It’s easy to stand in a complex, fast-paced world and think back longingly to simpler times. It is in the nature of humanity to yearn for what it used to have, or for things it has perceived as lost. There is no question that for most of humanity, particularly in the western world, the standard of living has improved dramatically since the industrial revolution. However, with these improvements have come new challenges for humanity to face, and new problems to solve.
In his article “Globalization and its contents,” Peter Marber writes, “Most people are living longer, healthier, fuller lives since 1950, life expectancy in emerging marketshas increased by more than 50 percent” (Marber 2004). This increase, while not perfect, is still a good foundation to work from. Life expectancy is a very important marker when considering the changing face of the world. When life expectancy for people in non-industrialized countries rises, that means that these individuals probably now have better access to clean water, food, and medical services. Along with these improvements often comes an increase in educational level. These changes seem wonderful at first blush-- perhaps they are the first steps in eliminating the global sickness of poverty. However, there are problems associated with industrialization and globalization that cannot be overlooked.
However impactful industrialization has been for individuals in the non-industrialized world, it has made an even more impactful change on the industrialized world. Thomas Friedman has created a vision of a “flat” world, a world in which people, ideas, and information flow freely across borders, effectively leveling the international playing field (Friedman 2005). This is an attractive idea, and perhaps in an ideal world, globalization would work this way. However, in today’s fast-paced world, some nations got a head start in the globalization game. Nations that were already industrialized became richer more quickly, widening the gap between rich and poor within the nation, and on a grander scale as well; the wealth gap between industrialized nations and emerging markets widened as well (Ghemawat 2007).
The ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor has an untold ripple effect on the very fabric of society. When the rich live too well, the poor live badly, and the middle class shrinks and disappears, it can cause social discontent and even unrest. The “Occupy” protests, the Arab Spring, and the riots in Greece are all good examples of what can happen when the income gap in society is too great. According to Joseph Stiglitz, one of globalization’s biggest detractors, the richest one percent of the world’s population control forty percent of the world’s wealth. This is an increase from twenty-five years ago, he says, where the richest twelve percent of the world controlled only thirty-three percent of its wealth (Stiglitz).
The effect of industrialization and industrial life on the individual is a complex and many-layered problem. As previously stated, there are concrete, positive impacts of industrialization and globalization that can be measured and collated, but there are also negative impacts that are more nebulous and harder to pinpoint.
For the wealthy, the spread of globalization and industrialization is a good trend. Corporations can now spread to every corner of the globe, utilizing cheap labor and corrupt governments at will, and thus cutting production costs and maximizing profit. As the wealthy become wealthier through globalization and industrialization, the poor become poorer in comparison-- but unlike times in the past, the advent of the information age allows nearly everyone access to information about the state of the world. Understanding the gap between rich and poor can be mentally defeating, and can even lead to civil unrest if the gap widens too quickly or too much.
Lucien Crowder writes that for industrialized nations, this age is the “Age of Difficult Choices” (Crowder). Governments must promote growth, he says, but the tools that used to be available are no longer feasible, and new ones have yet to be invented. The truth of the matter is that industrialization and globalization have created unique, complex problems for their own citizens (with the exception of the top one percent of the population). Crowder goes on to suggest that Friedman’s “flat world” will become more and more of an issue for the nations driving the change, while nations in the developing world will continue to experience steady growth as they have throughout the global economic downturn (Crowder). This is a somewhat unorthodox stance to take, but it seems to be substantiated: growth in developing Asian and Latin American countries is higher than in developed nations such as Japan and the United States (Crowder).
Despite the issues posed by industrialization and globalization, there is no way for the world to revert back to the state it was in before globalization began to occur. Instead, governments, corporations and individuals must look for new solutions to the problems posed by new technologies and the growing spread of information. Rather than focusing on the negative aspects of these changes, humanity as a whole should accept them and work towards solving them. This may require new methods of thinking and new technologies, but it is the only way for humanity as a species to continue to move forward.
Bibliography
Crowder, Lucien. "Gazing Across Divides." n.d.: n. pag. Print.
Friedman, Thomas . "The World Is Flat, After All." The New York Times [New York City] 3 Apr. 2005: 2. Print.
Ghemawat, Pankaj. "Why the World Isn't Flat." The Boston Globe 16 Dec. 2007: 4. Print.
Glennie, Jonathon. "More Aid Is Not the Answer." n.d.: n. pag. Print.
Heger, Monica. "The End of Easy Oil." n.d.: n. pag. Print.
Marber, Peter. "Globalization and its contents.." World Policy Journal 22 Dec. 2004: 33-37. Print.
Sachs, Jeffrey D.. "Can Extreme Poverty Be Eliminated?." Scientific American Oct. 2005: n. pag. Scientific American. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Of the 1%, by the 1% for the 1%." n.d.: n. pag. Web.
