Slashdot Mirror
The New Geography
Books like this one make one nostalgic for the days when publishing ignored the Net or published urgent tomes about addicted children, hackers and online predators.
This book is a mess. The only way to describe it is cyber-BS. It's not at all clear what it's even about, but Kotkin seems to be making the point that the digital economy is creating a new kind of social geography in which place has become important. (Wasn't it important before?) Individuals and businesses can scan the country to find places most desirable to them, freed from old ties to materials and cheap labor. This, says Plotkin, has triggered a vast upheaval, good news for communities that excel at creativity, education, trade and culture, bad news for everybody else.
"In geographic terms," writes Kotkin, a fellow at Pepperdine University, "the impact of the new economy has been devastating to a broad array of places. As commodity prices have dried up, rural communities that depend on ranching, lumbering, fishing and farming have continued to lose population. Similiarily, in urban areas the decline of traditional bulwarks of the economy such as ship-building, auto manufacturing, and textiles, as well as the relocation of large corporations, has afflicted once-robust urban districts with the equivalent of a wasting disease that gains strength as it weakens its victim."
The new economy promotes class as well as geographic divisions, he writes, and suggest the possibility of a growing geographic separation, with rich and poor, educated and noneducated increasingly segregated within particular areas. The growing threat of technologically-sparked "locational choice," warns Kotkin, is a Balkanization of populations. "Valhallas and nerdistans grow largely on the basis of migration of the skilled and well educated, while the cities and increasingly the midopolises absorb the flotsam and jetsam of the emerging postindustrial society."
Bring back the online-predator books! Yes, for sure, hi-tech environments are growing more rapidly than industrial ones, as the information-based new economy spreads rapidly throughout the U.S. and other parts of the world. And it's true that government and political systems seems to take little responsibility for making sure this prosperity is equitably distributed. But this isn't even remotely new, nor is it uniquely tied to the Digital Age. It's the Darwinian core of capitalism, which works beautifuly for lots of people, and badly for others. One could as easily (and foolishly) argue that the digital revolution will definitely empower poor individuals and communities to join in the booming new economy, no matter where they are located.
Kotkin's prescription for troubled or declining places: "Communities that wish to avoid this fate will be those that commit themselves to facing these problems with imagination and a sense of commitment." He adds: "Whether in the reform of education or the encouragement of enterprise or the creation of new public infrastructures, healthy twenty-first-century communities will be those that can develop a sense of common purpose."
Whew. Now that we all know what to do, it should be simple to manage the Digital Revolution more equitably. All we need is a common purpose. You have to wonder of Kotkin has ever been to a local school board meeting, let alone an online discussion group.
In his notion, communities that want to do well will band together in common purpose. But what of those that don't bother? Or whose leadership is too corrupt, short-sighted or apathetic? Economic booms have always been spread unevenly, since people ultimately are free to move and live where they want, those with more money and opportunity freer than those with neither. And people who can will always gravitate towards opportunity, leaving behind those who can't. Grapes of Wrath told this story a lot better.
Kotkin argues that as people and advanced industries hunt the globe for locations, they will not necessarily seek out those places that are the biggest, the cheapest, or the most well favored by location. Instead, they will seek out a new kind of geography, one that appeals to their sense of values and to their hearts, "and it is there that the successful communities of the digital age will be found." This is cyber-jabberwocky. People and industries would be insane to do otherwise. But this book's geography is pretty muddled. It takes you nowhere. Kotkin's new geography is not digital, but is instead made of gas and vapors.
Usually, it seems foolish to criticize a book, a waste of everybody's time. If it's no good, why bother to review it at all? But New Geography is so self-importan,t ponderous and opaque that it suggests that publishing has simply lurched from one silly extreme to another. Here's to the new geography of the middle ground.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
Pardon me while I fail to be impressed.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I expect those $600 / sqft bungalows in Silicon Valley to have price crash some day with the demise of the tech IPO market. Their owners will be left with half million dollar inverse mortgages.
The traditional money barriers still exist here to some point, since many services are unavailable at public terminals, so a computer is still a prerequisite for this particular "haves" group, as is an ISP, which also costs money.
