171
edits
Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation (view source)
Revision as of 22:28, 10 December 2009
, 22:28, 10 December 2009→Conclusion: Review and Prospects
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
== Conclusion: Review and Prospects == | == Conclusion: Review and Prospects == | ||
In conclusion, the perception of the dynamic and coevally irreversible process of globalisation differs exceedingly from its actual development. Hence, the question comes whether the gap between these two models of observation is debilitating or supporting. The latter can be excluded, since the view for the real problems and risks become hazy. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to disregard personal dismay and fears and focus on solving or minimising the actual risks or even solving risks of the past which already have turned into negative consequences. In the process of problem identification and solution finding, the focus must not lie on finding a win-win-solution, nor to find a formula to reverse the process, but to devise a modus operandi to handle the situation to the commonweal. However, for the purpose of doing this, once again a definition is needed about what the commonweal is supposed to include. The definition of the commonweal being the “welfare of the public“ (Oxford Advanced Learner‘s Dictionary, 2000, p. 243) misses the need of additional information, namely who in this context is defined to be the public. The plain answer inevitably has to be: everyone. Since globalisation is a process which, willingly or not, includes every single one of us it is of prime importance to act in terms of humankind. | In conclusion, the perception of the dynamic and coevally irreversible process of globalisation differs exceedingly from its actual development. Hence, the question comes whether the gap between these two models of observation is debilitating or supporting. The latter can be excluded, since the view for the real problems and risks become hazy. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to disregard personal dismay and fears and focus on solving or minimising the actual risks or even solving risks of the past which already have turned into negative consequences. In the process of problem identification and solution finding, the focus must not lie on finding a win-win-solution, nor to find a formula to reverse the process, but to devise a modus operandi to handle the situation to the commonweal. However, for the purpose of doing this, once again a definition is needed about what the commonweal is supposed to include. The definition of the commonweal being the “welfare of the public“ (Oxford Advanced Learner‘s Dictionary, 2000, p. 243) misses the need of additional information, namely who in this context is defined to be the public. The plain answer inevitably has to be: everyone. Since globalisation is a process which, willingly or not, includes every single one of us it is of prime importance to act in terms of humankind. At the same time, this thesis also involves the preferableness of the commonweal compared to the rights of the individual in cases of original precedents. | ||
In order to act principled in respect of the disquisition above, each individual needs not only to realise the globalisation but also act accordingly to its meaning - namely global. Not remaining economical national power or maintaining the national social system, but the achievement of the highest possible global commonweal has to be given top priority. Nevertheless and beyond doubt, there will be losers of the globalisation, though, in particular those, who cannot or want not timely adapt to this new world and its new rules. Of course it is relevant and debatable, whether this process is ethical, but since there is no such thing as the above already mentioned reset-button, in order to "tame“ the globalisation, the acceptance of this process is inevitable for the individuals‘ good. As a result, an effective method of shaping the process of globalisation, rather than simply enduring it, involves the acceptance of the risk of potential individual (or national and in democratic constitutions therefore individual, too) disadvantages. Only if this idea forms the basis for future actions, the cultural, economical and political global commonweal can be preserved or even amended. | In order to act principled in respect of the disquisition above, each individual needs not only to realise the globalisation but also act accordingly to its meaning - namely global. Not remaining economical national power or maintaining the national social system, but the achievement of the highest possible global commonweal has to be given top priority. Nevertheless and beyond doubt, there will be losers of the globalisation, though, in particular those, who cannot or want not timely adapt to this new world and its new rules. Of course it is relevant and debatable, whether this process is ethical, but since there is no such thing as the above already mentioned reset-button, in order to "tame“ the globalisation, the acceptance of this process is inevitable for the individuals‘ good. As a result, an effective method of shaping the process of globalisation, rather than simply enduring it, involves the acceptance of the risk of potential individual (or national and in democratic constitutions therefore individual, too) disadvantages. Only if this idea forms the basis for future actions, the cultural, economical and political global commonweal can be preserved or even amended. | ||