Thomas friedman wrote that globalization history essay

Jonathan E. CooleyGeorge Fox UniversityFor: Doctorate of Business ProgramInternational BusinessMinor Project 1Professor Tim RahschulteFebruary 2013ABSTRACTAs one reviews history in every discipline, one can find globalization in specialized areas such as science, products, communication, politics, culture, religion or international competition – each facilitated by technological advancements, communication, transportation, political power, economies of scale and many of the other factors for modern globalization advanced by Thomas Friedman, other economists, and historians. ” Globalization” – a term coined in 1944 and popularized in the U. S. government during the Clinton administration – was used to describe the increasing relationships between nations and trade. This very definition can be applied throughout history. This paper adds one caveat to the definition – globalization relates to the ” known-world” and its people at any one point in time. It is concluded that each specialized area had its own globalization timetable within the then known-world; however, recently the pace and breadth of such globalization has leaped logarithmically ahead – the beginning of a ” tipping point.” Using the evolution of the hoe to the modern plow as an initial metaphor, examples are drawn of the effect and shift of globalization throughout history. Drawing from this analysis and using other historical examples, it is posited that there are common dynamics in globalization, and it is not a new phenomenon, but an ever evolving one. INTRODUCTIONMr. Spock: ” Bridge to Engineering. Negative effect on power reduction. Speed is still increasing.” Lt. Cmdr. ‘Scotty’ : ” Aye, Mr. Spock, and I found out why. The emergency bypass control of the matter/antimatter integrator is fused. It’s completely useless. The engines are running wild; there’s no way to get at them. We should reach maximum overload in about 15 minutes.” Mr. Spock: ” I would calculate 14. 87 minutes, Mr. Scott.” Lt. Cmdr. ‘Scotty’ : ” Those few seconds will not make any difference, Mr. Spock, because … this thing is going to blow up, and there’s nothing in the universe can stop it”  (Rodenberry, 1969). As we rush at increasingly logarithmic speed headlong into a smaller, faster, flatter world, many either fear the future or are overwhelmed by change. They well may become socially or economically displaced or disenfranchised. Others see great new opportunities to ” go where no man has gone before” (Roddenberry, 1969, p.???). Regardless of our attitude, nothing will stop globalization. History provides the proof. The body of literature is conflicting about who originally coined the term ” globalization.” One scholarly definition is ” the interactive co-evolution of millions of technological, cultural, economic, social and environmental trends at all conceivable spatiotemporal scales. [However], given this complexity, any attempt to give a satisfactory definition of globalisation is doomed to failure” (Rennan & Martens, 2003, p. ????). The term, ” globalization,” was in use in The Chicago Defender as early as 1944 (Wilton, 2006) and first popularized during the Bretton Woods (New Hampshire) conference of World War II allies which produced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and led to creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (Jones, n. d.). The term was later again popularized in 1983 by Professor Levitt in his Harvard Business Review article ” The Globalization of Markets.” He said, ” Gone are accustomed differences in national or regional preferences” (Feder, 2006). Interestingly, Professor Levitt readily conceded that companies do have to balance national cultural patterns with a country’s embrace of global brands. The Clinton administration used the ” globalization” term to define the changing role between governments and business (Friedman, 2006). In 2005, Thomas Friedman wrote that Globalization 1. 0 began with Columbus in 1492. But long before 1492, people began to link together disparate locations on the globe into extensive systems of communication, migration, and interconnections. This interaction between the global and the local has been a central driving force in world history (Penn, n. d.). One thing is certain. Throughout history, distance and cultural differences have been overcome and man-made barriers lowered or removed to facilitate the exchange of goods and ideas. Therefore, using Friedman’s construct for the shifts in globalization, I propose there was a Globalization 0. 0, (-1. 0), and (-2. 0) going back through time. As early as 1839, an English journalist perceptively reflected that as distance was ” annihilated, the surface of our country would, as it were, shrivel in size until it became not much bigger than one immense city” (Harvey 1996, p. 242). I posit that the human perception of both speed and distance are based upon the then current expectations and relevant experiences of a people, in their time, and within their then known ” global” world. We will explore how this fits with Friedman’s and other’s transformationalist definitions of globalization. There appear to be three dominant views in the concept of globalization (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton 1999): Skeptical approach: those who follow the sceptical line argue that internationalization and global connections are by no means new phenomena. The globalization skeptics place cultural, economic, political, social, and technological developments on an evolutionary line, implying that globalization has existed for centuries and that the sum of developments only changes the scale and scope of globalization, but not the intrinsic characteristics of the phenomenon itself. Hyperglobalist approach: these proponents do not deny the importance of previous developments, but identify a historical break-point or ” tipping point” after which contemporary globalization emerged. The previous eras are described as pre-globalization, or periods of internationalization. Transformationalist approach: this ideology radicalizes the hyperglobalist approach, arguing that globalization itself is the major force underlying the rapid, widespread social, political, and economic changes that are currently reshaping and reconstituting modern societies and the world order. If we then confine the term ” global” to ” the known-world at the current moment in time,” I would concur that globalization is not a new phenomenon, and propose that all forms of globalization have many of the same characteristics as outlined in Table 1. Table 1

