What is the problem with globalization?
- Thread starter Imalive
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2016
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 0
It would require world wide lobotomization.
Look at the wordsmith over here yall!
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 7,693
- Reaction score
- 443
Disapearance of cultures, traditions, languages and ways of living that have been existing since forever.
But this is not black or white. In the long term, globalization is inevitable, and it has some benefits but it needs to be controlled and regulated.
But this is not black or white. In the long term, globalization is inevitable, and it has some benefits but it needs to be controlled and regulated.
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 22,616
- Reaction score
- 0
it allegedly confirms biblical prophecy that christians dont want to come true/do want to come true?
as with any economic policy, there will be winners and losers. the would-be losers are complaining.
jewish conspiracy theories.
more trade equals more cultural diffusion. that means less homogenous culture and color which terrifies some.
there were winners and losers and the great silk road in the 10th century, as well. winners and losers to trade being opened up within the roman empire.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2015
- Messages
- 6,280
- Reaction score
- 0
As someone who has an almost fundamental respect for cultures as things in themselves that have an innate worth, my big issue with globalization is that it is pushed as a politicized agenda and not as an actual neutral global phenomenon where all cultures are valued. There is, without a doubt, a moral hierarchy of cultural value at work within globalization and it is politically motivated.
Globalization as it is isn't just some neutral spread of people around the globe and an even distribution of cultural influence - it's ridden with business interests for cheap labour, with notions of guilt over "cultural imperialism" and whatnot, with fingers pointed and certain cultures receiving a great deal of a sort of moral credit with others receiving a sort of moral deficit. This results in the morally credited cultures being allowed to domineer over the ones seen as morally culpable for the actions of generations which are long gone. As someone who looks back on imperialism as a global phenomenon and recognizes that it was a travesty against many cultures, I am appalled by this contemporary movement which is essentially an attack on the cultures which were previously behind the abhorrent imperialism. It is treated as a thinly veiled and vicious way to strike back and not a true push for any sort of global sharing of cultures - it's a "You hurt us, now we're going to hurt you!" with some cultures being on the receiving end, and others swinging for the fences trying to attack the other cultures. It is cultural warfare when it could be a truly beautiful and even handed sharing of cultural values.
The end result is a notion which should be a beautiful exchange of ideas is a political loaded strike back against the previous imperial powers. Globalism, in theory, is a wonderful thing. Globalism, as is, is nothing short of a politically loaded attack on the cultural groups that are, but especially that previously were, dominant. While this is only looking at one facet of this complex global event that is unfolding, it is definitely a big part of the push. The idea has been corrupted. The practice of this corrupted movement must be met with resistance to try and keep it on track to ever achieve the ideal of what it could be and not just let it turn into the next imperialism.
Globalization as it is isn't just some neutral spread of people around the globe and an even distribution of cultural influence - it's ridden with business interests for cheap labour, with notions of guilt over "cultural imperialism" and whatnot, with fingers pointed and certain cultures receiving a great deal of a sort of moral credit with others receiving a sort of moral deficit. This results in the morally credited cultures being allowed to domineer over the ones seen as morally culpable for the actions of generations which are long gone. As someone who looks back on imperialism as a global phenomenon and recognizes that it was a travesty against many cultures, I am appalled by this contemporary movement which is essentially an attack on the cultures which were previously behind the abhorrent imperialism. It is treated as a thinly veiled and vicious way to strike back and not a true push for any sort of global sharing of cultures - it's a "You hurt us, now we're going to hurt you!" with some cultures being on the receiving end, and others swinging for the fences trying to attack the other cultures. It is cultural warfare when it could be a truly beautiful and even handed sharing of cultural values.
The end result is a notion which should be a beautiful exchange of ideas is a political loaded strike back against the previous imperial powers. Globalism, in theory, is a wonderful thing. Globalism, as is, is nothing short of a politically loaded attack on the cultural groups that are, but especially that previously were, dominant. While this is only looking at one facet of this complex global event that is unfolding, it is definitely a big part of the push. The idea has been corrupted. The practice of this corrupted movement must be met with resistance to try and keep it on track to ever achieve the ideal of what it could be and not just let it turn into the next imperialism.
Have you ever worked on a group project? How well did it go? In my experience, usually 1 or 2 people do all the work and others either fuck it up or don't do anything. Now grow that group size by a million. What do you think happens?
There is a Utopian ideal that really doesn't exist in human nature. In general, humans are selfish creatures, and it benefits you to let others do the heavy lifting.
The more immediate problem is the fact jobs will go to the lowest bidder, the obvious being developing 3rd world countries or those with billions of people needing work.
Wrong.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2015
- Messages
- 7,708
- Reaction score
- 0
Culture has no value if it serves to divide us. Carrying capacity will force us at act as one organism, or destroy our host and our future.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 33,640
- Reaction score
- 2,459
Jews or something?
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 49,607
- Reaction score
- 12,418
Because that isn't ever going to happen. Ever. Its a utopian pipe dream.
Humanity can't get along, open a history book or even just look across the globe today.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- 1,345
The process of globalization has kill a shit load of people.
When in history has the human species had anything as close to the Internet to stay connected globally?
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2015
- Messages
- 7,708
- Reaction score
- 0
Not even close to enough.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 18,290
- Reaction score
- 4,185
Among other things it creates a multinational class of elites who hold enormous sway over governments who are entirely unelected. That's not to say that there are no benifits to globalization but a reasonable amount of nationalism is a legitimate protective measure against potential abuse.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 0
Nothing is wrong with it. It is the inevitable future and people are afraid of change
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 49,607
- Reaction score
- 12,418
Listen it depends on what you are characterizing as globalization. If we are talking about the globalization of business, its already happened and is happening, but I don't think that is what you are talking about. You must be talking about the one world government, like the U.N. being the ruling body of Earth. In that case you have serious problems because we have massive divides in opinion on what the globe should look like.
How are you going to deal with the entire middle east who most assuredly will not go along with this? I mean I guess you could make Allah the supreme being of Earth and institute sharia law globally and they would go along with it but short of that you have a serious problem bringing them into the fold because they don't play that. Submit to Allah or die is their motto. Then you have states like North Korea who will never go along with something like that and they are nuclear capable.
You are also probably going to need a second civil war in the U.S. to settle it because anything that undermines the sovereignty of America is treason and treason is punishable by death.
R
ripskater
Guest
The problem is that Americans would lose our constitutional rights. The World's leaders would want to fundamentally change America.
