for Economic and Political Research (CEPR) examined surveys that examined the mood in the European Union (Eurobarometer) in 16 EU countries from 1970 to 1995. The examination showed that while the Union was expanding, 48% of its residents trusted their nationals. To a great extent", only 22% of the residents of the 16 countries trusted the residents of the other countries in the same bloc to the same extent and only 12% trusted the residents of certain other countries to a great extent.
The structure of human nature dictates the structure of human society. In this case, the world we build is largely dependent on the world we inherited.
22 תגובות
exciting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ypiLsjgwsw&feature=related
An in-depth and detailed analysis of the influence of geography and demography on the geopolitics of the world in general and of the Mazat and Israel in particular can be read in Prof. David Passig's fascinating book - 2048. For your enjoyment.
Reason is only one aspect according to which man acts. It is often also the least significant and determining aspect of a person. The idea of belonging to groups via the Internet is very interesting and maybe it will actually work, who knows?
Meanwhile, in reality, the person belongs to the nationalities identified - usually and mostly - on the basis of a language that distinguishes them. The existence of one language will be the most significant contribution to cosmopolitan globalization. Until then and as long as the person speaks many languages, the chances of this are slim. By the way, as far as I know, the number of languages has been decreasing at the same time as globalization, which indicates this connection between language and the division of cultures and peoples.
But I am not pessimistic. Division into nationalities does not require wars and hatred. And here the European Union demonstrates this well: a clear division into nationalities and cultures continues while maintaining a unifying political-economic framework. The reason is the liberal-humanist view that underlies proper and correct morality. Until we reach complete cosmopolitanism and complete unification of the human race, it is appropriate, in the meantime, to promote humanism and liberalism as an immediate answer to wars, racism, hatred and other shameful things that are created in light of the activity of the person belonging to the species Homo sapiens.
There is reason to think that after the instillation of the liberal-humanist view, the conditions for the long-awaited cosmopolitanism will be eased, but this is far and far beyond our current range of vision.
genius
When you write "they did indeed contact us and it's a shame that the science website forgets to write it here" I assume you mean outsiders. However, pay attention to the testimonies usually attached to claims about extraterrestrials: confused interviews with people who in many cases also claim a personal encounter with Jesus and Napoleon. Partial photographs or videos from which no unequivocal fact can be deduced. Belief, circumstantial evidence, etc.
It can be assumed that if all the claims about extraterrestrials were true, and the abundance of photos on the subject, at least one authentic photo of an extraterrestrial, or at least of a flying saucer, including a license number, would have surfaced.
Unions formed by force disintegrate while other unions are formed on the basis of sanity.
The old unions (such as China, the USSR and Yugoslavia) are falling apart and new unions express the trend of development that may bring peace on earth.
I am sorry to agree with the pessimists among the commenters. There are no two peoples in our world who are able to live together. This is a fact. Even when the difference between the nations does not lead to an actual killing war, the rejection is expressed in other ways. See even the two peoples of Belgium unable to agree on a common government, even when both sides lose by it. The observer from the side cannot understand the fact that the two peoples in Belgium hate each other, and why.
In other places, the governmental pressure succeeds in keeping different peoples under the same umbrella (Yugoslavia, peace be upon him), but with the transition to a more free government, different peoples prefer to break up into separate states or autonomies (the Soviet Union, for example, or even Abkhazia in Georgia).
When the modernization and the freedom that follows will reach the hundreds of millions in China, it will be possible to see the disintegration of the Chinese state into dozens of new states, and this will happen even before 2100... Despite all the commonality between the cultures, I will not fall from the throne even if the Scots want to separate from Britain...
Therefore, the vision of the flat world has nothing to base it on. Scientists from various fields see from the reflections of their hearts, without paying attention to the basic nature of human beings.
Israel:
And yet - that's what it seems to me.
Michael
What I wrote is taken directly from her article on the second law of thermodynamics that appeared at the time in the scientific monthly "Galileo". I know with almost complete certainty that the article was carefully reviewed by the monthly editor and the scientific editor. Therefore, although I respect your words and thank you for reading what I wrote, it does not seem to me that "the connection between your words and reality does not exist at all" as you remark to me. There are other people, intelligent, who do not see things as delusional.
Of course I could be wrong, but how exactly can we know?
Contemporary human culture is not ripe for globalization. Globalization resulting from narrow economic motives of power groups (capitalists and governments) is not true globalization, it is simply exploitation. Real globalization, the kind that can bring cultural fusion and even brotherhood of individuals beyond differences will only happen with a change of mind.
There were some comments here that touched on the subject of the rivalry currently embedded in human conduct, and there were those who even pointed out that human union could only happen against an intelligent alien species that would constitute the opposing group (of course, in theory this may dwarf all the wars we have experienced so far on Earth...).
When people come to the conclusion that "it will be good for me when my neighbor is also good" - and this is already starting to happen today with the social protests all over the world - perhaps we can expect a true brotherhood of individuals who are able to respect and cooperate with each other for a common goal. Then maybe there will be a place for the dawn of a real global village.
Israel Shapira:
The fact that there is a thermodynamic law does not mean that you can take it and replace "thermo" with "psycho".
It seems to me that the connection between your words and reality does not exist at all.
Luke:
There are many other groups:
The group of bacteria, the group of parasites, the causes of disease, the forces of nature and much more.
These are groups that we really have to deal with and there is no need to divide into groups within ourselves.
