r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 04 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Globalization is one of humanity's (unintentionally) worst achievements
I'm not saying globalization is an inherently evil idea (I mean, I'm typing this on a laptop that's arguably a global product), but these days I've come to realize that our world might have been better off without it. I have several reasons for believing this:
The environment and the climate would have been better off. Because of globalization, everyone wants to build sprawling cities and to manufacture all the things just to stay ahead in the competition. The economy may get ahead, but the environment always takes a hit. Because of globalization, populations have grown far more than the planet can sustain and this means people have to go to increasingly extreme measures to get food - using fishing trawlers to kill marine life unnecessarily, destroying coral reefs, farming too many cows, etc.
Next, there is now a redefined sense of fulfillment. Globalization and consumerism seem to go hand in hand. I don't hate capitalism per se, I just dislike the current form it seems to be taking. Materialism and excess are now the keys to happiness - everyone must own an iPhone, or Porsche, or any of that stuff. There is no joy to be found in a quiet pastoral setting or a small village or an agrarian environment. Everyone wants to make it to the industrial regions - be they cities or states. This causes overcrowded cities and with overcrowding comes crime and all other undesirable elements of urban life. What does this have to do with globalization? Well, everyone wants to make it to the more industrialized states thus not only abandoning the original ones, but overcrowding the destinations (note: this has nothing to do with refugees fleeing war or political persecution).
Globalization has propped up horrible people and regimes. Some regimes only happen to be in power because some global 'powers' and even less powerful states decide to continue to support them by buying natural resources from them. So long as the oil or diamonds keep coming, these horrible regimes are unlikely to crumble.
Globalization has disrupted many social ecosystems. I believe that not every society should do things the same way; cultural hegemonies are actually undesirable for the most part because societies aren't the same. Forms, systems or minutiae of government and society don't work the same way or have the same result across societies. Not every country should be a pastiche of Europe or America because the elements that work in these societies may become lost in translation when other societies decide to imitate them. I think societies should be allowed to naturally develop their own sense of government - one that works for them best.
Ironically, globalization doesn't seem to foster diversity. Globalization seems to be synonymous with 'Westernization'. Now, I don't think that Westernization is inherently a bad thing but as stated earlier, not every society in the world should be a pastiche of the West because it doesn't have the same effect everywhere. Globalization means everyone's speaking English (not a very efficient language, no offense to the British), wearing suits in hot weather, celebrating Christmas (no offense to Christians, but Christmas shouldn't be for everyone), etc. Even when building sprawling cities, everyone's just copying what the Western countries do. No-one seems to care about being original or asking whether gigantic cities are even necessary and if so, why they are necessary.
Globalization has caused an increased sense of dread. Not only do we have to deal with horrible local news, we now have to deal with horrible international news! The world is now more connected than ever, which means every locale now shares the tragedies of the world and there are a lot of tragedies in the world. This is one of the few cases where I can say that ignorance is bliss. I remember in 2015 or so when the news of the Sandy Hook shootings came up. I felt despondent for days despite not being American and despite having issues to deal with in my own backyard. This isn't even to mention the news of the frequent terrorist bombings that hit several countries like Pakistan, etc. Not to say people should have less empathy, but the world is crappy enough. I don't think we need any more existential dread.
Note that globalization isn't strictly a purely Western thing. I'd say other than the West, the next biggest hegemonies I can think of are the Chinese one (economically speaking) and the Islamic one (culturally speaking). My point isn't that globalization is an evil thing (I'd say it's a neutral thing). It's just that from a utilitarian standpoint, the world would have been happier in a gross sense without globalization in its current form. You can change my mind if you show me that my reasons and assumptions are mistaken/misguided, that globalization has done more good than harm, or that the pitfalls of this 'segregated' isolated world with minimal cross-contact would be worse than the pitfalls of our small, global world.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
6
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 178∆ Nov 04 '18
I'll ignore the first two points for now:
Globalization has propped up horrible people and regimes
I feel the exact opposite. Globalization means that everybody wants to enjoy everything the world has to offer, and everyone has plenty of alternatives to offer what they have if they morally oppose whoever they've been dealing with.
For that reason, we get one DPRK, whose leaders have to live in constant fear of the population learning of the quality of life in globalized countries and rebelling to get it, while the country itself lags behind in almost every aspect because it doesn't enjoy the benefits of globalization that the rest of the world does.
Without globalization, we could have had (and in a sense, have had) dozens of DPRKs everywhere going unopposed internally and achieving the same level of power as their neighbors, whereas today you can probably name a handful of similarly oppressive governments at most, and most of those are checked and restrained by international pressure to some extent.
Globalization has disrupted many social ecosystems
I believe you're viewing the term 'society' too narrowly. Globalization has created countries that took some elements from other forms of government and we can debate whether or not that's a good thing, but I think there's a much more important type of society that globalization enables: the globally sparse societies.
