I think that colonialism is to blame for the problems in many third world ntions. They need protection against forced globalization. A world governing and law enforcement body that protected these countries from this kind of abuse would be great but does not exist... anything built would only serve the predators.

Consolidating the world's power into a very few hands is never a good idea.

I believe any and all systems could be good if the people at the top used their power to do what's best for the people. But because of the known way things actually turn out systems must be designed to protect from the power hungry gaining to much control and working against the people. The human desire to own and control others is a constant threat.

If the leaders were good things would be good. If the leaders were bad, we all die.

I'd rather have a decentralized system thanks.

Sure, it will be great, because big governments with a tiny few controlling them always has been.

They don't. Or at least not in the sense you mean it, i.e. they don't consider that every human being deserves a (second) chance, if they were dealt bad cards in the game of life. I suppose (from the tone of your post) that you feel some sympathy for those homeless children roaming the streets of Colombia. However, in their minds, those kids are simply to be left to their own fate. Some will make it on their own, most not and they're perfectly fine with this concept. They completely lack what Orwell dubbed "the common decency".

On a side note, I share your comments and reactions about Colombia, a country I've been visiting on a regular basis for the last 15 years.

I've visited all the big cities, and mostly the Carribbean coast and Antioquia & Cundinamarca regions. I haven't visited yet the Amazonas, Narino and Putumayo regions. Beautiful country, breathtaking sceneries and very friendly people (speaking the language helps a lot.)

I consider it to be a perfect example of a Libertarian paradise, with all the advantages and disadvantages this implies.

In a nutshell, people are very entrepreneurial and business-minded (which I consider good). Emerging middle-class with a relatively high standard of living (good). Private schools are available in abundance, but public schools ain't that bad either (considering the conditions), for those who can't afford private education. Non-existing State presence, except at the level of nuisance (taxes for salaried people, corrupted cops, etc.) This is one of the reasons the level of insecurity could be very high (especially in cities), hence the prevalence of private security companies (bad?). Inequalities are horrendous (very bad for a Central European like me.)

"They must feel in some way that they are doing this for the greater good."

I don't think they have a standard of good and bad, right and wrong. They tend to believe "do what thou wilt". The objective is entirely self-serving. The fact that they can means they will in every scenario. The "greater good" they serve is the benefit of their own..but not the common people.

Sure, but as you pointed out in one of your previous comments, it's not anymore particular individuals who are actually taking the decisions, but more often than not, it's institutions, i.e. mostly corporations, big supra-national organizations, etc.

Individuals are merely easily interchangeable pieces within such organizations. We tend to idealize the role of CEOs (who all have a sense of "ethic/morals/feelings", etc.) but the truth is that big corporations live a life of their own. When one of them dies, another takes very quickly its place.

In all honesty, Capitalism isn't inherently a "bad" or "good" system. It's simply a system that's self-adjusting to reach its greater stability and growth rate (because that's what it's been made to do.) Sure, that rate of growth could be slowed down by individuals taking "actions against it", but time is of no importance to ideas and concepts.

Power corrupts. You may also be surprised at how many "elected" leaders and politicians all over the world are actually related to one another. The offer of democracy to the world has largely been a facade behind which some very old dynasties continue to rule. Family traditions die hard.

Globalization is not a good thing in my opinion.

I guess the final judgement ultimately relies on the needs of the many. If there would to be a collapse in civilization due to climate change and food shortage, then yes a globalized effort would be required. However, one must be skeptical of how much those who control have to benefit off of globalization, as this may hint at more devious motives.

Would you like to end-up in a concentration camp?

Globalism = boot stomping on a human face for eternity.

All powerful police state.

Nice 1984 ref!!!

I think the best way to help out would be to provide a positive example. Instead of meddling abroad, we should endeavor to produce positive conditions alongside an open society at home. This will invite other cultures to take up the best innovations of their own will and with confidence in the reforms. There is no need for globalist meddling.

For corporations.

Of course ther are benefits, or it wouldn't be pushed so hard. The benefits are to the billionaires, to the one percent of the one percenters, to the elite. There are no benefits to the working classes or the middle class, no benefits to the poor.

Nope.

No.

Not in the way it is being attempted now. Its never bad to be closer to one another and be at peace with different people. But the entire system of a world government has so many inherent problems with it, even on paper it seems like it wouldn't work well for most people.

I know it's an unpopular opinion here, but I think globalization is ultimately the end-goal of mankind, right? The main problem with it in its current form has more to do with the negative effects of things like capitalism when combined with human traits like greed and corruption. This tends to push things towards concentration of wealth/power and further fuels the class divide.

But I think globalization is inevitable in some sense, as that's where technology is pushing us...interconnected worldwide networks of communication which helps us towards our goal of global empathy/understanding for one another. Power structures have always used things like nationalism, religion, ethnicity, etc. in order to divide us and push us towards war/conflict through fear. Our goal should be to eradicate those things so they can't be used to divide us by the powers that be anymore.

Globalization WILL be a good thing once mankind is ready for it. Unfortunately, we're still so far behind on so many levels.

