So what you're saying (if I understand correctly) is that the real cause of those problems which are assiociated (by some) with globalization is that local business is destroyed by international companies?
That's the main problem w/ globalization, yeah. That and that's it's not sustainable due to rising fuel costs (which will effect the poorest most severely of course & then eventually effect us all).
That sounds logical in itself, but how do you explain that international firms can destroy local business (you'd think local business has a cost advantage)?
If you can buy twenty thousand umbrellas wholesale and sell them at a discount there's no way a guy who can only afford to buy fifty at a time can compete w/ you. Also many big corps get government subsidies making it cheaper (for example) to buy corn from thousands of miles away rather than from the farmer down the street. These are just two explanations, there are many others.
Youre saying that civilization was superior to subsistence ?
When you say subsistence I assume you mean tribal life? No need to use a disparaging word as if ALL tribal people were nomads or that they had no knowledge of food preservation.
In many ways, obviously yes. Far more leisure time (from what I've read most pre-agricultural people worked far less than we have since, around 2-4 hours a day, also noteworthy that it blended in seamlessly w/ everyday life & many tribes didn't even have a word for "work"), far less mental illness, the sense of solidarity that leads people today to all sorts of crazy things (join cults, gangs, hang themselves, waste countless hours & days conversing w/ people they'll never meet on internet forums
, etc.), in many cases
better health and for most of human histroy longer lifespan.
"For example among African Bushmen survival from birth to 15 was about .71, birth to 65 about .51, so the probability a 15 year old reached 65 was about 70%."
source. Obviously we are doing better than that today (mostly in regards to decreased infant morality) but certainly the initial project of civilization probably led to a huge decline in health as well as lifespan and a huge increase in the amount of work needed to get by.
"The fossil record shows a massive decrease in average height, health and rapid increase in disease, obesity and population for cultures that survived the transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to an agriculturally dependent one[10-14]"
Sources
Eaton, S.B., Kroner,, M. Shostak, M (1988): "Stone Agers in the Fast Lane :chronic degenerative diseases in evolutionary perspective". American Journal of Medicine 84:739-749.
McHenry H.M.( 1992.): "How big were early hominids?" Evolutionary Anthropolology 1:15-20,
Of course it allowed for massive food storage projects and a massive increase in population (thus allowing it to butcher it's neighbors &/or incorporate them into "civilization") and most importantly an increased diversion of labor (leading to enormous & undeniably progress in almost every arena. It also let some people become fantastically wealthy while most were quite poor.
And of course some hunter-gatherer tribes were quite violent & their beliefs would be considered deranged & disturbed by modern standards (one in South American somewhere where nearly 50% of male were murdered by age 30) but most were able to live in a fairly stable homeostatis w/ their environment for tens of thousands of years (which is a hell of alot better track record than civilization). Large scale wars were unknown. Pollution for the most part was unknown. Many civilizations has risen and fallen due to soil depletion and overpopulation, problems hunter-gather tribes probably had conquered centuries ago (or they would have died out).
There's no doubt we're had some amazing improvements in quality of life over the last 150 years. No doubt at all. But we've also wrought much destruction that we may or may not be able to recover from. From the oil thread it seems you have difficult wrapping your mind around any kind of global collapse scenario (local resources collapsing you acknowledged, I suppose it's easier to accept emotionally).
We've many potential catastrophes facing us in the 21st century, to get by we need to adapt our beliefs about the world and our role in it.
To an economist I suppose subsistence is a dirty word, as people living beyond their means keeps the financial world turning but to me, living simply is a fine thing & not at all incompatible w/ a life of many comforts.
wow Narz, do you even realize what settling in place allowed humanity to start doing?
Of course I do. I'm just looking at the situation critically instead of the knee-jerk "OMG, 'caveman' lived such lame ass lives, they died at sixteen & didn't have iPods!" (not saying that's your attidue but most people don't even consider the idea that one can learn from past cultures).
When I refuse to say w/o hesitation that civilization is inherently and unequivocably superior to tribal life people think I'm a bit nutty but to me, an acknowledgment of the pros and cons of both it is the logical position.
And this is globalization's fault?
No, not really, mostly it's human instinct (not overridden by logic). Same w/ obesity. Obviously the cheap abundance triggers certain instincts to kick in but that's no excuse for a lack of personal responsibility.