__________________________________________________________________

Physical expansion of the geographical domain and known world at that time; Social Expansion of social, political and economic activities across political frontiers, regions and continents; Improving technologies in transportation and communication that dramatically heighten possibilities for human interaction and dissemination of resources, decreasing costs or other benefits across existing geographical and political divides; Intensification, or growing magnitude, of interconnectedness and flows of trade, investment, finance, migration, culture, etc.; Increasing speed or velocity of global interactions and processes as the then known world’s systems of transportation, communication, or distribution increases the diffusion of ideas, goods, information, capital, and people; andIncreasing impact of global forces of all kinds on local and national life such that the effects of distant events can be highly significant elsewhere and even the most local developments may come to have enormous global consequences. In this sense, the boundaries between domestic matters and global affairs can become increasingly blurred.

________________________________________________________________

Source: Compiled from Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton, 1999; Scheuerman 2010; and Harvey 1989. In sum, ” globalization” can be thought of as the widening, intensifying, speeding up, and growing impact of world-wide interconnectedness for the then known-world and the local or national population. This paper then explores globalization in the context of history and shifts in ” globalization”. Let us first explore globalization from the skeptic’s point of view. DISCUSSIONAs a metaphor for the shifts in evolution, dissemination, and their effects (i. e., collectively, ” globalization”), the modern plow is first discussed. When agriculture was first developed, simple, hand-held digging sticks and forked sticks were used in highly fertile areas such as the banks of the Nile where the annual flood rejuvenated the soil. These digging sticks were fashioned with handles for pulling or pushing. The globalization of farming technology is evident, although historically difficult to trace. China reached a Neolithic level of technology – agriculture (domestication of plants) and pastoralism (domestication and husbandry of animals) about 1000 years after Mesopotamia reached it around 8500 B. C. The Indus Valley (Pakistan and part of India) almost certainly acquired Neolithic technology from Mesopotamia around 7000 B. C. Egypt and Greece only acquired Neolithic technology (again from Mesopotamia) around 6000 B. C., more than 2500 years after Mesopotamia. Egypt and Greece were, at this early date, comparative backwaters. The very earliest plow was the simple scratch-plow, or Ard,, which consists of a frame holding a vertical wooden stick that was dragged through the topsoil (still used in many parts of the world). It breaks up a strip of land directly along the plowed path, which can then be planted.  Around 4500 BC the earliest plough (today commonly, theSource: historylink101″ plow”) was developed in Mesopotamia – the ” Fertile Crescent” of the Nile. Very soon after, the Ard is found around the lower Danube, presumably due to diffusion. It spread further into Europe by around 3500 BC, reaching Spain by 3000 BC (White, 1962). China independently developed probably independently) the plow around 3000 BC. Interestingly, the plow spread from Mesopotamia to India and Egypt only around 2600 BC. This is easy to understand since high crop yields in Egypt were possible without plowing due to the annual flooding of the Nile. Plowing was only needed in more marginal areas which were only settled later. China also developed urbanization and metallurgy independently, and both grew rapidly around 1500 BC during the Shang dynasty. At about the same time, China came into contact with the Indo-Aryan groups that had spread from Southern Russia to Iran and through Central Asia by around 2000 BC. The Indo-Aryan culture was a bronze-working culture, but was not urbanized. The timing suggests that metal working was also an idea received from the Indo-Aryans. By 600 B. C. the Chinese had invented iron plows. Much later by the end of the Song Dynasty (960-1279), Chinese agricultural engineering plows had reached a high state of development. The earliest Chinese iron plow dates to the Warring States Period of 475-221 BC.  The major advance before 1000 AD was the heavy plow, which was a technical advancement of the simple plows farmers used earlier.  It had a coulter, a blade which cut a thin strip in the turf, followed by a share (second blade) which would slice into the soil and then the soil would ride up the mouldboard (see photo) which would turn it over. These plows could invert the soil and turn a true furrow. In Mediterranean regions by Roman times in about 643 AD, light, wheel-less plows with iron blades were drawn by oxen; these implements could break up the topsoil of the Mediterranean but could not handle the heavier soils of northwestern Europe. Europe and the rest of the world seemed to have learned plow technology only after the Chinese ” globalized” – opening their gates for trade with the rest of the world around the 9th century. The Dutch later brought this technology to the rest of Europe. These plows began the Europe’s Agricultural Revolution (ChinaCulture. n. d.). Moldboards were unknown in Europe until late 10th century, and then they were crude in their design. The Chinese had invented both the all iron plow and the one with the iron blade attached to a wooden handle. They also developed a different kind of iron to make the plows, mixing iron with several other metals to make it malleable and strong. They also attached a curved metal plate which pushed the soil away from the furrow formed by the plow (InnovateUs, 2006-2011). The Chinese didn’t share these inventions until much later. The wheeled plow, at first drawn by oxen but later by horses, made possible the northward spread of European agriculture. Early farming utilized oxen in the fields.  