Globalisation of Culture

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

No-one can deny, in the 1st decades of the 21st century, that human affairs are becoming global. There can be no doubt that we are heading for a single, world-wide culture, for a mono-culture.

There is nothing new here. No-one is arguing. Historians are recording the process and sometimes wonder why. It is considered a paradox.

Scientists, for centuries, have been cataloguing and commenting upon the diversity of nature. The great paradox in science is how such diversity can have come about. The person to have offered the best possible explanation so far is Darwin, and for that he has been accorded a place in the pantheon of Great Scientists.

While human society, then, becomes less diverse, the natural world becomes ever more so. There is, therefore, something fundamentally different about what drives the natural world and what drives human society.

In addition, scientists are unequivocal on the subject of monocultures. They have found that monocultures are weak, vulnerable to changes in climate and other aspects of their environment, and are prone to becoming extinct.

There are two oddities here:

  1. despite this stark difference between the development of human society and that of the natural world, scientists maintain that both are driven by the same mechanism: competition.
  2. despite the known gross weakness of monocultures, no-one is alarmed that human society is heading in that direction.

In truth, the natural world is fundamentally COOPERATIVE. That is why it increases in diversity.

However, it IS true that human society is driven by competition. That is why it is becoming less diverse such that it is becoming a monoculture.

It is also because human society is competitive that such glaring oddities can exist unremarked by scientists and historians.

The fundamental drive in the human world is the lust for power. Power makes people competitive. Power also blinds people, for when they desire power, they desire power, not truth: if at one time truth will get them the power they desire, then they will tell the truth. If at another time, lies will get them the power they desire, then they will lie.

Truth or lies: it is all one to a power addict. And when truth and lies become ‘all one’ then you lose the ability to distinguish between them.

Power makes people competitive and competition drives them towards monoculture. Power also blinds them to the truth of their situation.

2

Humanism is global culture.

There is only one race, the human race.

3 
 Truth, power?  Can you tell the truth without the power to find out what it is?  Power can be de structured to many concepts: need, feeling for, ability, energy, opportunity.  Most likely, all enhancements toward power are fueled by the fear of the unknown.  The essential needs' satisfaction require that.   That these multiform concepts get mixed, causes the aberration that develops where monoculturism becomes an apparent shrinking of frontiers.  This is only apparent, because the world is not shrinking, but our awareness of it has become more acute.

It is not the fear that drives this whole ball of wax, but the fear of it. It is not competition that drives toward mono culture, it is the appearance of it. In the fear of mono culture resides the very basic fears of an anomalie between quantitative and qualitative aspects of experience. The result?: the re lighting of the candle, which so quickly can be extinguished, as Descartes would place a genius within, albeit an evil one, at that.

 In such a world of finger pointing, towards signs of attributable fault, the lines of which may not very easily be found, how easy it is to just de construct the whole thing.  But it's a work in progress.
4

The difference between the two is plant and animal species tend to adapt to other plant and animal species, where as man tends to adapt other plant and animal species to him. That’s because man isn’t from this world, in fact, we’re not from any world. We’re parasites, we jump from world to world. We’ve been jumping from world to world since the dawn of creation, if there was a dawn.

A few of us arrived here in pods with little supplies approximately 200 000 years ago. We didn’t evolve from apes, that’s why no missing link was found, that’s why no missing link will ever be found, no transitional species between Australopithecus and man, or Erectus and man, Erectus and the others are little like man, their bodies are as different from us as their heads, their craniums have little capacity for frontal lobes. Whatever similarities between us, genetic, morphologic and physiological, is a coincidence, an example of convergent evolution, or perhaps our ancestors hybridized themselves with Australopithecus or Erectus, in order to acclimatize themselves to this world, but either way, we’re not entirely terrestrial, a fact covered up by popular science.

After this world has been raped, ransacked and ravaged, when ecosystems begin to collapse here, we will repeat the process, sending out pods to colonize nearby star systems. We are not the only species that does this, man is but one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, even millions of humanoid species (and some not so humanoid, but still intelligent in their own way) that does this. Some of them are gazing at this planet of ours right now, wanting a piece of the action. Some of them live in relative harmony with their hosts, some multiply until there’s little or nothing left, some never attain a high level of philosophy, science and technology and some do. Clearly we have chosen the latter strategy, one fraught with risk and reward.

