Is cultural globalization necessary for the survival of our species? |
We all need to come together for a common goal.
There will be a time when the people of the world will need to come together for a common goal for survival. This world is becoming smaller and smaller with the ever growing population. Science is evolving and technology is growing so fast that we are starting to live longer and becoming healthier. There is no reason that some countries are advancing at a greater rate than others. We need to start sharing information with less fortunate countries and help them to come of age with the more advanced cultures.
Posted by: SlipArnalIf there was ever a threat to mankind, the human race would unite in order to face a common enemy.
While cultural globalization may be a step in the right direction, we have no need to fear for the survival of our species in its absence. There are such a vast multitude of races and ethnic groups with different social norms and customs that a globalization effort would most likely fail anyway.
Posted by: AboriginalKing28Yes, because communication is the key to survival.
Cultural globalization is an important part of cultivating trans-national communication and empathy. Without the transmission of ideas and meanings, cultural homogenization would dominate the social landscape. This encourages divisive and problematic politics. Being able to share ideas enables and empowers people to make changes in their communities through inspiration from others.
Posted by: ExoticCurtYes, I agree that we need cultural globalization for the survival of our species to further bring world peace.
I believe that cultural globalization is an important evolutionary phase to our species. There is a need to be able to foster a sense of community, by further exploring other cultures and allowing the blending of those cultures to reach world peace. Cultural globalization would allow people from all walks of life to embrace, understand, and accept each other, without fear of reprisal from social rigidity. Instead of intolerance, we would have a sense of belonging on a wider scale, and be able to learn. We would find more solutions to global problems via traditions passed down from generation to generation. In this blending of cultures, there would be no stereotypes or other negative aspects of any one culture. The result would be a new culture that is a blend of multiple sub-cultures. This type of societal structure would go a long way to cure hunger, disease, and many other social ills.
Posted by: RedCrescentYes - culture holds the world back
Culture and religion are largely designed as punitive, pejorative, restrictive mechanisms, with view to limit or alter behaviour. At one point this was a valid response to a hostile, dangerous world.
This is no longer needed. The next time you hear culture or religion mentioned in a sentence, consider whether it is in the context of a positive change for humanity. I am guessing it won't be.
I celebrate our personal differences, but look forward to seeing culture-as-impediment-to-progress banished one day.Posted by: AnonymousGlobalization helps promote integration.
Through the aid of globalization, we can become a more diverse and prosperous country, continent, and world. It would mean considering everyone on the map as a business partner.
Posted by: NumberlessClemente63With our world getting smaller due to communication advancement, it is very important that we have more similarities and less differences.
Cultural globalization is a natural developmental step forward for all of mankind.��It doesn't mean that we will all have the same exact beliefs or see everything the same way, just that we will be able to cooperate together for the betterment of our species.��With the internet and travel connecting us more and more, we need to be aware that we will need to treat each other with respect and cooperation.
Posted by: babydoll93Yes, cultural globalization is necessary for the survival of our species.
We, as a society, have committed more wrongs because we didn't understand another person's culture. Tolerance is something that many can't or won't do. We don't understand and can't be bothered enough to learn. If we had a global culture, at least, we would all be on the same page. It would not end wars and conflict completely, but the world would be a better place. It would be like serving everyone a bowl of tolerance for breakfast before they went into society every day.
Posted by: R0m4nticSamNo. People survive regardless of where they end up. Culture is more about traditions and history.
As people migrate to other countries in the world, they spread their native culture, but it isn't necessary for survival. Culture is more about the customs and practices of a people, than it is a survival technique. When it actually is a survival technique though, it is more to do with the environment, not the people themselves.
Posted by: PinkMychMost definitely, I do agree cultural globalization is necessary for the survival of our species.
Many of us today are not aware of other cultures. Making time to know them and understand them would probably make us more accepting of other people and cultures that are different from us. Just because our ways are different from others does not mean that what they believe in is wrong or inhumane. It is all about respect for others.
Posted by: StripperMor
There is no need for humans to become one and the same across the globe, because we have always survived throughout history without assimilation.
The human race has survived for over a million years without global assimilation. Just because we are aware of the existence and location of other cultures, it does not mean that we have to culturally meld. We can exist, like with other species, as separate human cultures and still protect our species as a whole.
Posted by: TedieDelightCultural globalization is not necessary for the survival of our species because it's a recent phenomenon.
Cultural globalization is not necessary for the survival of our species because it's a recent phenomenon. For thousands of years, most people didn't know anything outside of their own village or small area. Learning more about others and co-existing peacefully is good, but we'll still carry on whether we're friends or enemies.
Posted by: H0bi3InvaderWe can survive as species in our own separate ways.
We do not need to be globalized to cohabit-ate within the world. We can operate as our own separate entity because we have in the past and we can in the future. We should loyal to our own because it produces heritage that can be attributed to loyalty to our own, not loyalty to those whom we do not know.
