In this class we have observed the importance of identity to an individual and to a population.

However, this distinctive sense of self comes with a whole plethora of values and cultural norms that must be adhered to. In this way a persons identity becomes so engrained that it dictates how one communicates and interacts with others, how one views the world, and what one considers to be of utmost importance. It is understandable then, how the convergence of two opposing or different ideologies has provided the spark for much of the world conflict throughout history. In the past, ones identity was typically determined by where they were born. It was difficult to travel, and therefore most did not move far away from where they were raised. This meant that the same values and culture were passed on from generation to generation, without very much change. In this way a very firm sense of us and them arose, in which those who did not share the same values were seen as evil and a threat; giving rise to the idea of the nation-state. Identity became firmly confined within the boundaries of the nationstate. As such, when conflict did erupt it often resulted in a war not between random groups of people, but between clearly defined nationstates. In recent years however, the world has become much more interconnected as a result of rapidly growing technology and globalization. The barriers that once restrained efficient travel and communication have been torn down. We live now in a world where information flows freely regardless of national borders. People, capital, and ideas are able to travel around the globe with a speed that would have been unimaginable no more than 200 years ago. This has led to the emergence of multinational corporations, international trade unions, and world regulatory organizations; however, far more importantly, it has created a world in which culture is no longer necessarily tied to geography. This rise of global capitalism has changed the world in ways beyond counting, but just as importantly, it has done so incredibly quickly. The nation-state has attempted to respond by expanding upon, as Appadurai refers to it in Fear of Small Numbers, its vertebrate structure. He suggests that this can be seen, ...by the large and growing body of protocols, institutions, treaties, and agreements that seek to ensure that all nations operate on symmetrical principles in relation to their conduct with one another, whatever their hierarchies in power or wealth. (25) They have attempted to structure and control this new

world in the same way they always have, through rigid, unyielding laws and regulations except on an international level. The nation-states response is understandable when you consider the fact that its right power is based upon the legislation it created. It is only natural that it should work to maintain control over its people, because if it does not, it will fade into nothing but a distant memory. The problem with this method of strict legislative adherence is that the world we now live in is no longer constrained by national boundaries. Capitalism, and the way of life that comes with it, has pervaded every country in the world. In the age of the Internet, someone in the United States can find and communicate with someone in India who has similar views. Identity is no longer completely tied to the place one is raised. Someone born in Croatia can be raised in America, and this melding of cultures creates a new identity, a hybrid of both. Traditions, values, ways of living, they are all subject to rapid and drastic change in this newly globalized world. This emergence of global connectivity and change has led to what Appadurai calls, cellular organizations, describing them as, Connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in their central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects... (28) We can see that the evolution of modern capitalism into a global capitalistic system has split, to form a dichotomy of both vertebrate and cellular elements. These disjunctive components of our world today have been the source of much tension, and it is this tension that has led to many modern day conflicts. As capitalism spreads around the globe, it carries with it a certain way of life. It has become so strong that to resist means isolation. There are many people who do not want to convert to the ways of capitalism, and wish to retain their traditional identities. So nations are forced to play a strange game in which they appeal to their people by emphasizing their national sovereignty and independence, but at the same time must enter the global market in order to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. However, by doing so they create unrest and anger within their citizens, some of which take advantage of the autonomy provided by cellular organization. This in and of itself has created a new problem for nation-states. No longer is a threat represented by another nationstate, but by an undefined group of people in all areas of the world, possibly even within the nation-state itself. So we see that even conflicts have now evolved into a cellular process. The process of globalization and the expansion of capitalism have resulted in a number of unfortunate externalities. There is no doubt that the growth and movement of industry around the world has

severely damaged the environment and many groups of people, as well as physically separating members of specific cultures. Those who resist this way of life are not without reason, despite their sometimes violent actions. In his last chapter, Robbins makes suggestions as to how these externalities could be reversed by rebuilding natural, political, and social capital. While making his recommendations, Robbins political beliefs and biases become blatantly obvious. In my opinion he presents too hard a view of globalization and the rise of global capitalism. I do not mean to suggest that the culture of capitalism is without any fault; simply that it has also had a great deal of positive effects on the world as well. Because of globalization my generation and those that follow have a new and completely unique view of the world. I do not see the world in rigid terms of nationality and belief. To me, the connections between people around the world, the ability to rapidly share ideas and information, and the perpetual expansion of the global economy is a good thing. I can see among my peers a growing sense of respect, if not understanding, of those with different beliefs. I think the evolution of cellular organizations represent an amazing change in the way our world functions. These networks can be used for so many beneficial purposes, although as we have seen they can be used for the opposite as well. It is for this reason that I must disagree with the suggestions put forth by Robbins. What he describes sounds to me like a movement back in time to strictly vertebrate, isolationist nations; resistant to any form of change. I agree with him in that there are many problems facing our world and that if something is not done soon there will be disastrous consequences; however, one must look at the whole picture. Capitalism, despite its current faults, has the potential to create a utopian world. What I believe many, including Robbins, have done is shut their eyes to this fact; they see the problems, but not the potential benefits. I would propose instead that we focus on what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of capitalism, but without removing it all together. Cellular processes I believe can greatly help in this endeavor. Change is a good thing; it leads to progress and innovation. Capitalism encourages both, and should therefore be preserved. Without capitalism and the industrial revolution we would still be living in the middle ages; without any of the goods, technology, or medicine that define our age. I do not understand how It is impossible to travel back in time, and any attempt to bring back these outdated and inefficient world orders would lead to stagnation and ultimately failure. As with natural selection, only the fittest survive. Those that do not change are