Do you really think that in order for me to define something or someone as belonging to another group they have to be as similar to me as possible?
genius:
liar
Luke
They actually contacted us and it's a shame that the science website forgets to write it here
In order for humans to all want to be part of one group, we will have to know another group that is not humans (aliens), even a distant contact with a proven alien culture will cause humans to unite under one common denominator.
Full Disclosure:
I'm sure there are other civilizations in the cosmos but unfortunately none of them have yet made contact with us.
With all the optimistic hope and good will, I don't think there is a possibility of long-term world peace.
The reason: the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law rules out the decrease of entropy, or increase of order, in a closed physical system.
Entropy is used to measure the amount of disorder in a thermodynamic system.
If we consider human systems that include billions of individuals, it seems to me that we can derive a similar law, the "second law of psychomechanics", which prohibits the decrease of psychomechanical entropy in closed human systems.
The earth is a closed psychomechanical system. The only way facing humanity to increase the internal order is like in a closed thermodynamic system: expansion, at the expense of other systems.
Evidence: World War I was the war "to end all wars". Did not succeed.
The terrible World War II claimed the lives of approximately sixty million people.
Since then, another hundred million have died in wars.
The wars simply changed address.
Or our conflict with our neighbors: we used to have big wars every few years with the Egyptians, the Jordanians or the Syrians. Our friends were Iran and Turkey. The Palestinians were relatively quiet.
Today there is peace - cold but peace - with Jordan and Egypt. Syria has not shot at us for almost forty years. But the confrontations with the new enemies (Palestinians, Lebanese) claim no fewer victims over time than with the old ones.
Iran and Turkey moved to the opposing camp.
The enemies just changed names.
In short, the hour of Aquarius will not come alone, and it will not help if the moon rises in the seventh house, and Jupiter and Mars line up as one man.
Amit:
You don't have to fight human nature to achieve rational behavior.
It is enough to harness human nature (through logic) in favor of logical behavior.
A person wants to belong to a group - that's true - but there is no stopping that group from being all of humanity.
Besides - the internet enables the formation of international groups with different backgrounds.
These groups are global by almost definition, but they are usually limited only to spiritual matters (precisely those in which belonging to a group is important) and does not invade material matters (where the need to belong to a group is less - and which are actually the main concern of the state).
Therefore it is also possible that the answer to the need to belong to a group will be found precisely in belonging to Internet groups and the status of the state will be known until its cancellation.
I mention again - the formation of the United States and the European bloc should not be ignored. These are huge bodies whose very existence contradicts the pessimists' opinions.
Since we will not get to see the future with our own eyes, at least we will envision it in our own imagination. This is a consolation, because reality often surpasses all imagination.
The main point is that man is a social creature who tends to gather in groups looking for the common denominator compared to "the others". I reinforce Gilad's opinion that globalization has a limit and it will develop to a certain extent. Europe united for historical reasons and reasons and out of economic interests and this has not changed anything - for now - in the division into nationalities based on the special languages of each nation.
The solution does not lie in cosmopolitanism or global unification but in uncompromising and unequivocal liberalism and humanism.
In this way the violent, aggressive and negative impulses will be curbed and human nature and man will be given the opportunity to gather in groups with a common denominator.
Going against human nature - the need to belong to a group - will bear similar results to revolutions that tried to go against human nature, such as communism, the kibbutz, and so on.
It should be remembered that the distance in itself is not meaningful
Economically in exchanging information in all its forms, but he owns
far-reaching meaning (literally..) when
It is about trade and tourism.
Another example is: the reluctance and the inhibiting interest
Many Americans (for example) travel abroad.
Forging ties between countries is also a volatile matter: in central Europe
There was constant war (with some short breaks)
For almost a thousand years, until the rise of Russia and the USA, creation
The Cold War and Nuclear Weapons (which no one predicted)
Made the Europeans relax.
With the advancement of computational technology at a dizzying pace,
It is very possible that chemical and biological weapons will become weapons
common among terrorist organizations which will eventually cause
Chaos and chaos that no one predicted - just as they didn't
He envisioned the relative peace imposed by the weapon
the nuclear
I want to say that the transition between so many obstacles to the world
"Completely flat" is almost a utopia - if it comes true
It will come true in the very distant future.
The relationship between distance and trade is very interesting.
It can be analogically related to the fact that Work=Force*X
kitsch
All historical developments so far have been unexpected. The future cannot be predicted.
Michael, in order for Chinese to become an international language, the Chinese must change the alphabet of their language to a logical alphabet.
Of course, these claims fall in the face of the formation of the United States and the European bloc.
Also - in the age of the Internet - physical distance plays a much lesser role.
Many of the respondents on this site live in different countries and yet there are friendly relations between them.
The virtual world does exist and there are people among us who belong to worldwide virtual communities like the Brights.
The English language is progressing towards the status of a universal language and even if it is replaced by Chinese in the future, there will be no fundamental change.
I am more optimistic.
Worse.
My personal opinion (from only an impression of the world around me), says that there is a "law of human nature" within the framework of which every group of people must split into at least two rival groups.
No matter how many people you put together, rival camps will quickly form. No matter how similar the people you put together may be to each other - the same origin, the same religion, the same nationality - very quickly they will define something for themselves that they do not agree on, intensify the differences, until they reach actual wars.
And for those who know, everything has already been described in "The Terrible War on Butter" by Dr. Seuss 🙂
[Sharp thinking – the blog]