Globalization

Not sure what it has to do with globalization though

I have a feeling that we will soon be seeing again a lot of bunker-type stocking up of food, bottled water and essentials, and a lot of buying of camping stoves and cylinders of Calor Gas.

That reminds me, I have a camping stove and Calor Gas for it, but no regulator to fit between the two . . .

Exactly, Elegran, and some did take the threat extremely seriously - there was much talk of bunker-type stocking up and huge supplies of bottled water were sold in the run-up to the changeover from 1999 to 2000.

Should have put 01/01/2000 not 01/01/2001 - just as well I wasn't doing the checking.

What if a global operation is dependent on some basic procedure which is vulnerable to failure or sabotage? There needs to be duplication and quadruplication (if that is a word!)

That Millenium Bug didn't happen as feared, because companies whose operations depended on their computers NOT getting their knickers in a twist over date being exact took the precaution of getting their software checked line by line searching that 31/11/99 had been changed everywhere to 31/11/1999, and would be followed by 01/01/2001, not 01/01/00. DH had eighteen months of work prior to 2000 doing just that for a major company.

Chaos would indeed had happened, as among other things the automatic supplies of water, gas and electricity would have shut down, and the bills of their customers been either astronomical or non-existent.

Because it didn't happen, there was a lot of jeering at the scaredy-cats who had prophecied doom, but it was much the same as an industrial accident not happening because a firm cheked and rechecked safety precautions and put right any faults. No-one jeers at them for their careful checking.

That wasn't a groundless panic. There was software still in common use which had been designed years before that, when computers had a timy amount of storage and working space which would not have coped with a hundred times the number of possible dates. It had not been expected that the software would still be in use.

And the date wasn't used just to put at the top of a bill - the programmes check that all is well with the computer by frequently comparing the exact time and date that the computer thinks it is and the same for what the programme thinks it is. If they find a discrepancy they shut down the computer with an error message. (Programming buffs may not approve of that explanation, but it'll do for us non-nerds)

That's my argument * lucky* that trying to tackle or turning your back on globalization can't be done long term by a single nation state - it needs cooperation and agreements.

The American voter is now too inward-looking to care I suspect.

Nestle is big in America and to continue to extract water to bottle in times of severe drought is incredibly controversial, but I would argue that the American voter is in a much better situation to resist this compared to say someone in Mexico or India or an African country.

Remember the much-hyped Millennium Bug threat at the end of 1999? Now that would have been a disaster if it had happened...

I'm not sure about that. When major disasters happen it's now a given that aid will be flown in from around the world thanks to technology, transport infrastructure and logistics. However something truly and globally cataclysmic would stop everything in its tracks.
I'm concerned that huge international concerns like Nestle can effectively buy up a water source and deprive a community of its supplies while selling over-priced bottled water to anyone daft enough to buy it.

I suppose an enormous natural disaster like Tambora, would do it?

Yes globalisation can and may well be stopped in its tracks. A natural cataclysmic event or something like plague perhaps?

isabella yes much of my studies in the past have looked at the effects of globalisation, or in those days it was called capitalism on such continents as Africa and Asia. Some of it is so disastrous it takes your breath away.

So looking at Kofi Annan quote again, " if we argue against globalization are we arguing against gravity. " Is there an inevitability about it or can it be stopped in its tracts?
Can the nationalist argument for greater protectionism be a sensible solution or simply throwing chaff to the wind?

What I would like to argue is that globalization is indeed at this point inevitable, that nation states standing alone cannot hope to win against this powerful force but that through cooperation and world wide agreements, nation states can mitigate its worse excesses in order to protect its citizens and environment.

The European Union and Paris Agreement are just two examples of this cooperation.

ww the globalisation of the chemical industry is one that worries me with huge conglomerates producing chemical agricultural "aids." Many of these have a detrimental effect on the land and flora and fauna. This seems to have steamrollered ahead in front of the globalisation of the English language meaning many farmers in Africa (I use this as an example as I have worked out there) are unable to decipher instructions, dilution rates and the need for protective clothing etc. Often with disastrous consequences.

Returning to language, English to me is one of the main drivers of globalisation rendering different Englishes as the increasing norm wide world ( and one of the reasons I beat a hasty retreat from pedants corner)

This is a wonderful thread and thank you for starting this. I look forward to more comments.

Globalization, biology and the Environment.

The last aspect that I want to look at is how globalization has impinged on biology and the Environment.

Globalization and the spread of technology, has its effects felt in almost every aspect of our world.

With regard to biology, some of these effects include the reduction of genetic diversity in agriculture both flora and fauna.
There has been a loss of species, and a often detrimental spread of exotic species.
Industrialisation and its off shoots such as the combustion engine has polluted the air, water and soil.
It is accelerating climate change and exhausting the world's resources.

One other aspect of this spread of cultural understanding/homogenisation is as a result of migration. The logic of the capitalist system is as far as possible, and to date successfully, the free movement of capital, goods, services and labour. It requires easy migration, in order to either provide it with cheap unskilled labour and skilled labour. This has been the most difficult aspect from the industrialist viewpoint. But where cheap labour has run out or too expensive, the company simply up stakes and moves its activities to a labour market that is cheaper, or where there are less regulation, thus maximising his profit.

This is what so many people both here and in America are arguing is the basis of their difficulties. That if we could stop, either this uncontrolled migration or movement of companies overseas, then all will be well.

In this pursuit of profit then globalization has brought, particularly over the past two decades, access to technology previously undreamt of.

So the internet, media, television etc has given us a window on other cultures and value systems. Many would argue that in some areas, there is a cultural homogenisation. That in the not too distant future culture and value systems will be global - there is a common consumption of culture, that cultural diversity is flattening out. An example of this is popular culture amongst the young. They can "talk" to each other at this level throughout the world.

Well I look forward to catching up later as I'm off to take the wee ones to visit mummy in hospital.
The first time I was really aware of globalisation in practice rather than theory was when I found MacDonald's in places I didn't expect. I was pleased when the city of Paris refused permission for those big red M's (I think in the Champs Elysees).
I remember thinking that finding Orangina in Italy, as a teenager, was different and a bit of a treat. Now I don't buy it but it does just sit on the supermarket shelves. Nothing particularly special - same goes for Vache qui rit cheese. Trivial examples but they stuck in my consciousness!

mcem yes you are right and that's what I want to argue next. Just having a breather.

ww I'd say that maw 's definition includes most of the topics you listed eg media, culture and technology within the integration of communications.
It's actually quite an inclusive definition and it would be relatively simple to look at both definitions together as they are complementary.
There's a lot more to globalisation than businesses pushing their interests internationally.

No it doesn't gg capitalism by its very nature regardless of the political system under which it operates is the pursuit of profit.

Does it matter that capitalism - which I think you are saying both allows and encourages globalism whitewave - is so very varied within that globalism?

Can't dip in now whitewave but will be back to read what is said. A really great choice for discussion - thank you.

I can understand the definition provided by MawBroon Ankers. Are you seriously asking me to explain it to you? I can't honestly beieve that is what you are asking, so I'll take it that you are simply checking that I did understand it myself.