I'm reading Joseph Campbell's Transformations of Myth Through Time It covers history, religion and art in one illustrated, readable book. It might help you tie it all together.

Science is a leisure activity. Romans, chinese, greeks, egyptians, etc all developed a leisure class who didn't have to work for their food and could devote time to broadening perspectives. You have to conquer to make time for thinking, so to speak.

I don't read it that way. It's farming and division of labor that creates leisure time. More than one early culture had developed arts and so forth, but didn't have the inclination for war. Then, BAM. Here come the Assyrians, or whoever, that used their leisure time to create chariots and bronze weapons.

They must have made better beer. :)

I guess I should have fleshed out the point better, sorry. The conquering cultures are the ones that end up with the time I think would be a better way of putting it. I think that the vital spark that makes a culture go to war is also going to make a culture attempt to conquer in other venues as well.

That's a bit of a leap. And I don't think I buy it.

i don't know how it could be proven empirically, but it does make some sense. *reminder, my view of the world is that man is in perpetual conflict* societies that promote and encourage competition (conflict) do generally achieve greater achievements within their culture and that could potentially spill over into the relations with neighboring cultures.

interesting. that really is the argument of capitalism vs. socialism.

I think it would be easier to make a case for Fundies or people from colder climes being aggressive. :eyebrow:

It's all about resources
 

Bruce has a point on Northern peoples. With the diaspora of the human race from warmer regions of the world to colder regions, the quest for resources has driven tension between peoples. Peoples in northern climates have tended to develop more technologies and industries to support life in regions that at best, may have only seasonal agricultural harvests. With the spread of humanity to almost all regions of the world, regionalism has become an issue. Herein lies a major paradox for the concept of globalism.
According to Montisque, regions have certain characteristics that filter to the inhabitants of these regions. Each region has it's pros and cons, including some regions that have only cons. In many instances man has made previously useless tracts of land valuble due to ingenity, progress, and technology. For example, many semi-artic regions and colder temperate regions host industry. Here only man made structures and devices can make these regions thrive and give way to development and settlement. With this in mind, these developments do not supply all that is needed for survial. Large foodstuffs, and other resources from more temperate areas are necessary for these settlements to persist. Accordingly, in many cases certain fuels only found in certain parts of the earth can maintaing the technologies that these settelment subsist on. It's a recipe for disaster when you throw in global capitalism. There are regions that strife other regions on there own products and agricultural goods for there own well being. Local workers and economies that create the goods get very little of what they create. Although the province of global capitalism is world wide, non of the parts of the sum are ever truly equal, or recieve equal treatment. This is where trouble arises. Mix this with information and communication exchange, and resentment breeds conflict and hatred. It's a reciipe for disaster, and has the world teterng on destruction.

-Walrus

What you are really describing are markets that are not efficient. The enemies of globalization advocate such inefficient markets. In an efficient market, salt that is worth more than gold in Africa is provided by Northern regions - where salt is so cheap as to be thrown everywhere. A solution to the salt shortage in Africa is only possible with globalization.

But here is where it all breaks down. Tell me how much foreign aid the US *actually* puts out into the real world. Virtually the entire civilized world can see the US really provides no effective aid. For example the US government spent maybe $1/2 billion on the Ethiopian drought. But how much did we actually provide in aid? About $4million. Most of that money went to buying consultants, transporting emergency foodstuff, and other last minute stopgaps that never really addressed the problems. Consultants went there, came back, gave $multi-million reports. What changed? Then when Congressman see so little accomplished, they just wildly assume money must have been totally wasted on corruption.

Reality is that most US aid is channeled for the benefits of American corporations, military aid, emergency transport after neglect has let a minor problem fester, Congressional pork, AND - this is the damning part - to countries such as Turkey and Israel. Israel, if I remember the numbers, gets more US aid then entire Africa (excluding Egypt).

