3 ms·

I'd rather live in a inefficient but non-homogenized world than one where everyone has the same viewpoint on most things but things are done efficiently. To me

I'd rather live in a inefficient but non-homogenized world than one where everyone has the same viewpoint on most things but things are done efficiently. To me the situation proposed in the article sounds like something out of a dystopian novel. Furthermore, how would you pick one culture to standardize upon? English is only the de facto language of the world because of forced colonialization by the British, and USD is the de facto currency of international transactions only because of the excessive economic and military power that the US wields.

gboudrias 12y ago
Indeed, this is basically offensive to me (a non-American). It's like saying "it's important that old people die so we can turn them into food". It might be more efficient, but disregards everything that people hold dear that can't be quantified. I'm also not going to engage in this discussion with the biggest cultural empire in the world. I'm sure very few Americans are aware of this, but a lot of folks see American culture as predatory, and homogenization coming from them is basically synonymous with assimilation.
humanrebar 12y ago
> excessive economic and military power that the US wields. What makes it excessive? How much economic and military power is proper?
- cryptoz 12y ago
  (Not the person you're replying to, but I'll add a quick note about the military part): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e... I think that having a military 2x as big as the next biggest is a sufficient definition for 'excessive'. And here, it's a lot more than 2x.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    One counter is that the current (relative) global stability benefits from a pax americana. A related argument is that the Soviet Union collapsed (at least as early as it did) due to its attempt to keep up with American spending on science, technology, and military. But... A better point is that it's inconsistent to state this: > how would you pick one culture to standardize upon? ...and then criticize America for not conforming to a standard about the proper level of military and economic power.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  Maybe "disproportionate" would have been a more diplomatic adjective? ;)
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Perhaps, though that phrasing prompts the question of "proportionate to what?". And then we're back to applying subjective values to groups with other cultural perspectives.

gboudrias 12y ago

Indeed, this is basically offensive to me (a non-American). It's like saying "it's important that old people die so we can turn them into food". It might be more efficient, but disregards everything that people hold dear that can't be quantified. I'm also not going to engage in this discussion with the biggest cultural empire in the world. I'm sure very few Americans are aware of this, but a lot of folks see American culture as predatory, and homogenization coming from them is basically synonymous with assimilation.

humanrebar 12y ago

> excessive economic and military power that the US wields. What makes it excessive? How much economic and military power is proper?

cryptoz 12y ago
(Not the person you're replying to, but I'll add a quick note about the military part): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e... I think that having a military 2x as big as the next biggest is a sufficient definition for 'excessive'. And here, it's a lot more than 2x.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  One counter is that the current (relative) global stability benefits from a pax americana. A related argument is that the Soviet Union collapsed (at least as early as it did) due to its attempt to keep up with American spending on science, technology, and military. But... A better point is that it's inconsistent to state this: > how would you pick one culture to standardize upon? ...and then criticize America for not conforming to a standard about the proper level of military and economic power.
scott_karana 12y ago
Maybe "disproportionate" would have been a more diplomatic adjective? ;)
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Perhaps, though that phrasing prompts the question of "proportionate to what?". And then we're back to applying subjective values to groups with other cultural perspectives.