Globalisation: For and against.

I’m torn on this one. I’ve seen Zeitgeist and I know about the American New World Order. But I was brought up on sci-fi, and the recurrent theme in sci-fi is a united world, and lets face it, half of our global problems is the fact we have so many different laws and cultures.

But I confess I Like different. One nice aspect of going abroad is the differences, and they are disappearing. Nearly all big cities are the same nowadays. The same shops selling the same merchandise, only the language and money type are different.
Lots of countries claim to be preserving their culture -whilst embracing consumerism. Usually this means some people dressing up and doing silly “Harvest Dances” or some such. They rarely know the origins of said dances, and you can also buy the cd for a reasonable price after the show featuring twenty tracks by…..

We in the UK claim we want to keep our independence, yet we no longer can, and I’m afraid anyone who thinks we can is living a dream. The crash of a few small banks in the USA has sent not ripples, but a Tsunami through the world economy, and it’s now easy to see just how closely linked we are…whether we like it or not.

So lets hear our arguments for and against Globalisation.

World police? Fair distribution of resources? Power mad megalomania?

Luckily i learnt about this subject in geography earlier in the year.

I learned how the use of labour to satisfy the west will include childern who suffer punishment if they step out of line. And they work often for low pay i dangerous and unhealthy conditions. Another thing i learned was about the "Made in USA" label. Usually it isnt made in the USA we know but in the islands that ARE PROTECTORATES of the US. So as you can find out im against it.

The US influence is a major one. But there's more to gobalisation than the USA. I'm lathe to let this thread turn into a USA bash, I'm more interested in what you feel "inside" and why. Peresonally I suspect our tribal instincts are more a factor than we think.

I didn't answer the survey because I'm undecided. I love to travel, but I don't like what where're turning other places into; eg Ibiza and other popular holiday desitnations. My girlfreind's Gran owns a villa in Spain, We spent a few weeks there not so long ago. Its in a quiet part of the country, but there are brits there. I'm glad we didn't go when the place is full, one thing I cant stand is middle class holiday makers, stereotypes who boast about this that and the other.

I'd love to write a big long post about this, but I feel that I'd be repeating myself, I have noticed I'm doing that all to often these days on this forum. That is why I'm thinking of retiring for the time being.

I believe when the shit does hit the fan, its not the so-called civilized West that'll be last man standing. It'll be people living in remote areas, who manage quite nicely without oil, mass mdedia, and a games console.

I'm like JC I can't decide because I love holidays and seeing the world but at the same time we're changing the world, in some senses, for the worst so I can't decide on this one guys argh! lol

Well seems as how we "Brits" are actually descendants of largely foreign ancestors in a way we have always been dependent on other countries for things so basic as a populace. I would like the ideal world where we had independence as a nation in terms of economic and cultural aspects, however being realistic we are simply too far gone already.

Globalisation is a process that has already begun like it or not.

Ok here’s a theory, and I have looked through some of my posts to make sure I’m not saying the same old thing.

We have all talked about the elite few controlling the masses. Using their power to acquire everything, and control everything. It is plausible that these few are responsible for globalisation encouraging the masses to expand, go on holiday, buy flat screen TV’s.

So I ask; is it possible that this credit crunch, global financial slowdown or whatever you want to call could be happening because there is simply nothing left in the world to have? The super rich are no longer able to get any richer, because there is nothing more left to get rich off.

Since the industrial revolution we have spent the last few hundred years just raping mother earth of natural recourses, and let’s face it we have just about taken everything, so the elite super rich have nothing else to control. We can only develop so far, and I think as a civilisation living on one planet we have reached our peak.

Globalisation has been and gone, there is nowhere left to print the Coca Cola, or Nike logo on. I'd say we now face de-globalisation, the only thing which would allow us to expand further is if we put massive efforts into colonizing other planets in the solar system, and then it'll be a whole new ball game.

That's why I once posted that lil video of humans being a virus, because that's what we are really, we find new things sap it of it's resources and move on. now we've run out of places on earth next it'll be the moon or mars. and so on until we've colonized all the planets

Exactly!

But isn't this just human nature. Isn't it right that humans should push the boundaries, to be curios & explore it's possibilities, TO BOLDLY GO &.............Oh wait a minute...........that's something else.

But there is a serious point here. If we stop being curios, we will go the way of the dinosaurs.

TO BOLDLY GO &.............

Yes, but there are dangers out in the universe that we are yet to comprehend. It human nature to be curious yes, but I think you'll find that most animals share that curiosity thing, its how they learn.

