Musings on the value of the tube and the internet....

[SOTB]

Sometime back, Jimbo and I were commenting back and forth in a thread on the attributes of corrupting the world outside of the US with such things as rock & roll, bars, and MTV. I forget the actual exchange, but I think we both were serious, and saw value in this "corruption" deterring extremist views leading to terrorism.

OK, fast forward a couple of years (I think) and today I run across this CNN ARTICLE (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/21/china.race/index.html) describing a black teenager growing up in China -- as a Chinese. And I admit that I watched the video a couple of times and read the story again, because some things struck me as important.

Not the race shit. Not the stuff that CNN wants you to notice. No, I am referring to the NORMALCY of kids doing pretty much the same thing no matter what country they are in.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that kids are kids, no matter where. No, I am referring to this tied-in world in which we live in -- which THEY live in. If the world continues to evolve as we are -- and supposing that machines don't take over in 50 years (crossthread points), I wonder if our children are going to find a way around conflicts that we currently have, simply because they begin to live in a world without borders. Without denominations.

Yes, I admit that this reads somewhat kumbaya. No, I'm not drinking anything.

Bottom line, I wonder if that Star Trek utopia of one planet kinda vice lots of countries is possible after all. I think you'd have to accept that a portion of the planet would be pretty much the rejects (most of Africa, the ME, swaths of LATAM), but shit -- what if kids of future generations simply refused to obey the rules of "borders" and started to work without them?

IMO, and I mean this seriously, I think that would be kinda cool. Sitting in front of my computer, I honestly don't know that it is impossible....

[Scotty]

Funny you mention this, I have thought about the scenario as well. Instead of having "dual" citizenship, maybe a passport of "world citizen". Not so much borders coming down, because I think for that to happen on a GLOBAL scale would take longer than humans will be on the planet, but someone that has learned enough about cultures, has shown interest and passed enough "tests" to prove they are not a security threat to achieve that sort of passport honor.

The whole "one world, one currency, new world order" will only work for countries that have become as "kumbaya" as we are. The countries that have remained steadfast in their beliefs, unbending in who they allow to become citizens, unwilling to conform to other minority culture's insurgency (see the Swiss thread), etc, will not drop their fences.

I would love, as a cracker-ass crackah, to be able to travel to Egypt, other parts of Africa, Central and South America, Canada... and even the orient without worrying about my safety. Without having to watch my 6 all the time and be on alert.

I don't think that will happen in my lifetime, or that of my daughter's, but there's always the hope that we get to a point where we trust other humans enough to let down the borders/their guard and just relate.

Sorry, been listening to Bob Marley again.

Scotty

[TXAggie05]

I'm not sure if it is a valid example or not given the exclusiveness of the group (kids of diplomats/military/etc), but when I attended an International school there was definitely this feeling. There was a lot of curiosity about other people's culture, religion (it was a Catholic school but you did not have to be Catholic, for example we had one of the zillion Saudi princes as a classmate), etc. but not a lot of true animosity and no incidents that I remember from my 2 years there. Many of those people now consider themselves true internationals, and while perhaps maintaining a small patriotic base, consider the world their home. And yeah, to your point, we were all just kids, and we all acted about the same.

Your solution would mean doing away with our current and time honored system of national "might makes right" though, which would be a pretty durn big leap... has there ever been an 'international' agreement/resolution by the UN or some such that truly goes against the marked best interests of one of its most powerful players, and is followed and enforced? I don't really know if there is even precedent for that.

Education and awareness that there IS another world out there are key; of course that was not enough for, say Qutb or some of the 9/11 terrorists so... it's not a be all end all.

Just some thoughts. :smile:

[adtexan]

I don't know how this would be cool. I mean in such a way as I like going to other countries and I enjoy how they are different from mine. Vacation, business trips, etc., let you escape for a while and view your own existence from a different perspective.

Kids are kids for sure. If you plug them into the same social interactions all the more so. I think they pretty much want the same things at younger ages.

