Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors in a CPU doubles approximately every two years (Moore’s Law). What this means, is that computing systems become 100% faster every 24 months. This conjecture, proved fairly accurate since its introduction in 1970, is right at the base of today’s “globalized” world. In fact, such fast-paced growth in technology has made it possible for our generation to dispose of the means to communicate instantaneously with anybody on Earth, obliterating geographical barriers. In the 21st century, the use of the Internet makes it easy to connect to people and services located hundreds of miles away. Consequently, it is now possible to shop online, hold a virtual meeting with professors from international institutions, or participate in a video conference to discuss about environmental regulations or commerce. Economically speaking, thus, globalization is indeed an absolute reality, that is shaping our financial systems and our lives (Stief, Colin).
On the other hand, however, meant as the formation of a global village and the consequent demolition of cultural and social as well as economic and political boundaries, globalization isn’t a phenomenon likely to become real anytime soon. It would, for instance, describe a utopian world, without conflicts or disputes, in which people have forgone their beliefs and forgot about their sometimes millenary history to embrace an impoverished and impure brotherhood. The reality, for better or for worse, is that the human being is tribal, wary, and obstinate in its faith. Capitalist societies and communist regimes will never find an agreement and Muslims or Christians will never give up the beliefs professed by their religion. No need to say that Arabic countries and America will never find peace and those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes will always mean Home and Union to the American people, and, analogously, never to the Greek or the Taiwanese.
Let’s just be real, we are not ready to give up our identities, neither as single individuals nor as a whole. How could we claim the opposite when, for instance, the Imperial System is still in use? Although the so named International System of Units has been recognized to be more efficient and accurate, indeed becoming “international,” a few countries in the world, including one in Africa and one in Asia, are still using an obsolete system of measurement, and this is perfectly fine. The people of these countries have been exposed to the Metric system, and do, generally, recognize its advantages. The “problem” is at the base. These citizens have grown up with their system, which is now an integral part of them, of their tribe. It characterizes and describes them, and they do not want to forget it. Nothing, nor an action from the government, as happened in the U.S. with the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, or ‘globalization’ can make them change their mind (Rowlett, Russ). Taking the example of the United States of America, home of diversity and union, if the greatest power in the world is not ready to set apart a measurement system, or at least start to learn one that is universally recognized, then how could we expect its people to embrace and accept a radically different way of thinking and perceiving reality within the same shared culture? And noticeably, the aforesaid kind of rejection to “globalize” occurs around other issues as critical as the conversion to the Celsius temperature scale, the 24-hour clock system, the MDY to DMY date system, or using Monday as the first day of the week. It would just be unreal, eventually ridiculous, to believe or to hope that such elements of globalization could ever happen anytime soon in the future of human history.
The truth is that human beings naturally develop in “tribes,” or groups of individuals who share similar attributes, such as race or nationality, and values, such as religion, political views, or favorite football team. Inevitably, members of the same group subscribe an allegiance that conveys loyalty and respect and ensures a position of superiority over any other individual who is not a member. What could be a clearer and more genuine representation of this assumption than kids forming cliques all the time? Children don’t act by hidden agenda, they are innocent and act purely, naturally. Their actions and behaviors depend solely on their natural instinct. Intelligibly, when a few kids form a little group and get to the point to exclude other peers, they don’t do so to intentionally harm the excluded, nor are they trying to study their the emotional response. Children do so because they are tribal. They do so because they feel comforted by each other’s similarities, just as they don’t feel comfortable with each other’s differences. They do so because they are able to recognize which other children are similar to themselves. And they can recognize these similarities because they are embedded into the roots of their tribes’ history...
To Be Continued!
No comments:
Post a Comment