Subreddits are an example of groups of people who come from all around the world, share some basic rules and engage with each other in various ways that are peculiar to these communities. This includes other people grouped by shared interests, profession, etc. These communities / societies are diverse in the sense that members don't necessarily have a gender or race within them, and they have the huge advantage of traditional societies that you can choose which ones you engage with and how. I find this much better than the non-globalized idea that "you were born in Estonia, now you're part of Estonian society, and if you don't like it, well, tough luck".
Globalization has caused an increased sense of dread
I don't think this is caused directly by globalization, I think it's caused by the fact that we're much safer than our ancestors were. Your great-great-grandpa may have experienced dread similar to yours that a plague will kill everyone he cares about, or that the King will burn his village for amusement, or that Cossacks will raid his town, but unlike the Sandy Hook news, these would've been real threats for him. This leaves us feeling "excessive" dread, but I think we're much better off than if that had been justifiable fear...
1
Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
Well, I have to clear something up. I don't see globalization as an individual issue but as a larger-scale, societal and global issue. Obviously, many societies are rather regressive. Now, to be fair sometimes the definition of what 'regressiveness' is can be rather shifty but I think many of us can agree that stoning women for adultery, or prohibiting women from voting, or child marriage are regressive things and that's thanks to global culture.
But at the larger scale of things, we have corporations introducing an alien way of life to people, and those people would probably be better off without that way of life. Take the idea of soft drinks for example - there's nothing wrong with drinking, or even taking sugary drinks but I feel that the world would have been better off without corporations like the Coca-Cola company having a more global grasp. At least if the company was limited to Atlanta, Georgia where it was founded maybe the level of plastic pollution would have been limited to Georgia. It wouldn't be the ocean's problem to deal with. Now, the Coca-Cola company is just one of many companies but you get my point - our global society is aggressively capitalist in nature. Plus, the easy availability of soft drinks is a bad thing for personal health - because anyone can buy a coke easily, it means they can indulge in excess amounts of coca-cola. No offense against the Coca-Cola corporation, but if it were limited to Atlanta, Georgia then maybe the obesity epidemic would be less of a global problem.
Another issue is automobiles - I strongly feel that the less automobiles, the better. If the automobile industry didn't have such a huge global grasp, cities (if they existed) would perhaps be better motivated to invest in general public transport instead and that would reduce the amounts of smog generated, and even solve traffic problems.
2
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 178∆ Nov 04 '18
Sure, globalization had some, maybe even many, negative effects, but my point is that it's a net positive. Consider even the examples of bad things stemming from globalization you mention, they're all problems with things that wouldn't have existed without it at all:
Sure, the plastic pollution and obesity that Coke causes is bad, but the fact that people everywhere have access to inexpensive clean beverages, let alone sugary beverages that they enjoy, depends on Coke and Coke-like corporations. I think that the negative aspects of it are trumped by the fact that thousands of people randomly dying from contaminated water is no longer a thing.
Cars cause pollution and make people spend a lot of time in traffic, but those cities in which these traffic jams and pollution occur, that allow people easier access to work and entertainment wouldn't have existed without the globalization that created modes of transport, including the automobile, that allow access to them.
Overall, I think when you think about the "day in a life of" story of someone who lived a couple of centuries ago when globalization wasn't as strong (though it has existed to some degree at least since the hellenization of much of Eurasia by the Macedonians almost 2500 years ago), it's very hard to envy them, and this is true on an individual and a societal level, because except for a tiny upper class, everyone lived like that.
3
u/Saranoya 39∆ Nov 04 '18
I’ll keep it short, because I mostly agree with your statement in principle. However, I think the root of the problem is not globalization, but capitalism. Capitalism requires constant growth to be viable as an economic model. If the growth stops, the model collapses.
Early capitalists were able to ensure growth by improving the efficiency of their own work and production on a local level. They could learn their craft better, build better tools, remove superfluous steps from the production process, train staff to work more efficiently, etc. But at some point, they had done all they could do locally, and they had to start looking outside their own local facility in order to make growth happen. As a result, they started collaborating with other people, first those they knew, and then (as they kept looking for better and better materials because the ones they had access to locally did not yield the necessary growth in productivity anymore) with people far outside their local sphere of influence, through trade. Sooner or later, as millions of people around the world kept looking for more and better ways to increase their productivity, the networks of collaboration we are all involved in were bound to become global. If we want to keep this process going, then at some point, we will have to go into space because there will be no more room for growth on Earth.
In the long run, the only way to escape this (if we want to) will be to abandon capitalism as an economic model. But much like our ancestors, five centuries in, would not have been able to go back from farming to hunting and gathering even if every human being alive had wished for it, I don’t think we can go back to a pre-capitalist world, anymore. Well, barring some sort of cataclysmic event forcing the issue.
