Rampant Democratization

Back in the long-ago 1980s and 1990s, it was common to hear all about the rapid expansion of democratic movements around the planet. The tale was largely true, of course, and today more people live under systems of representative government than at any other time in the history of the world.

But in addition to the spread of political democracy, might we be witnessing an equally significant democratization of capital, of knowledge, and of regulation?

Capital - In his best-selling book, Thomas Friedman argues that The World is Flat, suggesting that a "convergence of technology and events have allowed India, China, and many other countries to become part of the global supply chain for services and manufacturing, creating an explosion of wealth in the middle classes of the world's two biggest nations and giving them a huge new stake in the success of globalization."

It wouldn't be very original for me to deconstruct Friedman's thesis [PDF] of support for laissez faire capitalism, as others have already done so well. I will say, however, that his pronouncement seems premature; though it appears the world is getting a bit flatter, and perhaps someday the world will be pretty much flat, we've still got a long way to go.

That said, we can't ignore the remarkably robust economic growth occurring in parts of the world that were mostly left behind for the last two centuries. More countries, more companies, and more people are getting access to capital than ever before. And we should note that this is not simply a zero-sum redistribution of wealth, but a result of overall growth in the size of the world economy.

Knowledge - This is a combination of access to education and access to the Internet. As whole countries are lifted out of poverty and as a large middle class is created, we find vastly more people around the world gaining access to knowledge. College educations are at their highest level ever, both in real numbers and as a percentage of the whole. China, for one, is turning out engineering and science PhD's in numbers never seen anywhere before. Broadband Internet penetration is higher in many developing nations than in established countries like the U.S., and peripheral access to global knowledge streams via mobile phone technology is growing at an exponential pace in the former "Third World."

What does this knowledge boom mean for future forecasters? Will an expanding, globally-aware, educated middle class be prepared to wield its newfound strength in the promotion of more equality and opportunity for all? We can hope so, but until the results are seen it's hard to be certain.

Regulation - So far, we've reviewed two significant developments that supporters of economic globalization likely would celebrate. But from the perspective of a "responsible civilization" that not only allows equal opportunity but also provides equal justice and supports fairness for all, is there need for some kind of global regulatory apparatus?

This is the question that often sends critics of CRN's work into a frenzy, since we have proposed a "tentative outline for the international administration" of molecular manufacturing. But, they cry, isn't that tantamount to world government? Maybe it is, and maybe it will prove to be necessary, given the twin risks of collapsing interdependence and access to systems for producing devastating weapons of mass destruction.

However, there could be a third way. Just as we've looked for a middle ground between the poles of relinquishment and resignation, perhaps we can find a form of effective regulation that is not "top-down" but that also is not essentially non-existent.

Consider a form of people-powered regulation as demonstrated at Wikipedia. Could it be that the growth and democratization of capital and the increase and democratization of knowledge will combine to enable the emergence of democratized global regulation that really works? Imagine a peer-based, values-driven system of rules, penalties, and incentives; it may not be likely, with all the inertia of big governments and big corporations going against it, but it's also not out of the question.

Violence - Of course, the wild card in all of this is a fourth trend we've often pointed to before: the democratization of violence. As wealth and knowledge increase, they combine to allow greater access to means of extreme violence. Aggressive projection of power is more available to more people than ever before.

Can this trend be contained, perhaps by a concerted imposition of people-powered regulation, or will it be so insidious and damaging that traditional top-down enforcement -- which historically is fraught with potential for abuse -- appears to be the only workable solution? Or, as an optimist might maintain, will the trends we've noted above toward political freedom, economic growth, educational attainment, and improved standards of living serve to blunt the desire for violence such that it eventually dwindles to insignificance?

You may say I'm a dreamer, and on most days I'd agree. But today for some reason I've got a glimmer of hope and optimism. What's your outlook?

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Nato Welch]

"Aggressive projection of power is more available to more people than ever before. Can this trend be contained, perhaps by a concerted imposition of people-powered regulation, or will it be so insidious and damaging that only traditional top-down enforcement -- which historically is fraught with potential for abuse -- appears to be the only workable solution?"

It seems to me that the number one target of aggressively projected democratized violence IS abuse of "top-down enforcement".

[Tom Craver]

Of course, there's always the chance of someone like the Una-bomber, who sees some issues that others do not, and is unstable enough to decide that violence is the solution. (Obviously he was wrong, if you compare his impact on society's thinking vs. Bill Joy's.)

We may be smarter to just take our lumps from the "nuts" rather than try suppressing them at the risk of encouraging use of violence in rebellion against oppression.

[Tom Craver]

We also have to guard against "brown shirt" types - those who simply want power and are willing to use violence to create fear, resulting in calls for "protection".

But I don't think that can be "top down" either - not for long term stability. A top down defense will grow weak or oppressive over time.

The best approach is to make sure that every generation of civilians is equally well educated about the potential dangers to their peace and freedom, and equally ready to jump to the defense of their liberties.

From what I've observed, military training seems to do both of those quite well. It exposes one to the reality of death and danger at an age when most think they are invulnerable. And it shows them that they can push through their fears to act when necessary. Finally it makes them appreciate the efforts of those in the past who've defended their freedom, and makes them value that freedom all the more.

It may be necessary - for a state to be stable and yet not oppressive for the long term - to require that every citizen go through 3 months of "basic training", and then officially be considered "militia".

Being armed with guns (2nd ammendment) is secondary to being armed with understanding and courage. If all citizens are armed with the latter, there'll be far less danger in allowing them access to potentially dangerous things like guns and unrestricted nanofactories.

[David Brin]

Good stuff, Mike.

My own take on it is that we are at a fundamental moment of choice between betting our entire civilization upon Locke's Wager -- in other words, the Enlightenment -- vs going with the raft of impulses that we carry with us as baggage of "human nature."

Normally, a species would have no choice. We carry impulses that drive us to cheat, rob, and connive to be lords and steal other men's women and wheat. These impulses - driven by Darwinian advantage and justified by local incantations - have led to the same consistent pattern on all continents, in almost all eras -- rigid hierarchies of inherited privilege. Elites always squelched nascent markets, democracy and science, as a matter of reflex self interest.

So consistent was this pattern that Locke's approach simply should not have worked, let alone propel us into a chain of emergent properties that he never imagined.

Yes, the virtues of regulated competition are well-described and libertarians pledge fealty to (without understanding) them. Still, I don't think very many people really "get" how amazing it all is. Far from being (as the libertarians think) manifestations of some "natural law," markets, democracy and science erupted as sudden and spectacular alternatives to the normal human way of doing business.

Yes, these processes seem powerful and natural to us, the beneficiaries of a post WWII enlightenment surge. But we forget how fragile and new this advanced “metazoan” style of human civilization really is. Moreover, for 300 years, there have been countless attempts to overturn the trend. We are seeing one such effort right now.

Of course, Mike, you know already (ad nauseam) what I believe the whole struggle revolves around. The core element that will decide our fate is not "knowledge" in the sense you describe it... scientific and technical information and skills... since that kind emerges naturally, if markets, science, democracy, social mobility and education flow.

Rather, I emphasize "knowledge" in the sense that F. Hayek meant it. The ability of all players to know everything they need, in order to make strong decisions. Strong individual market decisions, democratic policy decisions, etc.

And, especially, the knowledge they need in order to apply the key lubricant of the Enlightenment. Reciprocal accountability. This kind of knowledge is the grist of the enlightenment that is murdered by secrecy. If this ingredient is present, then all others will follow. If it is absent, then no combination of other ingredients will make up for it.

[Tom Craver]

I agree with David regarding "knowledge". There are key things that citizens need to learn/remember, but tend to forget over long spans of peace and prosperity. E.g. why certain institutions are important, that some will seek to weaken them, how they might be eroded, etc.

"Tradition" is about the strongest element of human nature sustaining longer term reinforcement of institutions. Religions can last - with some tweaks - thousands of years, primarily through a tradition handed down parent to child, but also reinforced with a holy book.

The Constitution served as the US's "holy book" - though it seems to have lost its potency much more rapidly in the last few decades - we don't even bother trying to ammend it, we just "interpret it", or ignore conflicts. Life got easy and safe for too many for too long, so we've forgotten why the Constitution is important.

We need some sort of virtuous cycle - self-reinforcing - the idea of universal citizen military training/service, was one thought. Hence the suggestion above that we write it into the Constitution that all ctizens will spend some months learning to defend the Constitution. That in turn makes all citizens take the Constitution more seriously.

[Susan Ashcroft]

Here is another take on Friedman's "The World is Flat", a counterperspective:
Thomas Friedman's New York Times bestseller, The World is Flat, asserts that the international economic playing field is now more level than it has ever been. As popular as it may be, some reviewers assert that by what it leaves out, Friedman's book is dangerous . I just finished a great little book that challenges Friedman's idea of a 'flat' world. Here's a snippet from an interview with the authors:

"The world isn't flat as a result of globalization," say Ronald Aronica and Mtetwa Ramdoo, business analysts and authors of a critical analysis of Friedman's book. "Globalization is the greatest reorganization of the world since the Industrial Revolution," says Aronica. But by what Friedman's book ignores or glosses over, it misinforms people and policy makers alike.

Aronica and Ramdoo's concise monograph, The World is Flat?: A Critical Analysis of Thomas L. Friedman's New York Times Bestseller, brings clarity to many of Friedman's stories and explores nine key issues Friedman largely disregards or treats too lightly. To create a fair and balanced exploration of globalization, the authors cite the work of experts that Friedman fails to incorporate, including Nobel laureate and former Chief Economist at the World Bank, Dr. Joseph Stiglitz.

Refreshingly, you can now gain new insights into globalization without weeding through Friedman's almost 600 pages of tedious tome. "If you read Friedman's book, and were awed, you really should read more rigorous treatments of this vital subject," says Ramdoo.

I read Aronica and Ramdoo's 143 page book in one sitting!
Aronica and Ramdoo conclude by listing over twenty action items that point the way forward, and they provide a comprehensive, yet concise, framework for understanding the critical issues of globalization. They paint a clear and sometimes alarming picture of the early twenty-first century landscape, and present timely information needed by governments, businesses, and individuals everywhere.

And what I also like is that the authors provide a wealth of interesting information at the book's Web site:
www.mkpress.com/Flat

Also a thought-provoking 13 minute Overview on the Web:
www.mkpress.com/FlatOverview.html

And the recent interview: "Aronica and Ramdoo pummel Friedman's flat world back into a sphere,"
http://www.mkpress.com/AronicaRamdooInterview.html

Also a really interesting 6 min wake-up call: Shift Happens! www.mkpress.com/ShiftExtreme.html

There is also a companion book listed: Extreme Competition: Innovation and the Great 21st Century Business Reformation
www.mkpress.com/extreme
http://www.mkpress.com/Extreme11minWMV.html

So, if you want to know much more about globalization than what Friedman provides you, check out
www.mkpress.com/flat for concise and very interesting information.