In this inspiring speech, Thomas Friedman shares with us how he discovered that the 'World is Flat' by accident. Friedman discusses the evolution of globalization, and how Globalization 1.0 involved going global through your country, how Globalization 2.0, which lasted until 2000, was spearheaded by companies and their aim to go global. After 2000, the age of globalization 3.0 began, which is brought on by individuals. He then goes on to explain how the flatteners has enabled and promoted this transition. The personal computer was the beginning of the flattening of the world, and it allowed for individuals to author their own work digitally. The PC will probably continue to advance and improve the ease of tasks and workflow. The browser was the second flattener discussed. Not only did this allow anyone access to connectivity, but this gave life to the dotcom boom. To quote “it was that fibre optic explosion that accidently, with nobody having planned it, made Beijing, Bangalore and Boston, all next-door neighbours.” After the browser, came the workflow revolution, which meant everyone’s computers became interoperable. This allowed people anywhere in the world to collaborate for less. This also enabled people to not just download, but to upload too. This was an important point, according to Friedman, as this was what creativity sprung off of. When Friedman talks about ‘The world is flat’ – he refers to the fact that all these flatteners converged into a platform, which allows individuals equal ability to compete and connect globally. His speech encourages acting on creativity, before someone else does. He then explains how imagination is the key to our future, the culture of creativity needs to be nurtured.
“Because when you have a world this flat and individuals are this empowered to act on their own imagination, globally, what individuals imagine really matters. And therefore how well a university, a country, a state, a school inspires, enables and empowers individual imagination, I think, will be the greatest single competitive edge in the world that we are going into.”
Roberto J. Gonzalez wrote a review on The World is Flat in the San Francisco Chronicle, where he takes a very critical, albeit truthful, stance on the book. He talks of Friedman’s disregard for the poverty-stricken areas, his criticism of the Middle East countries, and his sheer ignorance to lives lived outside of the global marketplace. According to Gonzalez, Friedman ignores history, he ignores the opinion of anyone outside of the elite, and uses his book simply to advertise a lifestyle consumed with corporate capitalism.
While I agree with some of what Gonzalez said in his review, I do think he is being a little too critical. From what I gather, Friedman, emphasizes the fact that in order to become a cut above the rest, in order to live an elite life, one should explore as much of our imagination as possible; that this world we live in, defined by connectivity, is crushing anyone that dare defy it. This is in line with what Gonzales says in his review. Perhaps this world is increasing poverty, and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, but as an educated, ambitious person, I have to agree with Friedman. In order for any of us to hope to be anything more than ordinary, we need to learn how to utilize this horizontal platform that the world is becoming.
“Because when you have a world this flat and individuals are this empowered to act on their own imagination, globally, what individuals imagine really matters. And therefore how well a university, a country, a state, a school inspires, enables and empowers individual imagination, I think, will be the greatest single competitive edge in the world that we are going into.”
Roberto J. Gonzalez wrote a review on The World is Flat in the San Francisco Chronicle, where he takes a very critical, albeit truthful, stance on the book. He talks of Friedman’s disregard for the poverty-stricken areas, his criticism of the Middle East countries, and his sheer ignorance to lives lived outside of the global marketplace. According to Gonzalez, Friedman ignores history, he ignores the opinion of anyone outside of the elite, and uses his book simply to advertise a lifestyle consumed with corporate capitalism.
While I agree with some of what Gonzalez said in his review, I do think he is being a little too critical. From what I gather, Friedman, emphasizes the fact that in order to become a cut above the rest, in order to live an elite life, one should explore as much of our imagination as possible; that this world we live in, defined by connectivity, is crushing anyone that dare defy it. This is in line with what Gonzales says in his review. Perhaps this world is increasing poverty, and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, but as an educated, ambitious person, I have to agree with Friedman. In order for any of us to hope to be anything more than ordinary, we need to learn how to utilize this horizontal platform that the world is becoming.