"Globalization And Its Contents"

When speaking of “globalization”, we often think of an expanding company that has made the decision to trade or offer its services internationally. However, “globalization” has many different meanings and its idea of expansion does not only refer to a growing company. “Globalization” can be defined as something political, cultural or economical that has expanded from its domestic origin to an international level. This leads me to ask what globalization has done for the world positively as well as negatively? Well, first of all, developing countries or continents such as Africa or Asia have mainly gained from “globalization”. Through this process, many economies have been boosted, more democratic politics might have been introduced and also the literacy rates have strongly increased. The world overall today is far more educated than it was 50 years ago. People live longer, have more to eat and enjoy the privilege of having more rights. For already fully industrialized countries that decided to globalize, the advantage is fairly simple. Increased profits, increased profits and even more increased profits. It is obvious that at one point the domestic market won’t satisfy a company’s hunger for profits anymore. By going international, the industry or company has just added 6 billion people to their customer pool compared to the couple million they previously had.


Now, this may seem simple and like a sure win situation. However, there are also drawbacks that might make you reconsider about globalizing your service, product, political system or even culture. Protectionism plays a major role in disregarding globalization. Many countries have high religious, morals and ethics that are to be valued. These countries are often a burden to “something” that wants to be globalized. Tradition overrides whatever rules the trend of today. A prime example would be India. India is very traditional and dislikes any sort of “Westernization.” Obviously this would prevent successful businesses in countries such as India, however, major metropolis places like Bombay are still easy victims of globalization. If you were to symbolize more rights for women, who wouldn’t like that in India? Besides protectionism, armed conflicts and wars within countries often prevent these nations from expanding and benefitting from globalization. In addition, the war often sucks out the countries’ financial resources and mostly will cause environmental harm. This adds another point to the drawbacks of globalization. Factories and plants often degrade the environment of a country where a globalizing industry is trying to expand. The economic boost is an advantage but it is balanced out when the massive pollution caused can be seen as a disadvantage.


In my opinion, the term “globalization” will define many different things in the future because of the enhancement in technology and trade that we have today. Look at the world today; there are massive amounts of imports and exports going in and out of countries daily. Also, globalization is the reason why we are able to eat a diverse range of food and wear a diverse collection of clothes. To the developing world, globalization will continue to be a beneficial factor because it allows countries such as Africa to gain more profit from its exports therefore being able to improve their living conditions and evolving from being a developing country to a developed country. I believe that globalization is good because it allows everyone else around the world to learn about one’s own religion, culture or unique item. It can be said that every country is developing, and in a sense our world is developing; however globalization plays a big role as the cause of this development. If it were not for globalization, our cultures would not be as diverse, our religions would not be interracial, and our food and clothing would not be as varied as it is now. Therefore, I believe that globalization is and will be beneficial to our developing world because of its ability to shape the world into one whole piece instead of separate countries with their own unique characteristics.

Man with high blood pressure dies of stroke after watching 'Avatar'

The film industry provided us consumers with a variety of outstanding movies throughout 2009 in a variety of genres. Avatar is one of these movies which has received positive criticism and excellent reviews. Its plot is fictional and can be briefly summarized in a group of people of the human race trying to discover and learn about another race by using “Avatars” to make them look like members of the new race. I have personally watched this movie in 3d and it is generally a pretty good movie if you’re okay with this type of “fantasy world” hype.

Recently, there was a 42-year-old man who died watching this movie. Generally this leads to many questions not only about movies, but also from an economic standpoint of view. Besides the fact that this man was obviously not 100% healthy, it is not reasonable and justified at all to die from a movie when movie theatres are supposed to serve as entertainment and relaxation purposes. Would he have died if the movie was in the usual 2D screening rather than 3D display? Should there be not only a minimum but also a maximum age requirement on movies now? Does everyone need a personal health check before watching any sort of action movie?

On a personal point of view I don’t think this man will impact rules within movie theatres or the film industry at all, which is kind of frightening considering someone just past away watching a movie. It is safe to say that obviously the action in the movie “only” triggered his stroke/brain hemorrhage, but I still find no reasonable justification in this.

Regardless, the previously raised questions will not be taken into consideration as nothing will change. A maximum age requirement on movies would cause a major loss in box office income since this man was “only” 42 years old. If the age limit was set to 40 years old for action movies the primary age group watching these movies would be banned causing major losses in income. Further more, if you add the requirement of a personal health check before watching any sort of movie, it is even more obvious that this will cause more further leakages than injections in money flow as people would probably rent DVDs instead of going to the theatre due to the hassle and inconvenience. Cancelling 3D movies would be somewhere in the gray area as they save on production of 3D glasses, but lose the extra $5 for each ticket compared to general admission to 2D movies.

As sad as this man’s death may seem because his death occurred from watching a movie, it is even more frightening that nothing will change in movie theatres. I highly doubt that even warning signs stating “Warning! Movie is very exciting and full of action and may lead to raised heart beating rate!” will be placed. Money has a superior role in this situation and controls the way of handling the situation. Who wants to see a decrease in box office income? Nobody, and apparently maintaining a healthy money flow for released movies overrules a death of someone who watches these movies. Do economics really win in this battle against morals and ethics?