I read David Ignatius' column this morning on the relationship between "connectedness" and conflict. Unlike most of what I read in the morning, what Ignatius wrote stuck with me all day. In particular, I found this fascinating (bolding added for emphasis):
A second explanation of the connectedness paradox comes from Charles M. McLean, who runs a trend-analysis company called Denver Research Group Inc.... I asked McLean last week if he could explain the latest explosion of rage in our connected world -- namely the violent Islamic reaction to Danish cartoon images of the prophet Muhammad.McLean argues that the Internet is a "rage enabler." By providing instant, persistent, real-time stimuli, the new technology takes anger to a higher level. "Rage needs to be fed or stimulated continually to build or maintain it," he explains. The Internet provides that instantaneous, persistent poke in the eye. What's more, it provides an environment in which enraged people can gather at cause-centered Web sites and make themselves even angrier. The technology, McLean notes, "eliminates the opportunity for filtering or rage-dissipating communications to intrude." I think McLean is right. And you don't have to travel to Cairo to see how the Internet fuels rage and poisons reasoned debate. Just take a tour of the American blogosphere.
I think there's a lot of truth to this. Just look around at the most partisan political blogs out there, and see what you think. If you can stand it, that is! But what are the alternatives? It's not like the internet, or increased global connectedness in general, are going away anytime soon. So how can we harness these forces for the greater good? Or, is it simply inevitable that, as Francis Fukuyama wrote recently, "More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalization and -- yes, unfortunately -- terrorism." Yeah, I guess I'm in a bad mood today...