Globalism is inherently fragile. This is part of a continued trend which has enough inertia to carry us to an inflection point where it could conceivably destroy everything human, either in real terms or something less tractable. We made a wrong turn a very long time ago, and since we've been extraordinarily misdirected but inextricably committed to the mistake we've made. We're totally in the dark, and truth becomes ever more indefinite as we travel down this timeline and the path we [never] elected.
You see, the way that we made exchange was translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one. Dollar valuations of a lifetimes is an intrinsically abhorrent concept. A life can never be repaid, thus it can never be valued in real terms - yet it is, billions of times over. Globalism is just a long-range result of this. Exploitation and undervaluing of billions of lives in order to create increasingly competitive products to grow dollar values of a investments in the hands of an increasingly small proportion of the population. This itself founded on false pretense.
Every move towards globalism is increasingly dangerous, this is no exception.
This is a lot of doomsaying, with no evidence and very little details or logic. It's like you expect your reader to already agree with you and nod along to "mistake" and "misdirected" and all the other negative language you use without any explanation of what you're actually talking about.
> We made a wrong turn a very long time ago
What, inventing agriculture? Certainly some think that. Otherwise: what are you talking about?
> translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one.
What? Can you explain what this is supposed to mean?
I don't understand the comment you replied to either. To my naive mind it sounds like a lot of words put together to make it look like something deep, but that doesn't actually mean something. It'd be happy to be showed wrong here with historical events to describe "the wrong" turns and such to be able to tell if it's not just a abstraction or feelings that went a bit to far.
Could it be a lot of words to describe an interpretation of globalization as a perceived single point of failure across every subsection of civilization/humanity?
> What, inventing agriculture? Certainly some think that.
Are there really people who believe that? I've only read it in Sapiens by YN Harari, and it sounded like a ridiculous idea written to provoke thought, not an actual opinion. "Yes, hunter-gatherers could starve on a bad year, and they sometimes got eaten by tigers, but look at how un-alienated they were!"
The author probably wouldn't have been to write his book or share these thoughts to more than 30 people without the invention of agriculture...
> I've only read it in Sapiens by YN Harari, and it sounded like a ridiculous idea written to provoke thought, not an actual opinion. "Yes, hunter-gatherers could starve on a bad year, and they sometimes got eaten by tigers, but look at how un-alienated they were!"
The argument I saw put more emphasis on things like nutritional deficiencies after the switch [1], reflected in average male height going from 5'9" to 5'3". Obviously in the long run agriculture became very efficient, but he makes a reasonable case that in the short run individual quality of life went downhill, with the main advantage being reaching higher population densities before being at the limit of the food supply, and so winning any conflicts with hunter-gatherer societies.
The idea, at least as I’ve seen it a number of places, wasn’t that agriculture was a long-run bad idea, but that for a very long time it decreased the median quality of life (while also greatly reducing volatility in the quality of life for most people, and enabling extraordinary improvements in the quality of life for – again, for a very long time – an extremely narrow elite.)
I am as confused as you are; this reads almost like GPT-3 generated text - there are words that resolve to sentences, it scans like real human writing, but there's little to no information communicated.
The breakdown is basically:
* A statement of the premise: "Globalism is bad" without defining 'globalism'.
* Some vague ominous sentences that sound like they reinforce the premise but don't.
* A long paragraph that basically makes the statement "Human lives can't be assigned a dollar value" with no real attempt to tie it to the premise.
> Globalism is inherently fragile
> Every move towards globalism is increasingly dangerous, this is no exception.
I don’t really agree in the slightest unless you’re making the claim that all political systems above the family level are inherently fragile in which case it’s a moot point. The previous international standard was war when there were major disagreements. Globalism has helped make the entire planet relatively(relative is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but still counts) peaceful compared to the past
You see, the way that we made exchange was translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one. Dollar valuations of a lifetimes is an intrinsically abhorrent concept. A life can never be repaid, thus it can never be valued in real terms - yet it is, billions of times over. Globalism is just a long-range result of this. Exploitation and undervaluing of billions of lives in order to create increasingly competitive products to grow dollar values of a investments in the hands of an increasingly small proportion of the population. This itself founded on false pretense.
Every move towards globalism is increasingly dangerous, this is no exception.