Are You For globalization or against

[Narz]

So you think an individual country can have both a higher percentage of its population starve to death and have a higher population growth rate than it had previously?

Just to be clear on your position.

Well generally they don't occur at the exact same time, generally over-growth leads to starvation. People in destitute nations generally have a lot of children to try to provide more food/money. Also, starvation doesn't necessarily kill. Starved children can grow up, not all who starve immediately die.

It's not really that complicated. You can do the research for yourself & get back to me. High-birthrates & poverty/malnutrition go hand in hand.

I agree with this. Cultures should be static and never change.

You're agreeing with a fellow on his way to see the Wizard. You may as well tell the girl you date raped, "hey baby, I helped you change!". Even if it makes her grow as a person & realize the harsh realities of life it's not exactly justified is it? Well, neither is slavery & destruction of cultures.

They've also switched out political imperialism for economic imperialism- the domination of developing nations by Western capital under the guise of national self-determination- which seems to make this continuity unobvious to many people. That is, I suppose, the idea.

Anyone remotely educated understands the concept but that doesn't mean they want to think about it. They'll dig up some GDP chart & pipe "the ends justifies the means", erect some strawmen & pummel them while chanting USA #1.

People have an incredible ability to toleratecognitive dissonance. I'm sure, for example, amadeus knows Ronald Regan massively increased the deficit (set a precinct really) and used American taxdollars to prop up dictators & terrorists but he's not going to let that get in the way of his adoration for the man or disdain for the left.

 

[Theige]

Well generally they don't occur at the exact same time, generally over-growth leads to starvation. People in destitute nations generally have a lot of children to try to provide more food/money. Also, starvation doesn't necessarily kill. Starved children can grow up, not all who starve immediately die.

It's not really that complicated. You can do the research for yourself & get back to me. High-birthrates & poverty/malnutrition go hand in hand.

High-birthrates & poverty/malnutrition go hand and hand with low economic development. Pre-industrial African societies had horrendously worse poverty and malnutrition, along with high birth rates, higher mortality rates, etc. Just as pre-industrial societies in all parts of the world were worse in these metrics than their corresponding post-industrial societies.

Families didn't start having large numbers of children AFTER they were colonized by Europeans, but far fewer of their children died, of starvation or other causes, and subsequently their populations have boomed for nearly a century.

I'm sure you've seen this graph before:

 

[Narz]

Pre-industrial African societies had horrendously worse poverty and malnutrition, along with high birth rates, higher mortality rates, etc.

We're not talking about industrialization but globalization. Africans certainly didn't have the levels of poverty & malnutrition pre-European globalizing influence (colonization, slavery, etc.).

Just as pre-industrial societies in all parts of the world were worse in these metrics than their corresponding post-industrial societies.

You say that as if it's universally true but it isn't. Again, check out link #5 in my sig (for your own edification).

Families didn't start having large numbers of children AFTER they were colonized by Europeans, but far fewer of their children died, of starvation or other causes, and subsequently their populations have boomed for nearly a century.

You're mistaken. Most tribal cultures do NOT have 6, 7, 8, 9 children. This generally is the trend with early industrial societies (like the US & Europe in the 18th & 19th and even early 20th centuries & poor bottom feeder semi-industrial countries today).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Stage5.svg/329px-Stage5.svg.png[/IMG]

Sure, seen similar but that's global. Generally high birthrates & high deathrates exist in the same countries.

 

[Theige]

We're not talking about industrialization but globalization. Africans certainly didn't have the levels of poverty & malnutrition pre-European globalizing influence (colonization, slavery, etc.).

You say that as if it's universally true but it isn't. Again, check out link #5 in my sig (for your own edification).

You're mistaken. Most tribal cultures do NOT have 6, 7, 8, 9 children. This generally is the trend with early industrial societies (like the US & Europe in the 18th & 19th and even early 20th centuries & poor bottom feeder semi-industrial countries today).

Sure, seen similar but that's global. Generally high birthrates & high deathrates exist in the same countries.

There aren't reliable statistics, but it's highly unlikely pre-industrial and pre-European African societies had lower levels of poverty, malnutrition, and mortality rates.

The industrialization of Africa certainly corresponds with the globalization of Africa.

You link to a book about a tiny rural region of India? Who's population has tripled since 1951? For which there are most likely no reliable statistics before 1950?

