globalization

[miss.myra]

technology, communications and better understanding of other cultures makes the world a smaller place every day.

to be anti globalizaition essentially is to deny what is progressing more and more towards an absolute with each moment.


eep, was that cynical?

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

technology, communications and better understanding of other cultures makes the world a smaller place every day.

to be anti globalizaition essentially is to deny what is progressing more and more towards an absolute with each moment.

eep, was that cynical?

perhaps i should have been more specific when i started this thread. my main concern over globalization is the issues of trade.

i understand the internet is linking communities around the world and allowing us to explore the vast array of cultures that span the globe and i think that's a positive thing as well. as long as we don't use that same technology and opportunity to force our beliefs and traditions on other places and vice versa.

[wum]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

technology, communications and better understanding of other cultures makes the world a smaller place every day.

to be anti globalizaition essentially is to deny what is progressing more and more towards an absolute with each moment.


eep, was that cynical?

I think he's talking more in terms of people losing their traditional way of life, such as farmers, and their quality of life suffering for it. The word is pretty vague though.

[maztraz]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

yeah, i know there is more. that's why the poll says "causes more problems than it solves" or "solves more problems than it causes" not just 'bad' and 'good'

But I think your poll is not very much of a option
I would of added something like this as well...
''Globalization can be as much contructive/benefic as it can be destructive/poissonous''

Or something like that

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by maztraz

But I think your poll is not very much of a option
I would of added something like this as well...
''Globalization can be as much contructive/benefic as it can be destructive/poissonous''

Or something like that

yeah i could've added that, i guess. but that's just a neutral response. it's more interesting to see which way people lean than to have an option that is "equally good and bad"

[maztraz]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

yeah i could've added that, i guess. but that's just a neutral response. it's more interesting to see which way people lean than to have an option that is "equally good and bad"

Yeah...And don't you think having a neutral possition to stabalize bad&good possitions is also interesting?

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by maztraz

Yeah...And don't you think having a neutral possition to stabalize bad&good possitions is also interesting?

not really. haha.

[maztraz]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

not really. haha.

hahaha...okay I admit it..I will hit bed soon... :D

But what I mean is neutral can often play on both playgrounds from those ''equaly bad & good at the same time'', so it can bring from both sided a little plus from each side and vice versa... You know what I mean?

Kind of a poll beetween them two making the balance...

[Moon]

Originally Posted by cinist

if it results in the coming of the communist utopia, i'm down

fuck that

i would never want that

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by maztraz

hahaha...okay I admit it..I will hit bed soon... :D

But what I mean is neutral can often play on both playgrounds from those ''equaly bad & good at the same time'', so it can bring from both sided a little plus from each side and vice versa... You know what I mean?

yeah, that's interesting in a debate. that's what we've been doing in this thread...going over the goods and bads of globalization. but for a poll i think it's more interesting to have just the two options i have (neither of which are absolutes if you'll notice). a neutral position on a poll is almost the same as not answering at all.

[maztraz]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

yeah, that's interesting in a debate. that's what we've been doing in this thread...going over the goods and bads of globalization. but for a poll i think it's more interesting to have just the two options i have (neither of which are absolutes if you'll notice). a neutral position on a poll is almost the same as not answering at all.

:) okay...I see

I say Globalization is to divers to really distinguish it from more good then bad vice versa, without an precise event...
Its kind of like Fire, for exemple you can cook with it, but you can also Burn...It all depends how&for what reasons you use it....
Or else We could go on for days and days....

[Moon]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

if globalization is going to work then we need to get rid of these transnational corporations, i think. developing world countries should be helped to harvest their own resources and trade fairly with other countries, instead of having corporations harvest their resources and sell them without the host country seeing much profit.

thoughts?

as a pro-globalization person as well as a supporter of capitalism, the way i see it, these poor coutries need transnational corporations to come in and help all these unemployed starving people with families get on their feet again. it's true that these corporations can be greedy but the main resource these coutries have is a large quantity of starving people desperate for jobs. the transnational corporations have the education and the financial power to help these countries. the corps will benefit, and the starving people in the developing countries will benefit as well. in time, hopefully these countries will become more self dependent and manage their own economy.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by k-pryde

in time, hopefully these countries will become more self dependent and manage their own economy.

i don't really see that happening all too easily if things continue as they are going now. sure they get wages from the corporations, but it's still not enough for a lot of them to live on, plus they have to usually work long hours in unsafe conditions and at very young ages.

i think if they're going to become self-dependent and learn to manage their own economy they're going to need the corporations to either pay them fair wages or they're going to need to use their workforce to mine, farm, and produce their own goods to trade to other countries at a fair price.