These animals appear first used around 3500 B. C. with Ards. In Europe, the invention of the horse collar and shoe in the 9th century allowed the horse pulled plow, yet even into the 18th century oxen still outnumbered horses due to the expense of feeding and care of the horse. With the advent of the iron plows, however, many farmers changed to using heavy horses which could pull the new implements at a faster pace than oxen – . Later wheels were attached to this type of plow and later still a seat was added. [source historylink101] As late as 1788, Thomas Jefferson created plans for an improved mouldboard. John Deere eventually changed the face of American agriculture and that of the world in 1836, inventing a stainless steel blade which was self-polishing and combined the share and moldboard into a one piece plow. Mesopotamia, the home of the plow and powerful Pharaohs of Egypt, had lost its competitive civilization farming advantage; first to China, then Greco-Roman Mediterranean societies and later, to Western Europe. Finally, America became the breadbasket of the world. Why the Fertile Crescent area lost it place at the forefront of civilization is not known. The Fertile Crescent had the local raw material resources (the wild ancestors of wheat, barley, goats, sheep, etc.) but is ecologically a fragile area, and its productivity has declined a great deal from ancient times due to deforestation and possibly, overgrazing. Gross and much of the body of literature herald the plough (modernly spelled plow)  as perhaps the most important implement for the advancement of civilization since the beginning of history (Gross, 1984). Used to turn and break up soil, to bury crop residues, and to help control weeds, it allowed rapid urbanization and population growth as farmers could grow more than they could eat. As a result, it allowed for specialization. When persons no longer had to work all day for their 2100 calories to survive, they could turn into woodworking, stone working, or smithing craftsmen, warriors, pottery as well as the arts, humanities, sciences, religion, writing and other specialties. Pottery allows efficient storage of surplus food for offseason consumption, therefore was a precursor to urbanization (the development of towns and cities) and, in many ways, a precursor to metallurgy. The advantages of specialization of labor are better defense, better technology, more goods for trade, the ability to support traders, and better social coordination and cohesion due to specialized leadership. This is not to say that craftsmen, warriors and leaders are absent from hunting-gathering societies, simply that an agricultural society is far better able to develop specialization of labor to a more elaborate degree. In the mid-19th century the black prairie soils of the American Midwest challenged the strength of the existing plow, and American mechanic John Deere invented the all-steel, one-piece share and moldboard. The three-wheel sulky plow followed and, with the introduction of the gasoline engine, the tractor-drawn plow. As with every technology, there are also hidden costs. First, unlike hunter-gathering groups, early farmers – and the resulting civilizations – obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The populous gained calories at the cost of poor nutrition. Today, just three high-carbohydrate plants – wheat, rice, and corn – provide the bulk of the calories consumed by mankind, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, local civilizations ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture allowed people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. Epidemics could not occur when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly moved. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming. Measles and bubonic plague awaited the rise of large cities (Diamond, 1987). However, these costs did not preclude the perceived benefits and continuing globalization. What characteristics did this historical globalization have in common with today’s globalization? I would posit they include all the dynamic forces from Table 1. As an example of the cultural impact of technology, the French historian, Fernand Braudel, once described a remarkable cultural transformation in the society of ancient Mesopotamia. The fertile region between the Tigris and the Euphrates went from being one that worshipped ” all-powerful mother goddesses” to one where it was ” the male gods and priests who were predominant in Sumer and Babylon.” The cause, he argued, was neither a change in law nor politics. Rather, it was a fundamental change in the technology the Mesopotamians used to produce food: the adoption of the Ard. Women in ancient Mesopotamia had been in charge of the fields and gardens where cereals were grown. With the advent of the Ard, however, farming became the dominion of men. A study by Alesina, Nunn and Giuliano found striking evidence that ancient agricultural techniques have very long-lasting cultural effects, reinforcing ideas of Ester Boserup in the 1970s that cultural norms about the economic roles of the sexes throughout the world can be traced back to traditional farming practices. (Economist, 2011)There are many examples shifting globalization throughout history. Two more grand examples will be explored – the Silk Road and the Spice Route.

