Globalization and the Changing Times

Once, there was a dream--and the dream was to create a unified humanity, a global conglomerate united by electronic technology, where information and ideas are freely exchanged at the speed of thought, bridging gaps, crossing boundaries, joining polarities, defying differences, and creating a worldwide allegiance to global responsibility.

For about 40 years, ever since Marshall McLuhan coined the term "global village," every country in the world seems to be working towards this direction. Globalization seems to have penetrated almost every aspect of our everyday life--from politics to economy, from education to culture, from what we see on TV to what we read from books, from our mode of speaking to our preferred brands of clothing. Arguably, we all seem to live, speak, eat, dress up, and up to a certain extent maybe even look, like almost everyone else in the world.

At least to mere mortals like me, this is not a bad thing. I honestly like the fact that unlike the people in history, I am given as much options as the world could possibly offer. I like the fact that I have unlimited access to all possible information I can know. I like the idea that I'm not restricted to believe only the beliefs of my ancestors or even my parents. I like freedom. And may God forgive me for what I will say next but if the tree of knowledge would suddenly emerge from the ground right in front of me, I would probably not have enough level of emotional quotient to not bite that juicy red apple.

In the recent months, however, the world has seen a sudden shift: globalization seems to be reversing. One indication is the economy. I'm not going to state the obvious anymore; we've talked more about the world economy in the last two years than they had in the last 2,000 years. We know that the U.S. economic model of free trade is beginning to lose popularity, especially among the hungry masses who are now subsisting on food stubs distributed by the government. In a bid to thwart possible mass outrage caused by nationwide hunger, unemployment, and foreclosures, governments of highly industrialized countries are beginning to focus inward and move towards intervention, reregulation, and even buyouts, leaving momentarily their self-imposed global leadership roles.

It seems that the only country whose unique political-economic model has come through unscathed amid these trouble times is china. The Chinese people are probably one of the least free people in the world but at least in terms of financial reserves, china seems to be now the world's wealthiest country. On a side note, sometimes it makes me think if we could have been in a better position now if we were ruled by a communist government. I guess in answering rhetorical questions like this, it all boils down to which is more important: food on the table or freedom of expression?

And the plot doesn't stop here. In a bid to hamper the spread of swine flu, countries had shut down their doors to trade and tourism. The election of the first black president in the U.S. has raised racism to a whole new level--from black discrimination to black supremacy. Discriminating actions against foreign workers are spreading due to scarcity of jobs. Budget cuts provoked rise of domestic travel, which consequently prompted discovery of national pride and identity. And the list goes on.

We thought that the dawn of technology would transcend physical distances and expand and unite social spheres. We thought the free-flowing exchange of ideas and knowledge and the surfacing of a universal language would help us to understand each other more. We thought that by making a step towards the center all at the same time, we could collectively tear down barriers and bring the world closer. We thought that the unipolar world is achievable. We were wrong.

Was too much freedom, too much free trade, too much freewill, too much clamoring for equality the cause of our own destruction? Is unity really a good thing? If the premise "two heads are better than one" is true, does that also mean that six million heads thinking independently and claiming to have thought of the right answer would collectively arrive at a better answer? What about six billion heads?

It seems that the more we sought world peace, the more it becomes elusive. In our harmless intention to understand the world we live in and to make ourselves relevant to the rest of humanity, we seem to be doing more harm than good.

No offense to technology. No offense to the visionaries of the time before ours, those who dedicated their entire lives so we can stop dressing ourselves with nothing more than banana leaves and animal skin. But maybe, just maybe, we're meant to be different. Maybe we're meant to lead solitary lives. Maybe when people are not speaking with each other that's the only way we can really and truly achieve world peace.

But then again, maybe we're just animals, a bunch of dogs that are trying to be something else, trying to be manicured poodles who don't really want world peace.