In deciding what shape the world is in based on the advances in technology and the interconnectedness Science spiky the definition becomes narrow in its understanding . Technology as per Florida (2005) or Freidman (2013), as well as Bostrom (2015), is meant to recognize technology as being digital for its audiences.
Regardless which camp you are firmly grounded in both theories, Florida (2005) and Freidman (2013), have plausible and valid arguments. First, let us look at the theory of Friedman (2013). Friedman (2013) states that the world is flat. Meaning that the world is flat or leveled in a global sense because technology has allowed global connection, thus permitting easy trade, exchange and economic growth for all involved (Friedman, 2013). The primary belief is that a person can be innovative without the need to move to another country to do so (Friedman, 2013). On the other hand, Florida (2005) argues that the world is spiky. For instance, the world has a global economy, however not
Friedmans theory is correct to a point (2013). The argument only applies to first world countries. These are countries that have the financial capabilities to create innovations that would promote global economic health (Friedman, 2013). The countries involved can be interconnected and increase their gross domestic products (GDP) and exports because they have the capability to be innovative and have economic growth because they are connected through technology (Friedman, 2013). On the other hand, Florida, argues that only regions with highly creative, innovative and industrial people have this advantage, which is creating a map of the mountains or spikes and valleys (2003). Despite of the innovative people migrate to metropolitan areas because of the allure that surrounds this type of community. There are advantages to living in a highly populated region; these benefits are what draw others to the location. Creating a cluster of creative and innovative people, which allows for industry to advance (Florida, 2003).
After thinking how my industry is affected by this, I have to lean more on the side of Florida, but move forward on the edge of Friedmans theory. I work for a company that is centrally located in Silicon Valley. Apple is an innovative global company. It has been hailed as an industry innovator. The division in which I work for has three major global hubs, one in Cupertino, CA, one in Houston, TX, and one in Dublin, Ireland. However, members of my division, some 6,000 employees are spread out throughout the world. Many of these employees works remotely as do I. I do not live in an industry rich region. However, I do live in a metropolitan area. In this respect, Friedman's (2015) theory is entirely active. Many individuals from around the globe are connected, by technology, to help advance innovative thought throughout the world. However, in the same respect, if you look at the areas in which I serve, they are mostly first world countries with an industrial history. Of the clients that I work with, there are none in what is considered to be second or third world countries, this creates the ideal of Florida's spiky world (2003). In other divisions, there are outreach projects to help to bring indigenous peoples digital technology, however, the need to provide necessary sustenance such as food, water and shelter prevails. Meaning that the need of digital connectedness takes a back seat to the need to just survive. This is the basic understanding of what Florida (2003), continues to explain that industry and innovation correlate with first world and urban societies.
However, with the connectedness of the globe and the advances of industry, perhaps the concept of both theories is merging into a new understanding of the world. Perhaps both ideas are relevant which would make the world, neither flat or spiky but in a sense web-like. But like the concept of the food chain merged into understanding that one animal not only affects another, but is influenced by the other, so too is the connectedness of our global society (National Geographic Society, 2016). If one person is connected to another, it is not a linear plane, but a multi-dimensional understanding of how we are affected and the effect of one another.
References
Bostrom, N. (2015, March). What happens when our computers get smarter than we are?
Florida, R. (2005, October). The world is spiky. The Atlantic Monthly, 48-51.
Friedman, T. L. (2013, September 18). The world is flat. Retrieved from http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_World_Is_Flat
Merrriam-Webster (2016). Technology. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology
National Geographic Society (2016). Food web. Retrieved from http://education.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/food-web/
Nice post, Wendy. I like your concept of a web structure, what I would call networks of networks. I typically have students in my class that work in a global setting, so appreciate your illustration from your workplace.
ReplyDeleteThank you. When I was reading the articles and listening to Bostrom, I kept thinking that the world isn't just one, it is a combination of theories. However, I kept picturing how my connectivity is affected by my others in my organization and vice versa.
DeleteOh, I really like your comment about technology resembling the food chain. It goes to illustrate how change can occurs from a top-down or grassroots approach and have impact on the entire system. We have seen how change management from above may actually develop into unintended consequences, and that changes made to systems through a bottom up approach have significant and lasting consequences (Beer & Eisenstat, 2004). It seems the speed at which technology can change our social structures (or effect the “food chain”) is unlike any other point in human evolution and comes with a number of unmixed blessings. While I think we can see benefits in the advancement of technology, I don’t think we are paying enough attention to the potential consequences and the implications of technology without controls being in place. To illustrate an example of unintended consequences (and keeping within the idea of food) has anyone considered the impact of something as innocuous as the kitchen microwave? I am sure it was difficult to anticipate that its ultimate impact would be to take food preparation out of the home environment and make cooking a matter of choice. It has altered the habits within our lives making the idea of a family sitting around a dining table together outdated since individual family members heats their own meals as required. While I can’t say that the microwave is responsible for the breakdown in a nuclear family I think we can imply it’s a little like adding a new species into a habitat…
ReplyDeleteBeer, M., & Eisenstat, R. (2004). Embracing paradox: Top-down versus Participative Management of Organizational Change. Harvard Business Review , 123-137.
Thank you for your post. I can honestly say that I enjoyed the example of the microwave. I can understand how that affects the transformation of the family. At the same time, there are many that have reverted back from the processed foods and have embraced natural food habits. The advancement in food production has had many consequences in which are unverified but recognizable. The idea that processed food and other mass produced foods are breaking down not only our family structure but our own health is a viable thought. Many in the advancement of technology have caused people to look at their lives and develop ways to offset the negative impact technology has had on their lives. I think that all people should look at the advances and adjust in order to stay healthy and productive.
DeleteI will not be able to look at my microwave quite the same way again!
DeleteSpeaking of "family", I have twin daughters with families of their own, and one has had a microwave for years, and the other has never. It makes our choices as to what we take to their houses interesting...as well as the discussions that inevitably arise!
Wendy, thank you for your blog post. I wanted to expand on a point you've brought in your posting. You mentioned individuals around the globe are connected by technology and through this connectedness we are about to create and advance innovation throughout the world. I wonder if it is this desire to remain connected to one another on a human level that influences and shapes innovation too. I think about Apple and the introduction of FaceTime. As someone who is away from all family the ability to use FaceTime and Skype is our sole means of being able to see our family. Again, the years my husband served aboard and was deployed once more FaceTime provide an opportunity to connect and see one another. I think about Bostrom's talking points of motivation, value, and pause. As he described creating an artificial intelligence that learns what we as humans value, I honestly thought about FaceTime. While I know that particular function is not A.I. seeing the face of someone we care for is something as humans we value. I'm sure there was also motivation to make a phone with the capability that would make it unique compared to other phones in the industry. To wrap up my response I wanted to share an example that ties all of the posts together. There are times when my family eats dinner, sets up the computer, and we FaceTime family back home to have "dinner" together.
ReplyDelete