General / Off-Topic Globalization Vs. Nationalism

[Aereon Theed]

Yup.
Mentioned already that I studied in northern Englad (near the scottish border) and really enjoyed the "local culture" (including local beers).
That was 20 years ago. If I look at those local beers today, they're either extinct or replaced with imported "industry" stuff. And the pubs where I used to hang out have been replaced with generic "Sports Bars" or "Irish Pubs" (<- irish apparently were pretty successful at exporting their pub culture - there's loads of irish pubs all across this planet and they're usually wonderful places - however, they don't serve local beers).
So all the large talk about "culture" and "ways of living" is imo just silly. They let their local stuff die, just to save a few penny on a pint of beer.

And there is a sort of "line" between northern england and southern scotland, so after hundreds of years of living next door to each other, it's not all "blended into one" - even though northern scotsmen and southern englishmen might feel that their respective counterparts are "too close" to the other side.

I personally support all "german culture" to the best of my ability. I played Fussball (despite being bad at it), I was a member of our "fine arts" club, playin in the orchestra and singing in the choir for over 10 years - I'm still supporting member of that - I ran my sports club for half a decade (we do japanese stuff, but we don't force anyone to join us, we just offer "cultural exchange", organize stuff with high ranking japanese teachers and so on). I'm also a supporting member of our local social association, who provides all kinds of help to sick, elderly and disabled.
All that costs me way less money than my internet bill. (I did have to cut a lot of the active time I could spend on the things, so I had more left for my family, but I just kept the "supporting member" status and pay a few euro a year and financial support in community work is always welcome)

I don't know. I get to my limits of taking those complaints seriously.
In the end, if you think something is worth preserving, be the first to preserve it.

Thanks for clarification - I happen to agree. I have Dutch blood in me, and I support the Netherlands as much as possible, yet I don't live there. I buy and eat mostly authentic Dutch meals, I have Dutch Christmas traditions, I even own a pair of wooden shoes I refuse to wear. I've taught my kids Dutch despite the fact that they are 50% British, and when I speak to my parents it is only in Dutch. I read and write Dutch (among three other languages). You can keep culture with Globalization. At least I feel like you can. It is a state of mind not a border that defines you. You can be the culture you wish to be wherever you are in the world. My idiot brother in law thinks he is a Viking (he is British) and even prays to Thor and Odin. His call, of course. But my point is that where you live and work, where you enjoy life isn't effected by the global community. In fact sometimes it can be enhanced. For example, when you are away from your birth culture but still partake in its heritage and over all qualities you become a beacon for others of like mind, or even just a flag planet in the ground that for lack of a mass of others in your scenario reminds you of your heritage and causes you to reinforce it consciously or subconsciously.

Are we Europeans that hard to read? it was cutting, vicious sarcasm.

Ha. I just get worried. There is no facial cues or voice cues to ensure what I am interpreting is the correct form of whats being said.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Indeed, yet how oft do Bureaucrats care about outcomes?

More than politicians actually.
Career bureaucrats are actually bureaucratic and advance in their career by being so.
That's not the most "exciting" human trait you can have (some of my old friends from school went into public service and some of them are quite high on the bureaucratic ladder by now - and we're in germany - easiely one of the most bureaucratic countries on this planet), but seriously - if you want to run a stable system, you don't want "creativity", you want stubborn following of the rules (bureaucrats have some wiggle room - if they forward that to your specific case or not depends on how you behave with them).

The issue is more in who sets the rules, which are again politicians - "the legislative" and they care most about their a) power b) position c) salary d) image (about in that order .. on average)
You don't get into high political positions by not playing the "power games" - you do get in high administrative positions by being completely boring and predictable.

I know I'm generalizing quite a bit here, but my "experience" with those things is gained by having contacts in all those circles and listening to people and trying to understand their position, so it's just a bit of a counterpoint to the ususal narrative.

And I do have high respect for the United Nations and what they're trying to achieve.
While I don't think they should get wider powers and be turned into a "world government", I do think that they should recieve better means to enforce those things that 2017 we consider "human rights". It's a bit of a debate club at the moment, who's power is limited to scolding trespassers.

 

[Boomer Kay]

The funny side effect of trade is the freer the trade, the less tyrannical govts tend to be and the less likely wars occur, because you don't want to bomb a place that makes the goods you want!

True in terms of manufactured goods.
Almost the opposite in terms of raw material.

 

[Arry]

True in terms of manufactured goods.
Almost the opposite in terms of raw material.

= Bush - middle east - Oil. As a case in point.