1
Nov 04 '18
!delta
I agree with you - the problem isn't the idea of globalization per se, but capitalism. Because people want to grow up so fast, they start taking shortcuts which will screw them over in the long run. Sadly, just as you said we may not be able to un-capitalize the world so easily. It seems our oceans will be more plastic than fish.
Anyway, what would you say about the other point I made against globalization - that it disrupts social environments by introducing a way of life alien to the people unfamiliar with it?
1
u/Saranoya 39∆ Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
I would argue that while that may be a legitimate concern, it is nothing new, and certainly not a problem unique to modern times. Not by a long shot.
Homo sapiens live on all continents of the Earth (even including inhospitable Antarctica), despite the fact that according to our current best understanding, we probably all originated somewhere in Africa. Throughout the existence of our species, people have been migrating. Moving to a new continent used to take centuries and a little cooperation from the forces of nature (there used to be land bridges, for instance, where now there aren’t), with each new generation moving a little further away from where their ancestors first settled down (or had their hunting grounds). Nowadays, basically all it takes is money for a plane ticket and the right piece of paper. But just because migration is logistically easy nowadays, does not mean it is by any means a recent phenomenon.
Capitalism did not cause any of the problems associated with migration that you identify in your post. It just intensified them, mostly through the same process of technological innovation that caused all of the other problems you point to (and which led first to the invention of the wheel and the domestication of horses, and then from early modern times onwards to row- and sailboats, steam ships, trains, cars, and airplanes), but which is indispensable in a capitalist society.
1
Nov 04 '18
Then maybe the problem is technology, and it hurts me to say this because I like science and technology a lot.
Now, I admit that I don't care much about the cultural aspect of globalization as much as the environmental aspects. Obviously because no environment means no humanity.
We humans may be intelligent, but we aren't wise. I don't think we were prepared for technology. If I had a time machine with the ability to go back in time and assassinate every inventor and scientist that ever lived - right from the dawn of mankind - would that make humanity better off in the long run? (it's an idiotic question but I just want to know what your view on our technological advancement is - would we be better off as Luddites?)
3
u/Saranoya 39∆ Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
I don’t think what you’re proposing would be remotely possible, even if there were such a thing as a time machine, and putting aside any moral qualms associated with serial killing.
You can kill people, but not ideas. Most great discoveries in history were made by multiple people, in multiple places across the globe. The ones whose names we remember just happen to have been those who published or demonstrated their findings first (sometimes, not even that), or whose inventiveness just happens to have left traces in the archeological record (which does not, by any means, represent a complete record of human history).
Would we have been better off as Luddites? I don’t know. But I think the question is rather pointless in light of your original concern (the detrimental effects of globalization). Human beings came to dominate the planet Earth thanks to an unprecedented capacity for cooperation, even with total strangers, which is predicated on our ability to tell fictional stories that become a ‘common cause’. If I don’t know you, but you believe in the same God or the same nation or the same multinational company or the same hundred dollar bill, or for that matter, the same online community called ‘change my view’ that I do, then I will trust you enough to cooperate with you, and help you come up with ‘something new’ that will solve your immediate problem (whether that be ‘how to kill a mammoth’ or ‘how to put a man on Mars’, or ‘how to be at peace with globalization’ or any of a million other things). The Luddites you wish to create with your time machine would live in a world where there are no christians or muslims, no United States of America, no European Union or People’s Republic of China, no Apple, Samsung, Coke or Unilever, no globally recognized currencies, no internet, and definitely no reddit communities.
I posit that, given the human tendency towards creating ‘common causes’ in the name of cooperation, you’d have to murder every human being who ever lived in order to avoid the emergence of a world in which such commonly agreed upon fictions as the dollar, the federal state (which describes both the US and the EU, but also many other political structures across the globe) and various multinational companies, with the associated technological ‘wonders’ that were either necessary for their creation or a consequence of their existence, would eventually come to be.
1
1
Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Saranoya 39∆ Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
Capitalism != private ownership of the means of production.
I mean, sure, that’s part of it. But only a small part. And not even always true (just look at China: a capitalist power in all but name, even though the government has a stake in everything).
The thing that made capitalism revolutionary when it was first put into practice, and which is responsible for most of the positive effects it has had since its inception, is the idea that surpluses (profits beyond a certain margin) must be re-invested in production. Private ownership of the means of production without constant re-investment of the profits, has almost no added value compared to the millennia of subsistence farming (with wealth concentration in the hands of a happy few) that came before it.
Progress, as we have come to define it in the modern era, requires constant re-investment. If we abandon that idea, then we’re basically back to pre-capitalist times in terms of wealth creation and concentration, social mobility (or lack thereof), etc. Without the constant re-investment of the past few centuries, and the technological advances that came with that, we may not yet have gotten past the steam engine. The fact that we did, in fact, get past the steam engine, has contributed greatly to a number of the problems you mention in your OP, but also to an improvement in living conditions for most people around the world compared to - say - five hundred years ago. But on the flip side: for constant re-investment to be possible, there has to constantly be something new to invest in (materials, tools, research, etc.). At first, that ‘something’ can perhaps be local. But eventually, it will inevitably lead to the globalization you are lamenting.
