logo
Death of distance and rise of tribalism: Inside the disruptive world of ‘GeoTechnoGraphy'

Death of distance and rise of tribalism: Inside the disruptive world of ‘GeoTechnoGraphy'

First Post21-04-2025
Authored by Samir Saran and Anirban Sarma, 'GeoTechnoGraphy' is a pertinent and thought-provoking book that explores how digital technology has become both a catalyst for progress and a cause of intense societal disruptions read more
Change is the only constant. We are often reminded about this age-old adage. But with each passing decade, year, month, day and even moment, one is facing an accelerated rate of change.
Alvin Toffler wrote more than five decades ago in his milestone book, Future Shock, 'If the last 50,000 years of man's existence were divided into lifetimes of approximately sixty-two years each, there have been about 800 such lifetimes. Of these 800, fully 650 were spent in caves.' He decoded this accelerated rate of transformation further when he wrote how 'only during the last six lifetimes did masses of men ever see a printed word. Only during the last four has it been possible to measure time with any precision. Only in the last two has anyone anywhere used an electric motor. And the overwhelming majority of all the material goods we use in daily life today have been developed within the present, the 800th, lifetime.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
When Toffler wrote his seminal book, the digital revolution, as we see it today, was still a few decades away. And if the changes in the 1950s and '60s made him believe that 'most people are grotesquely unprepared to cope with it', one wonders what he would have said today when a seismic technological change, led by the digital revolution, is underway. The digital revolution has created new cloud-based communities that transcend national and geographical barriers, providing new opportunities as well as opening up new challenges.
So, while the Internet is seen to be blurring, and often challenging too, geographical distances and national boundaries, one equally witnesses intense battles being fought for land, territories and so-called homelands. What makes the era both interesting and enigmatic is the two tendencies getting stronger at the one and the same time. To map these new changes, a new book, GeoTechnoGraphy, written by Samir Saran and Anirban Sarma, has come out, exploring how digital technology has as much become the catalyst for progress as much as a cause of intense societal disruptions.
Geotechnography: Mapping Power and Identity in the Digital Age (Hardcover) – 31 March 2025. Image: Amazon.com
The authors write, 'Our rootedness in land is now contending and conflicting – with a new sense of self built by engaging with social media and other global digital platforms. The agendas and aspirations of citizens, governments and tech businesses aren't necessarily congruent though. The friction between them is the greatest defining phenomenon of our time.'
The 'death of geography' has led to the 'mushrooming' of 'new sites for agreement and discord'. Saran and Sarma write, 'Throughout our book, we use the terms 'clouds' or 'cloud societies' to refer to virtual communities that are anchored in particular geographies but use the Internet and social media to share views, exchange opinions, band together with like-minded peers or interest groups or engage in online political action. Cloud societies influence land-based debates and often assault offline consensuses. On the other hand, they amplify real-world movements, and the momentum they generate online could cross back into the offline realm in the form of new campaigns.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Interestingly, the 'death of geography', led primarily by the massive spread of cyberspace, has resulted in a borderless world, but at the same time one is witnessing the rise of 'new tribalism', wherein 'walls could spring up between those who fall foul of code or community guidelines and suffer a form of digital excommunication and those who don't'.
The authors also highlight how 'a wedge is also driven between inhabitants of the world's various splinternets'. Giving the example of Chinese citizens being 'exposed only to online news and views curated by the Chinese Communist Party will form a vastly different worldview from Indians who experience an open, broad-based Internet'. This way 'alternate ideas' become 'invisible' (to Chinese), and 'one-sided perspectives become our universe'. Thus emerges what the authors call 'a new tribalism'.
What further makes the situation dicey, difficult and also dangerous is the mushrooming of fake news outlets in the digital space. This phenomenon is worrying because for most people across the globe, social media has become the primary source of news—what makes this even deadlier is the fact that fake news travels faster than the truth!
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The book also looks at the growing malaise of cyber-attacks and cybercrime. The global cost of financial cybercrime is expected to skyrocket from $9.22 trillion in 2024 to $13.83 trillion in 2028. And by the end of 2024, cyber-attacks may cost the global economy more than $10.5 trillion. The number is only going to spread. Today, 65 per cent of the world's population use the internet, which was first introduced among the masses just three decades ago—and as the number of internet users further increases, especially in the Global South, the cases of cyber-attacks and cybercrime would go up too.
Then there is the big issue of artificial intelligence, whose development and usage have divided humanity, with many projecting and predicting a doomsday-kind of scenario for human beings.
The authors find four fundamental design flaws underlying today's geotechnographical landscape. One, the ideologies of Silicon Valley—the production centres of these technologies—are 'being made to force-fit local markets with a wholly different provenance'. Two, the contract between citizens and the state is 'increasingly mediated by private players' such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Often these companies care little about local laws, as was witnessed in 2023 when the Government of India called out Twitter for repeatedly violating national laws. The third flaw is the dichotomy between sites of innovation and those of regulation. The fourth flaw is the 'capabilities asymmetry' between geographies that impacts their response to technology and shapes trajectories of tech adoption.
The last chapter, 'Rebooting History: A Rules-Based Order for the Digital Age', is the high point of the book, as it seeks to find a way out of the digital morass the world finds itself in. In the end, the authors come up with their verdict: 'Technology has been left for too long now to market forces. The speed at which technological breakthroughs are occurring has no historical precedent. They have disrupted almost every industry in every country, and the changes they introduce are already transforming existing systems of management and governance. The tail is wagging the dog. We elect governments, and digital tribes then try to dictate what the elected government should do.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It is, therefore, not surprising that trust in technology is declining and 'techlash' is becoming obvious. 'The digital age, with its dizzying ascent and all-encompassing impact on societies, may be on thinner ice than it knows. The disruption of truth and reality, the interference with borders both political and cultural, the weaponisation of technology, and the greed for global supremacy could make the fourth industrial revolution the shortest of all tech revolutions,' write the two authors as they ask governments and tech giants to pause and look for answers: 'How do we reboot the present to ensure that the future doesn't repeat the errors of the past? And if we don't, will the history of our digital societies be all too brief?'
GeoTechnoGraphy is a pertinent, thought-provoking book. Given the time we live in, the book remains essential reading for all Indians.
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