 

[Boomer Kay]

If that is true then Bush II went after the wrong country! It's Arabia that has most of the Texas tea, and besides, the US, Canada & other places have more than enough of it to explore and drill or fracture extract.

Well, as a country, it seems to be Venezuela (ongoing riots for how many decades?)
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm
(I still don't trust those OPEC published figures - it's just too convenient to tell someone a good is scarcer than it actually is, if you depend on selling it - much of the GDP and tax income in those oil exporting countries is oil and pretty heaviely oil .. like 70%).

But the amount is just one factor. Price is the other. Control over a certain reserve the next. Breaking one country out of OPEC would be another goal - given enough reserves, they could crash the price of oil on their own (certainly not with expensive means of production like barents or US oil or limited supplies like gulf of mexico, but one of the arabic OPEC countries going on a production spree?). etc.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Or fossil fuel abandoned all together.
But that's some sort of mexican stand-off for as long as I can think.

First country to axe cheap fossil energy in favour of new technologies will get a huge disadvantage on the current market, which might be too large to recoup past the break even point.
Hm.

(Iceland did actually profit from water and geothermal energy, since they have plenty and high-electricity requiring industries like alloy production have moved there, but there's still the problem of transporting that energy and transporting the raw material there and the processed material to where they are required .. the golden age of sail revived ? )

Most of all there's not an ounce of political will globally to do so.
The status quo is too comfortable and profitable. :|

So yea, even the idea of a "free trade" is just a tool to exploit inequalities in knowledge. As long as you get gas and oil cheaper than any other source of energy, you can't actually do a proper calculation on what's more beneficial to you individually.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Abandon fossil based fuels? Based on current technology - 'good luck with that', as it were.

As long as you get gas and oil cheaper than any other source of energy, you can't actually do a proper calculation on what's more beneficial to you individually.

Of course you can! if you're a family on a budget when it comes to fuel bills and choosing their next supplier on USwitch et al (16 comparison sites at least!), I bet my bottom dollar they'll be picking the cheapest conventional fossil or nuke-based tariff and not wind/solar/hydroelectric tariff which tend to be dear. And that's what I do also, pick the cheapest capped or fixed tariff deal for 12 months. I'm a total rate tart though

That's just partial data provided by salesperson who want to maximize their profits.
All under the illusion of "choice" and "free market".
How cheap or expensive something is end to end as well as the current level of technology are things we have no real access to.
Well... One day maybe.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Can't even get a graphics card that isn't conveniently placed to make an upgrade after 2 years worthwhile or isn't price gouging placed at the maximum achievable price.
That's what happens if you have monopolies. It's bad for innovation.

Can't even get money for anything but mainstream. Should read some of the "hedge fund vs. Musk" stuff. It's rather sobering. (And I don't even like Musk all that much)

 

[Aereon Theed]

I think that one of the things that is often overlooked with Nationalist is the fact that whatever happens in one country impacts another. We can no longer assume, for example, that what happens in China will only impact China. If we look at pollution, Chinese pollution is among some of the highest. I don't know the exact stats, but it is bad. With that being said, when the wind blows a lot of Chinese pollution tends to end up in Vancouver Canada. As such Canadian's (especially in that area of our nation) tend to be concerned with the standards that are held by the Chinese and there over all methods and morals. Of course this can be seen in many ways, including Nuclear War heads, and water shortages. The idea that you can stay inside your nation and repel other nations because you will always be safe and fine is a falsehood. You will either one day need the aid of other nations or you will be the only nation available to give aid. We are in fact in a globalization period of the human spectrum, and unless we loose half or more of the population of the planet, we always will be.

 

[6xes]

Globalism in my opinion is Dangerous in respect of once power is corrupted and dictated... there is no other power left to oppose any wrongful ill's of a society.

For if Absolute power is established on a Global scale.. and it supercedes any National Sovereignty, The laws that bind a global community will leave everyone in bondage without ability to rectify or make necessary change.

Globalism is in essence one United Nation under one all binding law.. which supercedes every sovereign law in any given country

Imagine for a moment if the USA constitution were changed to allow Obama to run for President indefinately..
now imagine during the many years of being president he eroded away the constitution and eventually got rid of it completely..
then opened all borders bringing about Globalism.. imagine Sharia Law becoming the new constitution and the Freedoms you once had are all gone..
To oppose the New Sharia Law USA is punishable by death... there is no fighting against such changes once they are set in concrete... accept for Civil Rebellion


The Beauty of Nationalism in one respect gives oppurtunity of experimentation.. to see the effects and changes of any given Law or Policy.. To learn from another Nation's policy is great for social progress

 

[beelbeebub]

Globalism in my opinion is Dangerous in respect of once power is corrupted and dictated... there is no other power left to oppose any wrongful ill's of a society.

