Pros And Cons Of States Of Discord

In the article titled “States of Discord”, Thomas Friedman and Robert Kaplan present various arguments regarding the aspects of globalization and its affects on our world. Though their opinions differ greatly regarding certain aspects such as how it will affect democratization, personal freedom, and the culture of the world as a whole, they agree on larger issues such as that globalization affects every state in some way or another. Rather than taking completely opposing stances regarding these issues, they add on to each others arguments and interject their own opinions into them. Some of the main points that come out of this debate is that while globalization can lead to positive developments , it can also lead to negative developments. Also, the institutions that emerge in a globalized world owe all of their success and failure to circumstance.

Kaplan and Friedman both point out the fact that globalization has both positive and negative affects. Whether the good outweighs the bad, is up for the reader to decide.

Personally, I feel that globalization is a good thing and that the bad things are just a necessary evil. To follow the common trend of globalization though, the good only remains good to a certain extent. That is, I believe the world can be over-globalized and that it would not be a good thing. One of the good things is that everything in the world becomes accessible “farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper” than in and unglobalized world (Friedman). Of course this argument is a two-edged sword of sorts because as Friedman points out, once people have access to resources they will find a way to use them. These resources could be a positive thing that leads to new technology and economic growth if they end up in the right hands. On the other side though, if these resources end up in the hands of say the youth of an unstable county, it could potentially lead to violence and a spread of more unstability depending on how they are used.
Another good aspect of the spread of globalization is that it has spread democratization. As the world has exchanged goods, and services the western world has also pushed the spread of their ideals and values. The spread of westernization brought democratization especially in some European colonies that now serve as a basis for the now independent states to build off of. In that sense it is good, but as Kaplan mentioned, and you also did in your lecture, democratization can lead to a whole lot of good things but the circumstances have to be aligned just right or it can be more harmful than helpful. For example, the Arab Springs revolutions may have made a difference in some places, but in countries that had democratic revolutions such as Sudan it eventually led to a worse situation that the one they started with. Kaplan presents a similar argument that essentially states that with the proper leadership, globalization will “be a force for more openness, more rule of law, and more opportunities for people to enjoy personal freedoms and challenge authorities” (6). Almost every aspect of globalization seems the follow a two-way street, there is ample room for great things to happen but also room for equally bad things to happen.
Another thing that is happening as a the world globalizes and commodities and values are spread around, there is a chance that the world could eventually become uniform. Depending on who you ask, this could be a good or bad thing. In my opinion though, the unifornmication of the world is a very bad thing. The world started off as a wildly diverse place with a variety of cultures and languages and now through things such as colonization and the recent rise of Western Culture and values, it has been drastically changed. Friedman poses the debate of whether or not globalization will just change the world on the surface or change us at our very foundations. I feel like this lack of cultural variation can be traced back to when the Europeans started to colonize and the world became connected through trade. As time has gone on and new technology has continued to even further connect our world, places have begun to lose their individuality. Places are starting to look more and more like each other. This raises the question of whether or not globalization is truly good for us. Sure it has many positive effects , but what about the negative ones? I stated before that i did not think the bad overrules the good, and I stand by that statement. However, I believe that if globalization continues on the path it is on right now, it will become dangerous to our world.
While Friedman and Kaplan debate back and forth on the opinions about globalization and it’s effect on our world, I became increasingly aware of the pros and cons of a globalized world.

The interconnectedness has lead to a spread of beneficial things such as technology, medicine, knowledge, democracy, and various other things. These things all are good things by themselves and have the potential to change many nations for the better. However, with this interconnectedness also comes instability. This instability can potentially cause these good aspects to become very dangerous ones. The question I cannot help but wonder, is why there has not been more of an effort to help stabalize the international world so that these lethal factors do not become even more of a reality than they may be? Either way, the world is very globalized and will continue to globalize as time goes on, whether it will lead to more bad things is completely

circumstantial.