Does the optimism often found in literature appear naive when confronting contemporary global challenges, such as climate change and great power competition?

This is an excellent question! It touches upon the core ideas of globalism from the past two decades and reflects the confusion many of us feel today. Let's look at it this way:

Does the Optimism of The World Is Flat Still Hold Water Today?

First, let's quickly recall the core idea of The World Is Flat.

Simply put, around 2005, author Thomas Friedman observed that due to the power of "Ten Forces that Flattened the World" like the internet, outsourcing, and supply chains, people and companies worldwide, large or small, could compete and collaborate on a relatively level playing field. He was highly optimistic that this "flattened" world would bring more prosperity, understanding, and cooperation. It was like using bulldozers to level a bumpy football pitch so that teams from different countries could play on it, with more transparent rules.

At the time, this optimism was incredibly infectious and effectively explained many of the prevailing phenomena.

Why Does This Optimism Seem "Naive" Today?

The very climate change and great power competition you mentioned are among the sharpest "nails" piercing this spirit of optimism.

1. Great Power Competition: Walls Rising Again on the Leveled Ground

The World Is Flat theory relies on a crucial premise: Everyone is willing to play in the same arena and believes "win-win cooperation" is better than a "zero-sum game." The main driving force was economic efficiency.

But now? Great power competition (especially between the US and China) tells us that national security, ideology, and national identity often matter more than economic efficiency.

Trade Wars and Tech Wars: This is like someone starting to build walls and trenches on the once-flat playing field. Examples include "tariff barriers," "chip bans," "Entity Lists," etc. It's no longer about "let's bake a bigger cake together" but "I must ensure you don't get the most crucial slice, or even possess the tools to make the cake."
"Decoupling" and "De-risking": Previously, the global supply chain was seen as the most efficient and lowest-cost solution. Now, the concern is: if my critical components are all made in your country, what if you cut off supplies if we have a dispute? So, supply chains are being reshored to "friendly" or "trusted" locations. The world is transforming from a "plains" back into "hilly" terrain dotted with separate "peaks."

Simply put, Friedman's optimism underestimated the deeply rooted "tribalism" and "security anxiety" in human history. When security feels threatened, efficiency and cooperation take a back seat.

2. Climate Change: Shared "Lawn," No One Wants to Maintain It First

Climate change is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons."

Imagine a village with a shared pasture where everyone can graze their sheep for free. For each shepherd, the most rational choice is to add one more sheep because the profit from the extra sheep is all theirs, while the cost of overgrazing is shared by the whole village. The result? Everyone acts "rationally" from their own perspective, leading to the pasture's destruction—leaving everyone with no sheep to graze.

Climate change resembles this "common pasture." Every country wants economic development (adding more sheep), but reducing emissions (maintaining the pasture) requires significant economic sacrifice and disruptive transition. Hence, we see:

Arguments Over "Who Pays?": Developed nations say, "We'll start reducing emissions now, but developing countries must follow suit." Developing nations retort, "You industrialised without restrictions, polluting for centuries, and now you want to halt us just as we start developing?"
Short-Term vs. Long-Term Interests: A politician’s term lasts only a few years; they care more about current jobs and economic growth than sea-level rise 50 years hence.

The World Is Flat's brand of optimism believed that free-flowing information and global collaboration would solve such problems. But climate change precisely demonstrates that even when everyone knows the severity of the problem (information is transparent), achieving effective global consensus and action is immensely difficult in the face of vast interests and disputed responsibility sharing. This isn't a technological issue but a game of human nature and politics.

So, Was That Optimism Entirely Useless?

Not quite. We can call it "naive," but not "wholly wrong."

The underlying technologies and modes of connection described in "The World Is Flat" haven't disappeared. In fact, they've become more powerful.

The Tools to Solve Problems Still Exist: Precisely because the world is "flat" technologically, a Swedish climate activist could spark a global "school strike for climate," and a Chinese research team can collaborate with a German lab to accelerate new energy technology development. Without this "flat" foundation, we wouldn't even have the possibility to sit down and argue or pressure each other.
New Points of Connection: Even amidst intense national-level competition, transnational exchange and collaboration remain highly active among individuals, NGOs, scientists, artists, etc. A Ukrainian game developer can still release their work on a global platform; an ordinary consumer can still witness events happening on the other side of the world via social media.

Conclusion: From "Naive Optimism" to "Sober Optimism"

So, back to your question: Does the optimistic spirit of the book seem naive today?

The answer is: Yes, largely so. Because it greatly underestimated the complexity of politics, security, and human nature, while overestimating the power of economic rationality.

We can view The World Is Flat as a "technological description" of the world, outlining the infrastructure and possibilities of globalization. But it failed to predict that, operating upon this "hardware," would be "software" filled with conflict and contradiction – namely geopolitics, nationalism, and various social crises.

Today, perhaps we need a more mature "sober optimism":

We acknowledge the world is full of walls, mountains, and fissures, no longer the envisioned plain. Simultaneously, we recognize that the tools to flatten the world – technology, networks, knowledge sharing – remain in our hands. We cannot expect the world to automatically improve, but we can use these tools to actively, arduously, bit by bit, peel back layers of separation – tearing down walls, tunneling through mountains, and bridging divides.

This optimism no longer stems from the belief that "the world is bound to become flat," but from the fact that "we possess tools to make the world slightly better." That might be the outlook we truly need today.