For if Absolute power is established on a Global scale.. and it supercedes any National Sovereignty, The laws that bind a global community will leave everyone in bondage without ability to rectify or make necessary change.

Globalism is in essence one United Nation under one all binding law.. which supercedes every sovereign law in any given country

Imagine for a moment if the USA constitution were changed to allow Obama to run for President indefinately..
now imagine during the many years of being president he eroded away the constitution and eventually got rid of it completely..
then opened all borders bringing about Globalism.. imagine Sharia Law becoming the new constitution and the Freedoms you once had are all gone..
To oppose the New Sharia Law USA is punishable by death... there is no fighting against such changes once they are set in concrete... accept for Civil Rebellion


The Beauty of Nationalism in one respect gives oppurtunity of experimentation.. to see the effects and changes of any given Law or Policy.. To learn from another Nation's policy is great for social progress

"one world government" is not the same a many nations working together and agreeing to a common set of rules.

Cooperation and holding each other to a common set of rules is a good thing.

If we had a world where no nation had any power outside it's own borders, what do you do when the country upwind of you starts burning high sulphur coal causing acid rain to destroy your forests?

What do you do if the country upstream of your major river (say Switzerland before Germany on the Rhine) starts to dump toxic waste into it?

What do you do when a German airline wants to fly over France to get to Spain or the US?

The only option is for the two countries to work together, hammer out an agreement that they won't pollute the waterways or air, that they will allow aircraft to fly thorough their airspace etc.

If that option is off the table then it's war. And that is good for nobody.

So, nations agreeing to work together to a common set of rules is a better alternative to war.

That is what the UN, EU etc are...... groups of nations working together.

the "opportunity of experimentation" is also an opportunity for bad things. "Why don't we bring back slavery?", "try killing the poor!", "how about voting rights only for land owners?"

Can you name one "experiment" a nation is currently conducting that globalisation is preventing that is not ethnic cleansing, increasing pollution, removing people's rights etc?

 

[Aereon Theed]

That's not going to happen unless H bombs or genocide. Had enough of both in the 20th C.

Agree, but I do want to stipulate I don't want to see this happen. I hope that one day, especially thanks to our population, we move out into first our own solar system and colonies on Mars, and varying moons like Europa, and even space stations situated around planets of importance. Then I hope we move on to other systems and planets around other stars.

- - - Updated - - -

"one world government" is not the same a many nations working together and agreeing to a common set of rules.

Cooperation and holding each other to a common set of rules is a good thing.

If we had a world where no nation had any power outside it's own borders, what do you do when the country upwind of you starts burning high sulphur coal causing acid rain to destroy your forests?

What do you do if the country upstream of your major river (say Switzerland before Germany on the Rhine) starts to dump toxic waste into it?

What do you do when a German airline wants to fly over France to get to Spain or the US?

The only option is for the two countries to work together, hammer out an agreement that they won't pollute the waterways or air, that they will allow aircraft to fly thorough their airspace etc.

If that option is off the table then it's war. And that is good for nobody.

So, nations agreeing to work together to a common set of rules is a better alternative to war.

That is what the UN, EU etc are...... groups of nations working together.

the "opportunity of experimentation" is also an opportunity for bad things. "Why don't we bring back slavery?", "try killing the poor!", "how about voting rights only for land owners?"

Can you name one "experiment" a nation is currently conducting that globalisation is preventing that is not ethnic cleansing, increasing pollution, removing people's rights etc?

Not sure he gets the difference between Globalization and Globalism as you said. And even if he does, he doesn't get that we would see more changes then adopting current methods. For example we would see new rules written to govern globally, not just the adoption of Sharia Law. Though I love that he tries to use Obama and the work he has done as an example for oppression. Trump... Hitler, anybody else. Nope, straight to Obama because he was sooooooo evil.

 

[Adept]

Agree, but I do want to stipulate I don't want to see this happen. I hope that one day, especially thanks to our population, we move out into first our own solar system and colonies on Mars, and varying moons like Europa, and even space stations situated around planets of importance. Then I hope we move on to other systems and planets around other stars.

We live below a thick atmosphere, at the bottom of a deep gravity well. Everyplace else is really hostile to human life, and extremely difficult to get to.

Shipping excess human population off planet is not going to happen, the energy budget alone is utterly unworkable.

Orbital factories, research labs, even hotels make some sense. Making use of the Moon probably as well, but we can't think of colonising space in the same sense as Europeans discovering "the New World".