So in a way, people are still limited by their geography; whether or not they live in an area privileged enough to take advantage of the technology that other areas can.
Saying that geography doesn't exist anymore is only true for those who have the means to take advantage of the "new way" of seeing it. And for those who *choose* to see it or take advantage of it. There are still an awful lot of technophobes out there who won't embrace the technology, probably (as was stated before) because they are afraid of it.
Of course companies and industries are going to accept this and change their business models accordingly, just as radio and television helped boost sales over magazine and newspaper ads. So the paradigm shifts. Without a clutch. Give some of these industries a few buzz-words and a little media hype and they'll be all over it whether they understand the full implications or not.
A friend of mine who is an Anthropology graduate student told me that there are several different types of people when concerning the internet. One kind views it as a large network/information retrieval tool. Another views it as a place, and yet a third category is a mix between the two. Whereas most people are of the third category, many people actually think of the internet as a place (which is where the whole geography thing comes in), and realists (and sysadmins) know that it is nothing but a large network of computers serving up content.
I guess the "new internet geography" depends on where you are (proximity to internet access) and what kind of person you are (is it a place at all?).
---
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
Actually, if you are concerned about helping people in some of these countries, there are non profit organizations that donate to them. One in particular that I know of is Africa's Promise. I know the guy in charge of it, and he just returned from a trip to Nigeria where he took donated laptops, clothing, school supplies, etc. to some kids over there. I am sure there are many organizations like this to help some of these countries get up to speed and try to get their citizens out of poverty.
Personally, I prefer to help those in Mexico but I don't know of any NPO's that I can join up with there.
I guess the real point of my post is that, when you have a rich country like the U.S., some of the wealthy people (by 3rd world country standards at least, middle class by U.S. standards) want to give something back to help others around them. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we have the situation where a lot of people are lazy and greedy, so they want free handouts to live off of, and don't want to work or learn how to improve their life. Also, we have huge organizations like the United Way, that will give some money to the poor and to community programs, they keep a lot for themselves and spend way too much of the donated money to justify me giving them anything. I would like to think that while there may be a separation of the technologically literate, and the people that know nothing of computers, there are some of us that want to help others to improve themselves. I see all the people living on Earth as one team. We may not often realize it, but what we do has an effect on others.
By the way, I'm not some hippie that thinks we will ever have world peace or solve any real problems of mankind. I'm actually one of the most misanthropic people to ever exist, but even I have to post something nice sometimes.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Bad Guy: Rick Bourgeouis tech guy and evil corporation
Dialectic: Though the good guy has made things better than during the days of feudalism the working class will rise up and overthrow the bourgeouis and implement "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" and create the techno marxist utopia of the future. Right here is my plan, that assumes that the world will remain static for now until eternity, and uses two variables to represent the 5 billion people of earth, that proves that resources could be better allocated by my leviathan body over here than an "oppressive" price based market system could.
Which would only work of course if everyone was omniscient about how to use non-directly consumable goods such as bandwidth, railroads, buildings, etc and didn't need them to have prices and everyone would work for free and was altrusitic. Of course, if this were true capitalism would work just perfectly well too.
This is the same 150 year old marxist narrative repackaged once again in a different format for a different group of kiddies. It's purpose is to make you feel just horrible that all the rest of humanity is suffering and you are being a petite bourgeouis and you should go out and want to become a professional revolutionary because you want to be free of this massive fake guilt trip they have just placed on you. Relax, before you think you suddenly know everything and are going to change the world through some sort of crazed devotional act, have some humility and realize that the problems of the world are far far more complex than simple class warfare and that most importantly S--- Happens and there often is no meaning one way or another to many events. Meaning is just invented by devotees of an ideology to get you to think of yourself as a participant in a grand foretold story when really you're just you, an interesting biological organism, sitting here on this rock spinning around an average star in some far off corner of the milky way drinking a latte at a starbucks , and that's all.
My advice, If you have to believe in something made up, like the ideology of this book, make sure it's something that is at least upfront about it being a religion.
Me Thog. Thog build rock knives.
