one_irish_rover wrote:DamnYankee wrote:And this is a problem not only that Americans have to face now. Your own UK is now facing increase heart-attack rates, obesity, and diabetes. China, which is now gaining quickly economically has shown similar problems in its large cities. EVen in more traditional lands in Europe that resisted modernity that unquestionably has been lead by the US have this problem. The revelation of just how much modernity is to blame I find most striking in Greece. Thirty years ago, there were no such things as diabetes or stree in the main land as there is now, which today reflects the same status as the major cities of any nation. Yet just a few kilometers away on the isles, live is idyllic and people live well into their 90's (men as well as women) and so healthy that a 30 year old would envy a 60 year old in many cases.
I just wanted to point out the obvious here - that modernization has increased average life expectancies across sex, race and class - largley through development of antibiotics, but many other pharmaceuticals, and better understanding of human health - so it makes perfect sense that the incidence of chronic diseases has increased over time. Actually, the incidence of certain chronic diseases has declined in the past 30 years - especially certain cancer types (a few are going up, e.g. leukemias), so it's not all bad on the health front. Most would agree that modernizaton has led to a more sedentary life-style = more obesity, diabetes, heart disease. This is a major public health issue - that modernity has caused, but will also curtail through public health policy.
Also remember, the people on those Grecian isles are sitting on the sidelines and benefitting from the scientific, medical and technological achievement offered to humanity by those societies that are "slaving away 9-5."
DamnYankee wrote:The probelm isn't America but the corporate gobalization of the world. It enslaves us to workaholics without a choice in the matter, in which the quality of life is measuredly increase in terms of the medical and technolgical breakthroughs that such progess that modernity naturally brings, but a lowering of the quality of life in terms of the reduction in spiritual fulfillment and happiness and genuine variety.
I don't see how you're equating globalisation to longer work days or more stress. Working conditions have become better and hours worked have decreased through the course of human history (in most sectors), regardless of the globalisation that has occured in the last 5-10 years.
Also, doesn't modernity bring more variety into people's lives ? Spiritual fulfillment and happiness are totally subjective variables, and I'm not aware of any statistics being collected on those issues. Religiosity (which has fluctuated through time) does not necessarily equate to spiritual fulfillment.
The negatives and positives of globalisation are too much for one post, but several of the positives
1) Empowerment of
individuals. With internet and cell phones individuals can effectively terrorize the strongest nations in the world, can launch free-lance journalism careers with world-wide exposure (blogs), bla bla - we all know how powerful individuals have become, if we sit and think about it. This is part of a power shift from nation-states to corporations (corporate globalism) to the "individual" globalism of today. This interdependence among individuals leads to..
2.) Breaking of sociocultural barriers - tribalism, nationalism, etc - and progression to a world culture that supercedes local cultures. Globalism has a pacifying effect (has an inflammatory effect in some regions today - esp. Islamic regions). Could anyone imagine any of the member states of the European Union going to war with each other ? (Taking the EU as the best example (not perfect by any leap) of an integrated fluid globalised society; a microcosm).
These are very powerful benefits of globalisation (lots of things fall under these two points)
I'd be interested in anyone elses thoughts. This was a quick outline off my head.
Hey Irish.
I appreciate your views and thank you for getting back to me. I rather enjoyed reading this post.
I think we two are guilty of mixing in modernity and globalization rather freely, even though I am sure the distinctions to us are clear.
In that vein, I think your points for personal advancements (e.g. increased life expectency) is one far more attributed to modernity (i.e. the kind of progress that comes from scientific advancement). Sure scientif advancement often if not invariably brings about social change and causes a global consciousness to focus on societal issues (e.g. just think what the splitting of the atom wrought both technologically and socially). But as for the case of globalization, I still think the verdict is not in quite yet. It is still to be determined how many other countries will really respond to other entities. For instance how will the new key players, China and India, play into this. How will teh EU ultimately deal with other competting political entities. Already there is much conflict with the EU and the the USA. Canada and Mexico really are not following the idea of a united North America, though Greenland seems more entertaining of the idea.
As for the internet playing a role in globalization, I do not see us being drawn together anywhere as much as people becoming more splintered and fragmented, forming endless self-isolating niches. There is an undeniable growing apathy and lack of empathy for other groups and an inherent selfishness that I see, one which tends to view the other very person at the end of the keyboard as just some electronic game to trash or destroy. Ego can become frightening monstrous (as one only has to consider some of the many posts on here) to the point that it really gives us serious pause to wonder what real darkness lurks in our hearts and how we would really treat the other is we were not accountable and could get away with the things that some are saying they want to do to another.
Insofar as the health improvements that modernity has brought, I agree with you that this is an excellent thing. Your pointing out of those Grecian Islanders still benefitting at the side lines is well taken, but call me jaded, but you can argue that this would bolster an argument that the best thing is to get another to work themselves to an earlier grave for your benefit.
Coming from a middle class, blue collar family, I live now in a culturally diverse area in New York were blue and white collar average Joes and Janes reside. People with even 50K a year salaries really have a hard time making meeting their bills. And these are not people living outseide their means, but sometimes struggling to make pay check to pay check, especially when a new child arrives. I know many who work two jobs not so much trying to keep up with the Joneses but just to pay the rent, buy the food, and make sure their kids have a future education awaiting them. Concomitant with the great progress of medical breakthroughs and economic developed that globalization has brought, has been a certain economic stasis for the average individual and complacency in the station of life. Moreover the divide between the rich and middle class has greatly grown to the point now that even being a millionaire is no longer what it was, say, ten years ago, even though more are becoming millionaires today than before. And how many manage to do that to begin?
Also, I would take serious issue in listing the following as a "positive"
"1) Empowerment of individuals. With internet and cell phones individuals can effectively terrorize the strongest nations in the world,"
If anything this is a two edge sword. The freedom of our globalized world not only gives people more choices and opportunies for advancement but for carrying out evil. Before 9/11, the terrorists reportedly used GPS units to get the precise location of the Twin Towers to later hone toward. The question then is how to do protect society and still maintain the same freedoms of that society that others can and will use against it?
I like to share your optimism for globalism, but it is one far more cautious and incredulous at the moment. It is still to my mind very much a work in progess that seems being rushed forward wtih often poor planning or ulterior motive. Just consider for instance this ridiculous move by the Bush Administration to have given New York port security over to a Dubai sercurity firm. Granted, our current security personal are often houses some rather poor examples of model citizenship, but turning over national security to a foreign entity whose nation has proved hostile to us and produced at least two of the 9/11 terrorists is not a wise move. It would seem an obvious conclusion to draw, one in failing to do so can anger many and lead them to ask why the administration would go ahead with this plan. But then to learn that there are many in the administraion who would benefit from foreign deals and proverbial schmoozing some behind the scenes deal, all while globalization is being hypocritically claimed the reason. Now that is truly infuriating and really makes you suspicious of the claim and promise of this "globalization" and its supposed benefits? Exactly who benefits in these kinds of cases? People such as former Enron criminals, who all hood wink us that a given deal is in the people's best interest? No, globalization seems to me just a new term for the same old game of self-interested machiavellism.
Despite my perhaps misanthropic tone, I am still believing that the human race will improve but not until some major problems really force us to see we really have to consider the other--where in considering the best interest of the other is in our best interest, or perhaps better put is that our best interest lies in considering the best interests of others. Can we get to such a point? Or is it inherently impossible because of natural human nature and competition? What would such a world look like?: uniform and sterile or still economically dynamics and compettitve? I wonder if Game Theory could shed light on such a scenario, where you would want to maximize both competition and cooperation. The two seem hopelessly incompatible.
Well, at any rate, thanks again for your post. In the midst of all these penis and other silly posts, I welcomed this food for thought.
Best,
Dan.