Posted by: R3ubHockeyCultural adaptation is faster than biological adaptation, and diversity is our strength.
There is a solid belief in biology that one of the advantages of genetic diversity is the strength it gives the species. The broader the gene pool, the more potential traits the species can draw from for survival. This can range for genes for disease resistance to differing biochemical enzymes for digestion (think lactose tolerance in humans or the ability to break down alcohol). When the environment shifts, a subset of the population is better adapted than others, thus more likely to survive. A homogeneous population lacks the advantage of diversity. A homogeneous population that is mal-adapted finds itself extinct. Humans have accelerated biological evolution by creating culture. Differing social practices, clothing styles, technologies and belief systems result in populations with different adaptive techniques. As the environment changes, culture can change more quickly than biology can. People can change clothing styles to suit changing weather far faster than they could change human anatomy. They can change social structures (polygamy to monogamy, multi-generational to single generational) in response to changing economic conditions, which can change in a single year. A single world culture creates a homogeneous cultural environment. Thus the diversity of minority cultural practices that may have been better adapted to new circumstances are wiped out. And unlike biological diversity, cultural diversity is lost in a single generation as those who knew the "old" or "other" ways are lost or merely forget. Cultural globalization is as bad if not worse than loss of human biodiversity.
Posted by: Pir4AndCultures are like organs and each individual people work together to be one whole.
People can live close to each other and have different, often complementary cultures. As the distance between cultural spaces become smaller in time we become like any large city, with different parts of society there for different purposes. To be together with other people and accept their differences is well understood, any kid who has watched Oscar the Grouch knows that you don't have to evangelize for your own culture when being with others.
Posted by: groovyboxHumans should not all conform to the same beliefs and ideas.
Instead of being 1 large, hard to manage piece, we should all be different, manageable, small, pieces, that come together to form a peaceful world of many cultures. I believe that, if globalization never happened, there would be less outsourced jobs, burning less fossil fuels for transporting goods, and bettering humans.
Posted by: AnonymousCultural globalization
The key word is "cultural." While it is important that we all work together for the good of the universe, the cultural aspect can and should stay in tact for as long as possible. While I believe it could be inevitable, and that it may evolve as such, the cultural aspect will tend to be more of a by-product of globalization itself.
Posted by: AnonymousCultural globalization is not necessary for the survival of our species, since diversity is an innate characteristic of all living things.
Fostering the unity of human beings is not the same as promoting conformity in beliefs and cultural practices. While extreme differences may be minimized with greater global communication, our goal should be to respect the cultures that exist, learn from them, and work together to promote peace and justice. My slogan is "unity in diversity".
Posted by: ShiveringGerardThe human race could continue to survive without cultural globalization, because we have survived without it for years.
Many say that globalization will bring people all over the world closer together, allowing them to better collaborate on ideas that will improve society and create a better world. While this is true, globalization is not essential to the survival of the human race. People would continue to live as they do today for many years to come if globalization did not occur. However, globalization will always be inevitable.
Posted by: ConsciousNolan82Cultural globalization is a damaging, homogenizing process that negates the versatility of a multi-cultural species.
Cultural globalization may sound like a wonderful idea from the viewpoint of a materialistic, economically powerful nation such as the United States. It may appear to be the perfect companion to our capitalist pseudo-democracy. And from our standpoint, it is; from the rest of the world we receive raw goods (or labor), and we take those, make things with them, and then export them back to "better" the lives and minds of the rest of humanity--for a profit, of course. But to globalize across the cultures of the Earth is to homogenize a species whose grasp on survival is tenuous at best. Humans evolved in distinctly different environments around the world, and these environments and the biological, social, and cultural evolutions that have been passed on to the next generation did so largely because they were advantageous in that particular environment. The environment of the Earth is not, has not been, and will never be a standardized, formalized environment following the specific rules and mandates of the human race. These environments are going to continue to exist, change, and challenge human beings differently in different parts of the world. Cultural globalization would remove the social and cultural evolutions that allow humans to subsist in vastly different, often hostile environments. From a purely survivalist standpoint, cultural globalization will create a species that--because of a lack of differentiating features--runs an even greater risk of being permanently removed from existence.
Posted by: babylonciriCultural globalization is not necessary for the survival of our species because who would decide what culture to adopt?
Every country has their own culture. This is due partly to climate. Also religion has its place in many cultures. In fact, sometimes it is a very important part of the culture. And who would want to abandon their religion for the sake of global culture? That would be one sure way to start a horrible world war and then we would really have to worry about the survival of our species.
Posted by: takeitonedayCultural globalization is not necessary for the survival of our species.
No, I disagree that cultural globalization is necessary for the survival of our species. Cultural globalization is good idea but it has more disadvantages than advantages. Cultural globalization will negate the multi cultural species which is so unique in the world. The next main issue is who would decide which culture to follow or adopt? Moreover the uniqueness of our world culture makes more interesting and meaningful to live in this world.
Posted by: I0rFashion