Thanks to my wonderful colleague, Wilson Ong, I had the once in a lifetime - ok, maybe twice, but no more - opportunity to attend a lecture by Thomas Friedman. My intellect, or lack thereof, is still so overwhelmed that I am unsure of where to begin. But for now, enough kowtow and sycophancy. However, due to the immense compulsion that a man of his stature should have an honorific, let's just call him Dr. Friedman for the sake of me completing this post within the next year.
The eminent journalist has authored "The World is Flat," from whence he drew the framework for his lecture. To provide a quick synopsis relevant to the title, the flatness of the world refers to the ubiquity of communication, information, and technology brought upon by globalization. For example, a hospital in Kansas can be neighbors with an outsourced radiology facility in Bangalore, India, but this can only happen metaphorically as nobody wants to be in or near Kansas. By the same token, although Dr. Friedman is in Maryland, and I, in California, this blog entry is technically in his digital backyard, possibly even within equal reach of his toilet paper.
Moving onward, I feel that it would be more informative to say "The Developed World is Flat." Dr. Friedman mentioned that globalization took place in three chronologically distinct stages; the first in which nations globalized, then corporations, and now, individuals. So where can we find a global steamroller to even out the disparities and rifts in globalization? What do the nations who missed the globalization train do? For one, the last post links to a video that sheds light on the fact that millions worldwide still do not have access to water. How do we connect the flat world to the allegedly developing world? If these countries are in fact developing and possibly globalizing, why the lack of investment? Aren't even the most basic forms of infrastructure investments bound to pay off in the long run?
Also, in applying some of his views to some of the recent seminar topics such as sustainability, to quote Dr. Friedman, "the stone age didn't end because cavemen ran out of stones." They most definitely moved onto bigger and better things. But do homo sapiens have the same acuity, or will we wait until all the oil wells, domestic and foreign, are pillaged dry? Dr. Friedman suggests disincentivizing oil consumption through taxes at the pump. Can we really push individuals to develop alternative energy as a result or should the government subsidize such resources and incentivize them through lower prices? The former would cause the government to assume less debt while utilizing market forces. Nonetheless, depeletable resources are priceless.
Before I run amuck with questions, when the disparities in global standards really flattens, what do we do to save costs. Where do we outsource to?
To philosophically recount the experience, my entire life has changed as a result of a simple 2 hours during which our paths had crossed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, who is this wonderful colleague Wilson Ong of yours. He sounds a lot like a divine being, a quasi-god of some kind. I only wish he would grace my miserable existence with his presence.
Sounds like you had a fascinating time. I like the metaphor about cave men running out of stones, its so true--when will we realize we need to progress?
Post a Comment