why is people's movements restricted?

It is good to see people acting on something that needs to be acted upon to. What came to my mind as I think of this topic is Al Gore’s metaphor on how people were not reactive to global warming. He said that we are like frog being slowly boiled down. Since the boiling is slow, we do not realize that we are slowly being surrounded by increasing temperature and then we would eventually die. At least Al Gore was one of those frogs that actually tried to solve that problem but this made me realize that I too was not aware of what was happening in the world. Sure I may make the excuse that I was still young when this was happening, but the fact that I should have had not been surprised of the idea still haunts me.

So why are people’s movement restricted? When I think of this, I remember on when I was still in high school and we and my team would battle the administrators to be able to do something that we want to do for a program or of the sorts. They would often win and that would restrict us to do what we want to do. All the red tape and the processes that is supposedly for helping was restricting. This can be translated to a bigger scale, which is the scale for the whole world. People would be restricted to act on their beliefs because maybe their country has a strict rule on religion, or practices. people are restricted to act because there are invisible human-ish things that prevents them even though they can physically do what they want to do. Countries even have restrictions to anything, even if it is necessary. An example is revolting on the streets (as discussed in class). Here in the Philippines, for a rally to happen they have to get a permit first and their venue must be proper which restricts the true essence of rallying and revolting. The impact is gone and any politician can just shrug those revolts easily.

People’s actions are restricted because bodies who try to find order in things sees these actions as causes of disorder. Globalization actually gave a new way of unrestricting people. For me this is the internet where everyone can post freely what they want and people can support their action if they have the same thought. And since the internet provides fast communications, people from different parts of the world can come together and act on what they think needs action. New organizations that can help people from countries with restrictions are now evident so that change is easier and less restricted.

can we move beyond conflict?

The picture that goes in my head whenever I think of the word conflict is that picture in some animes where two rivals look eye to eye and then an electric like light go against each other. In some ways this is how to describe conflict, as opposing parties have because of opposite goals. I would incorporate this to a conflict between two nations where one wants what the other wants to prevent. Or even in political campaigns. In my opinion conflicts are actually what slows down the process of change for the better but is still inevitable. A variation in perspectives prevents conflict to be fully rid of as there are always more than one way to look at the picture. And since everyone comes from different parts of the picture, everyone has a different way in looking at it. For an example, Hitler really believed that killing Jews would actually be better than not killing them, and obviously those countries that opposed Germany then thought otherwise. And so conflict was there and a war started. Could this have had been prevented? Maybe, if Hitler was convinced otherwise or if those countries who opposed him was convinced by Hitler otherwise, but is this even possible. And if it were possible, there would always be a we perspective that would come up and spark conflict.

So in answering the question, can we move beyond conflict, I realized that we need not remove conflict but we just need to handle it in a more productive manner. Conflict is actually there to motivate critical thinking so that whatever action people do, is a product of a well thought of goal and plan. But it just so happen that some conflicts were pushed overboard because either sides of the conflict were to hard on their side that wars were actually the thing that needed to happen. if there were something else that could have had ended it? Who knows, how do we know what could have had happened otherwise? So in handling conflict in a more productive way maybe one way of going beyond it.

Globalization gives the world a new identity of being united. And through this, ideas, minds and perspectives start to look more uniformly and this could actually be the answer to handling conflict. Since people will look at things more similarly, the wavelength of the different perspectives wont vary as much and a productive way of handling the conflict will occur. Maybe a one world order is also an answer to this, but then what will happen next? As a one world order would imply the end. (if you know what I mean.)

what makes the world dangerous?

Adrenaline is the fight or flight hormone that is triggered whenever someone is presented with danger. For me, this says something. That we humans are made for danger and it is inevitable for danger to linger on. Different kinds of danger haunted humans in different time periods and humans try to do something about this to lessen the danger. But as they eliminate the threat of one danger, a new danger emerges. According to the book, this is like making a cycle of danger. That as we humans try to eliminate it, the stronger it gets. And that our own action of eliminating it, strengthens it. From wild beasts to fellow humans then to hand weapons and now nuclear weapons. Each a solution to the previous danger but in turn becomes the source of new danger.

