Thoughts About a Shrinking World

I have just finished reading The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas L. Friedman and SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social Good by Rosabeth Moss Kantner and noticed some trends that I felt like writing about.

The biggest point that I took from The World is Flat 3.0 is that the overall scale of the world is seemingly shrinking mostly due to the major influences that technology has played in linking different parts of the world together. The bigger the improvements and the greater the advances we make, particularly in the areas of communications, work flow planning, software, information storage and retrieval processes the more the world will seem to shrink.

Friedman calls the shrinking "flattening" which seems to be his way of saying that the proverbial "playing field" is being leveled. Areas of the world that don't have great amounts of natural resources to sell to the rest of the world (particularly oil) are using this technology to start other industries that can leverage their vast workforce into a competitive force to enable them to become a part of the global supply chain of goods and services.

This shrinking or "flattening" of the world can be used for good or bad. Most technologies are the same way. You can use a delivery van to make deliveries or you can back it through the window of a bank and rob it. You can use the internet to do research for a book report or you can create a "hate site". This is a problem with human nature and not with technology.

Friedman mentioned that terror, war and protectionism are reasons that might be used to put the walls back up and "unflatten" the world but he seems to feel that in most cases everyone involved benefits from a flat world. The benefits aren't limited to improved standard of living, stronger economies and better educational opportunities for countries that are taking on new responsibilities and cost reductions, redundant around the clock supply chains and new, large, eager sources of the exact level of labor required for a task for the companies doing the outsourcing.

SuperCorp pointed out many "vanguard" companies that are using their size and global influence to do good things in the world and that as we progress this will become more necessary and almost expected of them.

I can't say that I completely disagree with a lot of the points raised in either book, most of it kind of seems like "common sense" but I was left with a lot of questions about religion, politics and war, "haves versus have nots" and the responsibility of business in the world.

Is outsourcing ultimately good, bad or a shade of gray? Does outsourcing for cost savings really free up money to reinvest in new jobs or does it just go to the bottom line?

Investors always want to see a company that is making more profit than the previous year. At what point does this "growth" become unsustainable?

Are large corporations too powerful? Are they using this power responsibly?

Does human nature ruin everything?

What makes us happy?

If you take (or have taken) a few minutes to venture around my blog you'll see that like many other people I struggle between the conflicting feelings of wanting to simplify my life and eliminate my debt and buying shiny new toys.

Over the past couple years I've been more on the simplification side of the struggle but I have to admit that I have a few websites that I like to browse regularly for new gadgets and car stuff. I've been really good about not buying much stuff lately but sometimes I temporarily feel unhappy when I see something that I think that I would really like but know deep down that it would be foolish (financially or otherwise) to buy it. That feeling subsides somewhat quickly once I start to think about all of the things I've purchased over the years and ended up rarely using.

Over the past couple years I have sold and donated quite a few things that I know I'll never use again and haven't missed them. I know that I still have quite a few things left that I know I wouldn't mind seeing gone... I just have to make the time to put stuff up on craigslist, eBay, Amazon and gather together the rest to donate.

Another reason behind my quest for simplification is that I really don't like clutter. Clutter makes me unhappy and in our two-bedroom apartment with a den/office both the spare bedroom and the office have a good amount of semi-organized clutter, most of which is mine. I would love to see that gone. That would make me happy.

So my question is: What makes us happy?

Money? Stuff? Vacations? Cars? Clothes? Simplification? Having lots of things around? Plain walls? Pictures and decorations all over? Having money in the bank? Being outdoors? Movies? Music?

Is it more about things or is it experiences? Is it security or possibly rewarding risks? Is it what others think of you or what you think of yourself?

I think for me it's:

Trying to straddle the fine line between having hobbies and things that I really like but keeping everything else in check.

Getting rid of the "clutter" of things that I don't use and won't need but keeping my CD collection and books.

Spending time doing things I like like going to see bands and making it to a beach every once in awhile.

Spending time with my family, having friends over or spending quiet nights at home instead of spending hundreds of dollars out for dinner and drinks.

Spending more money on car washes than clothes.

Wearing said clothes until they're worn out instead of getting a new wardrobe every year.

Not buying a bigger, better TV or computer every year even though I might think I want one.

I guess I'm probably pretty average. I could never do a 100 item challenge or anything like that... but I think I'd feel a lot better if I could get rid of extra stuff, keep control over my desire to spend money, pay off my debt and get myself to a position where I feel more stable.

Aside: This blog post was brought to you by the Friends episode "The One With The Secret Closet" ("hidden" clutter) and the recent New York Times article "But Will It Make You Happy?" (simplification and conspicuous consumption).

Want - Energy Star Certified Gasoline-Powered Alarm Clock

On Inhabitat today there was a story that was reported on NY Times about the US Government Accountability Office looking into the Energy Star certification process and how easy it was to get an Energy Star label. They created a few fictitious products including a gasoline-powered alarm clock and put them through the system and received Energy Star certification.

The articles made a few good points, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's all well and good but now I want a gasoline-powered alarm clock. Make mine a supercharged LS9 from a Corvette C6 ZR1. I'd wake up to that!

On a serious note, though, it's kind of good that we have government organizations to keep an eye on stuff like this. I mean, Energy Star certification, that's super important! Wow... What's wrong with me? I just can't be serious today.