Cultural Homogenization

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yes, it may be a tad more complicated than I project, but not by much. I'm a little simplistic for two reasons: (a) this is a short post, I'm not about to elaborate and (b) I don't have a degree in Business. You know, there are people with Masters and PhD degrees and who write text books and teach courses and work in the business world with real businesses and write business plans and start real businesses. I don't have any of that expertise. I take it that everyone here talking about the complexities of business world has some of it. Or are they just talking out of their blank.

---

If I understand this correctly (or even at all), then you seem to value the authority of academic credentials. How about this from media analyst Dr. Jean Kilbourne:

"The average American is exposed to at least 3,000 ads every day and will spend three years of his or her life watching television commercials… Advertising makes up about 70 per cent of our newspapers and 40 per cent of our mail."

"Almost everyone holds the misguided belief that advertisements don't affect them, don't shape their attitudes, don't help define their dreams. What I hear more than anything else as I lecture throughout the country is 'I don't pay attention to ads...l just tune them out...they have no effect on me.' Of course, I hear this most often from young men wearing Budweiser caps. In truth, we are all influenced by advertising. There is no way to tune out this much information, especially when it is carefully designed to break through the 'tuning out' process.”

"The fact is that much of advertising's power come from this belief that advertising does not affect us. The most effective kind of propaganda is that which is not recognised as propaganda. Because we think that advertising is silly and trivial, we are less on guard, less critical than we might otherwise be. It's all in fun, it's ridiculous. While we are laughing, sometimes sneering, the commercial does its work."

Quote:

---

There are something like 6 billion people in the world. That's like 33 cents per person per year. That doesn't sound so outrageous to me.

---

It's a wonderful thing, Economies of Scale. If you are willing to spend money on marketing on each and every person in the whole wide world, you must be entitled to a little discount :). Though that doesn't mean that it isn't an enormous amount of money and an ambitous investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

This is not your view, but it's their view? How do you know their arguments? How do you know that what you said is the way many multinational corporations look at their affairs? Do you work for them? Do you own one? What?

I can't counter something that does not make any economic sense or any common sense to me.

---

HaHa, actually I did intern at Dell ( the computer company) for several years, and as such was privy to much boardroom discussion on this very topic. My boss, Charles, have a favourite saying, when asked "But sir, can we do that, is it right?" he would respond with "Right, right my ***, nice doesn't make money!"

And yes, lets try to get back on topic, Jackyyyy brought up a good point, that cultural homogenisation has been going on for a while, what could some of the potential outcomes be, when(if) we reach such a point that cultues become intermixed to a degree that separation requires historical analysis and tracing?

An example, most people are aware that St. Patrick's Day is traditionally an Irish celebration. However, other cultures ( notably America) also celebrate this day. Is it possible that in the future, everyone could celebrate other cultures/ countries occasions, and not relate the celebration to the original cultural signifigance, ie: it's no longer Irish, it's a world holiday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

HaHa, actually I did intern at Dell (the computer company) for several years, and as such was privy to much boardroom discussion on this very topic. My boss, Charles, have a favourite saying, when asked "But sir, can we do that, is it right?" he would respond with "Right, right my ***, nice doesn't make money!"

And yes, lets try to get back on topic, Jackyyyy brought up a good point, that cultural homogenisation has been going on for a while, what could some of the potential outcomes be, when(if) we reach such a point that cultues become intermixed to a degree that separation requires historical analysis and tracing?

---

Back on topic? I don't think I strayed off topic for a second; the large bodies of politics and commerce are most responsible for the speed of globalisation, and understanding how they operate is essential to answering your original question.

You make me laugh; you really think that I would let your thoughtless statements go because you had an internship at Dell and, apparently, remember a quote from your boss. You surprised me (in a good way) and got my hopes up when you said that you worked for Dell; but then you disappointed me again because it seems that this hasn't really help your answers to make anymore sense. Tell me, apart from the extensive argument brought forth by your ex-boss, do you have any actual explanations, perhaps drawn from your experience at Dell, for why you stated that "morals do not enter into economics" and that morals "should not" enter into economics? And I would also love to hear any expansion on the "evil" of MNCs. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

An example, most people are aware that St. Patrick's Day is traditionally an Irish celebration. However, other cultures ( notably America) also celebrate this day. Is it possible that in the future, everyone could celebrate other cultures/ countries occasions, and not relate the celebration to the original cultural signifigance, ie: it's no longer Irish, it's a world holiday?