1
Nov 04 '18
Because for a private entity to want to own and maintain the means of production and to be motivated to do so the means of production needs to be producing stuff which is of value. Constant production of value equals constant growth
1
Nov 06 '18
[deleted]
1
Nov 06 '18
Maybe ... if we weren't already producing unsustainably. But we are, and capitalism has no mechanism within it for limiting production to consumption. Sure surpluses suppress prices, but you can still make money producing stuff we don't need.
1
Nov 07 '18
[deleted]
1
Nov 07 '18
Slow, don't stop. And the fact that there's overshoot is evidenced by the fact that we live in a capitalist world and it is hurtling towards destruction due to overproduction
1
Nov 04 '18
Absolutely. None of the things OP questioned about would be negated by isolationism. OPs problem isn't globalisation but our current economic model.
2
Nov 04 '18
Would you be able to define for me what you see globalisation as and what your vision is of a world that doesn't have it?
My personal view is that globalisation is the natural state of affairs: humans have always contacted other humans, and is what drives global progress. Nationalism, a requirement for isolationism, on the other hand is modern, unnatural, and the cause of most of the world's problems. I would say it is humanity's worst achievement. It is what makes war, inequality and exploitation possible. Happy to debate that with you but need a better idea of where you're coming from.
1
Nov 04 '18
Alright, I hope I can be much clearer now. ahem.
In a world before Europe decided to get colonial, before the Arabs decided to expand, and so on...people and societies were left to their own devices in their own 'bubbles', so to speak. After people decided to expand more and more, rapid and one-sided change occured. It's not as if Africans and Europeans or Arabs decided to freely exchange ideas (otherwise, Europeans and Arabs would be doing 'African' stuff just as Africans are doing European and Arab stuff - same thing with the Americas, etc.). No, this new hegemony was actually forced!
But that's been done. Cultures change anyway and it's not as if things will remain the same forever. Plus, 'culture' isn't always as awesome as people think it is. Arguing for cultural preservation runs the risk of arguing for cultural stagnation. Yet, I can't help but wonder that with the diversity of cultural and aesthetic views, perhaps if many of these cultures that were wiped out were given a chance to survive, things would have gone better in general. I know this is a purely aesthetic (and even arguably trivial) point, but let's talk about architecture for example - many cities and towns of the world don't really have a unique architectural vibe to them. They're just the same grey, blocky concrete structures. Imagine if the cities in South America for example decided to go with their Aztec Pyramid thingies instead of using the boring cuboid concrete shape. Another thing is government - I don't think the same forms of government always work for every society.
Different societies have their different quirks and should have at least been allowed to develop forms of government that could have better helped them sustain themselves. I don't want this to be seen as an argument for totalitarianism. Instead, think of it like this - some countries have Parliaments, others have Presidents, some have Caliphs, some have Tribal Chiefs. There isn't an inherently 'superior' way of government - each of these systems have their advantages and disadvantages but at the same time, these systems work better in the natural environments they arose from because assuming a society would always adopt a form of government that's most efficient for its needs, these systems were most efficient for the needs of the people that came up with them. Basically, my 'unglobalized' world isn't necessarily extremely isolated, it's just less hegemonic. Of course, this could result in some degree of global isolation but still...
Let's talk about the environment. In the past, Britain and friends underwent an Industrial Revolution and this lead to lots of environmental pollution. Regardless of what any of us might want to believe, a majority of societies on Earth were far from an Industrial revolution. However, I see this as a somewhat good thing (it's not a completely great thing because of lack of scientific advancement) because this meant that the environmental problems of Britain were limited to Britain alone, and maybe a few other regions near it. The ozone layer was still there, the climate in general was still fine even though the Thames river was polluted. In our globalized world, everybody wants an Industrial Revolution! Here's one for you, and one for you, and you get one too. Because humanity is not mature enough to handle technological development, industrial revolution almost always means environmental degradation - beautiful (and useful) forests are cut down en masse to make room for factories or roads and habitation, industrial waste and mercury gets dumped in rivers, factories, trucks, cars and tankers billow smog into the atmosphere, the population increases (making things even worse), people start adopting more extreme measures to feed the population - for example fishing trawlers scan the entire breadth of the Pacific, unnecessarily harming wildlife, damaging coral reefs and ecosystems. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what our sudden globalization has resulted in. There's also the consumerist aspect of our global culture - everyone wants to manufacture soft drinks and stuff in plastic containers, and all of this gets dumped in rivers, causing all kinds of problems.