[wum]

the best way to address this problem is to start from the beginning. Were these people always poor and desperate? No. What changed?

[Splinter]

None of that really matters, at all.

Globalize all you want, when we run out of oil in 30-40 years, it won't mean squat.

All major metropolitan systems will break down, so will nations and all other global structures.

We'll revert to a localized government that rules according to the contained population's needs. It'll be too inefficient to do it any other way.

[sidekick]

it's kinda shitty to say 'who cares what happens now if it's all going to hell in forty years anyway' (which you don't know).

under the same frame of mind we should use all our water, pollute as much as we want with cars, not worry about landfills and abolish recycling.

[Splinter]

Well no... because all the serious implications of globalization are long term, and theyre mostly economic.

Pollution and such causes damage now, and is irrevesable, and impacts all parts of life.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Splinter

Well no... because all the serious implications of globalization are long term, and theyre mostly economic.

Pollution and such causes damage now, and is irrevesable, and impacts all parts of life.

fair enough, but i still think it's shitty to just turn a blind eye to everything that is going in the world (economic or not) just because you believe that we're going to run out of oil and everything will be fucked in 40 years anyway.

edit: and besides, it's easy for you to say it doesn't matter now because you're not some poor person living in one of those developing countries.

[Splinter]

Oh I dont think everything will be fucked, not by a long shot

I think things will be MUCH better.

Specilization of industry and centralization of populations has been extremely deteremental to our society. Before the metropolitan center came into existance, things like serial killers and pedophila came few and far between. Going back into real communities will solve a lot of problems, today's consumer society will crumble and something much healthier SHOULD replace it.

[sidekick]

^really doubt that centralization of population has created more killers and pedophilia. perhaps more documentation of cases of murder and sex crimes has occured over time, but i doubt that cities have caused more people to become murders. i suppose it's just more convenient to kill people when they're right there.

if you think consumer society is going to crumble, i think you're sadly misguided in your thinking. you forget that people LIKE buying things, they like owning things, trading things and such. it's just part of our life right now. i don't think anything short of a nuclear war/meteor shower that causes all human life to be extinct is going to ruin consumer society.

besides, people always prattle on about how bad consumer society is. yes, sometimes it can be bad...but hell, it's really good, too! it provides lots of people with the things that they need in life. do i need an ipod to survive? sure don't. but do i like having it? hell yes! consumerism isn't a bad thing necessarily when done wisely.

/going to read at the beach now. will be back later.

[Splinter]

They've always existed, but the reduction of community has allowed them to surface without people knowing who they are

I didnt read the rest of that yet, but I will

g2g for now

[esoter1c]

Globalization is nothing more than a fuckin' power grab.
1 this 1 that fuck that ! and fuck the NWO !

[wum]

Originally Posted by Splinter

None of that really matters, at all.

Globalize all you want, when we run out of oil in 30-40 years, it won't mean squat.

All major metropolitan systems will break down, so will nations and all other global structures.

We'll revert to a localized government that rules according to the contained population's needs. It'll be too inefficient to do it any other way.

Peak Oil is a racketeering scam

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

i don't really see that happening all too easily if things continue as they are going now. sure they get wages from the corporations, but it's still not enough for a lot of them to live on, plus they have to usually work long hours in unsafe conditions and at very young ages.

i think if they're going to become self-dependent and learn to manage their own economy they're going to need the corporations to either pay them fair wages or they're going to need to use their workforce to mine, farm, and produce their own goods to trade to other countries at a fair price.

look at taiwan, south korea, japan, the former communist eastern european countries and arguably China, they all have had their quality of life improve dramatically even within the period of 15-20 years. each country now has several of their own large multinational corporations as well.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by Splinter

None of that really matters, at all.

Globalize all you want, when we run out of oil in 30-40 years, it won't mean squat.

All major metropolitan systems will break down, so will nations and all other global structures.

We'll revert to a localized government that rules according to the contained population's needs. It'll be too inefficient to do it any other way.

unlikely, you dont run out of oil like turning a light switch on/off...prices will go up it will become unaaffordable and then we'll move on to soemthign else.