Here is a response to that book:

Ms Norberg-Hodge has, though, been criticised by native Tibetans for what they see as her patriarchal and patronising view of Tibet. Jamyang Norbu, for example, in his essay 'Beyond the Lost Horizon' comments that "what such advocacy conveniently ignores is the harsh geopolitical climate in which such a frail society exists.' As Norbu puts it 'Calling on people in underdeveloped societies to live passive, traditional and ecologically correct lifestyles . . . does not sit too well coming from someone who may own a car or who has hot and cold water in his or her home.'

 

[Hygro]

pre-agriculture societies tended to be healthier with greater leisure time (aka hunter gatherers). But regardless, agricultural societies lead to families with loads of pregnancies. Your kids were your only insurance as you grew old, and by 6 they were a productive asset. Many would die early so you'd need to have a lot of babies.

 

[GamezRule]

Globalization is fine if it is for the right reasons.

 

[Hygro]

Globalization is fine if it is for the right reasons.

I don't think the "reasons" for Globalization affect its outcome

 

[Theige]

pre-agriculture societies tended to be healthier with greater leisure time (aka hunter gatherers). But regardless, agricultural societies lead to families with loads of pregnancies. Your kids were your only insurance as you grew old, and by 6 they were a productive asset. Many would die early so you'd need to have a lot of babies.

Pre-agricultural societies? We don't have reliable statistics for most of the planet going back to the early 20th century, and you're going to make a definitive statement about the health of various peoples several millenia ago?

Do you have a source for that?

Anyways, I'm not sure we were discussing pre-agricultural societies, but rather pre-industrial vs post-industrial societies.

 

[Lord of Elves]

@OP

I am for Robot Nixon

Spoiler :

 

[Tee Kay]

Pre-agricultural societies? We don't have reliable statistics for most of the planet going back to the early 20th century, and you're going to make a definitive statement about the health of various peoples several millenia ago?

There are still nomads and hunter-gatherers, and in the early 20th century there were still some groups minimally influenced by the outside world.

 

[Theige]

There are still nomads and hunter-gatherers, and in the early 20th century there were still some groups minimally influenced by the outside world.

Are they healthier than those of us living in the post-agricultural world?

 

[Luckymoose]

I am totally against. Capitalism ruins local cultures, dstroys the environment and is a threat to local communities.

Capitalism also drives research and development, bringing us to a new age of awesome.

 

[Julius Gandi]

Through all change there is pain. Globalization though drives down price, brings cultures together, forces international cooperation and understanding of other cultures in order to do business, spreads technology from the first world to the third, and previously unused/squandered labor capital into the world economy.

Globalization is here, there is no way to deny it. There is almost no barrier to transportation of ideas, goods, services, or currency anymore. At least in comparison to even 15 years ago. The fact is national, and local economies are quickly evaporating towards a one world economy, one world market for all goods.

Of course this causes hickups and problems now, but the increased competition will drive down prices, spur innovation, increase efficiencies, and spread the worlds wealth to all. Remember that massive radical world altering social-economic revolutions don't happen over night.

The idea that globalization is some White Anglo conspiracy to put the world in chains is totally bunk, especially when the former targets of European colonialism are some of the largest benefactors of this movement. China, India, as well as many nations in Indochina, the Middle East, and South American are seeing rapid economic expansion, improvement in life quality, education, and equality. Even the Peoples Party of China has been slowly loosing its iron grip since the 70's and 80's due to these pressures.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Generally I am for it. The negative effects can be mitigated by the actions of governments and international organizations.

As for destruction of cultures, what are we losing? If you say languages with few speakers then you will find my eyes drier than the Atacama desert. Not every culture needs to be preserved.

 

[Tee Kay]

Are they healthier than those of us living in the post-agricultural world?

There's a bit of debate on it. A lazy two-minute Google search dug up this article written by Jared Diamond, and this one from the Economist.

But I certainly prefer to live in the post-industrial world than the pre-agricultural world any day.

 

[Narz]

There aren't reliable statistics, but it's highly unlikely pre-industrial and pre-European African societies had lower levels of poverty, malnutrition, and mortality rates.

Alot of Africa was pre-agricultural & pre-agricultural societies generally had better health, less malnutrition, etc. It's hard to imagine it was worse pre-1600's than during most of the 1800 & 1900's.

The industrialization of Africa certainly corresponds with the globalization of Africa.

You link to a book about a tiny rural region of India? Who's population has tripled since 1951? For which there are most likely no reliable statistics before 1950?

