Corporation more important to our evolution than we think?

[alxian]

countries don't seem to be able to merge, because of political imcompatibilities, social differences and other national idiocincracies.

 

 

but.

 

corporations seem to be able to quite easily cross any border separating man from his fellows. its funny that people condemn corporations while they do so much to unite us.

 

why is this so?

 

strict regimented nearly unforgiving rules that create conformity within the organisation that make its members universally uniform. in behavior, in language, in beliefs.

 

i saw a documentary recently described popular thinking about the evolution of species.

 

they stated that their are a few levels on which a species evolution can be classified.

 

we're at 0, where we aren't yet one species heading towards on goal. we as humans are more like several species competing for resources.

 

1s can be planet bound but single minded in the pursuit of a goal.

 

like humanity if we were able to establish a global community.

 

2 and 3 being interplanetary and intergalactic.

 

 

for our continued evolution we need some kind of unifying force.

 

some cited by scientist mitchio kaku were english and the internet.

 

i'm thinking corporations are such a force that unifies nations as trading partners. no longer competing for resources but cooperating together for the greater good (of themselves perhaps) but they do quite alot to achieve the ultimate goal of globalization.

 

 

what other forces such as english the internet and corporations are helping man achieve a global population.

[Buffy]

Every sword has two edges.

 

Corporations are good because they:

• Create increasing efficiencies, thus creating jobs and wealth.
  
• They are a moderating influence against war and extremism: they do not like uncertainty and force governments (which as you point out are limited in their geographical/ethnic/etc borders, and thus are less powerful but more prone to extremism), to moderate their behavior or they are punished economically
  
• They force interactions between socio-political groupings and break down prejudices through integration.
  

On the other hand, in their ruthless search for profits, they can trample on some of the most important human values:

• Efficiencies are good for societies over the long run, but in the process, lots of people lose their jobs, houses, etc. and its the governments that have to pick up these costs (remember, corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do).
  
• Left to their own devices, they will seek monopolies which means reduced competitive pressure which means decreasing efficiency returns. There's a great article in Salon this week about how far behind the rest of the world the US is on the Broadband front because the corporations have talked the government into policies that eliminate competition.
  
• Also, left to their own devices, they'll not only get less efficient and screw their employees, but they'll even screw their investors (Enron, Tyco, etc.)
  
• Corporations have a Borg-like influence on the constraints on employees/society as well, enforcing common behavior. The Brave New World/THX-1138 futures are more likely to be created by the force of corporations than by a megalomaniac dictatorship (a point that was touched on in "Demolition Man"'s references to Taco Bell being the only restaurant in existence).
  

Its an interesting issue....

 

Incorporatedly,

Buffy

[alxian]

personally the corporation rules future still appeals to me.

 

as long as there is more than one corporation, competition for resources (mindshare) they will compete and people will prosper... while some suffer.

[Buffy]

as long as there is more than one corporation, competition for resources (mindshare) they will compete and people will prosper... while some suffer.

Classical (and by the way, not socialist) Microeconomics makes many assumptions based on the notion that there are "many" participants on the supply side in the market. Many studies show that there are indeed decreasing marginal returns as the number of suppliers passes a certain level. Once there is an oligopoly (like the oil market), particpants do not even have to explicitly collude to create imbalances that favor the suppliers: using game theory, it becomes obvious that it benefits these suppliers to "cooperate" to keep prices high and wages low, even if they never talk to each other. There is a public interest in keeping markets efficient by limiting the control of one or a small number of participants.

 

What's most interesting about this line of thought is that what is *causing* these oligopolies to form is *governmental action* to try to benefit their own home companies on the world market! In some cases this has worked well, as with the oil companies, in other cases it has failed miserably as with the US airlines which should all be put out of their misery. Its the very geographical issues you pose above that's causing this! If the governments understood that its actually *not* a benefit to let their home companies get so big, we'd be in much better shape: thousands of small companies will create far more innovation....

 

Power to the small business!

Buffy

[alxian]

didn't recognize you from the new avatar, very nice

 

 

meanwhile

 

airplanes, transportation, all required infrastructure for a world village. but if the major players like the states stagnate then innovation falls flat on its face. why innovate when you can rake in raw profits?

 

so, governments then allow companies that would otherwise never get very large to bloat on profits rather than innovate, which the smaller ones are forced to do, ideally a good system but those innovations basically free to the larger players are ignored because they couldn't be bothered to invest, unitl they are very far outpaced by the innovators. oil, hydrogen, solar, microwave... sure the fuel will be cheaper but who's going to build that infrastructure? *sigh

 

also i came to a startling realization today

 

i may not be "human" after all.

 

when will the very different personality types in humans begin to require us to actually label them as distinct subspecies of living humans?

 

biologically we are still mostly compatible but psycologically many people simply cannot mix with others within our now very large global population.

 

again some of us are trying to unite all those tribes into a global village.. but are some of us so fundamentally different in the ways we think and operate that assimilation into a higher species (one world one people) may be impossible without force suffering bloodshed and subjugation?

 

economies, religious beliefs, life experience, governments, education systems, medias and liberties or lack thereof create many types of people on this earth. we may all be "human", but are we all still universally likeminded?