Gobalization Naomi Klein & Hans Rosling

Globalization
Naomi Klein & Hans Rosling

Kaitlin Walsh
Anthropology 101: Introduction to Geography

            With every trade, alliance, migration, immigration, and conversation between two or more countries, the world becomes more globally integrated. Globalization is, “the increasing interconnection of all parts of the world as the full range of social, cultural, political, economic, and environmental processes and patterns of change becomes international in scale and effect.”[1] In this essay I will analyze two different views of globalization from author Naomi Klein and scientist and Professor Hans Rosling.

            In a TED talk that took place in 2010, author Naomi Klein took the stage to discuss the recklessness of human activity on the environment. TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) is a company interested in spreading the word about important topics that range from a variety of different subjects. In this video Klein begins her discussion with the effect oil contamination has on the microscopic lifeforms in the ocean; specifically the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Klein mentions that, “even trace amounts of oil can be highly toxic to phytoplankton.”[2] She goes on to say that even though oil companies say 75% of the oil disappears, it is not gone. Those smaller lifeforms, like phytoplankton, absorb the contaminates and spread them up the food chain as they are consumed. This process is also known as bio-magnification. One of Klein’s main points is about how people are, “far too willing to gamble with things that are precious and irreplaceable.”[3] She claims that humans jump into war and gamble with the stock market without an exit strategy. She insists that it is better to error on the side of caution when it comes to climate change, than to put the fate of the world and future generations at risk. Klein discusses that people far too often ask questions like, “What is the latest possible moment…how much hotter can we let it get?”[4] Some of the possible reasons she attributes to these types of questions is greed, over confidence, and privilege; wanting to make a profit, thinking there will be a way out, and the overall dismissal of a problem. Tony Hayward even said, “The Gulf of Mexico is a big ocean, the amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”[5] The majority of the world assumes that our resources are limitless, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Klein goes on to say that as we use up our current resources we are pushed to, “drill into the deepest oceans, like the Artic, where clean-up could be impossible, large scale hydraulic fracking for gas, and massive strip mining operations for coal.”[6] Klein mentions that the Alberta tar sands are projected to be one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States. Klein refers to the mutilation of the land as, “terrestrial gutting.”[7] Instead of using the renewable resources of the sun, wind, and waves on the surface of the earth, Klein asserts that humans are, “frantically trying to dig down to the dirtiest highest emitting stuff imaginable.”[8] She makes a powerful quote towards the end of the video; “This is how civilizations commit suicide, by slamming their foot on the accelerator on the exact moment when they should be putting on the breaks.”[9] The last few minutes of the video focus on geo-engineering and how the man’s best ideas of how to save earth from global warming, revolve around pumping more toxins into the atmosphere. With no clue about the repercussions of those actions, people are recklessly trying to make up ideas on how to save the world instead of focusing on managing the use of resources here on earth. The overall idea of the video was that we need to take a risk-as a world- to confront recklessness head on.

            Hans Rosling did a TED talk in 2009 discussing the idea of what a “developing country” is. Rosling asked his students what the difference was between a “developing country” and a “western country” was. The general consensus was that a developing country had a large family and a short life; a western country had a small family and a long life. Rosling used graphs called ‘bubble data charts’ that compared countries family size vs life expectancy.  In 1970 there was a huge disparity between some countries; as the slider bar moved towards present day the data changed drastically. In 2007 most countries were in top right (long life, small family) of the graph. Only a few countries were left behind (the Congo, Liberia, Afghanistan to name a few).[10] One of his major points was that many people, including scientist and historians, were unaware of the real progress many countries have made in the last 60 years. He then showed a graph that analyzed income and life expectancy per countries beginning in the 1800s. As the slider bar moved toward present day, many countries (some with a slow start) began to reach both high life expectancy and high GDP. One interesting fact to take from this graph is that while China took longer to gain economic growth, they began to soar in life expectancy through other avenues (education, family planning, etc.).[11] As he showed more graphs, his overall point was being made more clear: The world was converging. Many of the once deemed “developing worlds/countries” were making progress. Some countries had a long way to go, but Rosling says without serious help and attention those countries would never grow; “We have to really find a way of supporting those countries, we have to respect the middle income countries on what they’re doing, and we have to fact base the whole way we look at the world.”[12] Rosling’s HIV graph was very informative. Many times people mention that Africa is rampant with HIV, but as his graph explains, it is only a few countries in Africa that are suffering from the HIV epidemic; “poverty is not the issue, race is not the issue, it needs to be made a local issue, and dealt with as such.”[13] Overall his main point was to change the mindset on how people think about “developing countries” and what criteria dictates that thought process.

            Both Klein and Rosling create interesting perspectives on globalization. One author uses emotion to insight a reaction while the other uses science and data. Overall I think a mix of both arguments creates the most viable representation of globalization because globalization is about the integration of not just countries but those countries peoples. You need to be informed about the world and the obstacles it faces, especially if you want to do anything positive about it. Each of these representations brings something important to issue of globalization and should both be used as tools to help move it forward in a positive way.

Work Cited:

Getis, Arthur, San Diego State University, Judith Getis, Deceased, Mark Bjelland, Gustavus Adolphus College, and Victoria Getis. Introduction to Geography. 14th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, 2013.

Klein, Naomi. “Addicted to Risk” TED. December, 2010. Accessed December 17, 2014.http://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_klein_addicted_to_risk?language=en.

Rosling, Hans. “Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset.” TED. June, 2009. Accessed December 17, 2014. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state?language=en#t-1042982.

[1] Arthur Getis, Introduction to Geography, 14th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, 2013), G-5.

[2] Naomi Klein, “Addicted to Risk,” TED, December, 2010, accessed December 17, 2014, http://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_klein_addicted_to_risk?language=en, 1:00.

[3] Ibid., 3:30.

[4] Ibid, 6:26.

[5] Ibid., 11:15.

[6] Ibid., 11:15.

[7] Ibid., 15:50.

[8] Ibid., 16:30.

[9] Ibid., 17:00.

[10] Hans Rosling, “Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset,” TED, June, 2009, accessed December 17, 2014, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state?language=en#t-1042982, 2:30.

[11] Ibid., 6:00.

[12] Ibid., 15:50.

[13] Ibid., 16:30.