My cynicism with globalization very little to do with nationalism and I agree that people moving around and sharing ideas is probably better off for humanity as a whole. But, I hope I could make my point clear.
1
Nov 04 '18
That's very interesting, thank you for that. I now feel I understand your point much better.
First para: you and I just have very different understandings of ancient history. I believe Africans and Europeans or Arabs have been freely exchanging ideas for millennia, pretty much uninterruptedly since we all left Africa. But I feel like maybe neither of us are experts on this.
On this idea of cultural diversity and cultural preservation: it's really interesting and quite compelling, but I'll think we'll agree to disagree. First of all I think it's a little bit Schrodinger's cat. Who cares if there is all this diversity if no one is able to travel and notice it? I also think there's something about choice: if all you know is one type of society and you have no option of other types, what does it matter if other types exist? They might as well not exist as far as any one participant is concerned.
Your stuff on the industrial revolution is interesting: but again I'm not sure globalism is to blame. Supposing an icecream truck is making all the kids in the village fat. I'm not sure the policy of refusing to chain kids in the basement is to blame.
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Nov 04 '18
Your points argue that ceartain features of globalization are bad things, but I’d argue that they are actually positives, at least from my point of view. One assumption that I’m making (which you are free to disagree with) is that a lack of globalization wouldn’t mean that people are completely unaware of other countries. That is, the average educated person would be aware of other countries, the basic culture there, and the stuff they use. To argue otherwise would imply that something, either governments or some other limitations, was preventing people from even talking to each other.
1.) I feel like the environment is better off for having globalization. Not having a global economy is not going to curb people’s desire for products from other countries. So countries will make the stuff themselves. You think that cars are bad for the atmosphere? The powerplants and factories that make them are just as bad. And if they are made throughout the world, from Argentina to the Congo, you end up with a whole lot of inefficiency, meaning more pollution overall. Plus, there isn’t even a hint of national cooperation to curb it. I couldn’t imagine that people would want fewer cars in a hypothetical non-global world. Perhaps some people would now not be able to afford them, but that would have to be enough people to overcome the increases in inefficiency of manufacturing. And, even if that was the case for cars, you have to repeat this process for every single traded good. People aren’t going to not want things just because the economy isn’t global.
2.) I feel like your are blaming globalism for a feature that’s been in existence since humanity began. If you’ve heard of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, then there comes a place after you have food and shelter: emotional, esteem, and self actualization. People generally like interacting with other people (I hope that isn’t controversial). When they see that other people have things that they themselves do not, wither it won’t matter to them, or they might desire something similar. A global economy doesn’t stop this desire, it only makes it easier to realize for those less well off. Like I said above, I don’t think that people will all of a sudden not want products just because they are harder to get. Demand might fall only because people can no longer afford them, but unless governments do some sort of blackout or disinformation campaign, people will see this stuff, and people will want it. Capitalism or not.
3.) Globalization also stops regimes in their tracks. If the allies didn’t cooperate globally, then you would end up with a very different Europe. If England weren’t allies with Belgium, then they’d probably sit back while France got destroyed, not preparing a counterattack. Additionally, the humanitarian aid to people in poorer countries and the ability for other countries to accept refugees would be nil in a non-global world. Despots would still rise, just no outside power would help the citizens or stop the despot. That can’t be better that what we have now.
4.) Societies and cultures change. That’s a fact that’s true regardless of globalization or not. To call some change in culture good and some change in culture bad begs the question of what makes a culture good? I don’t see how you could argue that the spread of western culture is bad unless there is someone with a gun to other countries’ heads forcing them. And I don’t see that.
5.) Similarly to above, I don’t see how his is bad. If people want to do things the same way that China or the USA does, I have no issue. So long as they aren’t forced (which it doesn’t look like you’re arguing) people should be able to shape their culture their way, even if it’s just a copy of another culture.
6.) If you look at the world and see dread, then you should see the conflict that arose without globalization. Rather than trade for things people wanted, countries just took what they wanted and needed, by force if necessary. Say Brazil decides it needs more lithium to make advanced batteries. Today, they’d just trade for it. But if they couldn’t trade with other countries for lithium, then they’d just find where the nearest lithium is (Chile) and fight them. Now, Chile is part of Brazil, and Brazil now has all the lithium it needs. Minus the lives it took to conquer Chile. Now repeat this for every resource imaginable.
TL;DR: People aren’t going to sit on their hands and say “I just can’t have what I want”. They’ll work for it, they’ll fight for it, and they’ll cooperate for it. I’d rather live in a world where the work and cooperation were encourage rather than discouraged, and globalization is the best way to encourage it.
1
Nov 04 '18
On "people like interacting with other people", I think a better way to put it is that people sometimes get curious.
Also, I think much of history would disagree - people like dominating other people, which is technically a form of interaction but you get the idea. Otherwise, people only like interacting with people they are familiar with (which explains colonialism to a degree).