But animals have no way of recording what they've learnt for future generations. Every animal born has to learn exactly the same lessons that every member of the same species has learnt before.
Humans have a knowledge bank that grows & accelerates it's growth. Each generation builds on the knowledge bank of previous generations.
If humans stop being curios & exploring our possibilities despite the dangers, then that really is the end.

Whoever said anything about ending curiosity? That could be the one thing that could save us. It's just that the problem is the way we learn that's the problem we take one area and sap it of what it has, you only have to look at the world to see what I'm saying. Which is why I'm stuck. Globalisation both solves problems but also creates them.

You're both right on both accounts, but I still stand by what I said, there is simply nothing on this world to exploit or put a logo on.

Suppose we on this little forum are those few who control the world of economics and all the other things. We at the moment are faced with a crisis, The oil is running out, all possibilities have been explored, there is nothing more to exploit from this little world of ours. So what are our options?

Start a war to end all wars, to cut down on the population, so that world consumption would go down. No of course we can’t do that because in less than a hundred years or so we’d be back at this point, but next time there will be nothing left. And besides who want to live in a nuclear waste land. Release a deadly virus wouldn’t be an option either, diseases can mutate even the genetically created ones, can't risk killing the very people you need to survive.

Another option would be to let society collapse in on itself, let the oil run out totally let the gas run dry. Neighbour against neighbour, brother against brother, a really good way to cut down on population. People dying of starvation in developed countries. Sure there would be those who would survive, but the masses will die out. And in say, two hundred years our descendants would resurface ready to take control again, and rule through God, trial and retribution, like in the good old days. Unfortunately that probably is the riskiest option of all, because the human race is too developed to just forget, and there will be records of our greed and our undoing. And are we really willing to let all that we have achieved over the last few centuries turn to dust.

So you see the powers that be are just as screwed as the rest of us at the moment. Either they can allow this world to go to hell, or they can finally concede that there is nothing left to own on this planet, no more money to make, so it’s time to expand into the universe, but with that come great loss of power for those at the top.

This is the way it's always been. Progress has it's price. We must go forward & learn as much as we can. Mistakes will be made, catastrophes will happen, both man made & natural. We are at the top of the food chain, the smartest species ever to walk the earth. I think eventually we will learn to harmonise with the earth's natural ability to sustain itself & us, but for the present we must use the earths resources to be able to progress.

it seems to me globalization play a different role.
for starters, low petrol prices fueled globalization. which means that the globalization will now slow down, and may even reverse a bit.
you see it now - as the globalization-based economies barely show growth, while those that self-produce grow do show nice growth.

globalization means commerce connections. a country that has strong trade with it's neigbours and start wars will suffer the price of loosing this commerce. as ties strengthen due to globalization, fewer countries want to go to wars.
wars and control over resources existed long before globalization - which reduced them. if you have free access to buying, you get your resources without war, and if you have open buyers market, you get an higher price.

as for "what will happend when the resources run out?" question.
you see what happend - prices go up, and whoever didn't gather in the summer, suffer in the cold winter.
as the shortages are not local - we'll have to work our way out of problems together.

Don't you think before technology we were harmonising with the world better? Our curiosity has gotten us into more trouble than anything. Technology has caused the problems. What makes you think that it can save us?

"Free trade stops wars"

I've heard that said before, but I see no evidence to support the statement.

It depends on what you mean by technology. If you mean before the Industrial Revolution then I think we probably were more in harmony with nature. But on the other side of that coin was the fact that the average lifespan was 43yrs. People died of Appendicitis & other ailments. It could be argued that the air is cleaner now than in 1952 when 12000 people died of smog related illnesses.
But it's all irrelevant really, we can't go back, we can't uninvent technology, we have to go forwards & hope that our intelligence will find a way. There has to be a way of overcoming the worlds problems because to do nothing isn't an option.
I'm optimistic, I think technology will save the world & everything that lives here.

You can't be sure that it will, I have to concede there's no way of going back, but how can you be sure it will all work out, the flip side is even more harm than we have already caused

Of course, you're absolutely right, I'm not completely sure of anything except dying. But I am optimistic. Technology isn't all bad. Some fantastic advances have been made in the medical field, communicating with people around the world compared with 30yrs ago is amazing, our ability to produce food & ship it around the world is phenomenal (even if the will to help poor nations doesn't match that ability).
Technology & our intelligence are our only hope. Who knows what fantastic advances are just around the corner.