The Silk Road

Originally, the Chinese traded silk internally within their existing empire. Caravans from the empire’s interior would carry silk to the western edges of the region. Often small Central Asian tribes would attack these caravans hoping to capture the traders’ valuable commodities. As a result, the Han Dynasty extended its military defenses further into Central Asia from 135 to 90 BC to protect these caravans. The route grew with the rise of the Roman Empire because the Chinese initially gave silk to the Roman-Asian governments as gifts. As noted in Chart 1, the 7, 000 mile route spanned several countries and cultures (Physical expansion) – China, Central Asia, Northern India, and the Parthian and Roman Empires. It connected the Yellow River Valley to the Mediterranean Sea and passed through places such as the Chinese cities of Kansu and Sinkiang and present-day countries Iran, Iraq and Syria. Chart 1While the Chinese silk trade played only a minor role in the overall Chinese economy (see Table 2), it increased the number of foreign merchants present in China (the communication dynamic) under the Han Dynasty, exposing both the Chinese and their foreign visitors to China and different cultures and religions (in fact, Buddhism spread from India to China because of trade along the Silk Route, similar to the way Islam spread along trans-Saharan routes in medieval West Africa). The Silk Road revived tremendously under the Sung Dynasty in the 11th and 12th centuries when China became largely dependent on its silk trade. In addition, trade to Central and Western Asia as well as Europe recovered for a period of time from 1276-1368 under the Yuan Dynasty when the Mongol invasion of Genghis Kahn controlled China. (ThinkQuest, n. d.). One of the first to take up the Eastern challenge was Marco Polo. Polo was not the first Westerner to travel throughout Asia (the missionary Giovanni da Pian del Carpine was one of the first Europeans to enter the court of the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire); however, in 1295 Marco Polo returned to Venice after a long sojourn in China, laden with silk and jewels and tales of the fabulous wealth of the Orient. The tales and book of Polo’s travels and exploits rekindled a long-dormant interest in trade between Europe and the East. Finally in 1500, China turned inward due to the perceived shifts and resulting pressures in globalization (dynamics of intensification and increasing impact of global forces). Chinese Emperor Hongzhi made it a capital offense to go to sea in a ship with more than two masts without special permission. In 1525, officials ordered all large ships destroyed. This would not be the last time China felt the negative shifts of globalization – the later Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion and the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking name only a few in the modern era.