at an evolutionary disadvantage, and in the end will die out. We cannot move backward, only move forward. In this class we have observed the importance of identity to an individual and to a population. However, this distinctive sense of self comes with a whole plethora of values and cultural norms that must be adhered to. In this way a persons identity becomes so engrained that it dictates how one communicates and interacts with others, how one views the world, and what one considers to be of utmost importance. It is understandable then, how the convergence of two opposing or different ideologies has provided the spark for much of the world conflict throughout history. In the past, ones identity was typically determined by where they were born. It was difficult to travel, and therefore most did not move far away from where they were raised. This meant that the same values and culture were passed on from generation to generation, without very much change. In this way a very firm sense of us and them arose, in which those who did not share the same values were seen as evil and a threat; giving rise to the idea of the nation-state. Identity became firmly confined within the boundaries of the nationstate. As such, when conflict did erupt it often resulted in a war not between random groups of people, but between clearly defined nationstates. In recent years however, the world has become much more interconnected as a result of rapidly growing technology and globalization. The barriers that once restrained efficient travel and communication have been torn down. We live now in a world where information flows freely regardless of national borders. People, capital, and ideas are able to travel around the globe with a speed that would have been unimaginable no more than 200 years ago. This has led to the emergence of multinational corporations, international trade unions, and world regulatory organizations; however, far more importantly, it has created a world in which culture is no longer necessarily tied to geography. This rise of global capitalism has changed the world in ways beyond counting, but just as importantly, it has done so incredibly quickly. The nation-state has attempted to respond by expanding upon, as Appadurai refers to it in Fear of Small Numbers, its vertebrate structure. He suggests that this can be seen, ...by the large and growing body of protocols, institutions, treaties, and agreements that seek to ensure that all nations operate on symmetrical principles in relation to their conduct with one another, whatever their hierarchies in power or wealth. (25) They have attempted to structure and control this new

world in the same way they always have, through rigid, unyielding laws and regulations except on an international level. The nation-states response is understandable when you consider the fact that its right power is based upon the legislation it created. It is only natural that it should work to maintain control over its people, because if it does not, it will fade into nothing but a distant memory. The problem with this method of strict legislative adherence is that the world we now live in is no longer constrained by national boundaries. Capitalism, and the way of life that comes with it, has pervaded every country in the world. In the age of the Internet, someone in the United States can find and communicate with someone in India who has similar views. Identity is no longer completely tied to the place one is raised. Someone born in Croatia can be raised in America, and this melding of cultures creates a new identity, a hybrid of both. Traditions, values, ways of living, they are all subject to rapid and drastic change in this newly globalized world. This emergence of global connectivity and change has led to what Appadurai calls, cellular organizations, describing them as, Connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in their central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects... (28) We can see that the evolution of modern capitalism into a global capitalistic system has split, to form a dichotomy of both vertebrate and cellular elements. These disjunctive components of our world today have been the source of much tension, and it is this tension that has led to many modern day conflicts. As capitalism spreads around the globe, it carries with it a certain way of life. It has become so strong that to resist means isolation. There are many people who do not want to convert to the ways of capitalism, and wish to retain their traditional identities. So nations are forced to play a strange game in which they appeal to their people by emphasizing their national sovereignty and independence, but at the same time must enter the global market in order to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. However, by doing so they create unrest and anger within their citizens, some of which take advantage of the autonomy provided by cellular organization. This in and of itself has created a new problem for nation-states. No longer is a threat represented by another nationstate, but by an undefined group of people in all areas of the world, possibly even within the nation-state itself. So we see that even conflicts have now evolved into a cellular process. The process of globalization and the expansion of capitalism have resulted in a number of unfortunate externalities. There is no doubt that the growth and movement of industry around the world has

