Posts from Unified world.

What is your opinion on globalization? Do you support anti-globalists or, on the contrary, are you against them? Perhaps cooperation between states is not globalization, and anti-globalists are worried for no reason? Perhaps the fears about the mixing of cultures, nations, etc., are exaggerated? Well, yes, people will become closer, but everyone will remain true to their roots, traditions, culture, and so on. Why not?

From the two posts written earlier in this thread, it is evident (although not explicitly stated) that there is a different understanding of the term "globalization." Gentlemen, could you please provide a definition of this concept? This will make it easier for us to communicate. Sincerely, Gur

you can take the definition from Wikipedia

Globalization is a process of worldwide economic, political, and cultural integration and unification. Its main consequence is the global division of labor, migration on a planetary scale of capital, human and production resources, standardization of legislation, economic and technological processes, as well as the convergence and merging of cultures of different countries. This is an objective process that has a systemic character, that is, it covers all spheres of society. As a result of globalization, the world becomes more interconnected and more dependent on all its subjects. There is both an increase in the number of common problems for groups of states, and an expansion of the number and types of integrating subjects.

To be honest, I don't like Wikipedia. Although I often use it myself. It's not a very reliable source for such "philosophical" questions. However, getting back to the point... I liked the adjective "objective" the most in this definition. It smells like fatalism... Sincerely, Gur

Yes, perhaps the definition isn't very good. I haven't fully formed my own opinion yet, and it might be flawed, but I can say that I see more advantages than disadvantages in globalization. Maybe it's because of my optimism and a certain idealistic belief.

Without your definition, Arandor, it will be difficult to have a conversation. Such a definition will set the direction for the discussion. Without a vector, all statements are meaningless. Even if your definition of globalization is initially incorrect, it can be edited through collective effort. For now, we can start by listing the pros and cons that you have observed in this process. Sincerely, Gur

I understand, of course (and I'll write down what I see later), but I'd like to hear the opinions and definitions of others first; perhaps after reading their posts, it will be easier for me to formulate my own definition. After all, it's a complex question, and we need to approach it seriously.

No one will unite with anyone. A Third World War will definitely happen, and most likely, it will be because of the Americans. And even if there is no war, these two countries will not unite. Simply because we are too different. Unification is only possible if America disappears from the face of the earth and Russia reclaims its territory, which it once sold without thinking. And only then, when countries stop competing, and only when all terrorists and those who can threaten our world die, only then will eternal happiness come.

I understand, of course (and I will write later what I see), but for now, I would like to hear the opinions and definitions of others; perhaps after reading their posts, it will be easier for me to formulate my own definition. After all, it is a complex question, and it needs to be approached seriously.

I agree; we need to express our own opinions because the question is complex. For a long time, I was a supporter of globalization and a staunch globalist. I envisioned a world without passports, visas, customs, with sufficient concentration of resources to carry out mega-projects – conquering space and so on, and without wars and an arms race – these are just some of the advantages that I can easily and quickly recall. I am sure that we can try to find others. But now, I am more of an anti-globalist. Since the topic starter raised this issue, I will immediately note that I don't care about culture, races, and traditions. I don't see anything valuable in them except for the pleasure of a small group of historians and traditionalists who worship wooden phalluses. I don't feel sorry for them, but there is no value in it. I became an anti-globalist for another reason. Almost all prosperous countries in the world are small in size. Almost all poor countries are either totalitarian or large. There are exceptions, I don't deny it, but the distribution is mainly like this. I thought about its nature and came to the conclusion that it is related to the fact that it is more difficult to manage a large territory, which creates favorable conditions for corruption and also distances the authorities from the population. That is, in my understanding, the size of a country and the well-being of its citizens are directly related. Therefore, now I am against the creation of a single state, but I would not be against the creation of a federation, not like ours, in words, but a real federation, like the EU, perhaps even with greater autonomy for its participants. I hope that the author of the topic will appreciate my honest and detailed answer and will support further discussion.