Sadly, I don't think we are going to work our way around conflicts of culture and ideology. Maybe one day but I don't personally see it happening in the near future.

Hope this is taking the conversation in the direction you were looking for.

[Jimbo]

Not to get into an esoteric conversation about individual and collective identity and their impact on the intractability of conflict, but I just want to point out that some people, even after being exposed to everything you talk about above, reject it. Some of the 9/11 hijackers, John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahan, Adnan El-Shukrijumah, were all exposed to the 'normalcy' SOTB is talking about. Yet they chose to reject it and try to destroy it. Sure, some of that has to do with the kind of bullshit narratives that progressives have been trying to ram down society's collective throat since the La Commune de Paris, but modern twists on the narrative, mixed with new media/propaganda/agitprop/astroturfing, etc... I fear that we are on the verge of an era where there will be illusions of 'normalcy' that will be periodically and violently shattered. But that is all of history, I guess.

But I don't want to take this thread off track.

[grog18b]

For my daughter(s) sake... I love the idea of a world without borders, but, sad to say, most of my thoughts tend along Jimbo's lines. There will always be some asshat, somewhere, that will not be happy with peaceful existence. Some shitbag (most probably in the name of some religion) will always see others as "evil" and want to destroy their "way of life". Be it from jealousy, or some mental illness that makes him believe it when his dog tells him to kill infidels.

That "wold without borders" would be conditional on rights we have now being extended across those no more borders. In other words... I reserve the right to carry weapons of a personal nature, to 'keep the peace' as it were.

Seriously... I would love the whole world to get along. The wife and I were looking at visiting central/south America last summer. Every country she named, first thing that I did was research rebel groups, tourist kidnappings, and crime rates. We decided against it for the time being. Like Scotty, I want to be able to enjoy myself, not spend my time trying to figure out the nearest thing I can use to club someone to death if I have to.

The internet and tube are very valuable tools (commo) in the world today. They (video eye witnesses) are things that can't be argued with (imagine the world seeing Jews in 1939 being rounded up and gassed on youtube as it happened...) Information being shared world wide in a matter of seconds is changing the way the world works. In some cases for the better, and in some cases, not.

[grog18b]

Bottom line, I wonder if that Star Trek utopia of one planet kinda vice lots of countries is possible after all.

I KNEW you were a trekkie dude. :biggrin:

[desertdoc]

If you have the time, watch the Sand Pebbles with Steve Mcqueen. Several great moments involving this very same train of thought.

The missionary who denounces his citizenship, the letter from Geneva, the round table discussion and the subsequent begining of the Boxer Rebellion.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

Not sure I'm a fan of such standardization...

Go to any metropolitan area in the U.S. and there'll be a Bed, Bath, and Beyond right near a Barnes and Nobles (what's up with that?). Go into an Applebee's, Outback, and/or just about any mall..squint your eyes and you could be in just about place in the lower 48 states. The only difference is the weather...

I never really noticed just how cookie cutter the US is until I spent extended time away from it. The place I live now doesn't have McDonald's, Pizza hut, 7-11, or Taco Bell. It was an odd transition not seeing drive throughs at every major intersection or routinely stopping at them.

One day I noticed that I hardly ever see aircraft here. For some reason, that was a strange realization.

Al lthat being said, there is one thing that the US has that I simply haven't found anywhere else - the "feel" that a surburban neighborhood has.

You can experience that feel anywhere you go in the states but cross the border into Canada, go to Europe, Asia, or Latin America, and the neighborhoods just "feel" different. I've been to many places that have the same feel as European neighborhoods but none that feel like American suburbs.

Is it good that just about every kid regardless of ethnicity wants to be or act like a rapper? I dont know. Is it good that people can make money using the internet regardless of location? To me, it's a double edged sword....in my industry, there was a race to zero pricing that I didnt want my small company to win. But then again, the NYT has a story today about how a company is launching virtual doctor visits online for $45 per consultation. I'd likely use a service like that given the infrequency with which I go to local docs.

