Globalization
In some ways, globalization seems to be a good thing.
It allows all of humanity to share the resources of the earth (for example, so that the most fertile agricultural areas can be enjoyed by all, orthe most productive and efficient mineral resources can be used by all) rather than just limiting those areas to a certain group of people and excluding everyone else (and in so doing making the success of a society dependent on where fate has located them in the world). This is arguably more fair than just people being forced to play resources hand the geographic dealer dealt them.
It is also more efficient (for example, if only two production facilities are needed to supply the world’s demand, then having more only means unnecessary work for those working at the surplus factories), and this efficiency in turn reduces the amount that people must labor (thus people have less need to be enslaved to working a peice of land or in a factory all their days).
It also potentially promotes global peace, in that if we are interdependent on wide array of humanity across the globe it will be much harder for us to attack one another, since doing so would be like our kidney attacking our heart, painful to the entire social organism.
Perhaps risks have increased over time (biological warfare, nuclear warfare, chemical warfare, robotic warfare, species alteration, global ideology), and so perhaps in order to minimize the potentially species ending risk we need more stability and control, which globalization may be able to provide.
It removes borders, thus allows people to not be tied to arbitrary lines on a map, and to not have rulers angling to increase the amount of land within their lines.
In other ways, globalization is concerning.
It is not a given that a monolithic globalized system will lead to better world security or reduce the risks of catastrophic or humanity ending events. There is a well known dictum from Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved, but the less often remembered part of this section is that he then goes to say that a leader must not go far as to be despised. My interpretation of this is that leaders need to instill enough respect to know they and their rules are not to be trifled with, but not become so hated in doing so that people will willingly risk their own destruction to fight back (that is, when people have the impression that injustice and arbitrariness prevail the perceived risk of inaction and passivity outweighs the risk of action and fighting back, and so people rationally choose to fight back). It is hard to see how a monolithic system that so traps people for generations would not lead feelings of contempt in which the leaders and the system itself becomes despised. This generally leads to corruption within the system, but for those who have been hurt enough within the system, it could also lead to a goal of destructive vengeance (which in order to be meaningful would have to be someone fairly high up within the system).
Further, while there may be some security and stability advantages to a globalized monolithic system, by definition a monolithic system demands conformity, and thus there can be no diversity. There is an idea in investing that if you knew for certain that a certain investment was going do better than everything else you would put all your investment into it, but since no one can have such certainty you diversify your investment to account for some inevitably unexpected events. If one agrees with that idea, perhaps it is worth taking the same approach with societies and humanity in general. No one or group knows for certain what is best nor has all the answers (though they will try to convince you that they do, and some seemingly become so deluded that they start to believe it themselves). Therefore, since only gods can know things with absolute certainty and have absolute certainty of vision, and since our leaders are humans, the one society they create will be imperfect. Since there is only society, one that is inherently imperfect, there will be issues, some of which may prove fatal to the entire system. This argument is akin to the argument against monoculture in agriculture. If you know for certain that you had created the perfect plant you would have confidence planting it all over. However, when a challenge like the Chestnut Blight arises it risks wiping out a substantial portion of the species. Diversity allows for greater resiliency for our species (in addition to allowing people choice).
Perhaps another concerning factor is the concentration of power that globalization seems to entail. This concern is based on a few premises. First, that despite anyone’s best effort, the system will be human run (that is we cannot automate governance, or even if automated, it will be people who set up the automation). Because the global power is ultimately human (though perhaps some might say ultimately divine, of which humanity is its manifestation) the power will be limited by human capacities and limitations, and therefore those in power will only have so many connections to people within the broader world, and therefore will have little sensation of the harm and pain that their actions causes others. Another concern is the addictive and corrupting nature of power (absolute power corrupts absolutely). Power for many seems to be their chief aim and some seem to know no limit or line they would not cross in their pursuit of it. In their conquest for power they will do whatever it takes regardless of the results for everyone else. Once they have the power they seek, they risk become corrupted and bloated, serving only their own ends while ignoring their role to those who elevated them. With a power disparity so great (and in a monolithic system, without established outsider groups) when the system becomes corrupted it will be much more difficult to correct the system, and the corrupt powerful will be able to hold onto their system for far longer than they should.
Another aspect to this monolithic global system is that the only way to obtain anything is to work within the system itself, and thus because of the lack of other options we are forced to serve the one and only system, and thus providing the holders of power with leverage to maintain their hold on power in perpetuity. Therefore you, your loved ones, and your children will be trapped and enslaved in a system in which the only way to fight against it is to support it. People should have meaningful choice in their life and have reasonable opportunity to change their circumstances in life. I do not want to live in a world where some arbitrary tests I take early in life determine my opportunities for the rest of my life, and I don’t want to trapped such that even if I don’t like and disagree with the system I must support it to survive.
There is also a substantial issue of control. While we will always have limited control relative to the powers greater than our own, within the sphere of human control, a globalized monolithic system will erode the ability of individuals to exert agency and control over our own lives. A system that rules over 7.5 billion people will not be able to hear the voice of one person, one family, or even one group. Consider that even if we are grouped into communities of 7,500 people, that still leaves us competing against the voices of one million other groups to be heard by these leaders. If we need permission and support from the one system to do anything outside of established bounds, than we will seldom ever be able to do so (since it will be an almost impossible task to even have our petition heard, let alone approved).
Perhaps the most concerning is the quality of life aspect. Globalization seems to be trending towards a monolithic approach: one system, one religion, one knowledge (Vandana Shiva might call these one agriculture, one history, and one science). For those who can or are willing to conform to this system, they will at least be provided with the basics of life. For those who cannot or will not conform however, there will be no other groups, systems, or models with which they can be supported. In a globalized monolithic system, anything or anyone who is different is a threat, and will be made to conform or expelled (which without support results in eradication). The life offered by this monolithic system seems to be devoid of the qualities we view as essentially human, and therefore it is perhaps worth questioning whether such a life would be worth living at all (akin to the philosophical and living will question of would you want to be alive just to live the rest of your life in a vegetative state).
It seems we risk that this globalized monolithic system will make us cattle, to be bred, slaughtered, milked, harnessed, and used in any manner that the rulers of our society see fit (just as we humans use cattle now). Perhaps we will separate into different species groups that no longer view each other as related (akin to Wells’ Eloi and Morlock), a race of human cattle and another of masters. Some will convince themselves they will be masters, but most will be deceiving themselves. Not being a master I must therefore be cattle. Moo.