What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

That is all very abstract. Perhaps what you have quoted is a hypothesis, not a statement of concrete reality. Nye is a political scientist, you know. I read one of his books as an undergraduate. Abstractions are his business.

Humans live, die, and kill based upon abstractions. Various abstractions might be: religion, nation, capitalism, friend, lover, etc. Humans create meaning and live life based upon fictions created and represented by abstract ideas.

[coberst]

I suspect that globalization will dramatically improve the standard of living world wide. But that will mean that we will eat our planet much faster than we do now. What are our chances of civilization lasting another 200 years under such pressure?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by coberst

I suspect that globalization will dramatically improve the standard of living world wide. But that will mean that we will eat our planet much faster than we do now. What are our chances of civilization lasting another 200 years under such pressure?

The problem with humanity is that it has this ability to 'reason' away and / or deny its problem. The first step in solving a problem is admitting that you have one.
Unfortunately I do not see it happen that humanity will admit that growth is a problem and / or that luxury in the end is a lethal addiction.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by coberstThe problem with humanity is that it has this ability to 'reason' away and / or deny its problem. The first step in solving a problem is admitting that you have one.
Unfortunately I do not see it happen that humanity will admit that growth is a problem and / or that luxury in the end is a lethal addiction.

This is why I think that the only way we can save our planet and our species from self destruction is if we find a way to make stewardship a major religious project.

[MontanaGuy]

Tricky D wrote:

The problem is that our 'higher' lifestyle pollutes highly.
Unfortunately we find pollution inevitable.

That's a very good point and although I like to see people being pulled out of poverty I realize that the resources of this planet can't sustain unlimited growth with all of it's problems such as pollution. It would be impossible for the entire population of the world to live the lifestyle that Europeans and North Americans take for granted today. Capitalism is based on consumers constantly buying new products and throwing out the old ones they're replacing. At some point in the not so distant future we're going to see serious shortages in resources such a metals and of course oil. We're going to be forced to find extremely efficient methods of using existing resources that will benefit everyone. I do think this involves a moral code based on an awareness that we should strive to be fair to both workers and consumers and that we desparately need to find innovative ways to avoid the waste and pollution that has impacted the entire world.

[irishmom]

Originally Posted by coberst

This is why I think that the only way we can save our planet and our species from self destruction is if we find a way to make stewardship a major religious project.

Have you ever seen George Carlin's thing on "Saving the Planet"? It's very funny and very true in many ways. Worth taking a look.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by coberst

This is why I think that the only way we can save our planet and our species from self destruction is if we find a way to make stewardship a major religious project.

I'm not so keen on stewardship, because this implies that some 'higher power' has decreed that humanity knows what is best for the world, while I personally don't even believe that humanity knows what is best for humanity.

The difference between natural selection and stewardship is that:

Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad preserving and adding up all that is good; silently working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being.
Charles Darwin

while stewardship is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad for humanity preserving and adding up all that is good for humanity; silently working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of humans only.

I believe that through the wonders of modern technology man sees itself as superior to nature, forgetting that like every other animal man still is reliant on his environment.

[mary54mi]

Originally Posted by arguy1973

the more "global" we get as a nation, IMHO will require a reduction in our sovernity as a nation.* Do we really want or need other countries troops to help protect the US? Im really asking the question? and how much of others countries "religions" will we have to open up too?

We lost our sovergnty when NAFTA was signed in the early 1990's.* Also the Clinton administration allowed our troops to wear UN badges in Serbia, WHY did he do that?The problem is when it comes to trade it will never be even.* Too many other countries with big financial woes want USA to be their relief and USA to even out the score.This country is already open to ALL religions, even extreemist Muslims who want us non beleivers dead.* (That's the antiwar crowd)* We need to be open yes, but not FOOLISH.

[cleatis]

i wouldn't have a problem with globalization if the main incentive wasn't greed. yeah yeah, we all hear about how all these poor countries are getting a middle class and so on. I very highly doubt that the companies that are raking in the money from this give a damn whether some poor peasant in a crappy country across the globe has a better life, that just happens to be a convenient side effect.