---

:lol: If we mixed-in all the mandatory holidays from every country, we would never work again, eh, cool! Homogenization must include harmonization; melding of people, economies, ideas, and so on, so we are not replacing or taking anything away (unlike the Vikings), but putting them together somehow. However, something has to change because we cannot have **8000 bank holidays in one year, and this is actually choking governments for decisions, rules and guidelines, and causing certain politicians to seek advice from lady friends. As for historical tracing, not sure it will be relevant, rather nostalgic. Successive generations may look back fondly, and thats about it. Language, education, money and table manners aside, the disparities on this globe must be addressed, and if yogurting is to be a good mix for everyone.

** This number was totally invented by myself, please do not book holidays because of it.

Regit, please do not personalise your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

Back on topic? I don't think I strayed off topic for a second; the large bodies of politics and commerce are most responsible for the speed of globalisation, and understanding how they operate is essential to answering your original question.

You make me laugh; you really think that I would let your thoughtless statements go because you had an internship at Dell and, apparently, remember a quote from your boss. You surprised me (in a good way) and got my hopes up when you said that you worked for Dell; but then you disappointed me again because it seems that this hasn't really help your answers to make anymore sense. Tell me, apart from the extensive argument brought forth by your ex-boss, do you have any actual explanations, perhaps drawn from your experience at Dell, for why you stated that "morals do not enter into economics" and that morals "should not" enter into economics? And I would also love to hear any expansion on the "evil" of MNCs. Thank you.

---

Please refrain from personal attacks, if you must be so juvenile, use private messaging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Regit, please do not personalise your arguments.

---

You are right. My apologies. I will rephrase:

I did not think that the "discussion" that I was having with Union Jack was off topic, because "the large bodies of politics and commerce are most responsible for the speed of globalisation, and understanding how they operate is essential" to answering his original question. Therefore I did not think that I needed to be reminded where I was.

As for my questions for Union Jack:
You stated earlier that "morals do not enter into economics", and "it should not". These statements contradict with many things that I was taught in school. Thus, I was wondering if you could elaborate on these points that you made so that I can understand them further, and so that we could have further discussions on this topic. Because you involved "economics", I assumed that you made these remarks with scientific intentions. Thus, I am curious as to how you have derived your conclusions and with what evidence. If my assumption was wrong, and you were only making these remarks without any scientific intentions, then please let me retract all my questions regarding this matter. Thank you.

Well first I ask, what were you taught in school concerning economics and morals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

The point of all this is that the customer chooses what he wants. If people go to MacD it's because they want to go.

---

Virgil, you do have a point about how demand shapes markets - and fortunately, it means that, as demand for healthier foods increases, McDonald's is beginning to do less well, at least in Europe and America. Still, you could argue that that's a result of the other side, the likes of Morgan Spurlock, getting its message out about the harmful effects of that food more effectively - engaging in a sort of counter-advertising if you like. You also haven't answered my point about how McDonald's advertising targets children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Clearly the demand is stimulated, but that is not a bad thing. The important thing is that there is a flow of money and goods, without out this an economy flounders. If there is no market, companies are completely within their rights, and abilities to create one. You can influence people all you want, in the end it is their choice whether or not to utilise your services.

Clearly there is a moral bankruptcy among MNCs these days, but they do not need morals, morals do not make money. They are fulfilling their goals using the tools at their disposal, evil? Some call it survival ( in the competetive world of buisiness.) Companies cannot consider how their intrusions will afffect a society or culture, because they need to intrude, in order to pump the market and make money, before others do.

---

Wait, I'm a bit lost. Which is your view and which is just the view of transnational corporatism? Isn't it you saying it's not a bad thing if demand is stimulated? And how does 'not a bad thing' square with your assertion (with which I'd tend to agree) that large corporations have to use 'evil'?

Sticking with this use of evil, your argument seems contradictory. Just having a bunch of companies using evil in a country is not automatically good for its economy. It's actively bad for it if those companies are just there to plunder what they can get from the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Well first I ask, what were you taught in school concerning economics and morals?

---

Jack, I will also ask you not to personalise your arguments. I am not sure how where Regit studied is related to the on-going argument. If you would like to discuss more personal matters, please feel free to send PMs.

This is one of the more interesting discussions going on on the Forum at the moment; however, please note that off-topic, personalised comments does little in the way of pushing the argument forward and might be deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Can you counter the point?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Well first I ask, what were you taught in school concerning economics and morals?