#arseniclife: Story of a viral study & a contentious retraction
#arseniclife: Story of a viral study & a contentious retraction

Indian Express

time6 hours ago

  • Indian Express

#arseniclife: Story of a viral study & a contentious retraction

Fifteen years ago, a group of scientists made the bold claim of having discovered a microorganism that could survive using chemistry different from any known life-form. On Thursday, the journal Science, where these findings were reported, formally retracted the 2010 paper, saying it was fundamentally flawed. While there is broad scientific consensus against the study's findings, the retraction nonetheless is contentious, and potentially opens a pandora's box for academic publishing. Living beings typically rely on a number of common elements, including carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, to build biomolecules such as DNA, proteins and lipids. In 2009, researchers collected a microbe from Mono Lake, a salty and alkaline body of water in California. In the lab, they claimed to have found that this microbe could replace phosphorus with arsenic, an element that is typically toxic. Phosphorus is essential to the structure of DNA and RNA and to the function of the energy-transporter molecule ATP. If confirmed, the discovery would change scientists' fundamental conceptions about life on Earth, and possibly beyond. Naturally, the study received a lot of attention, and travelled well beyond the typical terrain of academic conferences and scientific journals. Many scientists around the world expressed serious concerns with the study's methodology and conclusions. Most notably, the discovery was picked up by the Internet. On the then nascent Twitter, it trended with the hashtag #arseniclife. The study's authors also faced extreme scrutiny into their personal lives. Science has not accused the paper's authors of misconduct or fraud, and instead cited its latest standards for retractions, which allow it to take down a study based on 'errors' by the researchers. The decision was made after The New York Times last year reached out to Science for a comment on about the legacy of the #arseniclife affair. That inquiry 'convinced us that this saga wasn't over, that unless we wanted to keep talking about it forever, we probably ought to do some things to try to wind it down,' Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science since 2019, told The NYT. 'And so that's when I started talking to the authors about retracting.' But the paper's authors disagree with the decision. Their defenders, including officials at NASA, which helped fund the original research, say the move is outside the norms of what usually leads to the striking down of a published paper. Ariel Anbar, a geochemist at Arizona State University and one of the paper's authors, has said that the data itself is not flawed, and if disputes about 'data interpretation' were acceptable standards for retraction, 'you'd have to retract half the literature'. As justification for the retraction, the Science statement cites the technical objections published alongside the paper, and failed replications of the findings in 2012. But the original paper's authors have responded to the objections and criticised replication experiments. Anbar has accused Science of not providing any 'reasonable explanation' for the retraction. Ivan Oransky, a specialist in academic publishing, told Nature that this retraction raises an interesting question. There are plenty of debunked papers in the literature that could be retracted, he says. Will other publishers get on board with trying to clean up the scientific record? And if so, 'where do you start?' INPUTS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

