Pros and Cons of Globalization

Globalization occurs when countries get rid of their barriers to make a pathway where ideas, beliefs, and culture can cross borders. Globalization is not limited to affecting the economy only; it also has an effect on many other aspect of life, such as cultural, social, psychological issues. Though some view globalization as the means for a hopeful future, others see is as a potential disaster for the world’s economy. Thus, because Globalization is a controversial issue I believe that it is important to highlight both its pros and cons.

            There are many pros to the benefits that globalization would have. With globalization there would be a universal market that would allow companies from all over the world to trade products with one another, which would allow people a wider range of options.  Currently there is enough money in the world to feed every man, women and child, however, resources are unfairly distributed; developing countries are often the ones who feel the burden of this fact. Globalization would greatly help developing countries because there would be a more equal flow of money. Also, there would be an increase in the production sector that would allow manufacturers a greater variety of options. Inflation would be less likely to occur because competition is known to keep prices lower. Also it would be reassuring to know that no one country “remains the single power head; instead there are compartmentalized power sectors.” Globalization would help communication between different countries, which would hopefully minimize conflict, and prejudice. Communication would also give countries an opportunity to experience other cultures. Diversity would be much more prevalent.

            Though the pros of globalization seem to outshine the cons, the cons should still be mentioned. Many Europeans are losing their jobs because of globalization. This is happening because jobs are going to people in the Asia countries because all expenses are cheaper, for example, production and employment rates are less expensive which creates a more efficient system. When countries transfer the quality of their products to other countries they are increasing their chances of being qualitatively deprived. Also, many experts believe that globalization is the cause for many of the diseases as well as social erosion in countries. Many people find it frightening to think that corporations could potentially rule the world if globalization continues. Lastly some argue that rich countries take advantage of poor countries where there are lower wages.

 

www.lifestyle.com

Modern Globalization VS. Ancient Globalization

In our class about globalization, we talked a lot about transnational corporations (TNC). The existence of those corporations has brought about many problems that contradicted the idea of globalization. I remember we mentioned that a larger gap occurred between global north countries and global south countries because the regulations and policies established by the TNC have made the rich countries richer and the poorer countries poorer. Globalization in this case has lost its purpose.
It then occurred to me that globalization nowadays is really more about differentiation. If one wants to argue that the pervasive of the culture and language and the increasing of economic dimension and so on have proved globalization to be true, I would say, why not look at the history of our past? If those are the criteria of globalization, then I believe it already existed centuries ago. Back into those times, there were already immigrants moving all over the world. In China, for example, people would wear western suit, use western pens, and travel to western countries. In western countries, there were Chinese restaurants in all places (Although they didn’t have a unified brand name such as McDonald’s, the number of overall Chinese restaurants could even be more than that of McDonald’s franchises). People would also deposit their money in foreign banks, and this activity of capital export has been seen as a main characteristic of capitalized society by then. What’s more, people were free to move from one country to another without passports, unlike today when passport is a must. People at that time also had their own ideologies which are no less diversified than now... …What globalization really brings us today are more conflicts than similarities. Cultural exchanges should have promoted understandings but it also generates conflicts in people’s ideologies. Nationalism has been manifested because people nowadays care about their identities more than anytime. Then there are immigration rules, there are customs, and finally there are weapons.
All in all, I just feel that people should have been getting closer to each other under globalization but we end up getting further. There’s no need to mention how high-tech has created this gap because it’s so obvious. Other than that, everything people do today seems to be based on economical interest and with the incentives of interest people will do whatever they want. I can’t imagine what else this modern globalization will bring us.

Our Changing World

People love to talk about their opinions regarding global transformation and progression. However, regardless of whether one is for or against globalization, our world is undergoing substantial changes. Here are some interesting facts and estimates:

-It is estimated that a week's worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century.

-The 25% of India's population with the highest IQ's is greater than the total population of the United States. In other words, India has more honors students than America has students.

-The top 10 in-demand jobs for 2010 did not exist in 2004.

-If MySpace were a country it would be the 5th-largest in the world (between Indonesia and Brazil).

-There are 31 billion searches on Google every month. In 2006, this number was 2.7 billion.

-The first commercial text message was sent in December of 1992. Today, the number of text messages sent and received everyday exceeds the total population of the planet.

-Years it took to reach a market audience of 50 million: Radio- 38 years, TV- 13 years, Internet- 4 years, iPod- 3 years, Facebook- 2 years.

-The number of internet devices in 1984 was roughly 1,000. The number of internet devices in 1992 was roughly 1,000,000. The number of internet devices in 2008 was roughly 1,000,000,000.