Thog notice weird people moving into cave next door. They have no brow. They stand up straight. Now weird people build spear using rock knife built by Thog. They kill many deer, and move up to prettier cave, with big rock walls for painting. Now they take little rock knife and attach it to stick, and shoot it with bow. Silly weird people! Don't you know bow is music maker? Silly weird people starve next winter.
Boy is Thog face red. Weird people kill even more deer! And nobody trade Thog naked woman statue or beads or meat anymore for stone knife. Me think something bad, Thog think weird people make new law of land, to make Thog starve in winter, cold and dead! Thog do big cave painting showing how bad weird people are because Thog starve. Thog stone knife good enough to kill deer, why nobody buy stone knife?
Weird people teach Thog new word, called compe- somthing. Thog not know what compe-somthing mean, but me not like it. Thog still use rock knife, rock knife good enough for me. Why weird people not use rock knife like everyone else use to? Now everyone use funny bow and stick thing, or spear, and only buy stone knife for cutting food, not as much as before, and Thog hungry!
Thog cold in winter again, Thog still not understand red hot thing weird people use to stay warm, but it scare Thog. Thog stay away from red hot thing, it make cave and Thog stink. Bad too, Thog see weird people playing with shiny clinky stone, and making it into knife. Thog scared of weird people now.
Thog think, there go neighborhood...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Okay, granted, you're not going to put either Best Buy or Sears out of business by attending the other guy's clearance sale. But if it was jut a local electronics shop that had the higher price, I'd strongly consider going with them. Why? Because they're not a huge megacorporation at all - you can make a serious difference with the purchase of one item at a little local store. Furthermore, the likelihood of you getting decent, personal service at a locally owned place is better.
Why don't these people get a job in another industry, or simply move to one of the locations that the company they used to work for moved to?
Why not move: what if you have children in school locally? What if you have a lot of family in the area and would rather not move out of the area? Getting a job in another industry: easier said than done. I think many of us in the computer industry as time goes on and it actually becomes difficult for us to get jobs. Even with the "dot com die off," I don't think most of us are hurting for job offers. But it's not like that in every industry, and certainly not across all age categories. Fact is that a lot of corporations are very hesitant to train older employees, who have family committments and would probably end up costing more anyway, when they can get freewheelin' kids to do the work cheaper. Sure, we'd all like to think we could juts hop industries whenever it becomes convenient. And I admire anyone with the dedication to retrain after a job loss. It's just that there are forces larger than your own dedication which might make that extremely difficult.
You live in a world where 2/3 of the people do not have enough food, adequate housing or health care.
Exactly. People in countries like the U.S. are spoiled. We act like we have a right to work in a certain industry for a certain company for a certain wage. There are people all over the world that have nothing. An open global economy can equalize that better by sending jobs to other countries, so they can make more money to survive.
Exactly how is it that moving jobs to Mexico, (whose maquiladoras are some of the worst offenders in the world for dangerous, toxic working conditions, low wages and no benefits), constitutes progress for _most_ people, not just the wealthy minority?
I do not live in Mexico, but know it very well and have been there a lot. I see children walking in busy intersections in big cities selling chicle in the hot sun with no rest. I don't think that you are helping them out by not providing jobs for their parents. Yes, I do agree that there needs to be some labor laws set to help out the people of Mexico, but there has to be jobs first. In the U.S. a similar situation happened a long time ago. The majority of people were extremely poor and worked in factories in very dangerous conditions. It got really bad, and a few men in high positions in the U.S. government did something about it and started the ball rolling on workers rights. I think this needs to happen in Mexico, China, Taiwan, and everywhere in the world that doesn't already have some protection for workers. As it is now, I don't think that we have good decisions presented before any poor people from Mexico and these other countries. In particular, there are not enough jobs in Mexico, so a lot of men leave their families to go work (sometimes illegally due to the unconstitutional immigration laws) in the U.S. So, these men work hard, for very little pay in bad working conditions, and send as much money as they can to their families so their families survive. The current system will keep people poor and in bad health as it is.
