Are You For globalization or against

[Narz]

Also, regarding the Wall St. Jorunal article (it's important to remember they have a bias, just as Fox News has a bias, to uphold faith in BAU), it's unfair to judge all hunter-gatherer tribes based on a small study of a handful that remain today.

Obviously the ones that remain today either 1. are very good at resisting outsiders &/or 2. live in hostile conditions maybe their annhilation not very profitable.

I'm sure there have existed many egalitarian, peaceful cultures. Why don't we see them today? Because they've been wiped clean off the planet. Columbus's expeditions met people who lavished them with gifts, how did the Europeans repay them, by taking advantage of their trusting nature, IIRC, I remember reading an anedote of how Columbus's ask some of the trusting island men to hold their arms out & then lopped them off & laughed about it. Nowadays almost all native Careebean islanders are extinct.

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.

YOu have a point, America has producer a lot of great film. And art. And some Americans still possess the spirit of innovation. There is a lot of subculture out there, it's depressing living in New Jersey though.

 

[Centrifugal]

Economists say that trade can make everyone better off.
This means that trade can make everyone worse off.

Consider the following two statements:
1. Trade can make everyone better off.
2. Trade makes everyone better off.

The second statement is clearly stronger, yet economists don't choose this statement. Why? Because statement two must be false! Then it's just a hop skip and a jump from Trade can make everyone better off -> trade can make some people better off -> trade can make everyone worse off.

I'm trying to make sense of this. If you mean your comment to be a way of discounting the professional opinion of economists in a sarcastic emulation of a particular line of politically fueled thinking, I can understand. Though, if you mean it literally - there is very little logic here.

I'm not sure how you can make up a statement at will and with a "hop skip and a jump" change a few words to where the statement takes the opposite form, then seriously run with it as if that is the evidence supporting your belief. There is no foundation cited correlating with anything you mentioned, so I'm curious as to how you came to your conclusion.

 

[Traitorfish]

The idea that globalization is some White Anglo conspiracy to put the world in chains is totally bunk...

Although not quite as much bunk as the idea that opponents of globalisation believe it to be a "White Anglo conspiracy"! It's a class struggle, not an ethnic or national one. Believe me, Julius m'lad, I'm from Scotland, so I know full well that globalisation screws over "White Anglos" as much as it screws over anybody.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

ways of seeing the world

What does that teach us, other than "protect the environment" (which should be obvious to anyone with a grasp of long-term economic planning or information of the effects of environmental degradation?

knowledge of the land, knowledge of flora & fauna

There are far more precise ways to obtain that data.

For the rest we have anthropologists and museums.

 

[Traitorfish]

What does that teach us, other than "protect the environment" (which should be obvious to anyone with a grasp of long-term economic planning or information of the effects of environmental degradation?

Well, first and foremost, it would teach us that late 20th century Anglo-American neoliberalism is not the only world view that one can legitimately possess, something which seems to have passed you by entirely.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Other people can have different views, yes. And what else?

 

[Traitorfish]

Those views can offer unique and valuable insights. You can't see everything from a single perspective, and objectivity is rather beyond the shaved ape. Best we can manage is an effective intersubjectivity.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Those views can offer unique and valuable insights.

Yes, that was my question.

 

[NYHunter]

YOu have a point, America has producer a lot of great film. And art. And some Americans still possess the spirit of innovation. There is a lot of subculture out there, it's depressing living in New Jersey though.

Well, I'll agree that a lot of American culture does come across as boring. A town's annual cherry pie competition is a fine example of culture, but it appears pretty bland compared to the rest of the world and their festivities.

Those views can offer unique and valuable insights. You can't see everything from a single perspective, and objectivity is rather beyond the shaved ape. Best we can manage is an effective intersubjectivity.

Not that I don't agree. But, I am still inclined to accept the benefits of globalization over the preservation of whatever these views are. I'm sure if anything truly grand is there it will come out anyway, and that the world won't be suffering too much because of the lack or delay of them.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, that was my question.

I would say that your wording was less generous.

Not that I don't agree. But, I am still inclined to accept the benefits of globalization over the preservation of whatever these views are. I'm sure if anything truly grand is there it will come out anyway, and that the world won't be suffering too much because of the lack or delay of them.

Why are you sure? Globalisation is a capitalistic affair, not a humanistic one; it retains what is contemporarily profitable, not what is valuable in human terms.

 

[SKILORD]

yes, but the worker's revolution can only happen in the context of a globalized economy, Marxism is predicated on the existence of a global economy, if anything globalization, capitalistic though it may be, is nothing but the prelude to other styles of human organization that were not viable on a national level but which are more sustainable on a global one.

economies of scale and so forth.

 

[Narz]

What does that teach us, other than "protect the environment" (which should be obvious to anyone with a grasp of long-term economic planning or information of the effects of environmental degradation?


There are far more precise ways to obtain that data.

For the rest we have anthropologists and museums.

It's not all about obtaining data. It's about motivation baby. And appreciation. When you're high on life it's not cause you've *processed necessary data* (read in robot voice), it's because you're feeling it as real. People have the data they should take control of their health, en masse we have the data that we need to change our behavior for the planet's health. But we're not acting cause we don't really feel it. If humans made decisions based on data the advertisment industry would be very different. Even the self-proclaimed most logical here on CFC mostly just appeal to emotions.

Is music necessary data? How about affection (well for infants it is necessary)? How about other forms of art & beauty?

Look at how much beauty exist within the English language for instance & even American culture. The world can live without Walt Whitman, for instance, but is better off for him. Think of how many like him will never be remembered due to their races & stories being annihilated.

 

[cardgame]

Who said anything about racial extermination?

 

[Narz]

Well globalization necessarily destroys cultures. There's a different between genocide (which everyone knows is wrong) and subtle cultural degradation (which people are happy to chalk up as "evolution").

 

[SKILORD]

The hegemony of Anglo-American culture has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Godwynn]

I only support protectionism in whatever industry I work in.

 

[Dachs]

It's a class struggle, not an ethnic or national one.

bahahahahahaha

 

[Theige]

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.

My point was we, you and I, are in fact healthier than pre-agricultural peoples

 

[Traitorfish]

yes, but the worker's revolution can only happen in the context of a globalized economy, Marxism is predicated on the existence of a global economy, if anything globalization, capitalistic though it may be, is nothing but the prelude to other styles of human organization that were not viable on a national level but which are more sustainable on a global one.

economies of scale and so forth.

An interesting perspective. I shall have to consider it further.

bahahahahahaha

Were exactly do you take issue with that suggestion?

Well globalization necessarily destroys cultures. There's a different between genocide (which everyone knows is wrong) and subtle cultural degradation (which people are happy to chalk up as "evolution").

"Ethnocide" is, I believe, the broader term for the destruction of ethnic groups-as-ethnic groups, of which genocide is considered a violent sub-set.

 

[Dachs]

False dichotomy, chief