Globalization: Friend or Foe, Con or Pro (though not in that order)

Firstly I am not anti-globalization. I am pro moderation of globalization (rhyming like the resolution).Secondly you define globalization as the unification of the planet, the intermingling of culture and race. I think if we all intermingled and became caramel coloured quarter Asian(yellow), Asian (brown), black and Caucasian (white) we'd be living in a very dull world indeed. All males would look almost identical eventually as would females, all economies would be run exactly the same, religions would be completely wiped out (or if somehow one managed to dominate all others that would be the case). In fact any weirdness, variation or cultural clashes would be seen as obstacles to globalization, thus in a negative light when instead, as I shall logically prove, they should be seen in a rather positive light.If anything diversity is what has led us to wars. Wars, as horrible as they can be, are the sole reason for the invention of high tech security guns, radar systems that can be used to save lives, torture methods that have extracted life-saving information as well as the realisation that we can generate nuclear power.If you force Afghanistan to be intermingle with the western cultures, or even worse the extremely liberal south American culture (whereby seeing a woman in a bikini on a street poster is commonplace) or European cultures where naked children and half naked women at beaches is commonplace then you are bound to force conflict. It will end up being that one culture gets overpowered by the majority and feels neglected for a while, then rebels and you have a vicious cycle. Allowing them to ignore each other and stay separate is very good and keeps war at bay (considering how bad the war in Afghanistan is now further enforcement of globalization would only enrage them to unimaginable measures).China and India are highly competitive markets both with EXTREMELY opposite ideologies and have very little trade between them other than what is extremely profitable. China believes in keeping everyone equal and thus having no true upper class, they believe that the motivation to work should be to have pride as a human being and thus have a culture with extreme prejudice towards the unemployed (which has ironically led to people working for far less than what we call minimum wage because they want to live a meaningful life). India believes that the motivation to work should be to get to the upper class and then have the power to exploit lower classes. In fact they have a segregated caste system for this purpose alone (which they believe will eventually drive the lowest class in the caste to manically work hard and educate themselves to overthrow the upper class and thus alter the scene and motivate a new class in the caste system to strive for the top, this is linked to the Hindu view of everything being a circle of events, form rebirth to economic boom and recession). Both these economies are competing and if we were to preach to them to intermingle and share you would see huge uprising and revolts left right and centre, despite the geographic closeness of them, in fact this would only make the damage of the war worse than any world war because they are not only the two largest populations on Earth but also two of the eldest. China have both been victimised to oppression in the past (the Chinese by both the Japanese and Mao's men, the Indians by the British and for a short while the Portuguese) so neither would stand down or back off the other, they both have a 'fight until I die' philosophy (more so the Chinese) with the Indians having brutal civil wars between Muslims and Hindus just highlighting their predisposition to violence (they aren't all "Gandhi" you know).My final point is that countries such as North Korea and Burma really don't like other countries at all. They want to be left the heck alone and want as minimal trade and negotiation as they can. To begin forcing them to agree to the philosophy of globalization (especially the highly armed North Korea ready to launch multiple nuclear bombs around the world) would be disastrous.In summary of my round one debate, globalization is nice in moderation. However, ultimately the full intermingling of everyone is a VERY dangerous idea and should never be attempted unless we want a true world war three.