The Spice Route

The quest for spices (and precious metals) ushered in what is known as the Age of Exploration. The Spice Route was the other great trading route of the Ancient and Medieval worlds and fits the Skeptics approach to globalization. Spices were carried on the Silk Road also, but the main source of spices was well south of China, the Spice Islands (Indonesia), India, and the Malabar (East African) coast. India was at the center of the world spice trade. It is no accident that Indian food is known for its spices. Spices were carried to India from the Spice Islands by land and sometimes by sea (dynamics of physical expansion and social expansion). Spices included cassia, star anise, cloves, coriander, nutmeg, mace, and others. The most valuable spice was peppercorns from the Malabar Coast (south-western Indian coast) which were dried and ground into powdered pepper. Peppercorns were traded into Egypt and were even found in the nose of the mummy of Ramses II. Pepper and other spices were also valued commodities in Roman markets. The European trade in these commodities fell with the economic decline following the fall of Rome in the 5th century AD. These spices, as well as Indian and Africa spices, were then brought by sea to the Middle East by Arab traders. The Arabs had burst out of the Arabian Desert in the 7th century. The Arabs cut Europe off from the clove islands and became the masters of the spice trade, dominating the trade routes from India and eastern Africa. They kept the sources of spices secret from the Europeans. For centuries, the Arabs controlled the Mediterranean spice trade. Eventually, the Roman empire discovered the routes which were faster and cost less than their earlier voyages closely following the shoreline. Later, Venetian and other Italian vessels were bringing the spices to Europe. Rivalry for the sea routes now monopolized by Venice increased the importance of the overland Chinese Silk Road and contributed to its partial rebirth as discussed. Portuguese sailors in the 15th century finally established direct contact with the source of spices, undercutting both the Arabs and Venetians. The ” Cinnamon Route” began somewhere in the Malay Archipelago, romantically known as the ” East Indies,” and crossed the Indian Ocean to the southeastern coast of Africa. In Roman times, boats traveled to Adulis in Ethiopia and then to Muza in Yemen and finally to Berenike in Egypt. From Egypt they made their way to all the markets of Europe and West Asia (Miller, 1969). In addition to Miller’s Cinnamon Route, there also existed a ” Clove Route” to China and India. Some three thousand years of spice trade  left a lasting legacy that reshaped the world. Although the rise of Arab Islam closed off any further European exploration or exploitation of the Spice Route, a whole new world opened for the merchants of the Muslim world. Their newly found power allowed them to venture deeper into Asia as never before. By the ninth century, a massive trade ensued between the two regions greatly enriching the Islamic Caliphate. Magnificent cities and buildings were constructed throughout the Muslim lands at the same time that Europe sunk into the dark ages. If we look to today, we continue to see nations rise as others enter struggle. So lucrative was the spice trade that after his conquest of Egypt in 332–331 BCE, Alexander the Great founded Alexandria as a port for the extension of the spice trade into the Mediterranean. Although Arab traders still controlled the spice trade, Alexandria grew wealthy simply on the duties levied on these exports — a fact that provides us with a good indication of how lucrative this trade actually was (Celtnet, n. d.)Among the empires destroyed in the Great Khan’s path was the Islamic Caliphate. The fall of Baghdad around 1400 again opened the Silk Road and the maritime spice route to the merchants and adventurers of Europe. The Portuguese were the first to take up the gauntlet establishing bases at Goa, India and Malacca on the Malay Peninsula. Others followed including the powerful Dutch East Indian Company. Magellan’s personal documents indicated his desire to find the golden islands of Tarshish and Ophir. By 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed west for Spain’s Queen Isabella to find a shorter route to the East Indies and their valuable spice trade, landing in the Bahamas. Later, sailing for England’s King Henry VIII, John Cabot discovered Newfoundland in 1498. His son, Sebastian Cabot, also sailing west for England to find a spice route in 1508, discovered Hudson Bay in 1509 – the only North American continent landing of the three. Friedman considers the voyage of Columbus the launch of Globalization 1. 0 [. I would suggest that the beginning of globalization had begun much before – hence, the (-2. 0) world to Friedman’s 1. 0 world. I would also contend – and agree with Friedman (Friedman, 2006) in the context of the Hyperglobalist approach – that the tipping point for modern globalization began much later.

