The Top 100 Public Intellectuals

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Gringo Malandro

But everything else I have read from him is either utter garbage or an articulate restatement of the obvious. The world may be hot and crowded, but it is certainly not flat just because Hamas can post videos on Youtube or Facebook.

OK, I'll bite. Care to enlarge on this a bit.

[Gringo Malandro]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

OK, I'll bite. Care to enlarge on this a bit.

The World is Flat covers a number of different topics, but the thrust of it is that technology is "leveling the playing field." He explores that in a number of themes, including the developed vs developing world, individuals vs large institutions, etc..

In my mind he fails to account for large organizations being able manipulate and influence these things. A recent article just talked about how Google is going to be manipulating its search results for payment. There is a ton of information on the internet, but the average person gets it from just a few sources. The tech boom as a business model is also misunderstood, IMHO anyway, as a shift in power. In reality it is just like any other emerging technology or market. Entrepreneurs take all the risk and the successful ones are absorbed. This may take the form of a acquisition, but just as often it is establishment folks swooping in from consulting firms and elite business schools to remodel the firm to make it fit for public consumption in the form of an IPO, where it then has to play by the same rules. You could apply the same ideas to globalization as well.

And as far as an individual's power, we have never had less privacy than we do now, much of our vital personal information is available online whether voluntary or not - that to me is a vulnerability. China has done a good job of harnessing these things for its own gain without compromising its grip on the population. It faces a greater threat from backward ethnic separatists in the west than any rebel bloggers.

And what about the non-flat parts? There seem to be new places going "off the grid" every day. The effects of the recent economic meltdown have yet to be digested, but I'm going to bet it will be a less "flat" world. MORE provincialism not less.

Finally I have never been to Bangalore or Delhi. But I've been to Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau. It's very easy to be wowed by how advanced these places are, but those places, which are the ones the average foreigner sees, are disproportionately advanced for their regions. Most Chinese and Indians live in grinding poverty with little of the benefits of modern society and I don't see any easy way to integrate them. If anything they will become more resentful and hostile of modern society. We've seen that play out with the Uighur bombings during the Olympics and the Mumbai attacks.

I could go on here. Friedman is revered by the McKinsey and Harvard Business Review set because he is preaching to the choir. But I think there are plenty of reasons to believe he is confusing the further collapse of the Westphalian order with some global enlightenment. Maybe you got a different message from the book.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Gringo Malandro

...Friedman ... is confusing the further collapse of the Westphalian order with some global enlightenment. Maybe you got a different message from the book.

Among many other errors he tends to make...

Though I'd say the Westphalian order is not collapsing, not yet. It is being enhanced in a rather tumultous fashion though...

[Gringo Malandro]

Originally Posted by Ken White

Among many other errors he tends to make...

Though I'd say the Westphalian order is not collapsing, not yet. It is being enhanced in a rather tumultous fashion though...

In light of recent events it seems more likely that you may be right.

Though following to their logical extreme to ideas of the rabid globalists (i.e. The Economist editorial writers) would probably see a return of of a pre-Westphalian type system, with the role of the church played by some international organization. I'm assuming David Rockefeller would be the Pope.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Gringo Malandro

Though following to their logical extreme to ideas of the rabid globalists (i.e. The Economist editorial writers) would probably see a return of of a pre-Westphalian type system, with the role of the church played by some international organization...

Those clowns would love that but I suspect their heirarchy, composed of Economists, would be riven with factional disputes since no two of them seem to agree on anything...

... I'm assuming David Rockefeller would be the Pope.

or George Soros...

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Gringo Malandro

I am suffering from Thomas Friedman fatigue. I should probably wait until I read Beirut to Jerusalem to weigh in. But everything else I have read from him is either utter garbage or an articulate restatement of the obvious. The world may be hot and crowded, but it is certainly not flat just because Hamas can post videos on Youtube or Facebook.

Wow, you revived a thread that rested for more than half a year.

I recall that I wanted to complain about a "Top 100 intellectuals" list that had 37x "United States" people in it, but didn't it because I had already heated up some feelings before.