It is currently the Lenten season and I remembered where danger started. Man wouldn’t have had any danger if they were still in the Garden of Eden where God protects man. But human sin kicked man out of the garden where danger is everywhere. Danger is really, even in the period before time, come from man and human downfalls. Greed, lust, jealousy, pride, gluttony, and the sorts motivate people to satisfy themselves and through this they make new dangers in the world.

So what makes the world dangerous? Well in my opinion, in the first place, if there were no humans there wont be any danger, being that humans coined the word, but also that without humans, everything will just be the natural course of nature. So man causes danger to the world. Danger that even the innocent, the weak and even the strong are exposed to, and that there is nothing anyone can do to eliminate it, well at least not now.

Maybe globalization was one of the attempts to eliminate danger in this world. Through globalization, everyone is interconnected and everyone knows what’s happening everywhere so that people can monitor each other. But along with this, globalization gave new mediums for danger to threaten people. The internet for an example gave new ways to define danger. Identities now can be stolen, people can hack and get information from other people and even wars can be started from the misuse of the internet. But maybe through globalization, a new way of eliminating danger can be discovered.

why do some people think they know what is good for others?

If I was asked why do some people think they know what is good for others, I would answer that because they think that they are like everyone else and that since they know that something is good for them that it is good for other people as well. This relatively aligns with the arguments in the chapter of the book where they say that people do this because they think they are helping. They think that if they do actually know something about anything, they would have this sense of responsibility to act on it. But I think this is not really a good way of giving people direction in what might be good for them. I say this because by letting people tell other people what is good for them, the receiver is not making the decisions and decisions that is not your own would often not give happiness. An example that I can think of is when parents choose the course that their children would take. Its good if the course that the parent chooses is the course that the child actually likes, but what if he/she doesn’t like the course? What then would happen? The child didn’t have the decision and would feel like they are living not their lives but the life their parents want them to live. They won’t give that much effort since the decision was not theirs and they are not accountable of that decision.

Another example is on how the United States handles issues around the world. How the US handled North Korea was an example on how other people actually think they know what is good for others. The US thinks that only because they have the power, the ability and the knowledge about nuclear weapons that they are allowed to intervene with the decision of the North Koreans. But again, this issue has another side, which since the US has the knowledge about nuclear weapons is that they might have a say on the issue. One can also say that the US has a sense of responsibility being one of the countries that gives the example to other countries.

Another example of this that I truly hate is when religious people think that they actually know what is best for other people. That they would say something and if one person does not follow, they would be branded as non-believers or that they will go to hell. In my opinion this kind of people are actually not who they say they are. If they actually were followers of their faith, they would know that this kind of behaviour is not what is good for the people they handle since this would make their faith unwanted and people would hate their faith. And these people might generalized everyone who might be under that same faith.

This is where globalization come in. globalization provides a less varied and more uniform way of thinking that through globalization, differences in religion, culture and even in personality can be identified and acted upon accordingly so that the proper “knowing” of what is good for others is practiced. Where one does not assume that what they know is the best for someone else and is open to possibilities of having other bests for others.

Why are some people better off than others? (Master Lecture)

The world is cruel. The world made it such that there might be no equality. This is why some people are better off than others. Inequality among races, nations, professions, age, and the list goes on. Inequality between the rich and the poor. Inequality that humans try their best to make equal, but really there is no way to do it. There are always ways to get the upper hand in any situation. Even in organizing a group, there is always the leader who is relatively better off than his or her members. And it is not so that it everyone should be equal anyway. No 2 people are the same and their own personal differences would require different treatments. But doing this in the level of the government would be messy. I mean, how would you give special treatment to millions. So I think it is inevitable to totally give everyone a fair treatment and so the government now adjusts to the majority of the people. So inequality is really an inevitable issue, even in the level of the government.

Finding equality is like satisfying a person, it is impossible. Everyone has a set of wants and needs and all these wants and needs that everyone in the whole world has cannot be satisfied by the limited resources the world offer. The world is not an infinite source of resources as global warming and shortages of resources exhibit. And eventually it will go down to inequality of the rich and poor since the rich can get what they want from the limited resources where as the poor can only manage to survive the day.

If we look at it, this inequality between the rich and poor is increasing. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. The rich have all the opportunities and they would rather not share it to everyone. The rich have access to good education, and good jobs whereas the poor does not even have the slightest idea on where to start. Of course there have had been people who went from poor to rich but really, what are the chances of that happening. And if this ever happens, will these people go back to the poor and help them? I would guess not.