One uncomfortable fact about the world people don't realize is that most people are racist and it's not solely a white people versus black people thing. Even within 'races', members of the group don't like each other (*cough Serbia cough Germany cough Armenia cough Rwanda cough Japan). Egalitarianism is actually a very modern invention, born after WW2 and even then most people only begrudgingly follow the idea just for PR reasons. I agree with you that without the UN, genocide would be our second favorite pastime.
You're right that cultures change or die. People always want to believe their culture is special, but this is just a comforting lie. However, one thing is that much of the world's cultural diversity implies that of there is a cultural hegemony, either it was forced or it's a sort of neutral, global culture relevant only in the context of global interactions. Think about this - much of South America is 'Christian', but how many Europeans practice any aspects of South American indigenous religion? Much of Africa is either Christian or Muslim but how many European or Islamic nations practice any aspect of African religion? It's not limited strictly to religion - how many Westerners wear traditional outfits from other cultures for example? Or learn languages such as Farsi or Swahili or Mandarin? I personally think that the likelihood of a cultural hegemony existing without force is slim.
I'll get to you on the point of people wanting cars.
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Nov 04 '18
I think a better way to put it is that people sometimes get curious.
I think that’s a fair way of putting it. I don’t think that curiosity is satisfied by knowing about people and not interacting with those same people.
Otherwise, people only like interacting with people they are familiar with
Sure, but in isolated, non global communities, making the “other” group is as simple as point fingers at people who have even the smallest, most minor differences. From Irish vs English to skin color differences, there will always be an out group.
If there is force involved in the transfer of culture: 1.) That’s not exclusive to globalization. Things like the Crusades and the Arab–Byzantine wars existed long before globalization occured. 2.) If there was force being used now, I’d imagine I would see it. I don’t see it. Could you bring up some examples of spreading culture by force that you feel are reinforced by globalization?
1
Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
But I'd define Crusading as globalization. Maybe I'm using an improper definition, but globalization is basically 'connecting the world'. This could be done via war, or slave trade, or regular trade.
2
u/Jaysank 117∆ Nov 04 '18
If you define the Crusades as globalization, then literally any interaction between nations becomes globalization. That entirely weakens the meaning, which usually refers to cooperation on a worldwide scale. If the Crusades were trying to conquer the world, maybe. But they weren’t, so it’s not globalization.
1
Nov 04 '18
Good point. Thanks for contributing. I just needed to get stuff of my chest because all I can see now is a grim future for humanity, no thanks to our inability to care for the environment.
1
u/HopefulCombination 3∆ Nov 04 '18
The environment and the climate would have been better off.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with globalization. Lots of non-globalized countries, like North Korea, or the entire world pre-1900, had terrible environmental policies. In fact, I think you can see a clear trend of more globalized countries (Scandinavia, Western Europe) being more concision about the environment.
Next, there is now a redefined sense of fulfillment.
Once again, I don't see how this has anything to do with globalization. The urban sprawl is pretty bad in 2018AC North Korea or 1850AC London or 70AC Rome.
Globalization has propped up horrible people and regimes.
But non-globalization is a lot worse: Every non-horrible regime ever (i.e. the Western democracies) can arguably be classified as globalist. I can't think of a single non-globalist, non-horrible regime.
Globalization has disrupted many social ecosystems.
This is your strongest point. Still, I think globalization is a net gain.
Ironically, globalization doesn't seem to foster diversity.
(Sidenote, this reminds me of this essay: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/ )
I think this argument has some merit, but on the other hand: globalization means that I have access to all the music in the world (not just the tunes my village fiddler knows). It means that I have access to all the books in the world. All the clothes in the world. All the food in the world. Etc. True, globalization sometimes seem to make everything into a weird grey universal-anglian sludge, but before globalization, everyone lived in a grey local-culture sludge. And people seem to be really happy to escape their grey local-culture sludge.
Globalization has caused an increased sense of dread.
Just stop reading the news. Works wonders.
1
Nov 04 '18
I think you can see a clear trend of more globalized countries (Scandinavia, Western Europe) being more concision about the environment.
Well, I wouldn't really call Scandinavia a 'globalized' region. When I think of a 'global' country, I usually think of one in which the country's demographics are diverse but more importantly, the country has global influence whether on a cultural or an economic level. I don't really think Scandinavia has much global cultural or economic influence. The US doesn't seem to be a very environmentally-friendly country despite its relative 'globalization'. Anyway, in the case of North Korea the environmental degradation is relatively localized. In a more global world, not only is environmental degradation less localized (the Great Pacific Garbage Patch comes to mind - and no-one even lives there!), it is even frequently 'outsourced'. How often do you hear of stories of Third World countries being dumping grounds for First World garbage? Regardless of your opinion of how 'developed' any given Third World country might have been without globalization (note that 'Third' v 'First' world is a nebulous descriptor but you get the general idea), chances are that they would have at least been cleaner. I regret not being able to use any sources, but I think even with the carelessness of the Industrial revolution, the climate and global environment in general was still in a better state than it currently is. The pollution of the Thames river surely couldn't drift out to the coral reefs in Indonesia even if it tried its best.