Well at least we all have our priorities straight - after all it's OK if Mexican children are poisoned by the toxic waste dumped into their water by the factory their parents work at , just so long at we can knock a few bucks off the price of a TV.
First of all, I know that the water isn't being taken care of as it is now. If you have seen pictures of Chapala from 10 years ago, and compared them to how it looks now, it's very frightening. You have a long walk to get from where the shore used to be to where it is now. There is not any conservation going on in Mexico as it is. The government needs to step in and help take care of things. Part of the problem is that the Mexican government has been extremely corrupt up to this point. Perhaps Fox and PAN can help change things, but it will be an uphill battle. Part of the problem is that if you don't have money to put food on your table tonight, why would you care if you have water to drink next week? Once you have the people's immediate needs taken care of, then it will be much easier to focus on the future, whether it is one day or one century from now.
Also, I don't know if you know Mexico or not. I do not claim to understand the life of everyone there, but I think I have a decent grasp of what is needed. I agree with you that there needs to be major conservation and improvements in quality of life there, but from what I see, people need to have their bellies full of food first. Once the poor can get past the struggle to take care of their basic needs, they will be able to focus on improving the entire quality of life and preserve Mexico for the future people there.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Katz reads book
Katz genuinely feels like it's Cyber-Jabberwocky
Katz gets sinking feeling that this is how his work is perceived
Katz pans book to try to distance himself.
The observant reader may speculate that I, the writer of this, may have the same hangup. Could be!
Similiarily, in urban areas the decline of traditional bulwarks of the economy such as ship-building,auto manufacturing, and textiles, as well as the relocation of large corporations, has afflicted once-robust urban districts with the equivalent of a wasting disease that gains strength as it weakens its victim."
Why didn't he write a book entitled, "Pointing out the Obvious". He could have also included cow herding and blacksmithing in the list of depleting industry.
What ever happened to being rewarded for doing well, just because you made alot or all of your fortune using electronic means does not make you a criminal, or a bad person, it makes you smart. Will it be such a tragedy if the author makes millions off this book that was written on a word processor, printed on computer controlled presses and published/sold on the internet?
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
... and that was the term: ``nerdistan''. At least it made me chuckle.
There is a bit of truth about the changes that technology is having on human geography. My wife would like to find a larger house. One of my criteria is that it have access to a high speed internet connection. (She understands.) Some others at work have also decided on that as a feature that would make one house more attractive than another.
Without having actually read the book (the quotations turn me off... big time) I suspect that this author's view of these technology-driven changes is somewhat more alarmist than need be. Things like the internet are probably no more disruptive than were the widespread use of things like the internal combustion engine, or going even farther back, the wheel and the plow. Each had a significant effect on how people organized themselves. Somehow we've all survived. The author appears to think that, maybe, this time we won't without some Great Societal Upheaval occurring. I'm betting that we will not have to commit to some grand egalitarian plan to save our society.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
...since people ultimately are free to move and live where they want...
Written like a man who's out of touch, always had money, and always had options.
As an ex-poor person, I can say that poor people have damned few options. When you barely have sufficient funds to clothe and feed yourself, then migration is out of the question. The point of The Grapes of Wrath was that settling down somewhere took more money than moving about. With the new digital economy (whatever that is), the hand-skills of craftsmen of old are being replaced by the mind-skills of the new craftsmen.
With this realization that you seek not just warm bodies as laborers, but active minds; not spots for warehousing product, but areas to farm talent, the paradigm for what constitutes value, labor, and saleable product changes.
Somehow, I feel you read little past the dust jacket and foreword of the book you reviewed.
Actually there is nothing to "blame" for. You are upset because a business made a decision to save money. Let's put it in a different view:
Let's say you, your parents, and grandparents all work at Sears. You are going out to buy a new TV. You can get it at Sears for $300. At Best Buy, you can get it for $200. Would you pay $200 for it to get a good deal at Best Buy, or would you feel guilty and buy it at Sears for a higher price just because you have some misguided loyalty directed to Sears? I would choose Best Buy. The thing that is occuring due to the internet, and the international trade and all this is a big equalization. These corporations are going to the country where they get the best deal on service. People may complain that it takes jobs away from the U.S., and these people end up out of work. That is true, temporarily. Why don't these people get a job in another industry, or simply move to one of the locations that the company they used to work for moved to? In your example, the car company went to Sonora from Arizona. The cost of living is lower in Mexico, as is the amount of pay you would receive. I see no reason not to go there if you feel you are dedicated to that company and that line of work.
