Clearly my skills of explanation are going downhill or no one actually bothers to read what I post. Where did the argument that technological advance had to come at the cost of any kind of individual culture? Please, think about what the hell you’re waffling about. Increased communication, globalisation and general technological advancement will change a culture but not destroy it. Merger of cultures is good, it creates something new and vibrant, taking the best of both but one culture riding roughshod over another is not a good thing. Have I made myself clear?
Quote:
|
The "endgame" boogeyman is just that; predictions of endless woes are common in a market economy, because it's scary because nobody is in control.
|
Control is not the issue, the issue is one of debt. I'm well aware to an intricate detail (taken up macroeconomics) about the operating of international financial markets. They don't scare me, nor are they difficult to understand, the issue that concerns me is the way we impose development on other nations, not impose the need but the way we attach strings that ruin the country in the process for our own economic gain.