This reminded me of a politician I love to actually hate. This politician claims that he came from hanging on the brink of poverty and eventually became a successful politician that he is now. He claims that he could help the poor if he would sit in the office because he knows how it feels like to be poor. He knows and he knows how to stand up and fight poverty. But then again, if he knew this, why is he not doing anything? Why does he have controversies and issues that relate to corruption. Is this really the way to solve poverty? Maybe this is a statement on why some people are actually better off that other people, it is because people are selfish and would prioritize themselves over others and would lie cheat and steal to do this.

So what is the role of globalization in this inequality? I think globalization can help since through globalization, different parts of the world are connected and this connection would act as a police to those who would dare to abuse power and not help fight the inequality. Other people from different parts of the world can act on fighting inequality in different places. Also, here in the Philippines, through globalization, people who are poor can work abroad and might actually lessen the gap between the poor and the rich.

how is the internet changing the way we live?

Have you tried googling yourself? It is actually funny that you can google anything nowadays. Even the most specific thing, you can google. I wonder if you can google “google.” What I am delivering here is that almost everyone everywhere has access to the internet that anything that anyone might have thought of is in the internet. And since information is power, through the internet which has unlimited amount of information, anyone everywhere anywhere anytime has the power to influence, inspire, sell, buy, flirt, court, and do whatever through the internet. And the best thing is that you only need fingers and even without fingers anyone can use the internet because of the new technology. But just like any other thing in this world, there is a negative in the internet. Here anyone can share their vices, can abuse people, can steal identities, money, can scam, can kill, can practice violence, and can even damage a person through the internet. Small children can be exposed to violence early on because of the internet that can break their futures and cause them to develop psychological disorders.

The internet have had been the reference of students nowadays but are everything in the internet true? Well since everyone in the net can write anything, how can you trust the internet? Well it is good now that there are trusted sites but still the fact that anyone can write anything and access the internet makes it untrustworthy. How can we be sure now that what students learn is genuine?

The internet provided a very fast way of communicating that made it easier for Filipinos to communicate with their loved ones who is working abroad. This is probably one of the best traits of the internet because this made having a family while working abroad easier. Also this gave way to new ways of knowing people, finding friends, staying in touch with friends and such. Also, the fast way of communicating business transactions so that developing countries like us can compete internationally.

The internet among other uses also gives entertainment to the people. Games, shows, videos, tutorials and such are among the things that I use the internet for entertainment. This gives people from all over the world quality entertainment wherever and how remote their location can be.

I cannot even imagine or remember life before the internet. I can’t think of a way how my parents searched for information, data and other stuff when there was no google yet, even if there was already the internet. But as I think of this, I cannot think of a way how thinking this is a good thing.

how does the nation-state work?

My understanding of a nation-state is that it is a community with a diverse culture that is not of the state as a whole but is all governed by one government. An example that I could think of is the Philippines. It is actually hard to get a grasp on the idea of a nation-state but having the Philippines as an example would make it easier to digest. On what I understood, it is like here in the Philippines where we have different identities like the Ilocanos, the Bisaya and such where all of these are under one government.

For me, globalization is exactly what a nation-state needs. It is a very diverse identity that all these identities needs one medium in which they are all equal and can trade, communicate and share. It has been that the different identities in this country didn’t really got along well with each other and now that the Philippines is starting to become globalized, this is starting to change for the better. Through the new ideas, technology and perspective that globalization has, the different identities’ strengths have had been bonded together such that this country might progress. It is in that one governing body that this country’s downfall came, but in my perspective, this country can go the distance.

A nation-state works just like what I have just mentioned, well at least according to how I understood it from the example the Philippines. The differences each of the identities have in the Philippines have had given due respect and understanding where these differences was used as an edge for the betterment of everyone in the country. Although these identities have now had been disperse all around the country, they still retained their culture, beliefs and practices. Not only are these identities been scattered around the Philippines, but also around the world still retaining the Ilocano, Bisaya, Pangalatok, and the Filipino way. Which kind of makes the whole world a big nation-state because of globalization.

why do we obey?

To whom do we obey? Or are we even obeying a person? We might just be obeying a faceless government. In my course, I would say that we obey because we have been conditioned to obey. Like if we obey we might get rewarded or if we do not obey we get punished. Using reinforcements like these will condition a person to obey. But there is a deeper and way different reason we obey.

