Anti Anti-Globalization
Oct. 9th, 2007 07:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I was at a party the other day and this girl was rambling on about her anti-globalization views. Since its rather tactless to get into arguments at parties, I didn't argue with her as much as I would have liked, and so now I'm going to vent about it here.
Basically she was going on about how "if everyone lived in a locally self-sustaining community, everyone would be happier and healthier and there'd be less pollution." Without backing this up with any economic or scientific basis.
What I gently pointed out is that currently everything is produced as efficiently as possible, through economies-of-scale and at locations where it is most efficiently produced via comparative advantage (and thus the "globalized" economy). If one were to depart from either the large scale production or production-where-most-efficient, production would obviously be much less efficient; meaning less would be produced; meaning there'd be more scarcity; meaning everyone can buy less and therefore everyone takes a few steps down the poverty ladder.
Additionally she kept harkening back to the "good old days" when most communities were self sufficient. I pointed out that back then there were a lot fewer people and everyone had a lot more space -- there was generally something like 240 acres available to support each person, now you're living large if your "footprint" is 15. The world simply could not support the current population living at less efficient means.
Thats when she admitted "well, in my vision there'd be fewer people." This of course made several listeners ask "how?" Then she said, and I'm pretty sure she was serious "well, I think some people need to be sterilized." I could then sit back and watch as her formerly sympathetic listeners all went "wait wha?"
Basically she was going on about how "if everyone lived in a locally self-sustaining community, everyone would be happier and healthier and there'd be less pollution." Without backing this up with any economic or scientific basis.
What I gently pointed out is that currently everything is produced as efficiently as possible, through economies-of-scale and at locations where it is most efficiently produced via comparative advantage (and thus the "globalized" economy). If one were to depart from either the large scale production or production-where-most-efficient, production would obviously be much less efficient; meaning less would be produced; meaning there'd be more scarcity; meaning everyone can buy less and therefore everyone takes a few steps down the poverty ladder.
Additionally she kept harkening back to the "good old days" when most communities were self sufficient. I pointed out that back then there were a lot fewer people and everyone had a lot more space -- there was generally something like 240 acres available to support each person, now you're living large if your "footprint" is 15. The world simply could not support the current population living at less efficient means.
Thats when she admitted "well, in my vision there'd be fewer people." This of course made several listeners ask "how?" Then she said, and I'm pretty sure she was serious "well, I think some people need to be sterilized." I could then sit back and watch as her formerly sympathetic listeners all went "wait wha?"
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 04:40 pm (UTC)People like that need to get out and TRAVEL so they can see how the rest of the world lives.
By saying in her vision there would be less people sounds like she was struggling to still stand her ground. I am sure 'sterilization' would probably go against anything she believed on a humanitarian sort of level. If that were the case, would she have a defined test of how to choose who gets sterilizaed? What about the gray areas? Seems most people don't really look into their views - they just choose something that makes them look good or cool and stick with it even if the opposition has a thesis or thought that ruins the entire idea in which they stand.
Ok, maybe I am a *tad* bit bias and cannot stand the normally shallow views of anything remotley similar to hippies. Don't get me wrong, I like that people can have views and such, but most just jump on the idea bandwagon and never look in depth at their devoted side and can rarely hold a counter-arguement. I hate when I know more about the view I oppose than the fanatic who stands for it.
Though, if they know their side well, I respect them. I just dislike bitchy little people who want to bitch about something they know next to nothing about yet boast about for self-glorification purposes...and, in this case, she seems to be one of them.
People like that need bitchslapped with a large floppy donkey dick. The test for this is as follows: X < 87 = Y, where X is the target's IQ as opposed to room temperature and Y is the length of which the donkey's unit should be that does the bitchslapping. Anyone in question for this should also be bitchslapped with the floppy donkey penis for safe measure and to cover all gray areas.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 04:55 pm (UTC).
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 05:25 pm (UTC)Even if it were disconnected, there are more than enough people to slap with it to keep it floppy. As long as the floppy donkey dick is kept in motion, rigor mortis won't set in for this special occaision.
May I ask why you have a random period at the bottom of your comments? It intrigues me.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 05:40 pm (UTC)You may indeed ask why I have a random period at the bottom of my comments.
.
Ganesha does not like my seaweed.
Date: 2007-10-09 06:46 pm (UTC)Why do you have a period at the bottom of your comments?
I mean, I understand the important of periods. Miss just one or two and BAM! Babies.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 07:06 pm (UTC)There is no secret or hidden meaning. Period.
.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 07:27 pm (UTC)