-There are currently about 540,000 words in the English language. This is about 5 times as many as during Shakespeare's time.

-NTT Japan has successfully tested a fiber optic cable that pushes 14 trillion bits per second down a single strand of fiber. This is roughly equivalent to 2,660 CDs or 210 million phone calls every second. It is currently tripling every six months and is expected to do so for the next 20 years.

-It is estimated that by 2013 a supercomputer will be built that exceeds the computational capabilities of the human brain.

-Predictions are that by 2049, a $1000 computer will exceed the computational capabilities of the entire human species.

-Americans have access to 1,000,000,000,000 web pages, 65,000 iPhone Apps, 10,500 radio stations, 5,500 magazines, and 200+ cable TV networks.

-Newspaper circulation is down 7 million over the last 25 years but in the last 5 years, unique readers of online newspapers are up 30 million.

-More video was uploaded to YouTube in the last 2 months than if ABC / NBC / CBS had been airing new content 24/7/365 since 1948 (which was when ABC started broadcasting).

-10 million is the number of unique visitors ABC / NBC / CBS get every month, collectively. These businesses have been around for a combined 200 years. Meanwhile, 250 million is the number of unique visitors MySpace / YouTube / Facebook get every month. None of these sites existed 10 years ago.

-Roughly 95% of all songs downloaded last year weren't paid for.

-Wikipedia launched in 2001. It now features over 13 million articles in more than 200 languages. Cisco's Nexus 7000 data switch could move all of Wikipedia in .001 seconds.

-Nokia manufactures 13 cell phones every second. Right now, 93% of US adults own a cell phone.

-In February 2008, John McCain raised $11 million for his US presidential bid. That same month, Barack Obama attended no campaign fundraisers. Instead, Obama leveraged online social networks to raise $55 million in those 29 days.

-90% of the 200 billion emails sent every day are spam.

-It is estimated that the mobile device will be the world's primary connection tool to the internet in 2020. The computer in your cell phone today is a million times cheaper and a thousand times more powerful and about a hundred thousand times smaller than the one computer at MIT in 1965. In other words, what used to fit in a building now fits in your pocket what fits in your pocket now will fit inside a blood cell in 25 years.

Source: The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/22/did-you-know-tracks-progr_n_366803.html)

I was reading about the Pygmalion effect in my Psychology class. Rosenthal suspected that when teachers are given data concerning information about a students I.Q. it can create certain expectancies within the teacher about the student's potential, "whether strong or weak, the teacher might unknowingly behave in ways that subtly encourage or facilitate the performance of students seen as more likely to succeed." (Hock 95). The teacher acts this way because he or she constantly has that knowledge looming in the back of their minds, causing them to unintentionally be biased.

So l i know this is kind of a big stretch but I was just thinking about how this effect can be applied to society's perception of women. Though it is socially unacceptable to view a female as inferior because of her sex (at least in the United States) I wonder if certain people unconsciously and unknowingly treat women as lesser people because of attitudes of the past. Even though they may not be aware of it I think this idea has influenced the way that some individuals treat and view women. Because certain people can not delete this idea from their head it hinders their ability to treat females as equals. The thought that women are inferior to men constantly lingers in the background, posing the question: Well what if it is true? What if?........

Globalization

In class on Tuesday we discussed how globalization allows us to have a 'piece of home' regardless of where we are in the world. Although the idea of always having the comforts of home can be appealing, I feel that globalization has led to people being less immersed in foreign cultures while traveling. Every summer while in Syria, all my little brother can talk about are McDonald's french fries. In Syria there is a law that allows companies which do not produce their products on Syrian ground to import them, but with a large tax attached. The result of this law is that mostly Syrian products are sold in the markets (keep in mind there are no Target or Walmart-like stores in Syria), and many large companies like General Mills and Johnson and Johnson have opened factories within Syrian borders to avoid the tax. This law may seem ridiculous to outsiders, but it has kept the Syrian economy going by employing thousands of workers in factories and keeping international monopolies, like Coca-Cola and McDonalds, from out competing the family run shops. So even though James can't have his french fries in Syria, as soon as we cross the Lebanese border, he can have them with every meal. Lebanon does not have restrictive production laws like Syria, and on every corner there is a KFC or McDonalds. It is the perfect example of a globalized country. Even though it is a Middle Eastern country, most people speak either French or English, and some people have lived there their whole life and do not know Arabic. There are supermarket stores, malls and most people drive foreign automobiles. This is one of the reasons I do not find Lebanon as charming as other Middle Eastern countries. When I am traveling I want to be somewhere that is not exactly like my home. It is easy for the culture of a country to be lost in all of the globalization. Modernity and globalization are not linked in my mind, and a country does not need to have a McDonalds to be considered modern. The point of traveling, at least for me, is to escape from my American life and take on new experiences that only a certain country or culture has to offer.