I don't blame "The Net" entirely for this, but increasingly rapid digital communication coupled with stronger "free trade" policies are increasing corporate mobility. Not just within the country, though - throughout the world.
I don't see how this is a bad thing. Even within the U.S. there are big differences in the cost of living. The decent amount of money I make as a developer in Atlanta would cause me to be homeless in Silicon Valley. I don't need to get paid as much as someone out there, because I don't need to spend as much money to survive. And as far as the internet and methods of telecommunications go, they are really good. It means I could potentially get a job working from "home." Basically, I could get a job in Silicon Valley, then live and work from somewhere in Montana, and have a ton of money by Montana standards.
I don't want to be rude, but I see your entire arguement as extremely short-sighted. Technological changes have always caused a few temporary problems in the work force, but they free people up to do other things. I very much prefer to work with computers than to work in a factory. I am happy to have the opportunity to work in the computer industry. If the work ends up getting sent to another country, I guess I would have to move there to work, just like all the people from India, China, and Mexico do now. I don't see the problem here. There is no "us" vs. "them" because we're all the same. Also, if you don't want to keep up with the changes, you will get left behind.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Nothing! And this is a good thing. The world benefits hugely from the expansion of high-skilled jobs to overseas markets; programmers in Bangalore make more money than they might otherwise had, and US consumers benefit from lower costs (and a reduced labor shortage).
The benefits of geographic proximity and familiarity with the home market (not to mention US programmers' generally higher skills) will continue to keep demand high for those on this side of the border. I'm a remote worker of a sort (I live in SF and most of my peers are on the east coast) and I can tell you with certainty it isn't for everyone. Face to face contact still has value.
sulli
RTFJ.
But here's what the technology revolution has done: it has brought the entire world to every doorstep, no matter where it is. My uncle lives in a small north Georgia town with a population of 30,000. He has 120 channels via directTV and instant Internet access via 2B+D ISDN. His kids can log into AOL just the same as any kid in Chicago. And if Wal-Mart doesn't have the gas grill he wants, the right one is just a click and a UPS truck away.
If anything, the quality of life in Podunk is improving, and far more rapidly than it is in the big city. As soon as my office finishes installing its VPN, I could move out to my father-in-law's farm. For the chance to trade a daily commute for a twice-monthly drive into town, it just might be worth it.
The only concern I have about such universally available communications is the homologation of societies worldwide. Local character is being replaced with Generica, because everybody everywhere is being exposed to the same thing. But, as the French say in their rapidly disappearing language, c'est la vie.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Countries like many in Africa and other third world countries will take a long time, if ever, to catch up with current technologies, however the rest of us, are being pulled closer and closer, culturally and technically. I imagine in a decade or two all the technologically literate countries will have greatly similar cultures and lifestyles (if not rulers) But third world countries will remain just that, third world. Because its hard to like the internet when you dont have food.
I gotta stop sleeping in. This is the kind of stuff I really like setting up my cardboard pulpit for.
I don't mean to get off on a Dennis Miller-esque rant here, but..
There isn't "cyber" anything, in any sense true to the context in which the term 'cyber' was coined. People calling the Internet
"cyberspace" need to be flogged. Sadly, I'd rather stick to the 'Information Superhighway' line, as it applies to an increasingly fast infrastructure for moving our era's biggest commodity: porn^Wdata.
The only thing that currently comes close to 'cyber' is those folks equipped with mechanical supplements to accomodate a disability. Skip the fruity 'chip in the arm' experiment, that could have been pulled off in a less dangerous manner by putting it under his tongue. The wearable computer chic that's evolving is a good start, and simple evolution and miniaturization will spur it into the true definition of 'cyber' whatever.
