Imagine a modern refugee seeking a new home where s/he can be free of oppression and to pursue his dreams. If all the world becomes homogenized, where would s/he go that would be different?
Globalism.
n.
A political and economic philosophy which seeks to make regional atrocities universal.
I think the world needs to become unified on a lot of things, but not all things.
I agree 100 percent. I'd personally love it if humanity could come together on their own--WITHOUT being pushed into it by gover-business elites.
The Internet does that...kinda-sorta. That's why governments the world over are desperately trying to regulate it.
So long as all sorts of things do not recognize nation-state boundaries (resource pools, pollution, disease vectors, migratory non-human species, etc.) some form of global scale governance is needed to resolve disputes
Reasonable people can differ on the exact nature and powers of global governance, but those who deny the need for such an institution are terribly naive (or worse).
There is value to that of course but we always imagine it as a good global government.
The bad part is that everything always changes. Look at the US, the dems and republicans are always taking and losing power - or now the dems are being headed by something worse than any republican. So even if this world govt starts out good and beneficial, there is the risk or maybe inevitability that at times it will be run by really bad people.
Hello N:
Sure. Why not? Truly, we ALL have the same wants and needs. I think you're confusing culture with politics. If you didn't like the people in Bolivia, you can move to NY.. Just because people are following the same rules, doesn't mean they gave up their culture..
excon
Exactly! And once it's set up, there will be no place to hide.
No confusion on my part, but you do raise an interesting point. Culture usually lags (and in some cases precedes) politics by decades.
Be that as it may, moving from NY to Bolivia or vise versa won't accomplish much once government (politics) and culture reach a state of homogeneous equilibrium.
You are a dreamer. That is not even close to ever coming to fruition, it is not anywhere in any realm of common sense.
First of all, what do you even mean by homogenized? Imagine the Herculean effort it would take to Homogenize a state or country. Name ONE that IS? There may be "laws" but do people in any one state all follow them? Global anything would require prisons the size of a globe for those that do not agree with what everyone else wants regarding any type of compromise. Especially regarding foreigners. If you are telling me that people can come to a place where they do not judge by appearance or background?
Yes, maybe 5 centuries from now. That doesn't make you a visionary. It makes you sketchy regarding your thought processes concerning this issue.
Let's start with reality?
Oh, please, Sharonna, tell me you're NOT one of those who assumes a stance on the part of one who merely asks a question.
If I ask the question: "What's The Best Way To Serve Black People?," will you automatically assume I'm a racist cannibal?
@Nimitz -- Yes, when you use semantically-laden words/phrases like "refugee", "pursue his dreams", "oppression", and "homogenized", most people quite reasonably understand the linguistic framing implicit in your question.
Your deflecting counterexample is not relevant because all but a miniscule minority of the English-speaking people in the world are NOT cannibals, so the phrase "serve black people" does not invoke a cannibalism linguistic frame.
@Troll -- In actuality there is nothing 'reasonable' about ASS-U-MING the stance of a person who asks a question. The term 'refugee' clearly has a wide variety of connotations. It can mean anything from "a person who seeks asylum or a better life" to "terrorist wannabe."
While your defense of Sharonna's error is quite quaint, your inability to conduct normal, civil discourse has been duly demonstrated--again. Thanks for playing, SKOS.
I don't think so. We've yet to get it right even on a small scale, could you imagine a govt. as intrusive, abusive, wasteful and inefficient as ours on a global scale? I don't even want to think about that.
IKR? The whole idea gives me the willies. World identification cards (or chips conveniently embedded in the palm of the hand or forehead); universal disarmament and subsequent tyranny.
Uh, in short, no thanks.
Edit...UNLESS we get to make first contact with the Vulcans. LOL!
The Vulcans would laugh us to scorn! But yeah, that would be worth it!
...Except that they have a slightly greenish skin tone, live on a hellish planet and sport pointy ears...you know, kinda like demons?
Hey, maybe Roddenberry was really a satanist and trying to warm us up to the government of the antichrist? Yeah. That's it!
:-)
(Seriously, though. The idea has been proffered in multiple circles.)
I applaud your honesty/integrity if not your reasoning. :-)
But hey, if you like being hip deep in radical Muslims, who are we to bellyache?
I'm for any system which isn't thrust on people against their will, best interests, etc. If globalism can be achieved that way or if humanity 'evolves' to prefer a global village, fine. I won't lie and say there aren't certain advantages to economic interdependence (hey, it's hard to go to war with a nation who owes you a chit-load of money or upon whose economy your own depends), but on the main people don't like to be shoved into homologous cultural sub-units.
Hey, they exercise pure logic. Pointy ears would be a small price to pay. You had to go and ruin the one fantastical pleasure I had left, completely stripping it of its innocence with your eerie suggestion, huh???
What are friends for. :-D
And such notions, while not completely outside the realm of plausibility, don't keep me from enjoying Star Trek. I just ignore the propaganda and move on. :-)
What next, gonna tell me Star Wars is demented too?!?! ;)
Seriously though, same here. Wheat from the chaff and all that, I think you have to do so with most every creation of man. imho
