Is globalization good or bad for the world?

After having spent a semester in this global studies course, I find myself even more at a lost on whether or not globalization is good or bad for the world. In many areas, globalization has been a major benefit. Eastern nations have boomed economically, it has improved health, and all in all it's a great way for people across the globe to learn from one another. However, at the same time, is globalization a way of cloning? Are we not stripping away individuality by becoming all the same? Native groups are losing their heritage, languages are dying, and languages are being form.

To me, the question is not whether or not globalization is bad or good. To me, the statement really is that globalization is inevitable and has always and will always happen. Cultures have died, cultures have changed, and cultures have grown throughout human history. Nations, clans, groups, whatever you want to call it have been affecting each other for the good and for the bad since the time humans set foot on the earth. I am pretty much inline with Steger's argument, that globalization is inevitable and that it's "very survival will depend on humanity's ability to tackle the three major global issues" (134). I can see how the way globalization works today can be very harmful in comparison with how human culture has changed in the past. Before the acceleration of global communication, global communication still existed and people still learned and changed from other cultures, but it was at a slower rate.

My question is whether or not globalization is natural, or what can we call natural. Since I was in grade school and began reading those lovely history text books, it looks to me like human beings love to have power, control, and dominant “lesser, weaker” groups. Today’s form of globalization may just be in hyper-speed-mode due to industrialization and technology; however humans seem to have always either changed by learning from each other or by one dominant group forcing a weaker group to change.

So, Globalization: Good or Bad? If being forced to choose I would have to say good. Not because I want diversification to be lost, or that I think diversification is a bad thing. In fact, I believe the opposite. I hate that indigenous groups are losing their rights throughout the globe, losing their culture, and their language. I dislike how certain countries get taken advantage of and are plummeting through hard times. However, in the extreme case of non-globalization; if every nation built the Great Wall of China on their border lines and lost contact, humans would lose advancement of knowledge. We would not be able to learn from each other and certain nations would “advance” in drastically different directions from one another.  However, that is only one guess on what would happen if we all dropped communication. Maybe by closing ourselves off we may actually save the human race, or at least by it more time on the planet. It’s a hard debate, and one that will probably continue forever.

What are specific strategies for addressing global environmental issues?

     There are many specific ways people can address global environmental issues. For one, people should look to trying to gain the government’s attention.  People need to bring about awareness in the school, in the media, in the news, etc. Without talking about global environmental issues no one will even know it exists, let alone do something about it. Paul Wapner says “when it comes to such large categories of social analysis, it is a mistake to assume that one dimension of social change is definitively more significant than the other” (416). What he means here is that any act of social change, of bringing about awareness, is significant no matter how small or how large they may seem. Greenpeace works to try and change the government, while an AP Environmental science class in a high school aims to knowledge the individual. 

     It is important to realize how one nation’s environmental problem affects its neighboring nations. This is something I had never talked about prior to taking Global Studies.  Although I have taken environmental science classes in high school, and have learned about the world’s environmental problems and different types of sustainable options out there, I had never thought about how one nation can harm another environmentally. There is so much stuff that has been “hushed up” by the government and other organizations.  Enactors like Greenpeace, Peta, Sierra Club, or even the average global citizen can make a difference. Environmental problems, like mining seen in the article written by Abigail Abrash, show how environmental issues not only harm the environment but can damage whole communities. We can all find specific strategies to address environmental issues, from writing letters to congressmen, donating money to organizations, or just lighting a candle instead of turning on the lamp. 

Is the world becoming more culturally homogeneous, or more culturally diverse?

It is a hard debate to decided whether or not the world is becoming culturally homogeneous or more culturally diversified. After reading numerous articles and hearing different opinions on the subject, I have come to one conclusion: that the world as a whole is becoming more culturally homogeneous, but the individual is becoming more culturally diverse.

The reason I say this is that globalization has been introducing various cultures to various places. One can see McDonald's and baseball caps throughout the world, and although that looks like "Americanization", one can also eat at a Japanese restaurant in Mexico City. The point here is that culture has become global and is being introduced everywhere, not only the U.S. In many instances smaller cultures are being lost, and it is evident that the world is becoming more similar. Heather Tyler, in her article "Bollywood versus Hollywood: Battle of the Dream Factories" claims that Bollywood is trying to challenge Hollywood and attack the Western Film industry, by having a strong Eastern one. Bollywood is trying to introduce Eastern culture, and show that it can also be global, and that "culture as a global force...is not confined to the West alone" (333).  So, although Bollywood is trying to promote Eastern culture, in a way it has already been influenced by the west, and in itself is making a homogeneous world culture, while at the same time introducing Eastern Culture to Western Society.

