Parag Khanna is the founder of FutureMap, a global strategic advisory firm. Other books he's written include Connectography and The Future is Asian. He has a PhD in Economics.
The above quote pretty much sums up Move, his latest book. And while I agree with his thesis I can't say that I got much out of his proposed solutions to issues such as climate change, overpopulation and various forms of inequality. His mode of thinking could be described as utopian, with little thought for the real world problems that stand between us and this future he proposes, wherein people flow across borders toward higher elevations and freely migrate to more attractive labor markets.
Taken as a work of scholarship this book begs a lot of questions. Yes, there's a bibliography in the back, but which of the works listed apply to which parts of the book, and do they all agree with the author's thesis? In forming his arguments he paints in very broad strokes, listing data points which support his ideas but seemingly unable - or unwilling - to synthesize what the authors of all those other books, articles and studies were really driving at. At times Move resembles a Master's thesis written via Wikipedia, in which the student has hurriedly compiled "evidence" without really considering whether or not all of the weightier works consulted would have fallen on the same side of history.
There's also an alarming number of personal anecdotes in this book. Yes, the author seems widely traveled, and yes, he may represent a larger trend toward mass migrations of peoples over the surface of the globe, but at times this book feels like little more than an expression of his personal experiences, or even an attempt to advertise his consulting firm. Is he painting a future of "humanity on the move" out of a desire to assist that humanity to better understand itself? Or is this book just a calling card, intended for display in the offices of his startup?
Take this passage, for example:
"But as Asia's resurrection illustrates, in the long run societies with larger populations tend to become wealthier, as they aggregate and spread innovations that make their citizens more prosperous."
What does this mean, exactly? Asia is a continent comprised of many, many countries, and many of these countries are far from any "resurrection," whatever that means. And do larger populations really tend to become wealthier? And wealthier compared to what? Compared to previous populations or smaller populations? How are we measuring wealth in this instance? How are we quantifying innovations? How are we determining prosperity? It all seems to make sense at a cursory glance, but upon further reflection it's either glaringly obvious or completely unclear. You'd think that someone trained in economics would be able to come to more definitive conclusions, but in this book this is rarely the case.
In this book's defense, I will say that the author provides some memorable turns of phrase. He's a polished writer, if not a polished scholar. And I don't disagree with the message behind this book. The climate is changing, and issues of national sovereignty are definitely leading to economic inefficiencies and humanitarian crises all over the globe. It's just a shame that these points weren't argued more convincingly, by someone less apt to generalize.
Related Entries:
沒有留言:
張貼留言