BTW, why should humanity spread to the stars, even if it were possible? We haven't exactly been good news to the Earth.

 

[Aereon Theed]

We live below a thick atmosphere, at the bottom of a deep gravity well. Everyplace else is really hostile to human life, and extremely difficult to get to.

Shipping excess human population off planet is not going to happen, the energy budget alone is utterly unworkable.

Orbital factories, research labs, even hotels make some sense. Making use of the Moon probably as well, but we can't think of colonising space in the same sense as Europeans discovering "the New World".

BTW, why should humanity spread to the stars, even if it were possible? We haven't exactly been good news to the Earth.

I don't want to ship the current people off. I assume that in a population abundance we are more willing to allow death at the cost of expansion into the stars. Currently the prospect of people dying on Mars in an attempt to colonize the planet is seen as a non-starter. I assume as the population grows we will be more willing to loose some of us in an effort to move outside of our house and into other homes. While I know this sounds cold, I more so mean like the New World verses the Old World. I firmly believe we will expand to other planetary systems, I just don't know when. As for the solar system, if we were smart we would get out there quick. There is enough water, for example, locked in some asteroids to solve water issues. That' not even counting Helium 3 which can be used in current fusion technology to provide energy to the population on our planet. To tie this into my OP, I think as globalization expands our desire to see the stars and expand into the stars will also increase. Thoughts?

 

[beelbeebub]

Given the magnitude of the task of making humanity a pan solar species, it will require the productive output of a global civilization.

That doesn't mean a "one world government", but it does mean a massively multinational space agency, the US or China or EU alone couldn't do it. Sure NASA might get to mars, it actual.terraforming and colonisation? It s going to take the economic surplus of more than 370million people to do that.

In order for space colonisation to.actually "take off" you need to get enough people and production capacity out of the gravity well to become self sustaining.

The first step would be the industrialisation of the moon to produce the equipment needed outside of earth's gravity.

 

[Adept]

I don't want to ship the current people off. I assume that in a population abundance we are more willing to allow death at the cost of expansion into the stars. Currently the prospect of people dying on Mars in an attempt to colonize the planet is seen as a non-starter. I assume as the population grows we will be more willing to loose some of us in an effort to move outside of our house and into other homes. While I know this sounds cold, I more so mean like the New World verses the Old World. I firmly believe we will expand to other planetary systems, I just don't know when. As for the solar system, if we were smart we would get out there quick. There is enough water, for example, locked in some asteroids to solve water issues. That' not even counting Helium 3 which can be used in current fusion technology to provide energy to the population on our planet. To tie this into my OP, I think as globalization expands our desire to see the stars and expand into the stars will also increase. Thoughts?

Would you like to live deep under the ice at the South Pole? All food grown in algae and yeast tanks, then textured with 3d printers into burgers and such. A nuclear reactor providing power. Live your whole life in a underground facility like that.

What I described is an easy life of luxury compared to the rest of the Sol system. Full gravity, endless sources of air and water, mild temperature range.

Additionally we're slready hitting 8 billion. That's at least double a workable number of humans on the planet. Losing a handful of us is a non issue, and won't become more so if there are 12 billion. If anything, a space program will become harder to justify when our teeming population swells even further.

 

[Aereon Theed]

Would you like to live deep under the ice at the South Pole? All food grown in algae and yeast tanks, then textured with 3d printers into burgers and such. A nuclear reactor providing power. Live your whole life in a underground facility like that.

What I described is an easy life of luxury compared to the rest of the Sol system. Full gravity, endless sources of air and water, mild temperature range.

Additionally we're slready hitting 8 billion. That's at least double a workable number of humans on the planet. Losing a handful of us is a non issue, and won't become more so if there are 12 billion. If anything, a space program will become harder to justify when our teeming population swells even further.

We weren't supposed to fly like birds once upon a time either. My friend, I appreciate your desire to play devils advocate, but I am surprised at your inability to visualize us off this rock. What happens if another ELE takes place? We need to be seeded on multiple rocks to ensure the survival of our species.

- - - Updated - - -

Given the magnitude of the task of making humanity a pan solar species, it will require the productive output of a global civilization.

That doesn't mean a "one world government", but it does mean a massively multinational space agency, the US or China or EU alone couldn't do it. Sure NASA might get to mars, it actual.terraforming and colonisation? It s going to take the economic surplus of more than 370million people to do that.

In order for space colonisation to.actually "take off" you need to get enough people and production capacity out of the gravity well to become self sustaining.

The first step would be the industrialisation of the moon to produce the equipment needed outside of earth's gravity.