Globalization Shift to 2. 0

If we choose world GDP as a proxy for the shift in global economics, Chart 1 from economist Angus Maddison (Economist, 2011) shows that China and India were the biggest economies in the world for the past 2000 years in purchasing power parity. Maddison argues that one reason was because they had the largest working, civilized populations with an internal infrastructure of communication and transportation current for the time. Until 200 years ago and structural changes in globalization, population size was a dominant factor in economic output (Economist, 2011). When Britain first colonized India in the late 18th century, India’s per capita income was roughly the same as that of Britain. Colonialism (another globalizing effect) and Western dominated economic terms were then major factors. Once the Industrial Revolution began and colonialism ended followed by the more recent Information Revolution (Friedman’s Globalized World 2. 0), a working population mattered less in creating economic power. First the Europeans, then the Americans leveraged technology to grow GDP rapidly on a per capita basis. Steam engines, internal combustion machines, and silicon based industries made up for size. Now, over the past few decades (consistent with the six dynamics of globalization) the faster and unfettered international flow of capital, information, transportation, and communications have allowed the rapid growth of China and India in a few short decades. India and China are now rapidly moving up in the world on a GDP per capita basis. http://www. ritholtz. com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GDP-History. gifCONCLUSIONWhen one considers the thousands of years of globalization and dramatic effects of just the plow, the Silk Road, and the Spice Route, one can appreciate the relative warp speed of the most recent one hundred years. This paper’s discussion has shown that, historically, the dynamics of globalization are concepts relative to the precepts of the day. With pedestrian power man walked. In animal drawn caravans and sailing ships humankind made its world smaller. In trains, automobiles, and airplanes the world shrank again until it has become ” not much bigger than one immense city” (Harvey 1996, p. 242). From the keeper of a tribe’s history and teller of stories to the written language of the scribe on paper to online publishing, humankind created institutional memory and disseminated ideas throughout the known-world. Over the past 200 years through the Industrial Revolution and its technological changes, globalization velocity has accelerated: in transportation and work – the steam engine, the telegraph, the telephone, the internal combustion engine, the automobile, the airplane, the jet airplane, and nuclear power; in new ideas and social constructs –GATT, NAFTA, the UN, the IMF, the World Monetary Fund, the EU, Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) globalization, the assembly line, and the global supply chain; andin communication – the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, television, the computer, the personal computer, the internet, satellites and wireless technologies, and the cell phone,. All, and much more, contribute to the dynamics of increasing globalization. We recognize the shifts and acceleration of globalization creates downsides. It’s easy to intellectually worship the plow. It fed the world for millennia. It is also responsible for destroying soils worldwide; for releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (some stored in humus for thousands of years); for allowing wind and water to carry away this thin mantle and clog our rivers; and for inadvertently fertilizing our seas creating destructive algae blooms. Ancient civilizations plowed themselves into obsolescence in an attempt to feed themselves – the land was reduced to desert. The Romans did the same to their north African bread basket, as well as chunks of Italy. The fall of the Incas is often credited to over farming and resource depletion. In recent modern history, we do the same across many of our natural resource, not only to feed ourselves, but for light, heat, our computers and the conveniences for short-term gains, leading to a denuded land and denuding our world. ” As the country that benefits most from global economic integration, we [the United States] have the responsibility of making sure that this new system is sustainable…Sustaining globalization is our overarching national interest” (Friedman, 1999). Overlapping the Industrial Revolution, the Information Age of the past fifty years our new digital-world is increasing unfettered trade and the ability to connect and collaborate. I conclude that from the beginning, the history of globalization continues to repeat itself. As Friedman says regarding today’s globalization (Globalization 3. 0), “… the defining measurement of the globalization system is speed — in commerce, travel, communication and innovation” (Friedman, 1999).  From the competition of the first tribes to that of cities, then cities to competing nations, and from competing nations we now see globally competing individuals. As Friedman notes, “…in Globalization 3. 0 – the force that gives it its unique character – is the newfound power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally” (Friedman, 2006, p. 10). The modern promise of globalization – and its inherent downsides – will take us where no man has gone before, faster than ever before. ” Take us to warp speed eight, Scotty” (Roddenberry, 1969).