Don't agree with me? Screw off, I'm a 'cyber' purist, and the world needs more.
Katz. Don't like his work? Exercise your sapience endowed freedom of choice, and DON'T READ IT. You freaks are worse than the Howard Stern audience. Do you realize, half his listeners are there for the same reason the other half is, which is to hear what he says next, despite the fact that they don't agree or like it? If you ARE going to read his work, do it with an open mind, and look at what he's writing about, and not at what he's writing. There's no law or commandment that say you have to like Katz. I'm open minded enough to understand what he's writing about, whether I agree with his viewpoint or not. I'd happily applaud him for the reaction he gets from you guys, like dangling a plastic banana in front of monkeys. Looks like a banana, tastes like crap. You're just reacting to the fact that he's got a banana, whether you're going to eat it, or not.
Geography. This is my review of Katz's review of the SUBJECT that book tackles, whether it does it well or not. Most people don't realize, that the Internet, as a cultural tool, isn't a medium. It's an accelerator. The only other medium on the planet that can disseminate information faster is a pack of small town wives.
Internetworks, as a medium, dramatically change the way corporations *need* to work, and the way their employees *want* to work. High tech companies dealing in information commodities don't need to bring the miners to the mine any longer. Personally, I'm a network engineer and NMS prototype developer, myself. I work from home. In my boxers. I have a fridge under my desk. I think that covers how high tech employees *want* to work.
Here's the Wendy's 'Biggie' sized "But". Not all companies are high tech companies. We still need steel mills, farming communities, and every other craft in the class[1]. Take a trip back to the movie 'Son in Law', as a perfect example of what Katz and Cyber BS Joe are talking about. The daughter went off to college, and the son is a computer nerd[2]. The father, a generation farmer, couldn't understand his son's desire to program. The nature of humanity, or maybe just Americans, to rebel against what their parents do, is accelerated by high technology and Internet culture, and is undoubtedly increasingly sucking the marrow from our nations.. well, no, actually, our WORLD'S support infrastructure.
L.E.Modesitt, Jr, wrote in his book, _Timediver's Dawn_[3], that high tech societies tend to burn themselves out rather quickly. The Internet's accelerating effect is a good example of this, as more and more people are lured from staple support industries to the glitz and glamour of a connected 'global village' (Hey, Hillary, this village is raising more kids than you think.)
So yes, absolutely, I agree that there's a distinct shift in where our population is moving, both geographically, and morally. There's an interesting counterpoint to this, though. Just as the Internet is changing where and how people live, it's bringing more people to the surface, and leveling the playing field. People have more *options*. The savagely intelligent illuminati who, in years past, were concealed beneath basic struggles for survival are clawing their way to the surface and making a difference. The distances between life changing opportunities has narrowed dramatically for many people.
Don't believe me? Read Katz's book, _Geeks_. Some of my friends did, and threw it at me to read. Why? It was an interesting parallel to my own life, as a small town native struggling to make ends meet. I won't trash that book, because it's absolutely true for a lot of us.
What does it all come down to? Choices. The Internet, as a culture, gives us more. Can we always make them? Certainly not. I never went to college. Dropped out of high school. Because I'm one of those 'bright' people who can do whatever they set their minds to[4], I managed to land a tech job with skills I picked up while ditching school and BBS'ing. Three years later, a startup ISP brought the Internet within my reach. Six months later, I was gone, following the American Dream.
[dramatic pause, ala Shatner.]
The Dream. To do crap no one has considered before. To boldly piss off investors and accountants alike. To draw six figure salaries and vacation in Fiji.
The Dream, which has been slowly sucking the marrow from our societies, luring bright young minds to build the next big thing.
Accelerated by the Internet.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be.. no, I'm mostly right.
[1] Except novelty toy factories. You bastards are a waste of plastic, and need to go to hell.
[2] Don't for an instant think I'm slighting him. 'Computer nerd' is a distinct badge of honor, in my book.
[3] Science fiction, a good read.
[4] It's not ego inflation when dozens of people tell you so, so piss off if you think I'm on a high horse.