Men and Feminism

Among the fundamental problems within the feminist movements is the issue of male apathy. Feminist women often wonder—as do feminist men—why males are reluctant to learn about feminism. It is, after all, undeniably pertinent to modern society. Given both its historical and contemporaneous applicability, what is it about feminism that makes men cringe? Is it that men prefer to ignore a female movement as a means of disparaging women and preserving their masculine supremacy or are other factors contributing to male apathy?

Firstly, I think the term itself—feminism—is a contributory factor. To many men, the word implies a field of study which is inapplicable (and thus unimportant) to male life. Though clearly not the case, for those men who know nothing of feminism—and there are many—it is assumed that men have no place in what is clearly a woman’s issue. Given such a faulty assumption, men are dissuaded from engaging in a subject which retains no personal relevance. Furthermore, due to such misconceptions, those males who express interest in feminism may be socially emasculated.

Secondly, men are often apathetic towards feminism not because they disagree with its principles, but contrarily, because they are in agreement. Males such as myself, who are for equal rights between the sexes and feminine empowerment, may find much of feminist theory to be stating the obvious. In such a mindset, the study of feminism is applicable to males at large, but not to certain ‘unproblematic’ men. The same logic may be applied to white students who do not enroll in African-American studies courses. It is not because these white students are racist, but conversely, because they do not see themselves as furthering racial tension.

Thirdly, many males fear that feminism demonizes men. Feminist theory focuses on the patriarchal oppression of females—a topic with which males are inherently uncomfortable. Many males do not wish to immerse themselves in the misandrist environment that feminism might bring about and instead choose to avoid the subject altogether.

To conclude, I would like to point out that these are horrible reasons to avoid studying feminism. Nevertheless, many males distance themselves from the topic and I think the aforementioned excuses may provide some insight as to why. I believe that everybody could benefit from more men studying feminism, but that equality can never truly exist as long as the study of feminism is necessary.

Sartre: Existence Precedes Essence

After reviewing Sartre's first essay in Existentialism is a Humanism I am amazed by the amount of responsibility that Sartre assigns to man. As human beings we are not provided with a set of a priori principles as Kant believes but rather we define our own essence after we have entered into a state of existence. This existentialist theory provides man with a number of, previously predetermined, choices to be made. I am not opposed to Sartre's vision of human nature, or lack thereof, but rather I am shocked by the extremity of his departure from previous thinkers. Sartre does incorporate Kant's concept of universal maxims by suggesting that when man creates an image of himself he also creates an image of what man, generally, should be. This portion of Sartre's essay is what places such enormous responsibility in the hands of each man's choices. As a result of this idea each individual must re-evaluate their decision-making process to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of analysis and consideration put into each choice. As Sartre states this is ultimately a very optimistic view of the world because it indicates that man is prepared for this type of responsibility. I find this view very refreshing. The atheistic nature of Sartre's existentialism is also personally attractive. I find that this is one of the more convincing arguments for the impossibility of a creator. Sartre presents us with the idea that man is a freedom, and as a result has the ability to create his own essence. As a result there is no place for a creator because man creates his own essence through action and thought and does not rely on predetermined principles of an ultimate good delivered by a universal creator.

Sartre's position concerning familial love is the only idea in this essay that I truly find troubling. The passage relating to his students love for his mother presents the idea that an action is what leads to the feeling of love. This follows Sartre's explanation of existentialism but is still hard to accept. Sartre admits that this view can lead to a "vicious circle" but the importance of action and its relation to freedom and thought represses any problems that Sartre may confront with this particular idea. At one point in his essay Sartre compares man's right to free choice and its moral consequences to a painting. Throughout this passage Sartre uses existentialism to inadvertently explain why two individuals can create two entirely different realities for themselves through choice. An interesting part of this theory of choice is that inaction is also a choice and therefore not choosing is an impossibility. This portion of existentialism reinforces my admiration for Sartre's position. Because of the strict guidelines that are encapsulated in the responsibility of existential choice I can be sure that inaction and a transfer of responsibility are impossible. These two qualities make Sartre's view of freedom quite concrete. In this way Sartre's view of freedom and choice is quite simple. Despite its simplicity existentialism is highly scrutinized because of its lack of predisposed principles and the pure sense of responsibility attached to it. I find it interesting that an individual can criticize Sartre for his emphasis on responsibility as this would suggest that responsibility is a reprehensible attribute.