---

Why do you ask and insist on withholding your argument until you have heard mine? Perhaps you didn't really know what you were saying? Or perhaps you need something to argue against, because you do not have your own argument? - again, these are questions, not personal attacks.

But, yes of course, I will give you a brief answer. You would understand if I will not put effort into expanding my points, since you have not answered me as to whether you have any scientific intentions behind your arguments.

"Economics and Morality" was a major unit of my course (believe it or not, economists actually think that economics is a good thing for the world). Morality not only has fundamental influence on culture and social behaviour, it is also the fundamental element of modern legal systems and modern politics. And social behaviour leads to consumption behaviour, which create the personality of what we call "the market"; legal systems lead to regulations and definitions of what we call "trade" and "commerce", which in turn create and define concepts such as "tarrif", "contract", and "tax"; and politics lead to what we call "economics policies" which defines the economic structures of each nation and each international organisations. These and more, are all essential concepts of the science of economics. In other words, briefly but surely, there is no economics without morals.

There, your canvas. Will I finally get an answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Virgil, you do have a point about how demand shapes markets - and fortunately, it means that, as demand for healthier foods increases, McDonald's is beginning to do less well, at least in Europe and America. Still, you could argue that that's a result of the other side, the likes of Morgan Spurlock, getting its message out about the harmful effects of that food more effectively - engaging in a sort of counter-advertising if you like. You also haven't answered my point about how McDonald's advertising targets children.

---

I don't know the specifics of whether MacD is doing less well or not, but I know that their healthier food experiment here in the U.S. faled. They keep a token item on the menu, but I can't help feel it's for political correctness. Actually I haven't been in one for quite some time, so perhaps my perception is off.

As to targeting children, I think you're right with the give aways they have. I think you raised it as a concern somewhere. Lots of companies target kids. I'm not sure what the concern is. It's not cigarettes, where I do have a problem. I don't have kids, so can't say what the pressure is for parents from first hand experience, but my mother never had a problem telling me no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I don't know the specifics of whether MacD is doing less well or not, but I know that their healthier food experiment here in the U.S. faled. They keep a token item on the menu, but I can't help feel it's for political correctness. Actually I haven't been in one for quite some time, so perhaps my perception is off.

---

My point was that McD's now feel themselves under threat because the increased demand for healthy food. That's why they're suddenly selling little slices of apple (Apple Dippers) and the like. But yeah, of course they're own health food initiative failed. For one thing, none of their new healthy options were very healthy. Their salad dressing had more calories than a Big Mac or something.

Actually, I recall in certain countries I will not name here, they introduced the salad thing (forget the name of it) and it was a big seller. Another point, any food is healthier than no food, the market does exist in poor and rich countries. The thread question is to do with homogenization, and while MacD is a multi-national, its the local marketing people (working for MacIndia) that put the Delephant on the wrapper, being an Indian corporation, an' all. That is their own morality doing it, and I guess they could have said 'no'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

there is no economics without morals.

---

But there are immoral economic practices, Enron scandal? Do you think that these CEOs who lied, cheated and stole to gain more money, had the best moral principles in mind?
This is just one case, but it disproves your absolute staement. You cannot make absolutes, there is (usually) always an exception to them.
The fact that they teach this material in economics classes implies a need for the subject. If everyone practiced moral business ehtics, then why would they need to teach them?
Clearly not a complete aurgument, I'll be back later to extrapolate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

Another point, any food is healthier than no food,

---

Which means what exactly? That McDonald's is suddenly some benevolent provider of food (however crappy) to the needy?

No, and rather it is convenience food, for poor and rich alike, and it actually makes economic sense to certain people in certain cases.

With all due respect, that's nonsense. Eating lentils, rice and vegetables makes economic sense. Eating stuff that gives you heart disease does not.

I apologize for my nonsense, you're right, though I have not seen any of those type of drive-in yet. I know what you mean, but people don't salivate over lentils the same, and it beats me why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

people don't salivate over lentils the same, and it beats me why.

---

It's funny isn't it? But maybe the partial answer is that, as was demonstrated in Supersize Me, McDonald's food is actually more like an addictive drug than actual nourishment.