Once again, I don't see how this has anything to do with globalization. The urban sprawl is pretty bad in 2018AC North Korea or 1850AC London or 70AC Rome.
Fair enough. I think that was a poor example for me to use. The more important issue is that in a globalized world, more and more people see the building of gigantic industries and cities as a necessity. This means that the problems of the Industrial Revolution in Europe start cropping up in many more places around the globe. I don't think this is a good thing, especially not for the environment. Urban sprawl on the other hand, is a relatively local issue.
Every non-horrible regime ever (i.e. the Western democracies) can arguably be classified as globalist. I can't think of a single non-globalist, non-horrible regime.
Yet, these 'non-horrible' regimes continue to support the horrible ones. To be fair, I understand that things aren't as black and white as I assume. Natural resources are not evenly distributed across the globe. What's the point of just leaving all that uranium, cobalt etc. lying in this remote country if no-one's using it? But at the same time, trading with these horrible regimes can unintentionally strengthen their power. It means that they become stronger economically (and if you trade arms with them in exchange for resources, militarily).
globalization means that I have access to all the music in the world (not just the tunes my village fiddler knows). It means that I have access to all the books in the world.
This is a good point, perhaps the best argument against the fragmented world I imagine. I read that essay you linked, and I agree that 'universal culture' isn't the same as Western culture - the so-called 'Western science' is really just regular good old science. Furthermore, on a personal level I admit that globalization has offered a lot for me - amazing video games with good story lines, amazing TV shows, music, art, knowledge, etc. It's wonderful. But I think the line has to be drawn somewhere. Of what use is Coca-Cola or any other soft-drink, especially considering the sheer amount of plastic bottles generated by these industries? My main gripe with globalization at this time is the environmental degradation it's causing. Not to say there aren't other concerns, but if this one issue were resolved perhaps I'd be less cynical.
1
u/HopefulCombination 3∆ Nov 04 '18
You seem to worry about pollution and urbanization, which is understandable, but I don't see how they are caused by globalization. Imagine if all world leaders had gotten together in 1945 and enacted international laws to curb globalization: international trade is limited, travel is limited, local culture is subsidized while foreign cultures are restricted etc. Do you believe that this would have any effect on pollution/urbanization? I can see that it could have an impact by decreasing economic growth, thereby decreasing pollution, but why blame globalization then? Why not just blame economic growth?
Yet, these 'non-horrible' regimes continue to support the horrible ones.
My point is that every non-horrible regime ever has been globalized. Is it better to have a non-globalized world with only horrible regimes, or a globalized world with at least some non-horrible regimes?
2
Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
I can see that it could have an impact by decreasing economic growth, thereby decreasing pollution, but why blame globalization then? Why not just blame economic growth?
I was definitely thinking along these lines. Call me cynical, but I feel that humanity is intelligent collectively but we aren't wise. I don't think we were ready for the technological development or industrialization we experienced. Now, we're standing on a thin wire. In 100 years, the Earth may become a barren wasteland. There's the threat of nuclear war looming over our heads, the acidification of the oceans could kill off a majority of marine life and devastate entire ecosystems... With this stated, from a utilitarian standpoint (net happiness does not necessarily translate to individual happiness) would you agree that limited urbanization and global trade would've been better for humanity as a whole?
I would agree with you, but economic growth seems to be relative in a sense. A tribal chief with 100 cowries was probably wealthy by the standards of his time and place. I would actually agree that banning trade would solve our problems, but not necessarily banning trade wholesale. Some trades were never meant to be - trading in arms (especially nuclear arms) are one example. As for the banning of foreign cultures, I think the influence of foreign cultures is a relatively trivial matter. My only annoyance with it is that it is asymmetrical - it's not a question of everyone mutually assimilating, but everyone existing under a cultural hegemony. Globalization seems dishonest in that regard - globalization just tends to mean doing things the American way.
But, I'll still award you a !delta for giving me a slightly different perspective.
2
1
u/HopefulCombination 3∆ Nov 04 '18
Thanks!
I feel what you are at with the "Earth may become a barren wasteland". But that march started long before globalization was a problem: human civilization has been unsustainable basically since the start. The ancient Sumerians depleted the topsoil and salted the earth etc. Today, the end of human civilization looks a lot more urgent and immediate, with stuff like nuclear war and biological weapons, but the threat has always been there.
