Sanja Tatic saw children studying under mango trees on a trip to India. Life was more laidback.
The U.S. students found this lifestyle very appealing, but the Indians felt differently.
“They seemed satisfied, but at the same time, they wanted more,” said Tatic, an audience member at a panel discussion on the challenges of globalization Wednesday at the Hinckley Institute of Politics.
The Indians wanted factories to come in so they could earn money and live more like people in the United States, she said.
As the world becomes more interconnected through technology, economics and politics, complex issues arise. And the globalization that brings cultures and currencies together may be a double edged sword.
The media overlook the downsides to life in the United States, selling the lifestyle here and abroad, according to Jonathan Jemming, founder of Utah Independent Media Center and a panelist.
In addition, the natural resources needed to bring all the people in the developing world to a U.S. standard of living do not exist, said Fred Montague, a biology professor.
The technology and free markets of globalization can be a positive force, said Philippos Savvides, a political science instructor. “The problem is the way we manage globalization.”
The Bush administration has advocated a model that privileges economics over social and political concerns?advancing capitalism without regulation, he said.
It’s a policy that undermines democratization, widens the rift between the rich and the poor and causes ecological devastation.
A better model is the European one, where citizens are the focus and states can act as regulators, he said.
For Montague, globalization is a personal threat.
“It threatens the things I care about most in this world: beauty, diversity and the chance for kids to reach their potential,” he said.
Globalization is homogenizing the world. Not only are indigenous languages disappearing rapidly, the diversity of species is shrinking.
Instead of the information age, it is the loss of information age, he said.
Stephen Reynolds, an economics professor, disagreed.
“Globalization increases diversity in a particular place. It may decrease diversity across the world as a whole,” he said. Globalization gives consumers access to cheap goods. Plus the top 100 international companies come and go frequently, he said.
And while much of the world’s population now subsists on less than $1 a day, many more have done so in the past.
Asian countries whose economies embraced globalization brought that number down more quickly within their borders than those who did not, he said.
Edward Epstein, a political science professor, expressed concern that globalization might encourage governments to spend less on basic services in favor of economic development.