There is a tendency among people nowadays to always look at the dark side of everything. To be suspicious of motives & actions. Think about this for a moment. When was the last time you met a really nasty person? I don't mean read about or saw on the TV, but actually met. By far most people I know are amiable, honest & helpful. I've worked on building sites for most of my adult life & the number of really ugly characters i've met can be counted on one hand.
I'm looking forward to retirement because of all the people I can meet & talk to & befriend.

there is a slight nuance here.

it's not that the new system stop wars, it just eliminated the some of the old reasons for wars.
in the past, when England, France, Germany or Russia (as a rising powers) wanted to expand their economy, they needed to get new resources, that meant going to war.
nowadays, the rising superpowers (China and India for example) has little to benefit from such a thing - since most of the resources are traded anyway, a reduction in that trade is more harmful to the economy then any possible gain from wars. so old style wars did end.

but economy isn't the only reason for war. there is no magic cure...

Work in a supermarket THEN you might understand what some are like.
I don't usually look on the dark side but I am sceptical on what technology is going to do for the world

You all seem to have dropped into ecology mode, rather than political world unification mode...or am I reading it all wrong?

when we look at world unification - we must ask who will lead it, and what model.
the US as world cop get so much heat and resentment, it will probably won't be able to lead
the UN didn't show any ability in solving current world problems,
and the EU don't have any benefit over both.
so in the near future I prefare the currrent situation over a more disfunctional one.

so for now - economy and ecology seems like the big issues that can be solved - so why not concentrate on that?
after all - they cause more casualties then anything else nowdays, with a very clowdy forcast.

One word the-Corporation!

Is take the step?

When people talk about "globalisation", I tend to think of "economic globalisation". And I think that ai21's right to imply a couple of posts back that globalisation would suddenly be a thing of the past if oil hit $300 or $400 a barrel, simply because it'd be too expensive to move stuff around the world. No more using cheap labour for cheaper products from China for example.

The point is that neo-liberal economics, from Thatcher to Brown, would have us believe that globalisation is a "force" out there, somewhere, that was happening to us, when in fact it's largely by neo-liberal economic thinking on free markets. And as far as that goes, I'm against globalisation, because I don't believe that neo-liberal economics is the answer to our economic problems.

As a footnote to this, I notice that one of the main vehicles for such economic thinking, the WTO talks recently failed again.



There's more than a grain of truth in this... if the homogenisation of cultures is happening, and it's here to stay, then I think we'd be losing something. But I'm not too sure to what extent that's actually happening among people... I'll have to think a little more on that.

I can't but help thinking that Globalisation (political) holds the key to it's own failure. Has there ever been an empire that didn't spend most of it's time and energy putting down rebelions, and basically just trying to keep the empire together?

I seem to keep bumping into the film series "Star Wars" whenever I think like that.

I know the Chinese kept everything together with their "Rice Empires", but that entailed letting whole regions just die, and even they became stagnant eventually.

I think isolationism is almost impossible these days. With technology advancing at the rate it is, it's very difficult to keep a lid on transgressions & is becoming harder to keep populations information poor. Globalisation seems to me to be an inevitable consequence of information technology.

So which do we all give up?...can you see a country like the USA saying I'm a "global citizen"...I don't salute that flag anymore. (meaning national identity is redundant)

I don't think anyone will say "I'm a global citizen". I don't think people will be conscious that things are changing. It will be a creeping thing. As technology advances, travel around the world will become more common. I've never worked anywhere but in the UK, but my son has worked in many countries around the world & has friends on almost every continent. My daughter has travelled the world also but not through work. All of these things will accelerate until eventually most national borders will become irrelevant.

The communist ideal achieved through Capitalism (one-nation earth).

That's the ideal that some "globalists" aspire to - but I'm not so sure that the trend will continue. The UK government - and others across Europe - are talking more in terms of tougher border controls, not less, with respect to most of the rest of the world that isn't part of the EU. And I doubt foreign travel will be anything like as popular once oil hits $300 a barrel, say. Foreign travel and international trade has been largely encouraged by relatively cheap oil in the last fifty to sixty years (that, and better technology that relies on oil products). As oil becomes progressively more expensive, the costs of business and travel will rise. And continue to rise.

The ultimate goal of Globalization is a one world Government and a one world market, in effect, a monopoly on both Politics and business, one group in charge of every thing, and then they will squeeze you till the pips squeak. The Goyim will have to beg for their very existence.

That's one definition.... not one I'd agree with, but it is a definition I suppose.

A globalisation story that may be of interest.