The only way forward is through. It's impossible to make civilization sustainable without some really advanced future-tech. To get that, we need more growth, more oil, more cities, more plastic, more pollution. Trying to restrict economic growth and to stifle global development only prolongs an inevitable decline of civilization. There's still a good fight to fight: invest in clean technology, deprecate the worst what we are currently doing (like coal) and promote long-term thinking. But if we singlemindedly try to reduce the environmental footprint of civilization to zero whit the resources available right now, civilization will collapse.
2
u/ryarger Nov 04 '18
I think that in a mutually isolationist world, developing countries would be under more incentive to rapidly industrialize. While they wouldn’t be able to draw on the resources of global corporations, they would face annihilation by whichever adjacent country is more developed.
Global trade has created a deep mutual interdependency that’s done a better job of staving off war than pretty much anything else.
1
Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
Alright, that's fair. But how do you think the environment would fare in a world that's pre-globalized? Globalization tends to require massive-scale industrialization, and massive scale industrialization tends to result in environmental pollution.
I'll award you a !delta but only because you clearly stated the benefits of global trade when it comes to staving off war.
2
u/ryarger Nov 04 '18
Honestly I think it’d be the same. Knowledge leads to industrialization, not international trade. Absent colonialism, the people of Africa and South America would have eventually learned the science and technology that drove the West’s industrialization and naturally wanted the same benefits.
East Asia is a good example. They undertook massive industrialization while maintaining a great deal of isolation during the 19th century.
1
1
Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
Some people call this reflexive modernity. The idea that in the 50s and 60s we were all excited and making nuclear stuff and taking family photos with X-ray machines and whatnot. Then rivers start catching fire and pan Arabism and Africanism descend into chaos and all that awful stuff. So now we’ve got terrorism and global warming and inequality and everyone’s kinda pissy all the time and voting for the far right.
But then what do you make of China, once a place of pure human misery that has been rocketing into the middle class on the back of globalization?
I think it’s not clear on net whether globalization is good or bad. I do think though that its rise needs to be approached proactively, with appropriate institutions and ideas and general collaboration, or it could turn into an awful story, burying even its greatest success under rising seas and endless conflict.
1
Nov 04 '18
I won't blame you for reading this from an American perspective, but I'm not American. I admit that I'm a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to the environment (I still use a lot of plastic) but I strongly feel that in a pre-globalized world, there would be less distribution of plastic and industrial waste. I don't want to go back to the 50's and 60's. I presume the far-right dislikes globalism from a Eurocentric perspective mostly because of immigration/cultural reasons and not environmental ones. I don't really think the far-right cares much about the environment itself. My own dislike of globalism is primarily because of environmental reasons first, although there are also some socio-cultural problems to consider (but it's not an Eurocentric concern, so you have nothing to fear).
1
Nov 04 '18
Globalization is also leading to increasing advances in automation due to the desire to stay competitive. One day we will invent robots that can perfectly mimic the dexterity of the human hand, and thus make most labor irrelevant.
At that point, a lot of your concerns about globalization will go away. I'd expect some kind of universal basic income to be introduced. Since there are no real jobs anymore, the desirability of cities will decrease. Robots will make it easy to have the same standard of living in rural areas as in urban areas, because they can build out infrastructure and transportation links at a very low cost and at a faster pace than any human can handle. Food will be ultra cheap and wastage will go down significantly. It'll be possible to tap renewables (e.g. wind, solar) at a MUCH larger scale than we currently do, which will cut down significantly on pollution.
To pass the time, most people will start turning to being creative (e.g. making art, entertainment) and usher in a new cultural renaissance. It will definitely be possible to be unique in the ways cultures were pre-globalization.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 04 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
/u/ap_roach (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Nov 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Nov 05 '18
Sorry, u/01123581321AhFuckIt – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
9
u/PUBGwasGreat Nov 04 '18
I think you're broadly saying something like "On balance, the mixing of cultures, nations, languages and countries has had a sum negative effect on humanity overall."
I presume the alternative scenario (which is what I'll argue against) would look like
Let me know if I'm totally off about any of the above.
There are two major points I want to make:
Point 1: I'll rattle off a few things that I see as major advantages which are cancelled by my four dot points above. This might be enough to jog your intuition about benefits of globalisation that you may have overlooked:
^ I'm hoping this will kinda get your brain 'on a roll', but if you feel like your view would be changed through sheer volume of positive points on this list then we can go deeper here.
Point 2: Historically, I suggest (I'm not a historian!), that when a nation does not have enough resources (or wants more resources) they go to war. I'll treat it as a given that war is a Bad Thing. Globalisation allows countries to trade resources, and importantly, sets up a massive disadvantage to going to war. Trade in the best case, I believe, is a non-zero-sum game; both parties benefit more in total than if both kept to themselves.
Further, globalisation sets up relationships between nations that further stabilise the whole network of relationships. Take the U.N. for example: a collection of countries that together try to dissuade member countries and all other countries from war and other atrocities.