But, even the influence of TV/cable/internet clearly has its limits. Example: the NFL hasnt replaced football even with their well funded international broadcasts and likely never will in my lifetime.

I suspect that this internet thing might actually catch on at some point...

[Hopeless Civilian]

I think it's going to take a long time, at least three or four more generations, and it's never going to be 100%, but we're going to see societies and people all over the world grow closer and more alike. It's already begun to happen, thanks mostly I believe to the internet.

In my own experience, since I first got 'on-line' ten years ago, I've discovered things , ideas and people from around the world that I never would have found otherwise. Has it changed me? Sure. For the beter? I think so.

I don't however see a total globalization and an end to seperate nations. Each of us , by our very nature, wants to keep a bit of our past, our heritage alive. This is something we just won't give up easily.

And yes, there is always going to be the jihadists, the extremists, who will try and tear down what everyone else has worked so hard to create.

[Sharky]

I think it will do the exact opposite. I think it will create more conflict when the have-not's clearly see how much better things could be than what they have. They may want that normalcy, but in most cases they will never obtain it because in most cases their respective governments are either incapable or unwilling to provide it. Jealousy and envy are an ugly thing. As long as we struggle to advance ourselves and our societies to be more and have more, there will always be conflict. There will always be war. Always has been. Always will be.

Just my opinion. Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

[KidA]

Also on CNN today: The tubes work both ways:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/12/22/robertson.youtube.terror.recruits.cnn

[Lagnaippe]

I think it depends on "indoctrination," good or bad. For instance, my son is Colombian. We adopted him as a toddler. While he remains physically hispanic, he is culturally Anglo-American as his parents and step parents all have Irish/British heritage. While he has a kind of respect for his home country, he has no interest in learning about his native culture. Despite my having introduced him to many people from Colombia and forced Colombian food and music on him, he rejects the notion that he owes any allegiance to Colombia, its people, or culture. It used to make me sad that somehow I had failed at keeping him connected to "his" culture. Now, 15 years into his being American, I realize that despite my best efforts, he wants to be like us (meaning his parents, not the Hispanic-Americans or African-Americans who live down the road).

I will never encourage him to become a citizen of the world. It's not that we Americans have it all figured out, but that we do have certain beliefs, attitudes, etc. that (in my opinion) are superior to those of some other nations. We should never compromise those things that make Americans unique; our neverending belief that things can be better, strong individuality, support for creativity, etc. I love capitalism and the fact that I define me.

[Dirtpuppy]

I remember a group of young Pakistanis constantly wanting to show us their ungodly amount of porn on their cell phones. Tera Patrick, Jenna Jameson they all got off showing us this, so if wanting to buy porn or be a porn star lets them get their minds off harming others, Im all for it.

[smp52]

I remember a group of young Pakistanis constantly wanting to show us their ungodly amount of porn on their cell phones. Tera Patrick, Jenna Jameson they all got off showing us this, so if wanting to buy porn or be a porn star lets them get their minds off harming others, Im all for it.

I agree, though it needs to be taken a step further. They watch American porn, which is all good, but the day they're watching their own women in such porn on a regular basis, we'll know their society has truly changed.

Currently, the equation stands as:

Foreign women = Sex symbols
Their own women = Cover them up head to toe (or some variation of it).

[random]

I don't think multicultural kids or TCK's are going to be the answer to global conflict. Will conflicts lessen as the world becomes more interconnected? Sure, absolutely. I think that's already happening, just look at Europe. Interdependence is a powerful motivator for resolving disputes through means other than conflict. As it stands, China holds massive amounts of US debt. We buy most of their exports. They cash in the debt, inflation skyrockets, we lose our purchasing power and their exports have nowhere to go (until they find another buyer). Motivation for China to continue holding that debt.

I don't think people's experience with different cultures will be the driving factor, however. I'm an American by birth, my parents are American, and I grew up in a foreign country and culture. Did it affect me? Absolutely. I will never fully be able to identify with the American culture in ways that someone who's spent their entire life here can. But I always identified myself as an American. I think people need a community to identify with, whether it's a nation or a religion or an ethnic group. Yugoslavia (before the breakup) and Bosnia are pretty clear examples that people define their own borders based on their "community." As the world becomes more similar and connected I think you'll have less fighting over conflicting ideals, but I really think you're always going to have those outliers who don't identify with the common message and choose to fight it, methods varying.

