 | Do networks cause the end of geography? |
|
Francis Heylighen describs how hyperefcient process or epheralmalization the the Internet allows for means the "death of distance" or the "end of geography" (page 8). But will geography reall die? Francis Fukumara argues the same kind of thing in "The End of History" in 1989 because his view is that with no ideologies left to compete with liberal democracy, there will be no hisotry or "conflict" left to write about. However, the 1990s proved him wrong. There was lots of history in places that did not care about liberal democracy (Yugoslavia, Rwanda or anyother place that had a peacekeeping or military intervention) and the US "had" to respond, thus building on more of its own history. So, the Internet is supposed to break down geographic barriers and it does for "some" connected users (Over 1.4 billion strong), but the rest of humanity (ie the other 3/4 that is unconnected) still has lots of geography to contend with. The internet will only casue the end of history when everyone has access to the internet and will that utopia ever happen? Perhaps this is a Star Trek scenario. Perhaps Heylighen will be 2500 AD's historical philosopher of "choice" that correctly "predicted" the way the world would eventually go? |
 | Re: Do networks cause the end of geography? |
|
Hi Bradley, I have not read Heylighen's paper yet, so I may be taking this out of context, but I noticed this passage:".....any system that we might need to produce some work or heat can just be plugged into the ubiquitous electricity network..." Ubiquitous? I am reading Thomas Freidman's latest book: "Hot, Flat and Crowded" in the chapter I just read, he discusses energy poverty. There are staggering numbers of people in the world who do not have access to electricity. And that's not reliable electricity, or green electricity; it's any electricity. Since electricity is a major dependency for Internet access, I think that we may be quite a distance from Heylighen's utopia. You're comparison to the perceived of history is excellent. I think Dr. Fukumaya has learned quite a bit about history in the past decade or so. |
| Re: Do networks cause the end of geography? |
|
Scott, Hadn't thought about electricity, but it matches the demographic of the 3/4 who are not on the net. You ahve to have a basic technology of electrical generation before the internet can work. Unless the One Laptop Per Child hands out solar panels or hand generators, it may not have much of an inroad except for the "developed" world that has electricity. |
 | Re: Do networks cause the end of geography? |
| I heard Steve Bratt talk last week about w3c's new venture, the World Wide Web Foundation. Their aim is to massively expand access to the Web, including particularly via platforms like mobile phones that are far more common than computers in much of the global South. But even their most optimistic scenarios do not foresee universal access any time soon. |
| Re: Do networks cause the end of geography? |
|
Ed, Tim's reply point sout that unless those mobile phone users have access to electricity, that there will still be significant numbers of non-internet users. I have read about the studies the University of Reading has done in Kenyua with respect to cellphone use to diaganose sick animals. |
 | Re: Do networks cause the end of geography? |
|
I have a hard time with someone declaring the end of geography. I am taking that context to include the social element, not the distance. I agree that distance is becoming more and more meaningless, however just as we influence our surroundings, our surroundings influence us. As multiple societies become hyper efficient we are to suppose this will also eliminate the geographical influence it has on our societies. Will the world eventually become one large melting pot? With no real distinctions between areas? Hardly, in the near future we will continue to have our local, regional, and national differences that make us unique to our surrounding areas, make us who we are, make us a group. Some members of these groups will enter networks, but their identity formed by their surrounding will still hold. |
 | Re: Do networks cause the end of geography? |
|
Both The End of History and The End of Geography are set in current Western standards of time and space and rely on spurious causation. The End of History meant the triumph of liberal democracy in the absence of alternatives, and the resulting peaceful world with conflict subsumed under global cooperation. It was conceived during the heady days following the "fall of communism" (which is like saying the Fall of the Roman Empire, in that it was the end of only one manifestation of a systemic ideal), and was disproved almost immediately by the rise of violent extremism and the continuation of dictatorships. Similarly, The End of Geography is the result of the heady days following internet connectivity to rural North America, Europe and global urban centers. As Tom notes, there is no end to the influence of physical geography on societies and people. And as Bradley says, the "unconnected" dominate the global population. There is, instead of a revolutionary End of Geography, an incursion on Sense of Place, and a need to define the role of distant connections in light of their immediacy (since we've had global connections for centuries, but communications took a much longer time). This approach is not as flamboyant, but seems more accurate. |