Sunday, February 11, 2007

Anti-Localisation

I’m still having a lot of trouble understanding the anti-globalisation groups. How can you really be anti-globalisation? I mean, at its heart globalisation is just the process of making sure that things are made as efficiently as possible. If A can make something cheaper and better than B, well then it seems obvious that A should do that and B should concentrate on something else.

To oppose that process is to demand inefficiency.

Now, I understand that displacement is an issue and that there should be a certain amount of cultural sensitivity, after all it takes time to adjust to new situations, but if we would have done from the beginning what the anti-globalisation people suggest, then we would still be protecting our flint knappers and fire makers (Interestingly enough, technology actually displaces far more jobs than outsourcing, but the only people who protest against that are the Amish).

The better we work together, the more efficient we’ll learn to be. The more efficient we learn to be, the better off each individual should ultimately be (as to how wealth should be spread, that is a completely different argument that, at its core, has nothing really to do with globalisation).

What surprises me even more is that many anti-globalisation people claim to be socialist. That might be true on a local scale, but on a global scale I would use a different word, namely racist. Because you weren’t born in our corner of the world, you cannot enjoy the wealth that we have. You are Chinese/ African/ Indian/ South East Asian/ South American so you should therefore remain poor, while we sit here in our might fortresses and enjoy 35 hour work weeks, expensive luxury goods and state welfare.

I say we create a counter movement to the anti-globalisation groups, namely the anti-localisation group. We will refuse to look only at our own neighbourhood and instead look at the international stage, believing that every community should be able to make it to the top of the pile if they’re willing to work hard.

It isn’t just an idealistic group, though, it’s a pragmatic group. This is because no society that has tried to close its borders (e.g. Myanmar, North Korea and even to some extent France) has pulled ahead of the curve. It is only those that have embraced globalisation (e.g. Singapore, China and Ireland) that have recently truly prospered.

The world is changing and we need to change along with it.

No comments:

Post a Comment