Progress

[Sally]

Let's say, one or in a few hundred years from now, barring (or because of?) manmade or natural disasters, globalization has resulted in one, worldwide society (as the Western world is one society, with all its diversity).

Is this a good thing? Bad? Where do we get our cheap goods from?

[kafkaesque]

If there really has been progress in that time then we will need far less cheap goods than our current wasteful society consumes.

[Sally]

How is it that the West is at peace within itself? Would that be possible if there weren't less powerful nations to exploit?

[Robespierre]

How is it that the West is at peace within itself? Would that be possible if there weren't less powerful nations to exploit?

What nations are being exploited by the west, specifically?

[Sally]

What nations are being exploited by the west, specifically?

Top of my head... Nicaragua? Iraq?

[Robespierre]

Top of my head... Nicaragua? Iraq?

I'll grant both examples. I was trying to see if you were refering to "capitalist exploitation" or actual physical domination.

[euterpenc]

Progress: N/A.

[cjs55]

as the Western world is one society, with all its diversity

There is very little diversity in the western world. That's one of the greatest doublespeak inventions of the last few years.

Whether this would be a good thing or not would depend on if you are happy with the current western idealogy.

[Sally]

There is very little diversity in the western world. That's one of the greatest doublespeak inventions of the last few years.

Whether this would be a good thing or not would depend on if you are happy with the current western idealogy.

Less threat of violence. As someone pointed out in another thread, that's 50 years without genocide and going strong....

The majority of Westerners don't find the deaths of other Westerners acceptable without the excuse of an individual crime. Could that be extended to the whole of humanity? What would we gain? What would we lose? How long would it last?

I'm talking Pax Romana here. Diversity is relative.

[Robespierre]

There is very little diversity in the western world. That's one of the greatest doublespeak inventions of the last few years.

Very little diversity of what in the western world?

[cjs55]

Very little diversity of what in the western world?

Cultural diversity and Idealogical diversity. Both are almost always nonexistent inside any civilization, however (but if there was just one civilization, there would be no diversity whatsoever in the world).


Less threat of violence.

It would be unsustainable and tumble from within very quickly due to terrorism and other extreme measures from inside the system. There would actually be more threats of violence for civilians. The larger the new world order becomes, the worse this will become.

[tragula]

I believe in the whole pax americana thing. (western pax? Euro-Americana-pax?)

I think that you have to view the alliance of western democracies as having made the world much more stable than it ever was.

Scientific thought, which flourishes (usually ;-) under democracies, has helped to improve many people's lives. Technology keeps reinventing our world. Improved communication means people are more informed than ever, which means people are more educated than ever.

Things like slavery have been abolished, women have been granted equal status, many diseases have been conquered. We are making progress even in terms of little things like banning smoking. Progress that was unthinkable only a few years ago. The quality of life, and life span, keep going higher and higher.

Of course there are big frightening challenges: The environment. Aids. Terrorism. Population control. Nuclear war. Ruthless corporations, and their dehumanizing cubicles....

[cathmc]

Less threat of violence. As someone pointed out in another thread, that's 50 years without genocide and going strong....

The majority of Westerners don't find the deaths of other Westerners acceptable without the excuse of an individual crime. Could that be extended to the whole of humanity? What would we gain? What would we lose? How long would it last?

I'm talking Pax Romana here. Diversity is relative.
I assume you mean 50 years without genocide in the West? Plenty of genocide in the non-West.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the whole world becoming one society. Meaning there is no 'third world' anymore, all nations have reached the economic status of Europe/US? Relating to the comment above, you mean, there wouldn't be this us/them separation in people's minds so that a genocide in Rwanda would be as unacceptable as bombing the World Trade Center?

If that's what you mean, well I don't think it will ever happen. You alluded to why in your original post - where would we get our cheap goods? Not to mention our cheap labor and cheap raw materials. Not to mention the depressingly HUGE distance so many countries have to go to reach anywhere near the economic status of Europe/US. And realistically for this global society to exist, Western societies would have to give up some things, that standard of living could not be sustained worldwide. Yeah, it'll never happen.
But if it did, I think there would still be inequality, it would just be within this global society. Just like now, even though the nations of the West are overall better off than the nations of the developing world, there is still plenty of inequality within wealthy societies.
Would it be better? I guess maybe if this global, developed society came to be, then economic opportunity wouldn't be so completely remote to so many people. So maybe more people would have it a little better, so I guess that's better.