Here, in 2010, people probably know more about other cultures than ever before. People in general around the world are becoming more culturally aware. Western society can begin to understand why Koreans and other Asian cultures take their shoes off when entering a building. American music plays across the globe, while at the same time I may listen to a CD of Peruvian songs. English is dominating the world and the internet, and smaller groups are losing their heritage, but other cultures are being formed while society blends. To me, the most interesting thing about it all is that people are becoming more interested in other cultures. The majority of people become fascinated with other cultures. We are teaching each other other ways to look at the world. Tyler Cowen says "dominant cultures, such as the United States, have an advantage in exporting their values and shaping the preferences of other nations...[but] will not be purely American in any narrow sense" (340). He mentions how American cinema has been shaped by foreigners and that the U.S. tries to "globally sell" it's culture.

Every person and every culture will take what it wants to take from cultural globalization. Just how one story can have a hundred interpretations, so do cultures. The world may be becoming more culturally homogeneous but at the same time it is learning more about the diversity that exists and still persists throughout.

Do NGOs accomplish more good than not?

  In general, I believe NGOs do accomplish more good than not. The reason I believe this is that, NGOs, whether or not they are really psychically making a difference, with women rights, child mortality, poverty, or disease prevention, are sending out a message and making people more aware of an issue. As Boli and Thomas say, INGOs "seek, in a general sense, to spread 'progress' throughout the world: to encourage safer and more efficient technical systems, more powerful knowledge structures, better care of the body, friendly competition and fair play" (227). NGOs also play a huge part in politics. Many times they actually are the enforcers and deliver more assistance than many political systems, like the UN and National Governments. One reason I believe may be the cause of this, is that politicians tend to debate and debate and have problems making decisions. Whereas a NGO, that is specified towards a specific goal, has less difficult with decision-making and is more capable of taking action. Jessica Matthews is a big supporter of NGOs, and she brings up strong points as to why NGOs are making a good impact on society.  The power of the nation-state is decreasing as groups like NGOs are better capable of responding faster to problems.  Even if an NGO does not have the funding to make a difference, they are bringing about awareness to an issue that otherwise may not have been addressed. I believe that NGOs, in most cases, do make a good difference and an important factor of how global politics is being run.

Can corporations make good global citizens/entities?

   In most cases, I would have to say corporations do not make good global citizens/entities.  A corporation, usually, thinks only about itself. As Mary Robinson said in her article Beyond Good Intentions: Corporate Citizenship for a New Century "good intentions clearly won't be enough...business community [should focus] not only on policies of good corporate citizenship but also their implementation in practice" (22). It is possible for a corporation to make a good global impact, however I feel that the corporation typically thinks only of the corporation, and so therefore is selfish citizen and won't really help out the global community if it does not see a benefit for itself.

     David Henderson claims that the only way companies can helpfully respond to 'society's expectations' is by aiming "to meet the 'triple bottom line', rather than focusing narrowly on profitability and shareholder value" (23). I would have to agree with this consensus.  If the corporate world can focus on two different ideals, itself, and the other part of society, than they can be helpful.  However, "CSR" (Corporate social responsibility) really does not focus on the community, but on the corporation. It's issues are incorrect. Even when corporations try to aim for some societal goals, they tend to fail because they can not make an effect case.

   In order for corporations to be good global entities, they have to adhere to many things.  For example, they need to respect human rights, uphold labor laws, do not discriminate, and be environmentally conscience.  These are some high goals for a corporation to adhere to, although it seems basic.  Many corporations have child labor factories throughout the world.  Many works are overworked and underpaid. Many corporations and companies hurt the environment.  Something as selfish and big as a corporation will have a hard time being a good global citizen. Perhaps if one really tried to be a good global entity they couldn't do it because they'd lose in their competition. Corporations are corporations because of what they do, and only a strong and determined one could ever be a good global citizen or entity.

 

Online Film on Oil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AxCSvwmXU8

In the youtube named video "What Will Running Out of Oil Do to the World's Economy?" political scientists, environmentalists and other professionals discuss what they believe will happen to the economy, and they also address the issue as to why politicians and the media ignore this severe issue. The main problem is that the amount oil, which is the main source of energy in the U.S. and most other countries is declining and while oil becomes harder to obtain, prices will rise. The professionals in the video talk about how the economy is kept alive by investors and consumers that believe it will continue to improve, however if they believe the economy will falter, than they will stop consuming in order to save what they have. People will stop taking out loans, buying new houses, and in consequence the economy will shrink and the money supply will decrease. This will result in fore-closers and money will disappear from the economy. I believe the professionals in this video bring out a major concern and are correct in their research about what will happen to the economy. They address why media and why politicians hardly ever bring up the topic. The problem is that politicians have no solution to the problem, so they try to ignore it and do not bring up the issue because they have no way to solve it. Overall the video addresses that oil depletion will hurt the economy and things will change drastically without a proper plan.