Seriously; such lists (and there are dozens like this; I recall a 'Best 100 songs of all time' from Rolling Stones magazine or similar; all songs were in English language and only half a dozen wasn't Anglo-American) only show the distorted view of the world that many people have.

This certainly applies to most people; I bet the Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Russians and all Europeans would create similarly distorted lists (and do; ).

It's sad to see such a ridiculous list originating from a foreign policy-interested organization that should know better (well, 63% foreign entries is probably the best that you could hope for).


Imagine how much we miss, how often we err - only because of those terrible language barriers (and because the media weighs news from certain countries much more important than news from others)!


I've still found no way how to research Finnish military art in any meaningful way. I am convinced (due to anecdotes) that they have a lot to share, but the language isn't even a remote relative of any language that I can read (German/English/French/Spanish/Dutch).

[John T. Fishel]

I understand, perhaps incorrectly, that Finnish is related to Hungarian (Finno-Ugric).

Cheers

JohnT

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

I understand, perhaps incorrectly, that Finnish is related to Hungarian (Finno-Ugric).

Cheers

JohnT

Estonian is close enough to Finnish, but Hungarian is too distant. It's more like English/German. And I don't speak Hungarian anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages

The problem with language barriers is ignorance.
We might lack important lessons and couldn't even learn about our shortcoming (well, except by the evidence of failures in wartime).

Take the Germans of 1939, for example. They were well behind the Finnish in the use of mortars, sniping & winter warfare at least. They didn't learn about it till '42 when the Finnish shared their knowledge to their German brothers in arms via German mountain troops in Finland, though.

[patmc]

Just returned from Christmas exodus, and spent my spare time during the break reading Friedman's new book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," and then because I was in the zone, "The World is Flat." Brain is pretty fried now, but that said, I am a big fan. A lot of what he writes is anecdotal and he probably overstates what can really be done to fix problems, but his themes are pretty dead on.

TWIF deals with the pros and cons of globalization, and he argues that those that adapt to the "flat world" will profit and prosper. He admits that millions remain in poverty, but the trend for states and nations that adapt is a rise from poverty for many. His overall theme that competition is global, and you can no longer stay on top without serious effort rings very true today.

HFaC is his call for a green revolution, with America leading the charge in new technologies. His stats for inaction are scary, and it would be a positive for America and the world if we polluted less and used efficient energy, but I doubt there is an overnight cure, or even a several year cure just around the corner. Unless Val Kilmer can steal Cold Fusion from Keanu Reeves, we're going to be using carbon for a while. Its worth a read if you are interested in the environmental/business debate though.

I've read 2 of his other books (just waiting for "Lexus and Olive Tree") and read his column in NYT too. I think he was a good pick for the list.

[120mm]

I think it's instructive to note that Gulen's pick was John Esposito.

[Schmedlap]

Originally Posted by wm

I suspect the lack of business folks has to do with the nature of the list--it is "public" figures--that is folks who are paid by the public, not-for profit sector. Larry Ellison and Jack Welsh are private sector, for-profit kind of folks.

I would assert that most on the list are raking in a fair amount of dough for a pure profit motive and satisfying their desires for attention and notoriety in the process. I find it hard to take Al Gore's "passion" for climate change seriously when his carbon footprint is larger than that of some small towns and his net worth is in the tens of millions after a lifelong career as a "public servant." Likewise, I find it hard to take such a list seriously. It is a bad idea to put pontificators and critics on a pedestal instead of the people who actually implement and execute. I think guys like Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Eric Prince, and Billy Graham belong on this list. They might not spend much of their time writing, but that is most likely because instead of theorizing about what could be, they're making it happen. Must one put pen to paper for an idea to be considered intellectual?

Who is it whose tagline says, "I don't care if it works in practice... I want to see it work in theory!"?

[Fuchs]

Bill Gates with his extreme track record of completely wrong "predictions"? No great intellectual.

The list was explicitly about intellectuals, not about leaders or anything else.