Global Thinking

"Globalization, as defined by rich people like us, is a very nice thing... you are talking about the Internet, you are talking about cell phones, you are talking about computers. This doesn't affect two-thirds of the people of the world." -Jimmy Carter

It can be scary to think that we are dependent on countries for something as vital as oil, but also scary to think of a world where everything cost immensely more because it couldn't be manufactured in countries where labor is so cheap.

The basic idea behind capitalism is that competition is good. It drives down costs, ensures quality, and offers a larger choice for consumers. Globalization would seem to be the epitome of this, as it not only allows for this competition, but also allows other nations to become real competitors in the global market.

As the chapter points out, globalization of the 20th and 21st centuries represented "an immense, rapid, and unprecedented creation of wealth with a demonstratable impact on human welfare. Life expectancies grew almost everywhere, infant mortality declined, and literacy increased. The UN Human department Report in 1997 concluded: 'that in the past 50 years, poverty has fallen more than in the previous 500'." Truly this is a momentous achievement.

However, the chapter also points out the darker side of globalization. The outsourcing of jobs, exploitation of the poor in many under-developed countries, and rise in human trafficking are all examples of the negative effects globalization has brought to the world. The chapter also mentions the income inequality gap growing among the world as a result. I would argue that this is really a result of capitalism, and that globalization is merely the medium with which this is being spread.

However, I think that a lot of the arguments against globalization, while well-intentioned, are not entirely convincing.

I think that many of them rely on seeing the world as a zero-sum game. The idea that the success of India or China hurts the U.S., might be true in terms of short-term economics, but I think long-term it is a positive.

I think that the economic crisis is a perfect example of the need for globalization. It represents a perfect example of a non-zero-sum game. It is a game in which either we all loose or we all win. These are the kinds of games on which I think the success of the whole world essentially rests. In order to play these games successfully, it is very helpful to have countries which are integrated in a network which allows them to work together in overcoming hurdles rather than each simply attacking the challenges without coordination.

For this reason, I think that while there are certainly negatives to globalization, in the end, it will turn out to be a tool which is invaluable in solving the problems not only of today, but of tomorrow.

Fundamentally Wrong

When confronted with a conflict between understanding, acceptance, freedom, and other positive values and conformity to doctrine, which do you side with? If you said the later, then I think you possess what seems to me to be the dominant view within fundamentalism.

This choice to place religious traditions and practices above values which provide for a more just, verdant and equitable world is to me the real harm that fundamentalism brings to the table. It seems a little ironic, because so often much of the religious text expounds these very virtues, and yet, they are often ignored and in place persecution and intolerance are substituted. An example is homosexuality and fundamentalist Christians. I don't remember reading anywhere in the bible about Jesus speaking out against homosexuality. In fact, there is a Christian sect called the Red Letter Christians, who focus only on the actual words of Jesus, and they have a pamphlet. On the cover, the pamphlet reads: what Jesus had to say about homosexuality. And the inside...totally blank.

What Jesus did speak out about was protecting the weak and disenfranchised. And yet, so often these fundamentalist Christians are out fighting against the very rights of this group of people who are often persecuted by the majority, just as Christians were in the early days of their religion.

A quote I like is that the danger is not in "not knowing" but it is in "thinking you know, when in fact, you do not". What is really dangerous to me about fundamentalism is the conviction that the believer has the ultimate Truth with a capital T. More than this, it is the belief that this truth is morally right. Now you take this, and you bring it into a field like politics or science. It is one thing to disagree with someone's political stance or someone's scientific conclusions, but if you truth is morally right, then by definition they are immoral. Now, that is a difficult chasm to cross. No amount of factual objections will change the fact that in your mind the other person is still on the side of immorality.

I want to clarify that fundamentalism isn't rooted only in Christianity or Islam, it is found in virtually every major religion. It is only that the deep political divisions within the U.S. and the War on Terror have brought these two religions to the forefront.

