By global, I mean Universal, all-encompassing. Advocating for one such system is like advocating for a global government.
There are better alternatives. Local, discrete, networked systems that can co-evolve with its participants. They reduce of total collapse of the system and reduce systemic risk.
Not the OP, but I guess an argument against globalisation could be made (and has been made by many) from the perspective of better robustness/resilience of a less centralized/less interconnected system, avoidance of single points of failure, maintaining higher diversity of opinions, etc. etc.
I understand the advantages to a global village but we rarely talk about the downsides. Perhaps the global village is a failed experiment and needs to be reconfigured into bubbles. Perhaps we need to move back to a protectism of sort.
It seems like the meaning of the word "globalization" has been hijacked. It really seems, in the minds of some people at least, to indicate a bundle of very negative outcomes - which in no way I would support.
Shifting the center of this discussion would take too long. I'm not here to write a dissertation about the evolution of human society. I think I've hinted at how things could possibly unfold, if we make a consistent effort to better the future of the Earth. Read what I've said and that should provide some indication - unless your mind is set on "winning" a contest of punditry, in which case I wish you good luck.
TLDR: I think the best of all possible futures could be achieved through some measure of unity on a global scale, at a higher order of magnitude compared to what we have now. Inequality is one of the many obstacles on the way there. Narrow-minded nationalism is another. It would require massive changes on multiple levels, and it will not happen in a day or two. Call the end result whatever you like. But anything that could bring that future closer is a good cause to support.
Yeah. I think as a straightforward, easily correct transition from 2000 globals, a giant structure isn't an awful idea. It's not like the globals were organized before! You're just making the ambient state (awful as it is) explicit.
Global citizenship requires global government which comes with its own set of problems. What if the majority favored a certain behavior, such as this one? Then it would be globally legal. Maybe it's not globally favored now--that doesn't mean it will always be this way.
Compartmentalization is better than globalization. Humans are fallible and often evil. That is not going to change. The best thing to do is compartmentalize people and government to prevent cancerous evil from affecting everyone.
Anything else is wishful thinking. History shows that evil's not going anywhere, and contemporary events do as well.
There are better alternatives. Local, discrete, networked systems that can co-evolve with its participants. They reduce of total collapse of the system and reduce systemic risk.
reply