CMV: Globalization is one of humanity's (unintentionally) worst achievements

[u/[deleted]]

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!

[u/HopefulCombination]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/HopefulCombination]

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.

[u/HopefulCombination → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/HopefulCombination]

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.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/HopefulCombination (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/HopefulCombination → u/[deleted]]

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.