- billn
-lb
The review is short, passionate, and to the point! Somebody must have hacked /. and stolen Katz's login :-)
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Well yes but thats a big if isn't.
"One of the good things about the net is the way that cultures are blended together, and people share new ideas"
I have heard this idea expressed before. The net never seemed to me to be that much of a melting pot. When I first got onto it a decade ago, it was overwhelmingly populated by academics, most of whom where computer scientists. Not a particularly mixed group therefore. Nowadays there are people from more walks of life, but overwhelmingly these are from the US. Again not a particularly mixed group. Okay so its better than doing some work, but on the whole its rather a boring cross section. "The net is helping to blur some of the national boundaries that exist." By and large it seems to me that its trying to stamp everything into an US perspective. I had someone recently write me a derisory message, telling me to learn how to spell, because "colour" does not have a 'u' in it. I mean really.
Phil
Okay, the book is arguing that high tech culture is robbing the landscape of its traditional values and socialization as its workers migrate to join the high tech boom. And you, being a part of the high tech culture, say 'Duh', and make snide remarks about evolution.
Make no mistake -- there is a rising anti-technological sentiment out there, and you'd be ignoring it at your own peril. Traditional culture is sessile but still powerful, and if a backlash against high-tech occurs, it will at the least be inconvenient for you.
What does confuse me, though, is why Katz hates this book but applauded the WTO protests, which were another symptom of the same anti-high-tech phenomenon.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
For instance, a major car company just moved their proving ground from here in southern Arizona to northern Sonora, Mexico. They said the desert here just "isn't hot enough" to really put their cars to the test. And I'm sure it's just coincidence that the Mexican labor is cheaper.
Now, of course the internet isn't to blame for that. NAFTA is, if you even want to place blame anywhere. BUT, the increasing use of the net to communicate has the potential to allow this kind of work relocation for ALL kinds of work - including the kind that you and I love. Conceptually, what's to stop your favorite consulting company from setting up a VPN on a dedicated T3 to Bangalore and hiring people there for WAY less than they pay you?
So, maybe this book isn't well written. But I think it does raise legit concerns which we should all think about. NOT panic, NOT point fingers and accuse of conspiracies, but seriously think about.
Or rather geography isn't important to your job. If you love to fish, then it is important as you can't do much fishing in a desert. Likewise those who love deserts aren't comfortable in cold climates.
In the old days you had to live in the wrong area for you to do your job. If you didn't live close to Detroit you couldn't get a job building cars. If you didn't live in Pittsberg then steel working was out of the question. If you didn't live in Minneapolis then you couldn't be a flour miller.
Today things are different. Oh sure, if you work in the above industries you still ahve to live close to work. However two things have changes: None of the above cities have a monopoly in their industries. (I don't think Minneapolis mills any flour anymore, detroit still makes a lot of cars, but not most, pittsberg isn't the only city with a steel mill. More importantly, automation has caught up meaning less people are needed to work manual labor, while more people are needed to push paper.
Today I work in Minneapolis, in a tarditional office. Management has told us to figgure out how to work with people not in the office. We immeadiatly asked how far that went, and were told "John loves horses, he should soon be moving to Montana where there is room for horses, Gary has relatives in upsate New York, he wants to be closer to the family so he should. Hank wants to spend more time fishing the northern lakes, he should move there." Of course from the companies point of view this is better. If John finds a job in Montana that pays good (he doesn't want to try to make a ranch make money as that is nearly impossibal) he will move. My boss has looked at several jobs, but hasn't quite found one he likes. I don't like the jobs I've seen up north, so I'm still here. If I can live where ever, the company has a better chance of keeping me. More importantly are two points: It is easier to sell in a country where you have employees, one salesmen not counting; and it is easier to hire when you don't have to hire someone who lives within driving distance of your office or is willing to work.
the net is changing things. When I choose a comunity to live in I want to choose who my kids playmates are (I know some sexually abused kids who turned around and did the same thing to their playmates not knowing better, and I'm sure there are other issues here). Local school quality is an issue. The proximity of sking/fishing/surfing/4x4ing/camping and many other things that I like/dislike in my backyard is important. Who I work for is no longer an issue when I buy a house.
