Managing information in the age of unlimited information

Dan links together two excellent (but long) articles dealing with the management of information in the age of unlimited information. It reminds me of my own efforts to sort through these issues. I’ve blogged about the idea of competing worldviews and the easiness with which folks can now gather information to support their conclusions, the different worldviews expressed by different cultures’ media sources, and discussed the idea of a “Global Umma” – the idea of a large sub-culture built around religious beliefs and tied together through technology. Their views are guided by the lens through which their larger community chooses to view the world. When we see Islamic communities within Europe that refuse to adopt the standards, practices, or beliefs of their adopted homes, we are seeing an example of this subculture taken to the extreme where they feel the government has less power to influence their lives than their chosen subculture. Below is a brief sampling from my discussion of the developing Global Umma (simply one example of many fast-developing sub-cultures that create more “ties that bind” than the state):

Since the end of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, several events have served to further bind the Islamic world community together, while continuing the Islamic resurgence. These include continuing violence between Palestinians and Israelis; continued repression in undemocratic countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as leaders act to prevent a repeat of the Iranian revolution; the September 11, 2001 attacks on America; and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Perhaps most importantly, members of the Umma can increasingly take advantage of global communications technology to share ideas, views, goals, and concerns across any distance. Issues that in the past would have been of nothing more than regional concern now take on international importance as members of the Umma reach out to other Muslims across the globe. As Daniel Pipes elaborates,

"Unity among Muslims is the paramount political goal of Islam. Ideally, a single state should extend the breadth of Dar al-Islam; failing this, Muslim governments should be at peace with each other. The many differences between believers - geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, racial, tribal, class, and ideological - must not prevent them from viewing each other as brethren in faith, nor should it get in the way of friendly, cooperative, and peaceable relations. Islam acknowledges the variety of its adherents but ascribes them no political significance; the chasm separating Muslims from non-Muslims alone matters - and it affects all politics."

Regional differences, the practical reality of distance between states dominated by Muslims, and the majority belief among Muslims that war is not an acceptable answer preclude the notion of a single Islamic state. However, the resurgence of a Muslim identity that carries greater loyalty than the bonds to political bodies or nations; the global information revolution; and the weakening of authority this engenders in nation-states create an environment in which the 'the Umma' serves as a powerful non-governmental organization capable of swaying the decisions of governments across the globe. While there are no official 'leaders' of this organization, there are individuals, nations, and organizations (many of which have been covered in the previous pages) able to profoundly influence this body through their actions and ideas.

But is placing subculture above predominant culture or State really that unusual anymore? Not really. In fact, Martin Van Creveld wrote an entire book in which he discusses the decline of the state.

In the end, it comes down to people attempting to figure out just how to deal with the information available…and what all that information really means. The running debate between Google and Yahoo right now revolves around how to filter the information. For Google, it’s all about employing technology. For Yahoo, it’s about social networking – picking those whom we trust to help us manage information and shape into something coherent.