The US asked for foreign assistance to rebuilt Iraq. Other civilized nations went to the meeting? How much did the US demand (and yes we demanded - not asked)? If I remember the number - $20billion. More money to rebuild an oil rich nation than the entire foreign aid to Africa excluding Egypt. Where is the world interest - which is therefore America's long term interests? Zero. Again, are you part of the solution - or did you also not hear this news story?

Why does globalization get a bad name? You tell me. How much did you know about the above numbers. Those who subjectively blame globalization distort or even completely avoid the numbers. Everyone just knows - facts and numbers be damned? Where does globalization get a bad name.

Jeffry Sachs on Charlie Rose repeatedly demonstrated this problem but again. Again because outside of America, US foreign aid all but does not exist. Do you remember when Bono and Sec of Treasury O'Neill went to Africa? They identified a major accomplishment that could have been solved with less than $1million. When he came back to Washington, the distain among President Cheney and his staff was blunt and obvious. Such solutions are not in America's interest. Where is the pork? Nation building is anti-American. Instead we just invade a nation - and the people welcome democracy with open arms? We the people are so naive as to even believe lies about WMD. Then when the lies don't pan out, we then blame globalization?

We Americans are so insulated, so ill informed, and so decieved by Rush Limbaugh propaganda as to not even see what virtually the entire civilized world complains about. America only does things for its own short term, self serving interests. Deny it. You tell me where the American government solves problems before they fester. This means bad, long term consequences for America. Worse, America has become massively less cooperative in solving world problems only in the last four years. If we cannot solve it by blowing up something, then it is not worth solving? This is what give globalization a bad name. Ignorance so widespread in the American public.

Recently, the South East Asian countries are again trying to form new trade organization to replace ASEAN with only one intent - to eliminate the US. In the past four years, the US repeatedly stifles what most other nations in that trade group agree they want to accomplish. Another example: how the US (and France) intentionally stifled free trade in agriculture in the famous Cancun conference .... Well you tell me what happened in that conference? If was major news in virutally every other nation - including Mexico and Canada. Do you know what happened? Do you understand why that has created massive inefficiencies in the market? Do you have any idea what is happening outside of America? Do you appreciate how much anti-American hostility is forming - not because of globalization.

This is a fact. When it comes to providing aid with the intent of advancing the world (and therefore long term American interests), America provides about as close to zero as we could. Where are all these new technologies that could have made land in Darfur fertile enough to grow crops? It exists. It is quite old and well proven. Left are people without jobs and easily recruited by extremists. You want to eat in Darfur, then join vigulantees.

History has proven this fact often. In Thailand, for example, all communist insurgency was eliminated - by enabling people to run profitable businesses in exportable products. Provided was how to catch fish - not provide fish after millions die in a famine. Did your news sources of the 1970s and 1980s tell you this? Why not.

Give people the ability to grow crops and they have little reason to kill and murder. Either thing done so that they can eat - either grow crops or murder. But that means basic technology and knowledge must be provided to regions such as Darfur. That means access to and development of clean fresh water sources must be provided. American government now does nothing to avert any upcoming disasters.

It is a point made so fundamental in the famous book "The Ugly American". So what do we provide? A new highway that employs American corporations. This is where globalization breaks down. Mules and barefoot humans don't need a highway. They need fresh water. They need the jobs that make the water supplies and other capital improvements. They don't need employees of the American highway corporation. Globalization works - if the participants have basic knowledge. If they understand what the other continent's problems are.

Globalization works when a northern country learns what the African country needs - salt. Its called efficient markets. It requires informed people in that northern country. A misguided northern country may instead send consultants, build a highway, send Apache helicopters, forgive a debt that should have never existed in the first place, and then send potassium (because potassium is also a salt). IOW ignorance - not globalization - is the problem. That is what America calls foreign aid.

Having raise a concept far too large for this thread, I have instead continued this discussion in the Philosophy group at Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism. Warning: I have maybe written too much more than I originally intended. Its a religion disucssion. You know how they can grow.