3 ms·
Why is it inevitable? Given the propensity of humans to destroy their own cultures over time (see all extinct civilizations), one could argue that diversity in
by bitL 4y ago
Why is it inevitable? Given the propensity of humans to destroy their own cultures over time (see all extinct civilizations), one could argue that diversity in cultures/nations is the only hope so that at any point in time at least one culture is sensible. Similar to what reinforcement learning or economics tries to achieve by exploration vs exploitation. Globalization is the ultimate exploitation phase, exploration would require many different cultures, often isolated.
- csomar 4y agoBecause, historically, people almost always favored trade over sovereignty. Even today, trade is still happening between Russia and the US. People just like to trade across the virtual boundaries that culture and nationality has made. Evolution will favor those who trade over those who don't since the ones trading will be more efficient. There will blips along the way but unless you can convince me otherwise how a closed system will be more efficient, in the very long time, globalization is our fate.
- bitL 4y agoLook at what China did - they copied whole economic/technological systems of countries, each in a different region, then ran it for two decades, then evaluated which ones work best under what conditions. How would you get this effect with globalization and a single culture everywhere?
- lm28469 4y ago> Evolution will favor those who trade over those who don't since the ones trading will be more efficient. Calling "evolution" as an argument is always extremely weird. Efficiency is also a single part of the equation. Slave labor was very efficient, burning fossil fuel is very efficient, there are dozens of other variables
- onepointsixC 4y ago>Evolution will favor those who trade over those who don't since the ones trading will be more efficient. There will blips along the way but unless you can convince me otherwise how a closed system will be more efficient, in the very long time, globalization is our fate. You're looking at this wrong. The dichotomy isn't Globalization vs No Trade. It's more of Globalization & Free Trade vs Limited Conditional Trade. Throughout all of written human history there was trade. But there wasn't free trade like today where everyone is able to trade with one another so freely with little cost. Historically, only big powers who had massive navies to protect their own ships were able to trade in meaningful quantities. Today the USN guarantees all global shipping. Morris Chang has long opposed moving Fabs to the US where most of his customers were because so long as the cost of moving stuff was negligible it made little sense. But Taiwan's trade is not guaranteed by the Republic of China Navy. And it's customers are overwhelming American. Post Covid & Ukraine Invasion it is clear that neither the US government, nor US corporations believe that there is no cost to crucial supply chains being located abroad. Nor is the transport of those vital supplies considered to be effectively negligible. TSMC leadership likely had some difficult conversations behind closed doors which to effect amounted that with the current status quo they are too expensive, and if they do not relocate some of their fabs to the US, their customers will look to alternative partners.