Here is a response to that book:

Pretty weak criticism. "You're industrialized therefore you can't have a valid opinion", that's like saying "You have electricity so you can't have any opinion about life during the European Renaissance.

Pre-agricultural societies? We don't have reliable statistics for most of the planet going back to the early 20th century, and you're going to make a definitive statement about the health of various peoples several millenia ago?

Do you have a source for that?

It's pretty common knowledge among anthropologists that hunter-gatherers were generally healthier than early agriculturalists (who nevertheless dominated them eventually due to rapid population growth), there is a study of bones of Egyptians pre & post agricultural revolution showing a marked decreased in height & weaker bones, IIRC. I'll try to look something up later or maybe someone else can help you. Until the last few hundred years Europeans were still catching up (now we're ahead thanks to modern medicine & very safe lves).

What Hygro said also

Anyways, I'm not sure we were discussing pre-agricultural societies, but rather pre-industrial vs post-industrial societies.

Depends how you define "industrial", Native Americans for example were exposed to globalization (guns, white people, alcohol, smallpox) before industrialization as I think of it.

As for destruction of cultures, what are we losing? If you say languages with few speakers then you will find my eyes drier than the Atacama desert. Not every culture needs to be preserved.

More than languages but myths, stories, ways of seeing the world, knowledge of the land, knowledge of flora & fauna, art, etc. Plus it's just interesting. Modern America has little culture beyond consumption (in which I include TV & media consumption), it's kind of sad (for me anyway).

 

[SKILORD]

"Globalization" is a tool, not an actor. You might as well ask whether or not people were pro-hammer or pro-automobile. As far as the latter is concerned think of globalization as our crank start steam powered automobile that frequently has engine problems and then you try to put your hand on something to fix it and GODDAMN THATS HOT! and maybe it bites off your arm.

Maye in na century we will have installed a few minor safety protocols for the engine, but I imagine that the OECD countries will push for airbags and seatbelts first (lol, to think of conservatives as Luddites driving a car! Will they even let us install airbags in the form of a strong social safety net?). This things a long way from it's finished form but I believe that one day a globally integrated economy will benefit us all.

At this current historical moment the driver of this hypothetical steam auto is also completely insane and uses it to run over Chinamen.

 

[JohnRM]

Neither. I believe in a little protectionism here and there.

 

[NYHunter]

I am totally against. Capitalism ruins local cultures, dstroys the environment and is a threat to local communities.

Against globalization. Although I don't have any formal argument against it, I simply believe local cultures, customs, and beliefs are lost in the process.

What's so great about local cultures anyway? And why should I care that people can't find a way to preserve their culture.

My biggest gripe is that by outsourcing every kind of manufacturing to 3rd world countries we have lost some great promises. We didn't get high tech manufacturing plants, where the amount of workers would be reduced due to automation. Instead we opted for hiring labour on "slave wages" in really low tech settings. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing.. It just makes me a bit sad that we ("western" countries) don't make stuff anymore. We've become administrators.

Most of the top manufacturers are western nations. So yes, we might be going down, but we certainly still make things.

More than languages but myths, stories, ways of seeing the world, knowledge of the land, knowledge of flora & fauna, art, etc. Plus it's just interesting. Modern America has little culture beyond consumption (in which I include TV & media consumption), it's kind of sad (for me anyway).

Okay, now that is something that is truly sad to lose.

I think there is a lot of culture in America, if you travel around the nation you find lots of interesting things in a lot of places that you don't hear about. It's just, yes we like to consume, but, what is sad about that? It might be sad for someone to only consume and not contribute anything themselves, but if someone consumes a lot of film, because they are passionate about film, but if they particpate in the making of films you are not going to convince me that is sad.

 

[Hygro]

Are they healthier than those of us living in the post-agricultural world?

Yes that was my point. They expended less energy to acquire the same volume of calories, and their calories came from a vastly more diverse array of food. They got better protein, more micronutrients, etc. They were taller, and suffered less disease. It wasn't until more modern industrialism and trade of the recent era in which we are doing as well or better.

The advantage of agriculture, initially, was that it could feed more people. This meant, effectively, a village of 300 weak people could drive out a tribe of 30 strong. That the hunter gatherers did so well on inferior land, as the civilized (as in, in cities and proto cities) societies kept booting them off the prime land, speaks to the superiority of a hunter gatherer lifestyle, even if the hunter gatherer society is weaker.