Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

On globalization

February 13th 2008 14:11
Yes! in a philosophy blog we can talk about economy too...actually we can talk about anything, as long as it's not too boring.

So, quick reflection on globalization. In early 90's, when we started hearing about the term, most right wing liberals liked it, and so did developped countries. Curious, they didn't see the results it would bring.

If there is someone that should thank globalization, it is China. And India. And all developping countries, that thanks to market overture and technology development saw their economies grow and finally his people have something to do different than become farmers and die at 35. Technology let us today have a company based on California which employs half of their staff in China (the factory), and another third in India (the call center). Okay, left people would say that most of the money is still going to US. Well, i don't know if it is actually "most", but before that it was "all". The people working in factories in China would be farmers if the german giant didn't come and opened a factory in town. And, for the next generations, there will allways be the son of a factory worker doing medicine, law or whatever. Don't you know anyone in your class whose parents came from an poor background?


Courious, still the left in third countries say globalization is no good. Left in developed countries is maybe the only guys that should be against globalization, and for protectionism.

But this is too short minded. Globalization is the first thing that is really making the world less unequal than it was. Before it, technology and human development was focused in the West, now it is spreading around, to Brazil, China, India, etc. Okay, we still have some rich bastards around, the first people that discovered globalization and used it in their profits, but this is the short term result, not the long. Consider that.


Anyway, globalization isn't a son of some people's mind. It is the son of technology and science. When internet spread and plane tickets got less expensive, the world discovered itself. Not as we did in the XVI century, when you took 6 months to go from Portugal to Indonesia.

So, in the end, this is another post in defense of technology (and science), which has been allways atacked. Mostly by philosophers..

cheers.
74
Vote
Shared on
   


Hey,

following the conclusions of the last post on wisdom, i had to write something defending technology, because it is vital to the achievement of what i presented. It might be quite suspect that i defend technology since i'm an MSc. in engineering (i think you can imagine "these akward beings..."), but anyway, i'll try to be as convincent as possible..

Well, this subject is quite complicated because i rarely see western philosophy defending it in these last centuries. Existentialists don't like it, Heidegger despise it (the guy lived in a hut his hole life...), 21st century humanists like Focault and all don't defend it neither..only positivits liked technology, but i have plenty of disagreements with them too, so i won't mention them to avoid misinterpretation...

Ok so, attacking the idea.

The thing is: since we're trying to get closer to be like god, to have as much power as him, one of the best supports we have is using technology. People allways defend science and art, which are important too, but they tend to despise technology, which i think is the application of our science in the quest for power over "real".

Science and technology are 2 things related. They depend on one another to develop, and they give men a bit of the 3 things he wants to have. These 3 things, as said in the last Winsdom post, are onmipresence, omnipotence and omniscience (i thank christians that syntetised this so well..).

Science gives men knowledge over "real" (omniscience). Technology gives men power over "real" (omniprecence and omnipotence).

You can see from this last paragraph that technology doesn't make us slaves of it. One might say we're becoming dependent on technology. We've been "depent" on technology since men created the wheel, there are plenty of people nowadays who are able to live thanks to technology, etc. I mean, you can allways say we're "depent" on it, but is it a bad thing?

Technology (and art) are the best materialisations of how men can dominate "real" and do what he wants from it. Nobody speaks about the techniques men use in art. If it weren't for these techniques (some of them came directly from technology...) people like Picasso or Kubrick wouldn't be able to model "real" in the way they did.

That's why i defend that, if you like music, you should buy the best iPod you find, and don't feel ashamed thinking you're a "consumist". The thing is, as long as you buy the thing for it's purpose, it means you're trying to get more power over "real", you're trying to get closer to be God.

Please remark that the phrase in italic on the last paragraph puts out of the group those people who buy stuff not for its purpose, but for any other reason (normally this reason is ostentation). Ostentation has an explanation for existence, but this gets more to psycology, and i need a post on psycology to get to explain these things...

Hehe, that's it! Just to remenber myself of some possible subjects for posts:
- science, art, technique, technology
- psycology, the reflection of the other as a way to feel more powerfull (not to be)
- ostentation

See ya. Thanks for your reading. Uula
36
Vote
   


Uula Limanski's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Uula Limanski
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]