Yes, moving away from heavy manufacturing and raw materials production is freeing up a lot of the old geographic ties... but if you look at what it's causing, it isn't the formation of "Nerdistans," but rather the overt expression of long-held preferences: people flocking to states like Texas, Washington, and Florida, for example, to take advantage of mild climates and low taxes. If cities like Flint, Michigan want to know why their populations are getting smaller and less affluent, perhaps I could suggest some introspection; why are people who can afford to move somewhere else doing so? Kotkin's thesis is the intellectual analog of your wife leaving you and you blaming it on the construction of a new mall nearby.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Jon Katz's new book(The new Media: How the Digital Revolution is Reshaping the American Landscape) is so bad it will make you pine for all those volumes on trolls and hackers.
--
share and enjoy
Normally, most reviewers refuse to review bad books. I have a feeling that the reviewer here must have a point - else why bother?
Does he say anything good about the "New Geography"? Joel Kotkin, I mean. Does he say anything about how it expands other horizons?
If he says industry dying out is a bad thing, how's about this: 300 years ago, Britain's main industry was farming. Then, all of a sudden, the Industrial Revolution comes along, and people move to the cities for work in the factories. Spot any similarities? If it is the case, as Kotkin puts it, that people are moving out of the cities to places they like, to telework; does this remind you of anything? Generally, the main industry of every developed country is changing to services. There's nothing new. It's a bit like Global Warming - it has happened before, it's happening again, and it will happen in the future.
Just my two cents' worth.
We Build Beautiful Websites
Usually, it seems foolish to criticize a book, a waste of everybody's time. If it's no good, why bother to review it at all?
Because that's part of the function of a reviewer, to tell people which books are worth reading and which are wastes of time/money, and to give reasons for that judgment.
How do you expect readers to make informed judgments based on your recommendations if all you ever print are positive reviews?
This book is part of the conservative outlook that has accompanied human progression since the dawn of time. While many people like to look forward, others believe that things are better the way they are or even believe that things were better 'back in the day'. The point of the matter is that while some people prefer to live in a technological stasis, history has proven that the majority of mankind will embrace the changes if they are deemed beneficial to the society.
And in that respect, I believe that the digital age (or whatever you would like to call it) has succeeded to entrench itself in modern society and will continue to grow. Change is inevitable, the only thing that matters is that we make the right changes.
UBU
In spite of its pretentious rehetoric and naive recommendations, this book does contain the a kernel of truth. We do have a lot of freedom about where to live, and most firms move to the kinds of places their employees like. Hence US software firms converged on the bay area, and similar things in other countries. They may have wrecked the local environment, but they and their employees stay, mostly just in order to stay near each other.
For industries that actually make stuff it was once important, and still is to some extent to be near the sources of raw materials.
Of course, the phemonon being described is neither unique to our era nor universal within it, but it is still a valid observation.
The fact that this kind of churn started in overtime with the Industrial revolution and not the Digital does not mean that it's not a problem. Simply because something's been going on for 150+ years doesn't mean it's the way the world has to work.
And "communities" haven't been doing the moving -- people have. The communities made up of those people are what boom or die. And there is a cost to this, no matter how the evangelists of Progress(tm)and Industry(tm) and Technology(tm) try to pretend otherwise.
I started seeing it on Usenet a couple of years ago.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
People don't need to move around the world seeking out new physical locations. One of the good things about the net is the way that cultures are blended together, and people share new ideas (when they're not buying crap from Amazon.com, of course. :) ). If I had a net connection in Namibia, I would be able to communicate with the same people that I would have access to in the US.
The net is helping to blur some of the national boundaries that exist. It empowers those who know how to use it. If anything, the culture and geography shift is going to be based on whether someone is a luser or whether they're net-savvy.
Technology has been doing this for a SIGNIFICANT amount of time - look at the communities 150 years ago that had to move to be near the railroads, and thousands of years ago communities moved to be near rivers and coastlines. The resources themselves are the only thing that has changed.
Nonperiodic Central Trajectory
Pot. Kettle. Black.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.