In a recent post, regarding meetings having economic orientation, I referred to the June, 2003 meeting of the "Group of 8," held in Evian, France. Another purpose of this conference was sociological in nature: i.e., the promotion of French President Chirac's concept of "durable development," which constituted efforts to deal with world poverty and disease, and to provide the poorer nations with better access to drugs to combat nightmares such as AIDS.
The common denominator of all these examples, and the value expressed in each of them, is the extension across political borders of cooperation, assistance, and friendship. Many more can be cited. But they would all symbolize and demonstrate the same single, obvious principle: brotherly love, without reserve due to political or giegraphic factors.
To repeatr a term so often mentioned of late, a giant element of our present day integration of the nations of the world, and of its citizens, has been the phenomenon called "globalization." As the costs of communication and transportation have ever decreased; and as many of the previous unnecessary manmade barriers to the movement of capital, products, and services have been reduced or abolished, man has generated more and greater hopes and opportunities for the future. Globalization has been credited with reducing the sense of isolation felt in the developing world; and with giving the inhabitants thereof access to vast stores of knowledge and resources; which would have been beyond the reach of any of us a hundred years ago. Thus, many people live longer, and enjoy a far superior standard of living, than their forefathers.
On the other hand, we are reminded that many of the benefits of involvement in this new "global milieu" have been unevenly apportioned, as between the have and have-not nations. From a sociological standpoint, globalization is a good thing--while uneven distribution of its benefits is not. But, if there were no nations to begin with, it would follow that it would be accurate only to say that these aforementioned advantages were disproportionately distributed between different places upon our planet. This could and would be a whole lot more easily corrected, by reason of the fact that neither persons nor conditions would any longer be compelled to remain forever within a "have" or "have-not" nation or region; but would theoretically be easily movable or transportable to or from one or another such sector of our planet, or society within it.
Naturally, particular individuals, their abilities and consequent accomplishments, vary, within any society. And this would continue to be the case in a world containing a more or less single society. There would continue to be successes and failures, achievers and nonachievers. But the distinguishing factor could no longer be said to be a geographic factor. That is to say, everyone, everywhere, would--as they should--have an equal opportunity to enjoy and to profit from the new fruits of our globalization, without the need nor opportunity to blame confinement within a small space defined by geographic borders as the culprit which has caused his or her nonsuccess.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment