3 ms·

Unified humanity is a 'noble' goal for a self-fulfilling, tautological reason: it's defined to be noble by those promoting it. It's an endgame that assumes that

by niftich 10y ago

Unified humanity is a 'noble' goal for a self-fulfilling, tautological reason: it's defined to be noble by those promoting it. It's an endgame that assumes that resource competition between smaller subgroups will be nonexistent, and that the path to prosperity is mutually-beneficial trade or altruism. The fact remains, while a rising tide may lift all ships, it doesn't lift all ships equally -- and in developed countries, the wage-earning, non-tertiary-sector classes are left holding smaller relative pieces of the pie than before. Yes, chances are those jobs will have been lost to automation sooner or later. Yes, chances are those jobs are never coming back. But a manufacturing worker in the United States can lose their job to someone on the other side of the globe lifting foreign workers out of poverty, while real wages continue to stagnate [1][2] in the US. Cheaper foreign-made merchandise doesn't help a domestic family pay for homes, higher education (which is a way of buying job security), healthcare. At a certain point, people will start asking, "but what's in it for me?", which shouldn't be surprising. [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ [2] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...

YZF 10y ago
But look at Europe. Europe thought it could ignore Africa and the Middle East but guess what, when there's a large difference things tend to find a way of equalizing themselves. So my rational argument, I hope, is that one can't leave international disparity for long durations any more than they can leave internal disparity (or instead of it). It will catch up with you. This is a small planet. So when someone asks what's in it for me I think we have some answers for them. And we should also do better for them regardless. North Korea pursues an isolationist pose, how well is that working for the people there? How many American jobs are created because the companies they work for can trade globally? If anything the US is a prime example of how you can prosper while being more open. EDIT: + cheaper goods do help everyone. As to high house prices that's a different story, don't blame globalism for that one.
- niftich 10y ago
  It's hard to have it both ways. Europe historically didn't "ignore" Africa [1][2][3][4] nor the Middle East [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. It's not a question of globalization vs. isolationism. This is a false dichotomy. Rather, each sovereign state should try to look out of the interests of its people, and when they don't see results, the people may hold the government accountable by protest, election, or revolution. Running a state is an immense task with lots of conflicting goals, but the survival of the state and the welfare of its people ought to be the most important. Sometimes this means more trade, sometimes it means less trade, sometimes it means a domestically-focused governance, and sometimes it means geopolitical machinations (if human history is any indication). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1826%E2%80%9328) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1826%E2%80%... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Em... [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
  - YZF 10y ago
    The world is a completely different place today. If you don't believe me put all these historic times in a table with these columns: time to circumnavigate the earth, mean communication time between individuals, global population, CO2 concentration, diversity of life on earth, most powerful weapons, GDP, trade as % of GDP, performance of "mechanical" chess player, # and % of the world economy of "global" corporations. If you look at things going on at the national level today in the US, Turkey, Britain, Russia, China you can see clear influence of global events. The Middle East and Africa clearly influences all the above in major ways and the US withdrawal from involvement there, if even possible (not), will not change that. The economy of China influences the entire world's economy. Look at countries like Switzerland and Canada who have traditionally tried to stay neutral and perhaps internal focussed in some sense, the Canadian economy has been hammered by the drop in commodity prices. The Swiss had to break their traditional banking secrecy due to external pressures. Climate change is affecting pretty much everyone and the risks it presents are almost unprecedented in human history. EDIT: Look at how quickly a disease can spread to the entire planet. SARS, flu, Ebola...

by niftich 10y ago

YZF 10y ago

But look at Europe. Europe thought it could ignore Africa and the Middle East but guess what, when there's a large difference things tend to find a way of equalizing themselves. So my rational argument, I hope, is that one can't leave international disparity for long durations any more than they can leave internal disparity (or instead of it). It will catch up with you. This is a small planet. So when someone asks what's in it for me I think we have some answers for them. And we should also do better for them regardless. North Korea pursues an isolationist pose, how well is that working for the people there? How many American jobs are created because the companies they work for can trade globally? If anything the US is a prime example of how you can prosper while being more open. EDIT: + cheaper goods do help everyone. As to high house prices that's a different story, don't blame globalism for that one.

niftich 10y ago
It's hard to have it both ways. Europe historically didn't "ignore" Africa [1][2][3][4] nor the Middle East [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. It's not a question of globalization vs. isolationism. This is a false dichotomy. Rather, each sovereign state should try to look out of the interests of its people, and when they don't see results, the people may hold the government accountable by protest, election, or revolution. Running a state is an immense task with lots of conflicting goals, but the survival of the state and the welfare of its people ought to be the most important. Sometimes this means more trade, sometimes it means less trade, sometimes it means a domestically-focused governance, and sometimes it means geopolitical machinations (if human history is any indication). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1826%E2%80%9328) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1826%E2%80%... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Em... [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
- YZF 10y ago
  The world is a completely different place today. If you don't believe me put all these historic times in a table with these columns: time to circumnavigate the earth, mean communication time between individuals, global population, CO2 concentration, diversity of life on earth, most powerful weapons, GDP, trade as % of GDP, performance of "mechanical" chess player, # and % of the world economy of "global" corporations. If you look at things going on at the national level today in the US, Turkey, Britain, Russia, China you can see clear influence of global events. The Middle East and Africa clearly influences all the above in major ways and the US withdrawal from involvement there, if even possible (not), will not change that. The economy of China influences the entire world's economy. Look at countries like Switzerland and Canada who have traditionally tried to stay neutral and perhaps internal focussed in some sense, the Canadian economy has been hammered by the drop in commodity prices. The Swiss had to break their traditional banking secrecy due to external pressures. Climate change is affecting pretty much everyone and the risks it presents are almost unprecedented in human history. EDIT: Look at how quickly a disease can spread to the entire planet. SARS, flu, Ebola...