Tuesday, November 27, 2007

What if science fiction became science?

When I was a boy, I always imagined that my calculator wristwatch could do anything. Clearly, it could not, but as a child in my imagination it could. Sometimes when I'm watching classic Star Trek or Buck Rogers my imagination slips back and I imagine myself in a world with ubiquitous technology, fantastic gadgetry, and seemingly limitless possibilities.

Perhaps the day when my imagination becomes reality is right around the corner. Today I found this website. Perhaps this is the next super-cool device like the Blackberry and PDA before it. In some respects, perhaps it isn't as fun as it looks. A PDA can perform many of the same functions, and it appears to be roughly the same size.

No, I'm not thinking about its technological appeal, but rather its aesthetics. In all my science fiction shows and movies, technology is not just something you use, but something you wear. It is aesthetically pleasing, and perhaps even fashionable. It is an integrated part of our humanity. Only once technology can become integrated with who we are can it become ubiquitous, and only when it becomes ubiquitous will I have the chance to be Buck Rogers. Needless to say, I would applaud the company who puts one of these watches on the catwalk.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Flat worlds, wrinkled sheets, and Bob from Peoria

In his 2005 book, The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman postulates the idea that the modern world is not round, but flat. By world, he means the competitive economic world, and by flat he means level in the sense of a level playing field. His belief is that in the flat world it is easier for people to do two things: first, compete with each other, and second, move their work (whether their work represents labour or product or both). While he makes a good point, I offer this as a counter-belief: the world is not flat, nor will it ever be. Moreover, the world is as flat now as it always has been. I offer the law of conservation of flatness.

The law of conservation of flatness states simply this: The world is, on average, just as flat as it always has been, and always will be. Whenever flatness becomes more pronounced in one part of the world, flatness has been lost somewhere else. The sum of these changes is no change at all.

Perhaps the most glaring point on which to propose the law of conservation of flatness is the so-called “flattener #7”, or Supply-Chaining. Friedman wants to propose that the supply-chaining model is flattening the world, and his arguments make some amount of sense. It is true that supply-chaining gives suppliers abroad the ability to market to American consumers with lower barrier to entry, but what if you apply the definition of flatness to the result of the supply-chained world? Supply-chaining is supposed to level the playing field, yet if I wanted to open a general store today, I would find it nearly impossible to compete with Wal-Mart because they have perfected this art and I have not. Nor do I have the capital or the prospect of capital to make competition with Wal-Mart even a remote fantasy. The law of conservation of flatness is preserved. While the world is flattened for suppliers abroad, it is made far less flat for some of us here.

In another section of the book, Friedman points out that “natural talent has started to trump geography.” It is difficult to dispute that this is true, but once again there is give and take with the model. Consider a talented individual, Rajesh, from India and an average person, Bob, from Peoria. In the “flattened” world, Rajesh now has much more opportunity to succeed, while Bob now has less. Both individuals may have been willing to work with equal vigor on a given project, but Rajesh, now reaping the benefits of a different (not necessarily better) “ovarian lottery” has an advantage over Bob. Whether meritocracy is a just form of government for a human society is a topic best left for philosophers, but suffice it to say that flattening the world with respect to natural talent will wrinkle the world with respect to work ethic. Once again, the law of conservation of flatness holds.

In a qualitative science studying the flatness of the world (dare we call it flatology?), I believe we have one foundational theorem. Our world has a latent flatness, and our efforts and advances will not change that. Human society may grow and develop, and the flatness will thereby shift from one place to another. Perhaps it will even appear to increase when viewed with coarse resolution. Nevertheless, like a sheet confined to too little space, the flatness of the world remains constant. As we smooth the wrinkles of the world, new ones will be made. The fabric of our world will constrain us and leave us with only one burning question: what will we make with the pattern?