[Robespierre]

The issue of a one world government has been discussed in this thread before, about 5 months ago. I stick with my criticism of the idea. No size is proper for a coercive government. Aside from that, the smaller the better.

[Architectonic]

The issue of a one world government has been discussed in this thread before, about 5 months ago.

Yes, so why do you mention it now?

The society that Sally proposes doesn't necessarily have to be the result of centralization, in fact a number of the processes that can lead to the change are already occuring. (relatively fast international travel, the internet etc)

I think ultimately, the world will become closer and more equal in terms of opportunity. Real differences tend to be the result of being separated by large distances (separated by time).

That will be a bit further in the future, once people have a strong understanding of environmental and biological sciences and start colonising vast numbers of planets separated by large distances.

[Architectonic]

Where do we get our cheap goods from?

Are you joking?

'cheap' is of course quite relative, but in the future, 'cheap goods' are likely going to be the result of fully mechanized processes.

[Robespierre]

Yes, so why do you mention it now?

Because the idea of homogenizing the entire world into one "society" or supporting this vague idea of "pax americana" is identical. It is the same issue.


The society that Sally proposes doesn't necessarily have to be the result of centralization, in fact a number of the processes that can lead to the change are already occuring. (relatively fast international travel, the internet etc)

Perhaps I misunderstood what was being proposed. I have no qualms at all with "globalization" as far as free trade and free movement of people goes.

[cjs55]

Why do people think differences are a bad thing?

[Robespierre]

Why do people think differences are a bad thing?

People are scared by differences and often won't tolerate them. Different ideas about the universe and its origins, different ideas about what is valuable, different languages, etc etc.

[cjs55]

Assuming the people on this board are not scared by difference (like the average populace may very well be), I suppose the question is then:

Would it be worth it for everyone to be the exact same without any conflict, or would you rather have differences existing along with some conflict.

And why do you think the former would be worth it?

[Robespierre]

Would it be worth it for everyone to be the exact same without any conflict, or would you rather have differences existing along with some conflict.

And why do you think the former would be worth it?

I am very happy with the differences between individuals, local customs, national customs, and continental customs. There are thousands of other types of seperations I could recognize, religious, ethnic, linguistic, etc. The differences allow competition and comparison.

[cjs55]

I agree, and taking it further I'd say such differences are a necessity for a strong human species. Different cultures with different strenghts and weakness and focus are important. If there were just one culture, we'd lose the strenghts, becoming the middle of the bell curve: A damn boring place. Every singular culture by itself would be superior to a single global one. Human beings would be forced to conform to this, because there would be no other option or example to choose from. Right now I could move to Europe or Asia or Africa if I so wished, and maybe my natural state is more fit for one of these places. If there were no differences between them, I would have nowhere to fit in whatsoever if I didn't fit in the global culture.

[Sally]

I assume you mean 50 years without genocide in the West? Plenty of genocide in the non-West.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the whole world becoming one society. Meaning there is no 'third world' anymore, all nations have reached the economic status of Europe/US? Relating to the comment above, you mean, there wouldn't be this us/them separation in people's minds so that a genocide in Rwanda would be as unacceptable as bombing the World Trade Center?

If that's what you mean, well I don't think it will ever happen. You alluded to why in your original post - where would we get our cheap goods? Not to mention our cheap labor and cheap raw materials. Not to mention the depressingly HUGE distance so many countries have to go to reach anywhere near the economic status of Europe/US. And realistically for this global society to exist, Western societies would have to give up some things, that standard of living could not be sustained worldwide. Yeah, it'll never happen.
But if it did, I think there would still be inequality, it would just be within this global society. Just like now, even though the nations of the West are overall better off than the nations of the developing world, there is still plenty of inequality within wealthy societies.
Would it be better? I guess maybe if this global, developed society came to be, then economic opportunity wouldn't be so completely remote to so many people. So maybe more people would have it a little better, so I guess that's better.

That's it precisely.

[Architectonic]

Because the idea of homogenizing the entire world into one "society" or supporting this vague idea of "pax americana" is identical.

Yes, what a frightening idea...

[Robespierre]

Yes, what a frightening idea...

Explain.