Sure globalization is great if you ignore the niggling minor problems
like pollution and exploitation of desperate workers.
I find it hard to call something "exploitation" when people are voluntarily
flocking to these allegedly horrible jobs. If they really felt exploited, they
could always go back to subsistence farming. The fact that they don't is
evidence that subsistence farming is worse than just about any "exploitative"
Also you would have to arbitrarily decide that dying from chronic
diseases from living older is better than dying younger from acute
Neither "you" nor I need to arbitrarily decide this at all. Clearly, when given
the choice, people choose the former. How many people let their children die of
an acute but preventable disease and say "well, at least she didn't have to
worry about dying of cancer at 90." I'm guessing the answer is "not many."
And of course since there is no objective way to measure quality of life
we'll just assume that people with the most stuff are the happiest.
The simplest thing to do is give people the option to choose what makes them the
happiest. Who are you or I to tell someone what their quality of life should be?
It validates the American lifestyle so Americans, at least, have to
approve to avoid cognitive dissonance. The best thing any government could do
would be to eliminate the formation of "for-profit" corporations.
You do realize that you are typing on a computer made by a for-profit company,
which is processing the characters using a CPU made by a for-profit company,
which are being sent over a network adapter (wired or wireless) made by a
for-profit company, over a network of networks operated (largely) by for-profit
companies, to a website owned and operated by a for-profit company (GKNT on
NASDAQ), which stores your comment on servers made by for-profit companies. They
certainly have their faults, but Moore's law is not driven by love or
solidarity, it's driven by companies relentlessly competing to steal each
other's consumers, benefiting all of us in the process.
Their "it's all about the profit" charters have made them a danger to the
planet. They have used globalization to avoid doing the right thing
environmentally and socially.
So modern medicine, housing, culture, food and plumbing are all "avoid[ing]
doing the right thing" socially? What on earth would the "right thing" be?
They have no conscience because no one in a corporation feels personally
responsible for the negative impacts of the company.
Is it really meaningful to say that anything other than an individual has a
"conscience?" Plus, why is having a conscience so seemingly critical for a
company? If a company consistently does things that people don't like, and there
are better alternatives, that company will go out of business. It happens all
the time, even for the giants.
As they say: "It's not personal, it's just business".
Of course, ripping people off and being a dick is bad, I think we can agree on
that. But to a large extent, this is a feature, not a bug. There is just no way
you could support the number of people there are if all interactions had to be
"personal." The human brain simply lacks the capacity to form personal
relationships with a few thousand people, let alone 7 billion (or whatever the
population is these days). Having to interact with strangers is simply a fact of
modern life that is inseparable from all of the other wondrous benefits it
Globalization is really a corporate phenomena that takes advantage of
foolish people who would rather chase what they want rather than what they
Again, who gets to decide what someone "needs?" I'd say, let the individual
decide what he or she needs. After all, that person is in the best position to
know what he or she needs or wants.