I am glad that in many of our universities we still teach critical thinking skills. I hope that critical, analytical thinking skills will allow people to sincerely gaze upon views that they may have previously taken for granted and ask about not only their truthfulness but also their utility to a positive functional society. David Hume famously said regarding religion: "A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence".

I ask that we take a long hard look at the evidence and ask ourselves: Do the benefits of fundamentalism outweigh the negatives?

Communism with two N's?

In the USA we pride ourselves on our Democratic history. Not only have we adopted for ourselves a system of Capitalism which underpins this democracy, but we have faught to make sure that other countries also embrace this capitalism, lest they *gasp* think for a second of turning to Communism. After all, under communism, there would be no incentive for anyone to better themselves and work harder. Surely in communism and post-communist countries you would see a population which falls so far behind our own in departments such as literacy so as to make our own argument for us. Or do they?

Below is the statistics of the U.S.'s literacy rates:






Clearly a 99% literacy rate is very good, but it is certainly interesting to note that in terms of spending on education we rank way down at #57.

Now lets take a look at Russia, one of the first countries that comes to mind when one thinks of communism:




Russia actually has a literacy rate higher than our own! Surely though, this must be an anomaly, so lets take a look at another communist country: Cuba




Cuba's literacy rate is even higher than Russia's, and if you look at it's spending on education you might see why as it ranks #9 in the world.

What about a country which has had so much difficulty economically (some might say part of which is due to the fault of communism), Vietnam:




Although we can see quite a discrepancy between men and women which suggests that womens' rights to education may not be equal to that of men, we do definitely see the potential of their educational system to get the literacy rate well into the 90% range despite all of Vietnam's economical and social problems.

Even in China, we see high literacy rates (despite the same sort of gender inequality):





And just in case there is any dispute over whether or not this data is biased in any way, you should know that it came from our very own CIA's word factbook. So this should definitely serve as a lesson that if you decide to decry communism, you should know that there is a high probability that those living in the very countries you criticize will be able to read exactly what you have to say.

WW Chapter 23: Independence and Development in the Global South

"During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought white domination, and i have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunity. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if need be, It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
-Nelson Mandela

It is one thing to speak like this from the safety of a newsroom or in front of a crowd at a town hall, but to speak with this conviction at a trial for which you are being accused of a number of crimes which could lead to a lifetime of incarceration is nothing short of amazing. Even more amazing is that Mandela was able to endure 27 years in prison without succumbing to anger or resentment, or becoming disillusioned. Far from it, I remember when he was released, and he spoke these same words.Obviously his conviction remains unshaken.

In a similar way, Gandhi did an incredible job leading India to it's independence through his own unshakable conviction. India had claimed it's independence much earlier than Africa and I feel owe a lot of their success to leaders such as Gandhi, as well as the Congress Party. However, much like Africa, the transition was not smooth. Unfortunately the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan has been horrible, and now that they both have nuclear arsenals, there is always fear of what would happen should conflict flare up again. In other ways though, India has been incredibly successful. Their economy is doing incredibly well (even as much of their population is poor), and they have managed to create working democracy in a country so diverse that there exist 23 official languages.

Unfortunately, the struggle in Africa was met with some problems not faced by Gandhi. Although the tactics used were very similar the fact that major political parties were made illegal made non-violent solutions much more difficult. A number of other factors were explained in the chapter such as the strength of India's Congress Party,the gradual transfer of power from Britain, and the largest proliferation of technical skills among many Indians, all of which were not so in Africa. These I am sure have contributed to the fact that Africa, unlike India, is not in a very good state of affairs right now.

I also remember Rwanda in the 90's, and unlike the Berlin wall coming down, images of it were rarely on the TV, but nonetheless, it was a conflict that most people had heard of and amounted to genocide. I think the combination of these images bring to mind the idea that while we should strive to encourage people to break from oppression and establish for themselves systems of government that work for the people, we must also be aware of the challenges this transition may bring about and provide the support necessary for a transition to be one that creates a thriving country like India and avoids many of the pitfalls seen in Africa.