Humanity has a will that only humans will. I just this minute took a drive to my local flogger and was muttering to myself what it would be like to cart an oven, microwave and chip pan around with me. I would still need a napkin and some plastics. We do it to ourselves, falacy of the educated to presuppose common blank. It is funny to conceptualize a lentil drive-in; not very macho for the guy behind the wheel of his ferrari, nor the mother raised to understand good wholesome lentils dressed up with a drop of ketchup, a piddle of peas, and that side of apple is actually not bad either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

You cannot make absolutes, there is (usually) always an exception to them.

---

Although I do not really understand what you meant by "make absolutes", I can find where you might have contradicted yourself: "Morals do not enter into economics." I don't know about you, but this sounds kind of "absolute" to me.
I did not "make absolute" in the sense that economics is only about morality; I said that it does involve morality. In fact I mentioned politics, legal systems, and social behaviour, and also that morality is a "fundamental element" (not the only element) belonging to these concepts. That's four different branches of social science for you- so, no, I did not make absolute.
And "usually always"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

But there are immoral economic practices, Enron scandal? Do you think that these CEOs who lied, cheated and stole to gain more money, had the best moral principles in mind?
This is just one case, but it disproves your absolute statement.

---

Could you please point me to my statement that contradicts this case. I cannot seem to find an absolute statement I have made suggesting that there are no immoral business practises. Perhaps you meant this one: "there is no economics without morals." Unless you missed the explanation that comes immediately before this statement, you would understand that it means: without morality, the science of economics would not exist, or at least not be what we know it. Furthermore, do not confuse business with economics; there are a lot more to economics than business practices and their good and evil. And do not confuse moral with good and nice. Here's some help for you from my dictionary.

Economics: the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth/ The branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management.
Moral -Origin Latin, from mos 'custom': standard of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong.

If you made your statement: "Morals do not enter into economics" with these definitions in mind, then I hope you have realised clearly why you are wrong. If you did not have these in mind, then you did not have any scientific intentions at all; because both concepts "moral" and "economics" have a great deal of science behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

But there are immoral economic practices, Enron scandal? Do you think that these CEOs who lied, cheated and stole to gain more money, had the best moral principles in mind?

---

Yes, Enron was a business with many illegal practices. But those CEOs were also prosecuted, weren't they? Does not the fact that they were punished show that the legal, political, and economic systems to which they belong do not tolerate their behaviour? Yes, that means that there are imperfections within an economic system; but it does not mean that morals "do not enter into economics."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

The fact that they teach this material in economics classes implies a need for the subject. If everyone practiced moral business ehtics, then why would they need to teach them?

---

Because "moral" is the key concept to major branches of philosophy, many of which involve fundamental mathematics and economic ideologies. Without the reasoning on morality of Plato, Descartes, Kant, Marx, etc, the science of economics would not be like it is today. Thus, they teach it in school(University) because if you do not study it, you do not know it. And if you do not know it, you cannot help developing it; and you would also make fundamental mistakes when you choose to employ such science to support your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Clearly not a complete aurgument.

---

We agree on this point. Moreover, I did not ask to be corrected; I asked for an explanation of this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

morals do not enter into economics, and they shoudn't.

---

To which you have avoided replying for a while. But if you wish not to comment further, I will respect it and will not ask you further questions regarding this statement. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

Although I do not really understand what you meant by "make absolutes", I can find where you might have contradicted yourself: "Morals do not enter into economics." I don't know about you, but this sounds kind of "absolute" to me.
I did not "make absolute" in the sense that economics is only about morality; I said that it does involve morality. In fact I mentioned politics, legal systems, and social behaviour, and also that morality is a "fundamental element" (not the only element) belonging to these concepts. That's four different branches of social science for you- so, no, I did not make absolute.
And "usually always"?

Could you please point me to my statement that contradicts this case. I cannot seem to find an absolute statement I have made suggesting that there are no immoral business practises. Perhaps you meant this one: "there is no economics without morals." Unless you missed the explanation that comes immediately before this statement, you would understand that it means: without morality, the science of economics would not exist, or at least not be what we know it. Furthermore, do not confuse business with economics; there are a lot more to economics than business practices and their good and evil. And do not confuse moral with good and nice. Here's some help for you from my dictionary.

Economics: the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth/ The branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management.
Moral -Origin Latin, from mos 'custom': standard of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong.

If you made your statement: "Morals do not enter into economics" with these definitions in mind, then I hope you have realised clearly why you are wrong. If you did not have these in mind, then you did not have any scientific intentions at all; because both concepts "moral" and "economics" have a great deal of science behind them.