[SOTB]

I don't think the "outliers", the extremists, or even the flat-out cave-dwelling morons that make up probably a fifth of the world's population (from Asia to the Americas to Africa to the ME and maybe even to parts of Europe) are the key.

I think some of you guys bring up some great points, but I simply wonder -- how long progress can be held back? What I mean is, will there be a point where all of this being tied-in and connected and simply bypassing the normal routes of commo and protocol will result in people simply moving to a "borderless" society. I'm not sure if I mean no-shit lack of borders, or simply people no longer respecting them. Maybe it is the same.

I'm about to get on a flight in less than an hour, so I'm kinda in that whole doing the borders thing mode, but looking at the black teenager -- from China -- surfing the net and watching Beyonce -- fuck. I mean, that is my little girl (only mine surfs drawing forums). And my daughter is daily chatting it up with people from all over the world (well, obstensibly).

I think you are always going to have envy, greed, ignorance, prejudice, etc. -- hell, most countries I have visited (ALL COUNTRIES I HAVE VISITED) have these problems internally. But most aren't in a civil war (some are, though).

I'm just wondering guys, is the power of instantaneous commo stronger than those issues? I think it might be. Hell, YouTube alone -- almost by itself -- has changed the world as many police knew it. I don't know the answer to my question -- but I am not sure technology can be held back -- and with it -- the power it brings....

[Oldpogue]

If you have the time, watch the Sand Pebbles with Steve Mcqueen. Several great moments involving this very same train of thought.

The missionary who denounces his citizenship, the letter from Geneva, the round table discussion and the subsequent begining of the Boxer Rebellion.

Not to be a nit picker, but the Sand Pebbles took place in the late 20's, probably right after Sun Yat Sen's revolution. The Boxer Rebellion was about 25 years before that.

To get back on track using the Star Trek reference. There was an antagonist on several episodes called the Borg. They were humanoids with bionic attachments. They were all hard wired together on some sort of internet. All of their decisions were debated and arrived at as a group through this internet connection. Today's internet is a marvel in that a person can communicate their thoughts and not be judged by their race, education, or wealth. How far away are we from electing our politicians by reading their blogs or something similar rather that watching paid advertisements on television? The Internet is the great equalizer.

[grog18b]

...To get back on track using the Star Trek reference...

Good reference, and perhaps that's the only thing I can see being able to get this whole planet to work together on anything. Threat from somewhere else. A common enemy. But even then, there would still be asshats that want Jihad.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we were willing to work together as a world, instead of using our profits for wars against our fellow man. Instead of working against each other, working together. IMHO, if we would have worked together WITH the people of the Soviet Union, instead of each of us spending who knows how much on the Cold War, nukes, weapons of war... we would have people on Mars by now. Perhaps even a whole colony (we could declair war on). We could have eradicated world hunger, paid for health care for all, and combined our best minds to achieve, instead of preparing for mutually assured destruction and working against each other.

That being said, I'm all for dumping the Clorox. :smile: (The duality of man...)

[Spinner]

I'd say we'll probably see more of the citizen-of-the-world mindsets as time goes one, but it won't be all encompassing and as pervasive as some futurists predict.

Humans compete, for the most basic necessities such as food and shelter, and then for grander prizes as we move up ol' Maslow's chart toward the top of the pyramid.

But then we'll always have those who not only want to "win" individually, as a means of satisfying their own needs, but also want to gain control over others as a form of winning, whether it's being elected or overthrowing a government, or gaining a monopoloy over a business that is essential for, say, running the world's personal computers.

Every advance in human history has come about because of friction, strife and competition. Would Kennedy have pledged to put a man on the moon back in the early 60s if we weren't competing with the USSR both idealogically and, by proxy, in the space race?