The world is flat or not flatRegardless of whether the world is flat or not, we still face an unprecedented situation. The world economy is getting bigger or, as Thomas Friedman explains, getting smaller. At this very moment, a 15-year-old Spanish boy can watch exactly the same content as a Harvard university professor. As this happens around the world with even more extreme examples, the question arises: is this good for our world or could it be devastating? Thomas Friedman claims that it is amazing for the world and that it will send us to heights we never thought we could reach, yet others argue that this flattening has horrible effects while others argue that this flattening doesn't even exist. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Any individual in the world can access virtually anything. This is causing a revolution in technology, knowledge, relationships and things never thought possible. This flattening affects not only our economy, but every single aspect of our lives. In the article Why the World is Flat by Daniel H. Pink, Pink meets Friedman and interviews him about his flat world theory. Pink asks Friedman about his book as he explains that China and India are parts of the world that will be greatly affected by flattening. Friedman responds with a surprising example: “Bill Gates has a great line: He says, 20 years ago, would you have rather been a B-student in Poughkeepsie or a genius in Shanghai? Twenty years ago you would have preferred to be a straight-A student in Poughkeepsie. Today? This exemplifies the key aspect of how the flat world can change lives. The answer is the boy from Shanghai. In the past, only the richest countries had the capacity to create a future for students and offer them an adequate education. But now anyone with a ten-year-old computer or telephone can access any information on the Internet. Friedman also mentions increased support in Pink's article. After Friedman explains how he first came up with the idea of ​​why the world is flat, he states, "Different technological and political forces have converged, and this has produced a global, Web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration regardless of geography or distance – or soon, even language.” This promotes the position that a flat world can give something to anyone However, anyone can talk about this topic, but can anyone back it up with statistics to prove it? With all the talk of Thomas Friedman, it is easy to get caught up in the movement of the world that It flattens out. However, is the world as interconnected as Friedman believes? We discussed in class the fact that Ghemawat claims that only 2% of calls in the world are international, 6% include Skype and web chat. This supports the idea that our world is not flat, in fact, it is anything but 6% of calls in the world are international? Furthermore, Ghemawat raises the idea that perhaps immigration could show us how the world is starting to flatten. He asks the question: how many first generation immigrants are there currently in different countries around the world. The answer is three percent. This is a serious blow to Friedman's theory because, if it were correct, the “no-boarder effect” would mean that there would be up to 100% immigration. Finally, Ghemawat uses a term, Globaloney, saying that Friedman is actually exaggerating.