Yes, Enron was a business with many illegal practices. But those CEOs were also prosecuted, weren't they? Does not the fact that they were punished show that the legal, political, and economic systems to which they belong do not tolerate their behaviour? Yes, that means that there are imperfections within an economic system; but it does not mean that morals "do not enter into economics."

Because "moral" is the key concept to major branches of philosophy, many of which involve fundamental mathematics and economic ideologies. Without the reasoning on morality of Plato, Descartes, Kant, Marx, etc, the science of economics would not be like it is today. Thus, they teach it in school(University) because if you do not study it, you do not know it. And if you do not know it, you cannot help developing it; and you would also make fundamental mistakes when you choose to employ such science to support your arguments.

We agree on this point. Moreover, I did not ask to be corrected; I asked for an explanation of this: To which you have avoided replying for a while. But if you wish not to comment further, I will respect it and will not ask you further questions regarding this statement. Thank you.

---

The absolute I referred to was when you said there is no economics without morals. I will clarify my meaning, I am not aurguing that economics occur completely esoteric of morality, no. I am aurguing that there are immoral economics, however "immorality" is subjective and varies from person to person. Example, drug trade is economic, but is it moral? Morality is a subjective term, and you apply to it an objective practice (economics) whether a practice is "right or wrong" is entirely opinion based.

And AGAIN I reiterate, when I said "morals do not enter into economics" I was merely throwing an idea out there, I have heard some people voice this thought. I am not aurguing that the statement is true, rather I was hoping for reactions which either disproved or proved it, I do not support it in any way. So yes, you did what I wanted someone to do, that is express an opinion of the statement. And you managed to disporve it as absolute, thank you. However the statement itself is not an aurgument, and certainly not my aurgument.

So I do believe that companies can carry out their economics immoraly (such as by invading foreign markets, and possibly damaging the local culture) but this immorality is subjective, and the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action cannot be standardised.
That is my aurgument.

Must...obey...must...obey...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

The absolute I referred to was when you said there is no economics without morals. I will clarify my meaning, I am not aurguing that economics occur completely esoteric of morality, no. I am aurguing that there are immoral economics, however "immorality" is subjective and varies from person to person. Example, drug trade is economic, but is it moral? Morality is a subjective term, and you apply to it an objective practice (economics) whether a practice is "right or wrong" is entirely opinion based.

---

You are repeating bits of my post and bits of your old argument. Did you even read what I wrote? The statement I made was my statement, thus I explained it to you. You don't have to explain it back to me. I believe that all the problems you just raised I have already attempted to answer. "Right" or "wrong" is entirely opinion based, correct. But the term "moral" means the principles of right and wrong. It does not mean either right or wrong. Why don't you look it up yourself if you don't believe me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Morality is a subjective term, and you apply to it an objective practice (economics).

---

Again, economics is not a practice, it's a name of a branch of social science or a branch of knowledge. And I really really do not understand this statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

And AGAIN I reiterate, when I said "morals do not enter into economics" I was merely throwing an idea out there, I have heard some people voice this thought. I am not aurguing that the statement is true, rather I was hoping for reactions which either disproved or proved it, I do not support it in any way. So yes, you did what I wanted someone to do, that is express an opinion of the statement. And you managed to disporve it as absolute, thank you. However the statement itself is not an aurgument, and certainly not my aurgument..

---

Right. So you are saying that the statement you made was soundly disproved, but it was not your statement. Great. How did you clarify that it was not your own opinion? It's hard for me to know without being notified; because in a dicussion, when someone contributes I assume that the argument they express is the argument that they are willing to support. But I should have anticipated this response. Anyway, there might be others who expressed what you meant to say; but no other who expressed it using terminologies as loosely and as incorrectly as you did. You don't want to be responsible for the idea put forth? Sure; but you are solely responsible for the way it was expressed in your statement, which was wrong regardless of whether you believe in its meanings or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

So I do believe that companies can carry out their economics immoraly (such as by invading foreign markets, and possibly damaging the local culture) but this immorality is subjective.

---

Companies cannot carry out their economics! They can carry out their business, their business plans, their business campaign, their economic duties, but not their economics. Economics is a branch of social science. You can't fit a word into your sentence and hope that its new context would make up for the inaccuracies of your previous statements. Forgive me, but I have to assume that you either have not read my post at all, did not understand it, or have forgotten it by the time you were making this reply. Why did you quote my post in your reply if you have no intention of actually considering its content whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action cannot be standardised.That is my aurgument.

