Are You For globalization or against

[Narz]

"You reductionists are anathema to proper historical analysis"

You should just repeat that everytime anyone makes a general statement you disagree with. That would be very... broadminded of you.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I'm against globalization. (At least until I conquer the world.)

I guess reconciling primitive superstition with research and progress is pretty difficult.

 

[kiwitt]

I am pro-globalisation, for the simple reason we are all members of the same "Globe". Anti-Globalisation is mainly due to the impact and/or behavior of some corporations. I am also against nationalism for the same reasons. Patriotism and the like have been the cause of many problems. The sooner we accept we are in this together the better.

 

[Archbob]

Its not like you can stop it.

 

[Theige]

Not quite. The vast majority of Africa was indeed post-agricultural by that time in the sense that they had the technology, and I don't doubt that agriculture even predated the expansion of the bantu. But that didn't meant that they forgo hunting. Animal furs were an important resource well into the 19th century, and were mostly obtained through hunting. And so was meat. Africa was still sparsely populated and had (still has in some regions) plenty of wild animals. The organization of hunting expeditions was one of the main tasks of any local ruler.

Furs were important in Europe and America at that time as well, even well into the 20th century! As was/is meat.

I'm fairly certain both got the vast majority of their meat through their domesticated herds of animals though, and not from hunting.

Fair enough but they weren't dominate to the extent European agriculturists were (and probably didn't suffer as much famine & unrest (as Europe) as a result. Could be wrong, don't know much about pre-colonized Africa. I do know Europeans were clamoring to emigrate to whatever New World they could find due to poverty.

Arguing they "probably didn't suffer as much famine & unrest" is completely pointless; there is no possible way of knowing.

They were, however, almost certainly, in an almost constant state of warfare with one another. Probably much more-so than Europe.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am pro-globalisation, for the simple reason we are all members of the same "Globe". Anti-Globalisation is mainly due to the impact and/or behavior of some corporations. I am also against nationalism for the same reasons. Patriotism and the like have been the cause of many problems. The sooner we accept we are in this together the better.

That's internationalism, not globalisation. It's very easy to oppose the latter while embracing the former, as Subcomandante Marcos will be able to tell you.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I am pro-globalisation, for the simple reason we are all members of the same "Globe". Anti-Globalisation is mainly due to the impact and/or behavior of some corporations. I am also against nationalism for the same reasons. Patriotism and the like have been the cause of many problems. The sooner we accept we are in this together the better.

It's ultimately far more likely (and already seems to be going down that path) that international cooperation and conglomeration as a part of globalization is going to come through the increasing power of non-national corporations, as opposed to any sense of pan-human goodwill, as much as the latter might seem appealing.