In all honesty, and I really hate to admit it, but I think it will be the only way we truly become a interplanetary species. But let's hope we get something figured out before we actually need to be an interplanetary species.

Oh goodie, i've been missing the UFO/Alien/Lets go to outer space guy.

you don't need to believe in UFOs/Aliens to think we need to be an interplanetary species. Something is going to kill us off if we only stay on Earth. Its just a matter of when.

Whose to say we couldn't stop whatever comes that might destroy Us?

How do you suggest stopping natural disasters? Or anything that were to impact the earth? And if we somehow make it, what do we do about our sun?

Its more of in time Humanity will develop a way to combat natural disasters, but first We'd need to fight the bigger problem.... Humanity itself

I'd rather not leave humanity chance at surviving on faith the one day we'll be able to stop something from happening when the time comes.

Yea but unless we can go faster(or as fast) than the speed of light going into outerspace would be pretty useless.

So if we were to start colonizing other planetary objects, and the earth somehow dies, and yet we still live on because we got off this rock, that would mean nothing?

The most recent push toward globalization started with colonialism. I would argue that the first world war was actually the genocide of indigenous populations for profit by the western European states starting in the 14-1500s. This however was of course only piggybacking on the earlier precedent set by the fourth crusade that was carried out at the behest of the Venetian merchants who made the ships and weren't paid in full for their handiwork. As a result the christian crusaders set out to sack Constantinople (a christian city, albeit full of eastern instead of latin christians), effectively getting rid of the middle men between the Venetian merchants and the luxury goods that were coming from the orient. Peppercorn was being sold in italy for 180 ducats, in India the same amount of peppercorn would go for 3 ducats.

This control of markets and resources was what both World Wars were fought over. The same can be said about every conflict post World War II. Globalism was, and thus far has been, a push to control the world for the economic benefit of the few that have the means to "buy in" so to speak.

However, there have been a few good things to come from the global trends, such as the spread and adoption of GOOD ideas, its just a shame that the bad ones are focused on. For instance, after both world wars there were immense pushes by the people to make those wars stop. After the first war there was the league of nations which failed, and the Kellog-Briand Pact that effectively outlawed war as a policy tool. We know that worked so well because there wasn't a second war. /s After the second war the UN was created, this time unlike the efforts prior, the UN security council was created to act as the teeth on the tiger, only instead of a tool to democratize and equalize based on the rhetoric of "Self-Determination" it was used as a tool to legitimize the resource extraction and smaller scale genocides by the "good guys."

I believe that we as a species, if we hope to survive, will have to be party to such supranational organizations, I just don't see them being to the benefit of us all when there are an elect few discussing and engineering their uses and policies. Right now is an interesting time because our legal system, in the US and internationally has outlawed the worst things that are happening. but the masses are too stupid to rise up and hold people accountable. Every war that the US has been involved in since world war two has been in violation of the treaties that we are party to, and as such are in violation of Article 6 of the Constitution. Of course after the Nuremburg trials, everyone in the entire chain of command is liable for the crimes. but as Smedley Butler said, War is a Racket, and the US was the prostitute of business long before those agreements were made, so most people aren't even aware.

I think if we as a species want to be interplanetary, then this is the way it will happen. Here's to hoping we get the kinks worked out before that time comes.

At its core, globalization simply refers to the rate of globalism. The very fact that this is frequently misunderstood to mean much more shows exactly how over-saturated the term has become. Globalism refers to the global integration of society, which is really what this discussion should be about.

An excellent way to understand the pros and cons of globalism is to understand the impacts it can have on language. One very well-understood interaction between globalism and language is the formation of a lingua franca within an integrated society. On a worldwide scale, a global lingua franca could open the flood gates for cultures and ideas to be shared all over the world (which is very often considered a great benefit of globalism).

"It is no nation we inhabit, but a language. Make no mistake; out native tongue is our true fatherland."

— Emil Cioran, Romanian philosopher

On the other hand, globalism could fasten the extinction of dying languages and, by extension, a significant amount of society's shared culture. When some information is diffused, other pieces of information become forgotten; language is no different. This memetic behavior of language allows for the transplantation of one language's words and phrases to another, evolving the target language, and, more dramatically, the ability for a lingua franca to replace a native tongue.

Yes, globalization—not the "type" that advocates the chipping of people with RFIDs—could very much be a good thing.

If it is not clear from initial comments, globalism is fine if there is benevolence in power. But this idealism is naive. Weve a long road of collective spiritual evolutiom before it is possible. In the mean time, we must do oir best to not let criminals develop a global throne.

What you're talking about is completely different from globalization.

A single, lone government having domain over the world is a terrifying thought. Even if it were founded upon the ideals of the global citizen there would still be nepotism, influence peddling, corruption, and abuse.

Globalization as it is today is centered on the reality of the longstanding interdependence between countries and corporations. The stability of the international economy relies on these relationships. The fragility is an issue, but the thought of being held hostage is what concerns people I think.

Theoretically. Maybe.

But in this instance, it's very bad.

They want to kill billions of people.