Globalization
Draft conceptual musings on globalization.
Globalization seems to be our reality, one from which it is unlikely we will turn back. By means of either satellites and radio signals or undersea fiber optic trunk lines, we can message almost any part of the globe in under a second. By means of airplanes we can transport people and lighter items to the other side of the globe in under a day, and by ship we may transport bulk goods to the other side of the globe in under a month. These capacities provided by these methods do not in themselves constitute a global government or even organization, but they do provide the means by which to effect such things, should they be desired.
The concern most people seem to have with globalization is that those in power, who are already far removed from the people, will become only further removed, and that people’s issues will become only harder to be heard and addressed. Globalization also often suggests a monolithic, totalitarian system, which if a person is not part of, xe will have no other viable options.
Some sort of global organization is likely of benefit however. As humans, we currently all share this globe. There are issues that will affect all of the human race (environmental, biological), and there may be disputes between groups that threaten the safety of all (a nuclear conflict, or other weapons of mass destruction). These necessities being acknowledged, it does not therefore follow that we must have a single, centralized global governance organization that seems to be envisioned, nor that boundaries should disappear as some have suggested.
Perhaps the pluralist model of polytheistic ancient Greece could be useful. Rather than having a single power (god), there are many powers (perhaps with primacy to one, but many nonetheless). For those who do not feel that they can function in a given system (and receive benefits back from it), they have several other options of other systems that they could try. In this way, the various systems will also be kept honest as corrupted and bankrupted systems should (hopefully and idealistically) be abandoned by people, and should result in more gradual transitions between power groups rather than sudden collapses of single systems that have held on as long as they can and are no longer viable. The challenge to pluralism is division, faction, and schism, that become so entrenched that it seems the only options are to destroy those who oppose you. Monotheism resolves some of these issues, but every monolith will crack with enough time and pressure, and any group without some healthy level of schism and faction seems more likely to unknowingly walk itself off a cliff. As to boundaries, there must be some. The following simple example would seem to apply on a larger scale. Suppose for a moment there is no property ownership, and therefore where people occupy is allocated either at random or by a system or various systems. However a person (at least at our current evolution) still needs to sleep, use something like a bathroom, and likely have some space for some sort of work. Under this scenario, if there are no boundaries, does it then mean that any person could come into your sleeping area, your bathing area, or your work area? Your children’s same areas? Could you be relocated in the middle of these activities (sleeping, bathing, working) by random orders of the system, and if so how many times would that be allowed? I think for most people in our times, the idea that someone may be able to come into the rooms of their children, or that they may be evicted while they sleep, is prettty unpalatable. This (assumed) inherent reaction of most people against the scenario above argues for some sort of physical and temporal boundaries, such boundaries generally being what we would consider “property”. While this argues that there must be some system of property, it does not argue for a status quo of our current system of property in which some people are allowed far more property than they can possible use (or even manage) to the detriment of many other people (this improper allocation generally seems to be the aspect of property being that which seems to most need to be revised).
If one accepts the premises above, what are some models for global organization? Perhaps many global organizations, some purpose based, some function based, some geographic based, and some of other types (perhaps knowledge or spiritual, or others of connecting people). Among these, there would likely need to be formal and informal councils for the resolving of differences and establishment of global direction (in such cases where global direction is needed). There might be certain principles that would generally be agreed on (that morality be a pre-condition to power, that every human have a reasonable chance of at least a moderate life, that leadership has a multi life length vision, etc). Such structure would be also be predicated on the reasonable (but not unrestricted) ability of people to move from one group to another, and that they have the freedom to exercise viable choice. It seems unlikely that we will ever go back to a style of living where the globe is not connected, nor that there will not be at least some desire for global organization and pursuits. It seems that we therefore need to acknowledge this reality and set ourselves to the task of finding the better globalization options that better meet the needs of our humanity.
Humans likely have some limit to the amount of their meaningful social interaction (that is, there is a limit to how many people an individual can actually and meaningfully care about). Models for globalization, therefore, must acknowledge this. The main construct of human affairs must be on a human scale; a scale that allows for meaningful social exchange, and recognizes that such exchange and connection is perhaps a primary component of people forming a society. Global organizations must always exist at the consent of the human scale organizations. The primary element of organization must be the group, the community, and the region. While global organizations have a governance role to play (protection, adjudication, and cooperation), the global organization must recognize that continuation of their existence must rely on the support of these human scale organizations.