We are at war with ourselves as well. As usual, the elites want to be the ones who inherit this planet and/or send their progeny off to colonize other planets, and why not?, it’s only natural. They keep us in the dark about our true origins, because knowledge is power, and science, especially the important science, is largely under state control, conveniently for their sake, and the fate of earth man and the fate of the common people in particular, is at stake, in this war of ours.

Our ancient mythography is loosely based on these facts, but any tale that gets told over and over again, slowly but surely begins to depart from fact and enter the realm of fantasy, leaving only a glimmer of truth. That’s why in our ancient mythos, man always singles himself out from nature, and rightly so. The elites in Eurasia and even Africa to a lesser extent, have always been more aware of man’s true origins than common people, as a celestial species, not entirely at home here.

This is not the first time we’ve attained a high degree of civilization and culture, but only one of many, the other times ended in ruin and nearly annihilated us. Yes, as far fetched as my ideas are, there are some proofs to substantiate them, but perhaps the greatest proof of all is the one you yourself mentioned. There’s something alien about the way man does things in contrast to the way other species do things, and that’s because we literally are, alien, forever alien, we have no homeworld, but then. life itself jumps from asteroid to planet, and from planet to asteroid via bacterium, a never ending quest for satiation and survival.

5

Wow! :laughing:

6

Thank you for relating your beliefs so candidly and in such detail. I totally believe everything you say. You have related your personal mythology to me. It applies to you, just as surely as your dreams do, but it does not apply to me. Considering the frequency with which people report alien encounters and such, and the frequency with which people dream of aliens, I suspect your mythology may be shared by many.

The alien suggests that you do not feel at home in your society. Going from world to world: do you" re-invent" yourself from time to time? Or are you the kind of person that takes up one interest, drops it, and moves on to another only to drop that quite soon and move on again? these are the kind of things that come to mind as interpretations of your mythology.

7

In all the posts I have written where I mention power, I always get responses in which people misuse the word. Often people try to derail an argument by inappropriately nit-picking concerning word definitions. This, in a sense, goes in the other direction, where there is almost no attempt to define the word power so that it can be used to cover just about everything. This too is a way of derailing an argument and is also inappropriate.

You can tell the truth when you have the ABILITY to find out what it is.

8

Affairs have always been global, one of the reasons that Europe had an easier time in the Americas was because of technology gained from China. There is lots of doubt…

Just because you believe something does not mean it is true… Lots of people are arguing… Historians are often recording through a prism, because while History has no side or ideology, most historians do. What Paradox?

And still know so little as a percentage.

Why?

True, as long as you don’t look to closely at him and see how much he stole and borrowed. Darwin was a nerd, a big one, that wrote everything down. His placement as a “Great Scientist” is questionable.

Less diverse only in one very, very, specific sense, skin color. And even then this assertion is questionable. There are enough pictures of people to show how many colors there can be. But, customs in America differ enough from one section of the country to the other to mock your statements… Look at the differences in France, southern France would be offended at being aquated to the Northern French, and that is without expanding to the wider Europe.

Any time you find scientists being unequivocal on anything you should turn and run. Either way don’t believe anything they say… Almost worse than philosophers that bunch…

Both statements have not been backed up to a sufficient degree for me to really agree. But lets play devils advocate and accept these stipulations based off little. In the words of a great man, “So?”

The culture is not end all, it is not the species. If this monoculture fails, we will move on as a species, to a new culture

No, to both. And at this point I’ve given as much evidence as you.

No, to both. Human society has gotten to the great levels it is at by a combination of competition and cooperation. It is known as a family structure, or in some places a tribal structure. I still don’t accept your monoculture presumption. But, again suspension of disbelief going strong, this monoculture you are talking about is going to have elements of both competition and cooperation…

No, it is quite remarked on… though not odd at all…

That fails to explain why we take care of children.

Won’t argue with this last bit, jerks is jerks…

Your thesis statement fails to make it off the ground due to a lack of truth.