It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ending Poverty is Impossible without Globalization

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

When I say globalization, I mean all of us being one people with any and all governments and/or corporations held accountable to all of us as a single people, I don't mean anything else.

As we're all divided right now by country, nationality, ect, it reduces our power to make the broad changes necessary to protect all of us. Division is not strength.




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I also have to ask:

Are you so convinced that a global governing authority knows best how to make all your daily living decision better than you, yourself, do?

Do they know, for example, what type of milk your like to drink, how much, or even if you like to drink milk at all. Assuming you don't like to drink milk ... do you drink a milk alternative and if so, how much and which type?

Can they then make each of those same intimate decisions about every thing for you on that level competently enough to manage the economy so that you adequately provided for a manner that makes you content, even happy, AND do the same for every single one of the billions of other people you share the planet with?

... Because that's really what you are asking such an authority to be able to do.

Just take some time to think about that for a bit.

And then move on if you think they really could do that to why on earth they would care to once they had the power.
edit on 17-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No I'm asking for us to be one people. That's all globalization means. It means no countries and no boarders. It means one world, one people. There's multiple ways to go about it.

You all seem to think I'm supporting some specific methodology for bringing this about. I'm not, but I am pointing out that as one people we are stronger to make these changes and hold the governments and corporations to set standards than we are as a divided people.

So any attempt by them to set up a one world government will backfire on them by making we the people stronger.
edit on 1/17/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Then if that's what you want, I have to fall back to my first response which is that you are making on colossal assumption: that people need or want to be one people.

Why would someone who is Chinese want to stop being Chinese in order to be whatever it is you think we should be?

Why should someone who has grown up in the African bush stop living in that way just to be whatever it is you think we should be?

Why should I stop being what I am in order to be what you think I should be?

What parts of our cultures are we going to have to sacrifice in order to homogenize like that? Who gets to keep their language? Who gets to keep their religious beliefs? Any of us, none of us? Which ones and why? How do you convince those who must change and give up that it is in their best interests to do so without being able to prove that a homogenized culture will, in fact, bring about any of what you seek?

And how will you deal with those who refuse?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

All those issues are happening anyway as corporations who are already global bounce around finding new people to exploit.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: glend

When I say globalization, I mean all of us being one people with any and all governments and/or corporations held accountable to all of us as a single people, I don't mean anything else.

As we're all divided right now by country, nationality, ect, it reduces our power to make the broad changes necessary to protect all of us. Division is not strength.


I understand what you want but globalization doesn't achieve it because it results in the same crap but at a global scale. The UN is suppose to be the body in which laws agreeable by all would result in a common good. But unfortunately the UN is controlled by the same people that want to profit from globalization so is totally ineffective.

A new world is coming but the old must die off first. It will be a bumpy ride.




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Not exactly, there is profit to be made by catering to our differences as peoples.

The milk example I cited? You have that choice because of corporations. A global governing authority would simply sell you milk and call it good, not spend time developing different types of milk, worrying about who is or isn't lactose intolerant, or who might prefer not to consume animal products.

For a corporation in a market environment, each of those is a new niche that brings in profit and opens up possibilities.

Similarly, the Chinese man, the African bushman and myself are unique individuals with varying tastes, needs and desires. Each of us represents an array of products and services that can be developed and sold.


edit on 17-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

To be fair, the UN has no teeth, since everyone just ignores them because while they're just for show. They don't have any real power over the nations in the UN.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They get their profit by going to different people and exploiting them because they are tiny and the corporations are big.

Cultures get decimated by exploitation every day.

They may "keep" some semblance of their individual culture, but become impoverished slaves in the process. And any cultural traits that don't fit the corporate bottom line is crushed and eliminated.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

So you are working under the assumption that governments aren't corrupt?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

You understand that the zero sum idea you are operating under is a fallacy? If there was no benefit in the transaction for both sides, then there would be no transaction.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I will ask you again, what do you do with the people and nations that do not support and will not be part of your New World Order?

What about ideology and religion that opposes such a thing?

How many bodies is acceptable to usher in your New Order? How many people do you oppress, starve out, arrest and impression or outright exterminate?

How many millions or billions of bodies is acceptable to usher in your dream? How many genocides are acceptable to usher in the Utopia?

What if people decide to leave? Is that acceptable or do they need to be "taken care of"?


I know! How about if you don't become part of the Order and say take a microchip or new world order ID, that You Can't Buy Or Sell Anything!

Hmmmm... where have I heard this before?
edit on 17-1-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: glend

To be fair, the UN has no teeth, since everyone just ignores them because while they're just for show. They don't have any real power over the nations in the UN.


The UN was designed that way so it can be used as an instrument of war against smaller nations. Veto powers were given to China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States so they can overturn any resolution. (It shouldn't surprize that land for UN was donated by rockefeller's)

What we need is a body that can bring in agreed "laws" that cannot be overturned by any one nation.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: VoidHawk

Once again, we need only raise up once.


You what end?

Americans rose up once against England, now we are just as bad as they were.

There is no such thing as a be all end all for humanity.

Things will always change.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I answered you already. I'm not going to make up magic numbers for you. Especially when you discount that all that death your worried about is happening already because of this division.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

I answered you already. I'm not going to make up magic numbers for you. Especially when you discount that all that death your worried about is happening already because of this division.


So, your great genocide that would be necessary is better than what is happening now right? That is your answer?

What about ideology and religion that opposes such a thing? How many of them do we need to kill?

Cmon, give us an acceptable body count. 300 million, Couple Billion.... what is acceptable?

edit on 17-1-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

Every government needs a reset now and then. Our forefathers even said so. They knew this would happen, and said resets were necessary.

Yes corruption of any system is inevitable, is why reboots are necessary.

Saying screw it, and just accepting the corrupt government because rebooting it is too hard is simply bending over and taking it up the ass.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

You make a lot of assumptions, and ignore the genocide that happens everyday because there is no one to protect people from being ravaged by other nations and tribes because no one is looking out for them.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

You make a lot of assumptions, and ignore the genocide that happens everyday because there is no one to protect people from being ravaged by other nations and tribes because no one is looking out for them.


And...

It is better to kill off a few hundred millions or billions of "dissenters" in order to establish a new Police State to prevent genocides from happening in the future who will comply with your World Order? (those who will comply will be protected)?

Do I have that right?
edit on 17-1-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Tell you what, I'll give you a number when you give me a number. You need to tell me exactly how many people are being killed right now due to tribal differences, over resources, cultural differences, religious differences, territorial disputes, need I go on? Because without a number to compare it to, your demand is a bull# one.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join