Friday, December 3, 2010

Globalization and the New World Order

The following is a snippet of Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self. 

Globalization is inevitable and it is a good thing too. The sooner we all get over our issues with this fact, the better. The reason for my believing this to be true is due to the failure of the systems we design. Specifically, the counterproductive, paradoxical aspects of those systems. We've already mentioned the semantic deception of a dialectical thesis and how our need to express our individuality from within conformist boundaries confounds our beings. Further adding to our problems are the ideas of nationhood and “spreading democracy,” religion and yes, even the double standard the war on drugs represents. Now, ask yourself, are there any countries in this world where you can't buy a Coke? The answer is no. So why is it that the Coke company can get along with everyone, yet our supposed leaders cannot. Please note, I didn't say we can't get along, it is not we that start these fights amongst our little, global parcels. One way or another, we are told who to hate. 
The speech that should be given here is redundant. How many more times do you have to hear, “We're all one people. We've only got one planet. Everyone deserves the right to live as they see fit, providing they're not hurting anyone. Peace. Love. Etc.”? We, as I've stated and believe, for the most part, are good people. We work hard, we raise our kids, we seek joy. If we all were allowed to leave each other alone, we wouldn't have any problem. Alas, we are raised to want to be different, to have nationhood, to have culture, to differentiate, to expect growth and realize superiority, the list of erroneous philosophies rages on, programming us to fail at the one reasonable reaction that life affords us, prudence. Thus, globalization will be the result of collapse.

I say, if you find yourself resistant to Globalization, examine what kind of notions you harbour about it. We are one people, we do find ourselves partaking of the same pleasures and pains. For me globalization represents the opportunity to work out those pains together. If the world of business can become globalist, why can't we all? It is, after all, why we're here. We are here. We're all here. We're all here together. We may never know why, but we know what we can do. We also know we can't do it alone and what we have to do, we all have to do. William S. Burroughs said, “We're all here to go... We're all here to go, into space. But what are you and you and you and you and you and you and you here for?” I suppose this is true assessment and a fair question. Eventually, we will have to leave the Earth. The life cycle of the Sun guarantees this fact, however far off in the future this transformation will take place. 

Perhaps it is the nerd in me, but I think Star Trek is the pinnacle of globalization and should be its desired outcome. So too shall it be attached to my globalist paradigm, I have decreed. The “prime directive” of the “Federation of Planets” goes well beyond global concepts, but it must first have been achieved globally for it to work universally, that being, a strict policy of non-interference. “Don't love your neighbour, leave the poor bastard alone.”
Business is pushing this one currently. The world of trade has a monopoly on the idea of globalization. It has been argued that this definition is changing because of modern travel, the internet, the environmental movement and other “global village” concerns. Business, of course, has profit as its goal and for certain businesses, the idea of “everyone being on the same page” is not profitable. Although this seems rather transparent to me, I suspect there are at least one billion people who would like to argue the opposite. However, if you are in the business of killing people, I think it's plain to see how globalism, “one world-ness,” is counterproductive. This is why I don't get too excited about the so-called New World Order, the idea of the utopian future shifts and changes with each passing age. This particular gaggle of idiots is just premature. 

We will have our new world order, when we are ready, when it is ready. We won't make it, it will make us. The median will be determined by our balancing of all extremes, of all differences, into something that we can be proud to call human.
Although there are tangible results, from within the already successful business/trade aspects of globalization, as well as the burgeoning “attitude shifts” developing within this new global paradigm, the evaluability of the phenomenon itself is limited. There is also the usual problems we have with knowing we are doing right, as we do it. Some hindsight is preferred. There is certainly a very real opportunity for danger represented by the suggestion that the entire human species follow some particular philosophy or other. Unless of course, the philosophy be that we strive to do our best possible thinking, working toward virtue in all endeavours. 

This continues to be my wish.
When you reduce globalization to its fundamental components, it becomes attached to emotions, such as competition introduces a desire to see your opponent fail and cooperation develops a desire to see your partner succeed. There are also going to be emotional compromises in achieving some virtuous mean, particularly if you currently find yourself comfortable in some extreme or deficient aspect of modernity.

I am strongly in favour of all humans getting on the same page, the right page, the page this book attempts to define. Of all the possible typification that can describe the human species, eudaemonic and virtuous are the ones most likely to contribute to any lasting success. I'm unable to score it as a perfect interpretation because of the dangers present in adopting other, more directional paradigms, such as in the socially engineered forms we find ourselves presently combating, “think this about that.”

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for commenting.