---

Be careful now. You have made another "absolute" statement; and this time you have clarified that it is YOUR argument. Are you sure that it is your argument? I would like to comment on this statement also. Perhaps tomorrow.

And please, with all due respect, the word is ARGUE.

I was wondering, since America has been strongly influenced by immagration, and many cultures have "crossbred" to form an "Americain" culture, is this a microcosm of the possible future of our world given the trend of globalisation?
Oh and Regit, AURGUE, AURGUE, AURGUE, lol lighten up man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Oh and Regit, AURGUE, AURGUE, AURGUE, lol lighten up man.

---

Union Jack,
Please don't mistake the content of my reasoning for my anger. I am not arguing because I am determined to bring you down, I just want to express my understanding of the matter and, through it, my opinions. I really did mean it when I said I like how you approach economics and sociology problems; and I certainly do not hold any grudges against you. Though you would understand if evidence is always more persuasive than just thinking. I'm light as air :)

Well hats of Regit, I concede the aUrgument, you win and all that. You proved my point wrong, and my aurgument weak and points ridiuclous. *Waves White Flag* Lets move on to other discussions, good job, you deserve it. :)

It won't happen in our life time regardless. In order for complete change it would require generations of interracial marriages to create a species that all looks the same.

Not likely.

Not likely in our lifetime.

Not likely ever because we will naturally regionalize unless travel becomes so simple as taking the super-shuttle-plane to the supermarket in Africa.

I am very happy that we slowly are emerging globally forgetting that we have eclectic cultures.

I want that cultures are slowly getting lost.

One culture should remain and the rest must disappear into the thin air.

For the most part, I dislike the major anti-utopians like Orwell and Huxley, and this dislike translates into an inability to believe that *corporacy* models, to paraphase a word from David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas will lead to a worldwide homogeneous society. Humans are exceedingly provincial at heart, and the space earth orbits and occupies is fragile. It would not take much for technologies to fail, (aerospace, Internet, nuclear) to throw our species back to localized regions where evolution would continue what it started before our feet got the better of the process.

Take China as an example. I will not make a fool of myself by spelling out the names of the ethnic minorities who the Hu'an Chinese (I think) dominate--but this is a homogeneous society which isn't all that homogeneous underneath the state controlled market of today, if one really takes a close look at modern China.

And, our species is pushing the limit in terms of sustainable population. Either massive die-offs or a drastic drop in birth rates will toss the notion of "one global culture" out of the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Given the trend of globalization, I believe it would be valuable to consider the possible facets of cultural homogenization. As nations open up more and more, and the spread of information and ideas increases, markets are being flooded with foreign goods and concepts. Many ecnonomists/ sociologists predict that this will lead to a "dumbing" down of individual cultures, and produce a new, global culture.

The question, Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? If so, what are the possible pros and cons.

Some would tend to aurgue that the loss of our diverse cultures is a bane to our eclectic world. Yet others would counter that this thought process is nationalistic, and even facist, and would aurgue that a cultural homogenization would be a boon for our world, and would serve to alleviate many of the racial, cultural strifes inherent between sepearte beliefs and nations.

---

Cultural homogenization is something I can not subscribe to in point of fact. I do not think it is possible that we can live in perfect harmony with one another if we stick to our cultures.

Some aspects of cultures are not bad but most are corrupting. Today we live in a world rampant with cultural conflicts.

My opinion is that globalization elevates cultural/ethnic conflicts by bringing different peoples physically closer together. While it eventually may bring them together in a harmonizing way (or maybe it is a pipe dream), I doubt it will be any time soon. One culture is impossible. In fact a global culture would not be a culture at all. And while different cultures feud and wars/crusades/jihads and what not result, if there were no separate cultures and ethnicity, then we would not have amazing pieces of literature like the Odyssey or Shakespeare.

If there were no Greeks or Trojans, and no Latin and Germanic language mixing to make English, then these pieces of literature would not exist. American literature continues to be American, Arabic literature continues to be influenced by Islam, etc, etc. I do not see anything wrong with being different and maintaining that difference. That is real multiculturalism.

"Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? "

Most people think “global warming will take care of things” and that’s the reason why so few bother to learn chinese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

"Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? "

Most people think “global warming will take care of things” and that’s the reason why so few bother to learn chinese.

---

I liken cultural homogenization to a mirage.