The law would say do not steal. For an example, there is this person who wants to have a new gold watch. Stealing it would reward him/her but then the law says do not steal. That person would likely obey the law. This is one reason that we obey. Maybe, in some ways, not the law but a person of authority, but essentially we obey the law. For me, I feel that obedience to the law is the oil of a country. Without people obeying the government’s law, what power does this government have and is it really functioning as it should be? People obeying is the exact function of the government. To find order and equality, the government exists and the people should obey the government to achieve this purpose. The government is also looking after the people’s backs, to keep them on line and prevent harm to them. It is then logical to obey to the government because it is for everyone’s good. So is obeying the government all it is to it in obeying?

In my opinion, we cannot just obey the government. We should also think about what we are obeying. But in reality, this is hard since the government has the authority to apprehend you for not obeying. But what if the government was really wrong. Can they force you to obey? Sadly, there is a way to force people to obey. An example of which is former President Marcos’ martial law. He forced everyone to follow his dictations. But then again, are people really obeying in the sense of true obedience? What is obedience then? In the dictionary definition of obedience, it is a dutiful submissive behaviour. But were we submissive in that martial law? I think not. We were, at least people then, were not submissive to this law since they eventually revolted. Although there were people who were submissive to it, there were more people who fought against it. So what does this say about obedience? Maybe this might add that we obey because we believe that what we are obeying at is true and is right. But this would make obedience subjective and how will a government govern if people subjectively obeys the law? So maybe there is a way to obey objectively or maybe not. In the Christian perspective of obedience, Christians obey because of their love for God. That if they love God, they would obey His commandments. As I thought about this, I realized that this is actually not a bad idea. If we love our country, we will obey and do according to what will benefit it best. This actually changed my perspective in obedience. At first I thought of obedience in terms of an authority versus the obeying party, where as here, they go together and have a common not opposite paths. Maybe this is the way of obedience, not saying that everyone should do what I say and obey God, but get this way of obeying and applying it.

What is then the role of obedience in globalization. For me, globalization actually makes obedience harder, because people now in this globalized world would feel puny and would think that they are not that big of a part in this world that why should they obey? neither do they think more so love the world that they would sacrifice personal wants to do anything for the world. This kind of makes it seem that globalization is not that good at all, obedience wise, but then again, with globalization, the authority can be more effective in implementing the laws so that people are more afraid of not obeying, but to put it in a more positive light, through globalization, the temptation of not obeying is reduced so that people can trust and obey better.

who do we think we are?

We say that who we are depends on who our friends is. How we interacted to the world around us. But these things still are dependent on who we are in the world. We cant see through race, even if we say we can. We cant see through language, even if we say we can. We cant see through nationality, even if we say we can. And we cant see through age even though we say we can. Sure, we are varied because of our interactions with other people and the world. We may be a race different from the common race in our country. We may not act our age but what we see in paper matters. Yes, there are people with a less cloudy perspective on equality but as I see it, there are more people that still are enslaved by their biases, prejudices and stereotypes. But then saying this, it is possible to infer that the world is uniformly like this. Like having one culture, as the hyperglobalist would like. It is like the matrix movie for the hyperglobalist, they want a global society where the limitation of geography ends.

There is this stand up comedian named Russel Peters said a joke about how everyone is racist, it is just that every race is racist in a different way. He would also joke a lot about how different people’s cultures vary that it is funny. The anti-globalist or the sceptics on the other hand want to preserve the differences in culture and does not want a unified culture for the whole world, preserving these identities like the jokes from Russel Peters.

One more approach in this matter is the transformationalists. For them, they want the cake on both parties. They want both hyperglobalist and anti-globalist. They would like to keep both the identity of the cultures and unify them at the same time. For me, this is particularly hard to understand because of the messy-ness. If one would look at where this would be going, one might say “who knows?” and maybe this is why they do it. At least here, a better future is possible.

In my opinion, who we are now, in this time, is a choice. We can now choose who we want to be because of technology. Like the movie surrogates, people can choose on how they would look like and this crossed barriers that can not have had been crossed ever did that not happen. But as the movie went, we might regret having this technology. This made me realize that who we are is imperfect, wanting perfection that we cant have, as we always want what we cant have. Ultimately, in the most basic sense, we are human.