Globalisation as a Value

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
RWStanding
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Globalisation as a Value

Post by RWStanding »

Globalisation as a Value
Globalisation is a modern aspiration and as such may be some kind of ethical value. But it appears to be even more ambiguous than basic values in general. It can represent any kind of horror story according to how various knaves make use of it. Alexander the Great was one of the first known globalists! And many others since then who can be imagined. Indeed, it is a value without any useful meaning by itself. Other, perhaps, than in its being equivalent to Universal as used in universal value.
In the modern context, it is employed by those who have ambitions to cash-in on the whole world. And also by those who wish to bring prosperity to everyone. Or those who wish to have the liberty of the whole world but none of the responsibilities.
If we espouse altruist society, then we may speak of Globalised Altruism. But this implies a responsibility effectively from the grass-roots upwards. We cannot employ our wealth to poach talent from other regions of the world that themselves need all they have. As in National Health – it must make use of the resources we have, and other countries make use of the resources they have.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Globalisation as a Value

Post by -1- »

If you consider the number of people employed in knowledge fields EXPORTED and IMPORTED by the United States, you may find that the exports far outweigh the imports. By sheer numbers.

Of course there is the consideration too, that the EXPORTS of intellectual workers are temporary, lasting up to two years on the average; and the IMPORTS are overwhelmingly permanent.

My statistics are precise, inasmuch as 57% of all statistical quotes are got from thin air.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Globalisation as a Value

Post by commonsense »

RWStanding wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:14 am Globalisation as a Value
Globalisation is a modern aspiration and as such may be some kind of ethical value. But it appears to be even more ambiguous than basic values in general. It can represent any kind of horror story according to how various knaves make use of it. Alexander the Great was one of the first known globalists! And many others since then who can be imagined. Indeed, it is a value without any useful meaning by itself. Other, perhaps, than in its being equivalent to Universal as used in universal value.
In the modern context, it is employed by those who have ambitions to cash-in on the whole world. And also by those who wish to bring prosperity to everyone. Or those who wish to have the liberty of the whole world but none of the responsibilities.
If we espouse altruist society, then we may speak of Globalised Altruism. But this implies a responsibility effectively from the grass-roots upwards. We cannot employ our wealth to poach talent from other regions of the world that themselves need all they have. As in National Health – it must make use of the resources we have, and other countries make use of the resources they have.
I agree completely with your thoughts on globalisation, I gnaw at globalisation rather as a strategy valued by friendly do-gooders and greedy corporations. Even as such, your characterisation of globalisation is spot on.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Globalisation as a Value

Post by -1- »

I also echo your sentiments, RWstaninghereormovingsomeplace.

I only wish to add that the do-gooding will only last until resources become scarce enough so there is not enough for everyone. Such as clean water, food, that sort of thing.

Same with "one species, one world". Like hell. Once we have to kill some humans (or let them starve to death), you can be sure that powerful nations will first feed their denizens; and if push comes to shove, they may even add -- gasp!! -- racial discrimination to the picture. For instance, if Sweden only has enough food to feed 70% of its population, then it will go to war with the Island of Man and feed only those of its own Swedish ethnic groups that are related to the ruling class. Some extremely rich, talented, and beautiful specimens of non-indigenous races may make an exception from their certain death sentence.

It's easy to do good when there is plenty to share; but it's even easier to be selfish and corrupt when there is not enough to go around for everybody.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Globalisation as a Value

Post by commonsense »

-1- wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:38 pm I also echo your sentiments, RWstaninghereormovingsomeplace.

I only wish to add that the do-gooding will only last until resources become scarce enough so there is not enough for everyone. Such as clean water, food, that sort of thing.

Same with "one species, one world". Like hell. Once we have to kill some humans (or let them starve to death), you can be sure that powerful nations will first feed their denizens; and if push comes to shove, they may even add -- gasp!! -- racial discrimination to the picture. For instance, if Sweden only has enough food to feed 70% of its population, then it will go to war with the Island of Man and feed only those of its own Swedish ethnic groups that are related to the ruling class. Some extremely rich, talented, and beautiful specimens of non-indigenous races may make an exception from their certain death sentence.

It's easy to do good when there is plenty to share; but it's even easier to be selfish and corrupt when there is not enough to go around for everybody.
Amen
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Globalisation as a Value

Post by Troll »

One can add Napoleon to Alexander. And perhaps Hitler, he who created the conditions for the Americans to come to world power, since they put down the E.U., but it was not the E.U., but rather the economic international system, that brought down the Soviet sphere of influence, and brought on the current globalized so-called capitalist world. The talk of "nationalism" is hollow in America (it is only, or largely, the pitiable, rather than sinister, desire that poor whites become minorities too, and so gain the corresponding protections). In Europe it has the serious problem of refuges, but it is entirely beyond the twentieth century, since there is nowhere among the Liberal Democracies a threat of anyone holding on to power beyond the possibility of impeachment or voluntary removal, as with Cameron, in the manner of a fascist ruler of the last century. Ergo, globalism as such is largely a fait accompli. There is almost no resource lack, anywhere. What, graphite in China (,monopolized by china)? Oil, it is abundant everywhere. Rare earth elements? Lack of water is a matter of lack of infrastructure and public standards in the still undeveloped and war torn countries. Means of getting more from less soil are prodigious. Alarmists simply enjoy being alarmed.

All people have equal rights in the global society. However, what is more at issue is the question of what justice as equality means. Equal distribution of economic goods, or equal chance to compete? Equal enjoyment, equal pay, equal lavishment of all things. I hold the reverse of what this thread says, the issue is that the better things get the more people looesen their grip and start whimpering about everything, which is a good thing so far as it means they are not wholly in the grips of the sense that their difficulties are forced by nature, they begin to project them on the "system" or on assumed evil agents in the system. The still corrupt countries dwindle as kleptocracies, Russia drys out and disappears in a tapering of a hundred and fifty years into entering the planetary stupor. Paranoia and distrust grow, in proportion to the easing of life as such. For this reason, the still unaccomplished equal distribution of all goods, including mental ones, and glory as it were, fame. One no longer needs to simply crush these envying masses, but lets them yelp and tweet. Soon nothing more is possible except for humans to go to sleep, like meaningless drones with no history. Yes, I agree with the standard accounts of the end of history, Hegel Kojeve and Fukuyama. I have spoken! The human is no more.
Post Reply