Yes. I think you are right. We need to start taking steps to move off the earth, and the moon would be a great stepping stone for that. As I understand it, Helium 3 is in abundance on the dark side of the moon, as well. I think a few moon colonies would be amazing. I feel like one day we might even have the technology to create a 'shield' of sorts around the moon to create an atmosphere. But I could be wrong. Its hard to know where our technology can take us.

 

[Adept]

We weren't supposed to fly like birds once upon a time either. My friend, I appreciate your desire to play devils advocate, but I am surprised at your inability to visualize us off this rock. What happens if another ELE takes place? We need to be seeded on multiple rocks to ensure the survival of our species.

Even if a supercaldera erups, or we get hit by a big chunk of relativistic rock, I bet the chances for long term survival are greater down on Earth. A survival bunker carved into a mountain would serve better than being stranded on Mars.

As a further devil's advocate bit, why should we try to survive as a species at any cost? What kind of a life would it be, huddling on a moon colony or some such, if the biosphere of Earth is lost.

This is the prime real estate in the system, and the only real oasis we are ever likely to have access to. Focus on taking care of the Earth, managing our population and resource needs, and it's a much better safeguard against extinction than any colony elsewhere in the system.

I'm all for space exploration, but the ideas of needing to become a multi-planetary society are IMO not well thought out. This is my opinion as a lifelong Sci-Fi fan with a degree in Ecology and Environmental science (with a side order of Astrobiology... I did mention Sci-Fi right).

 

[Aereon Theed]

Even if a supercaldera erups, or we get hit by a big chunk of relativistic rock, I bet the chances for long term survival are greater down on Earth. A survival bunker carved into a mountain would serve better than being stranded on Mars.

As a further devil's advocate bit, why should we try to survive as a species at any cost? What kind of a life would it be, huddling on a moon colony or some such, if the biosphere of Earth is lost.

This is the prime real estate in the system, and the only real oasis we are ever likely to have access to. Focus on taking care of the Earth, managing our population and resource needs, and it's a much better safeguard against extinction than any colony elsewhere in the system.

I'm all for space exploration, but the ideas of needing to become a multi-planetary society are IMO not well thought out. This is my opinion as a lifelong Sci-Fi fan with a degree in Ecology and Environmental science (with a side order of Astrobiology... I did mention Sci-Fi right).

We wont always be huddling together on a moon, or asteroid, or even space station. We however need to make the strides, in my opinion, into space, so that we can for example get to Trappist 1, or any other ELW's - there are in fact many out there, as proven by recent scientific studies. As long as they are not full of other life (sentient, I guess) I think we have a right to claim them an colonize there. Of course this comes with inherent problems, like the pollution of other biospheres like we have done to our own planet. I realize this. As for surviving at any cost... I think I feel we need to take that step because of the art, science, and general exploration that runs in our blood. We have contributed great things to the universe or even have yet to contribute even greater things.

Whats the difference between a survival bunker and a mars colony? Especially if both planets look the same or are inhospitable for our form of existence?

Personally I would love to see us as a space race and slowly return the planet back to the animals, if that is at all possible. Though pretty unrealistic.

Just not sure why you are coming at me with this hatred for our population. I was under the previous impression you and I were somewhat dreamers who wished the best of our society and civilization. Don't get me wrong, I know we have problems, but I wonder if our drive to exist outside of our little bubble would help in solving these issues and creating more of a pressing dynamic for unification and clarity.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Just not sure why you are coming at me with this hatred for our population. I was under the previous impression you and I were somewhat dreamers who wished the best of our society and civilization. Don't get me wrong, I know we have problems, but I wonder if our drive to exist outside of our little bubble would help in solving these issues and creating more of a pressing dynamic for unification and clarity.

I read less hatred and more contempt for the greed and selfish stupidity that seems to be the chief motivation for human activity. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here Adept.

Some people do see a bigger picture and are ambitious not just for themselves, but for all people, and hope that humans make the world a better place. Some of the very enlightened (like yourself) actually want to make the world a better place for all life that exists upon it, or at least make it a place where life can once again thrive, even if evolution and the life of predator and prey can sometimes be cruel and bloody.

But way too many people can't see past their next hedonistic desire to get ahead of other people, or look down on other people, or make "their country", a silly bit of rock on a spherical larger bit of rock, stand astride the countries of others simply so they can feel superiority in their hearts. It's not a minority who think this way - recent elections have proved that.

Humans face extreme peril due to their own actions. The planet faces a serious climate crisis. Yet governments are not only not acting strongly enough, but actively shutting down what meager measures have been put in place, removed at the behest of the uneducated and the corrupt. Given that, does humanity really deserve to succeed?