RE: Globalization of International Relations
Response to Jason Fay by Ryan C Stith,
I agree with your definition of globalization is challenging the power of the state by increasing the number of significant interests. However the rest of your post seems to be egocentric in nature and extremely offensive to the ‘less fortunate’.
My understanding from your position in this discussion is that you would like to eliminate a specific segment of global society to enhance the living conditions for the remaining world citizens. Let me be very clear about how this sounds. First your post does not offend me, personally. But make no mistake your solution to our problems is the same thing that dictators in the past have proposed whether it was Hitler wanting to cleanse Europe entirely of the Jewish people, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe out the entire nation of Israel. The purpose of what you propose is the same – eradicating a significant portion of humanity to secure scarce resources that are deemed essential, like oil, water, geographical locations that are historically and religiously significant.
In the past, when leaders display this type of egocentric thought, it has easily caught on, for instance, when famine sets in and people begin to worry about their own existence, the sense of community breaks down. The people will honestly start to believe that they have a greater right to a specific resource than another group of people. I continue to withhold judgment on anyone because that is not my duty to judge, but what was proposed in the prior post is ignorantly dangerous in the sense of creating a riot mentality.
Think about it, you want to preserve 40% of the “smart” and “rich” population. With your goal of global warming melt-down and death of over 4 BILLION humans you not only wiped out the AID’s infected, homeless, and elderly poor folk; you also just wiped out the entire middle-class. Teachers, nurses, clerks, are all eradicated. More importantly your solution splits families so mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers are killed as well. This is senseless violence with a senseless purpose. We all have the same right to the resources put on this earth and none of us has the right or authority to claim such resources to be exclusive to a specific segment of society and I sincerely hope that our government does not move toward adopting a policy such as this. It would be a return to Imperialism.
Not to mention on a physical level your logic seems irrational. How could one assume that only a portion of society would be eliminated by dangerously increasing O2 levels in the atmosphere. Not just the ‘dumb’ people would die. Everyone that breathes oxygen would perish. But again this goes back to my point of egocentricity aligning the minds of the weak and the weary. When nations begin to crumble this kind of thought is perceived as reality and this is what creates civil wars and genocide.
Ryan C Stith
Original Post by Jason Fay
Globalization is challenging the power of the state by increasing the number of significant interests. We care if China uses lead in their paint because it may affect people in this country, so, we now have interests in our production methods and theirs. That is a lot of people to keep tabs on. Before globalization, Al-Qaida would not have even known that there was a country over here but now our marketers and Christians have spread our ideas across our borders and into the offended minds of loonies. Globalization increases the number of interests so much that the state loses control of itself as a state.
The first two solutions that come to mind come from the anarchist and the anti-Christ. After a little thought, I think the best alternative would be to increase global warming to a point in which 60% of the population was killed off. The ones who are left are smart, lucky, or wealthy and would be spread so far apart that unification would be the only reasonable means of survival. Because books would not be destroyed, through research, we could make better choices and may avoid the nation-state completely in favor our unified goal of global survival and not global rule.