Mental health at risk! Phones for kids under 13 ‘shape the way they think,' warn experts
Mental health at risk! Phones for kids under 13 ‘shape the way they think,' warn experts

Mint

timea day ago

  • Mint

Mental health at risk! Phones for kids under 13 ‘shape the way they think,' warn experts

Smartphones are influencing how children under 13, especially girls, think and develop, and experts have warned that this early exposure could lead to poorer mental health outcomes later in life. One of the study's authors, Tara Thiagarajan, said that more exposure to smartphones impacts younger children psychologically and alters the way they think and perceive the world. 'The younger the child gets a smartphone, the more exposure to all this impacts them psychologically and shapes the way they think and view the world,' she told ABC News. The study, published in the Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, analysed self-reported questionnaire results from more than 1,00,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24. It was based on questions about mental health symptoms, such as having aggression, feelings of detachment, hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. The study revealed that those who were given smartphones at an earlier age were associated with worse mental health outcomes. The study found that owning smartphones early, before 13 years of age, was associated with feelings of lower self-image and lower self-worth in both girls and boys. It resulted in lower emotional resilience and confidence for girls, while the boys reported feeling less calm, less stable, and less empathetic. Nearly 48% of young women who had smartphones by age 5 or 6 reported experiencing severe suicidal thoughts—compared to 28% among those who got their first phone at 13 or later. Among young men, the figures were 31% for early phone users and 20% for those who got phones at 13 or older. Experts have attributed the differences between women's and men's mental health symptoms to social media usage. Other factors that impacted the mental health outcomes were cyberbullying, poor sleep and poor family relationships. To protect children's mental health, experts urge restrictions on smartphone and social media use for those under 13, alongside better digital education and greater corporate responsibility. 'Ideally, children should not have a smartphone until age 14, and when they do get a smartphone, parents should take the time to discuss with their children how to interact on the Internet and explain the consequences of doing various things,' Tara said. According to the American Academy of Paediatrics, as cited by ABC News, families must follow the 5 C's of media use:

Dangers of smartphone usage in kids below 13: Study reveals shocking details
Dangers of smartphone usage in kids below 13: Study reveals shocking details

Hindustan Times

timea day ago

  • Hindustan Times

Dangers of smartphone usage in kids below 13: Study reveals shocking details

Early exposure to social media comes with significant downsides. Without the maturity to process what they see or the filters to shield them from harmful content, children are vulnerable to mental health challenges and unhealthy body image issues. Also read | New research shows reducing screen time drastically improves your child's mental wellbeing in just 2 weeks Smartphone usage can affect children below the age of 13. (Shutterstock) In a new study published in Journal of Human Development and Capabilities on July 20, researchers analysed data from more than 100,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, to understand how social media usage can affect children below the age of 13. Findings of the study The questionnaires to the participants asked questions to understand the mental health outcomes of social media users. Mental health symptoms such as aggression, feelings of detachment, hallucinations, and suicidal thoughts were tracked in the participants. Tara Thiagarajan, one of the study's authors, told ABC News, 'The younger the child gets a smartphone, the more exposure to all this impacts them psychologically and shapes the way they think and view the world.' Also read | Screen time and children: When to introduce it and how much is appropriate Smartphone use in kids can lead to suicidal thoughts.(Pexels) The study revealed shocking details The study authors observed a steep increase of suicidal thoughts in young women who were exposed to smartphone usage at an early age of 5 or 6. in young men, 31 percent of them reported having suicidal thoughts when exposed to smartphones at the age of 5 or 6. 20 percent of the male participants who started using smartphones at the age of 13 reported having severe suicidal thoughts. Restrict social media usage for children below 13 The study authors recommended parents to restrict social media and smartphone usage in kids below the age of 13. 'Ideally, children should not have a smartphone until age 14, and when they do get a smartphone, parents should take the time to discuss with their children how to interact on the Internet and explain the consequences of doing various things,' Tara Thiagarajan told ABC News. Also read | Toddler to teenager: Know how excessive screen time can slow children's growth and development Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store