severely damaged the environment and many groups of people, as well as physically separating members of specific cultures. Those who resist this way of life are not without reason, despite their sometimes violent actions. In his last chapter, Robbins makes suggestions as to how these externalities could be reversed by rebuilding natural, political, and social capital. While making his recommendations, Robbins political beliefs and biases become blatantly obvious. In my opinion he presents too hard a view of globalization and the rise of global capitalism. I do not mean to suggest that the culture of capitalism is without any fault; simply that it has also had a great deal of positive effects on the world as well. Because of globalization my generation and those that follow have a new and completely unique view of the world. I do not see the world in rigid terms of nationality and belief. To me, the connections between people around the world, the ability to rapidly share ideas and information, and the perpetual expansion of the global economy is a good thing. I can see among my peers a growing sense of respect, if not understanding, of those with different beliefs. I think the evolution of cellular organizations represent an amazing change in the way our world functions. These networks can be used for so many beneficial purposes, although as we have seen they can be used for the opposite as well. It is for this reason that I must disagree with the suggestions put forth by Robbins. What he describes sounds to me like a movement back in time to strictly vertebrate, isolationist nations; resistant to any form of change. I agree with him in that there are many problems facing our world and that if something is not done soon there will be disastrous consequences; however, one must look at the whole picture. Capitalism, despite its current faults, has the potential to create a utopian world. What I believe many, including Robbins, have done is shut their eyes to this fact; they see the problems, but not the potential benefits. I would propose instead that we focus on what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of capitalism, but without removing it all together. Cellular processes I believe can greatly help in this endeavor. Change is a good thing; it leads to progress and innovation. Capitalism encourages both, and should therefore be preserved. Without capitalism and the industrial revolution we would still be living in the middle ages; without any of the goods, technology, or medicine that define our age. I do not understand how It is impossible to travel back in time, and any attempt to bring back these outdated and inefficient world orders would lead to stagnation and ultimately failure. As with natural selection, only the fittest survive. Those that do not change are

at an evolutionary disadvantage, and in the end will die out. We cannot move backward, only move forward. In this class we have observed the importance of identity to an individual and to a population. However, this distinctive sense of self comes with a whole plethora of values and cultural norms that must be adhered to. In this way a persons identity becomes so engrained that it dictates how one communicates and interacts with others, how one views the world, and what one considers to be of utmost importance. It is understandable then, how the convergence of two opposing or different ideologies has provided the spark for much of the world conflict throughout history. In the past, ones identity was typically determined by where they were born. It was difficult to travel, and therefore most did not move far away from where they were raised. This meant that the same values and culture were passed on from generation to generation, without very much change. In this way a very firm sense of us and them arose, in which those who did not share the same values were seen as evil and a threat; giving rise to the idea of the nation-state. Identity became firmly confined within the boundaries of the nationstate. As such, when conflict did erupt it often resulted in a war not between random groups of people, but between clearly defined nationstates. In recent years however, the world has become much more interconnected as a result of rapidly growing technology and globalization. The barriers that once restrained efficient travel and communication have been torn down. We live now in a world where information flows freely regardless of national borders. People, capital, and ideas are able to travel around the globe with a speed that would have been unimaginable no more than 200 years ago. This has led to the emergence of multinational corporations, international trade unions, and world regulatory organizations; however, far more importantly, it has created a world in which culture is no longer necessarily tied to geography. This rise of global capitalism has changed the world in ways beyond counting, but just as importantly, it has done so incredibly quickly. The nation-state has attempted to respond by expanding upon, as Appadurai refers to it in Fear of Small Numbers, its vertebrate structure. He suggests that this can be seen, ...by the large and growing body of protocols, institutions, treaties, and agreements that seek to ensure that all nations operate on symmetrical principles in relation to their conduct with one another, whatever their hierarchies in power or wealth. (25) They have attempted to structure and control this new

world in the same way they always have, through rigid, unyielding laws and regulations except on an international level. The nation-states response is understandable when you consider the fact that its right power is based upon the legislation it created. It is only natural that it should work to maintain control over its people, because if it does not, it will fade into nothing but a distant memory. The problem with this method of strict legislative adherence is that the world we now live in is no longer constrained by national boundaries. Capitalism, and the way of life that comes with it, has pervaded every country in the world. In the age of the Internet, someone in the United States can find and communicate with someone in India who has similar views. Identity is no longer completely tied to the place one is raised. Someone born in Croatia can be raised in America, and this melding of cultures creates a new identity, a hybrid of both. Traditions, values, ways of living, they are all subject to rapid and drastic change in this newly globalized world. This emergence of global connectivity and change has led to what Appadurai calls, cellular organizations, describing them as, Connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in their central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects... (28) We can see that the evolution of modern capitalism into a global capitalistic system has split, to form a dichotomy of both vertebrate and cellular elements. These disjunctive components of our world today have been the source of much tension, and it is this tension that has led to many modern day conflicts. As capitalism spreads around the globe, it carries with it a certain way of life. It has become so strong that to resist means isolation. There are many people who do not want to convert to the ways of capitalism, and wish to retain their traditional identities. So nations are forced to play a strange game in which they appeal to their people by emphasizing their national sovereignty and independence, but at the same time must enter the global market in order to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. However, by doing so they create unrest and anger within their citizens, some of which take advantage of the autonomy provided by cellular organization. This in and of itself has created a new problem for nation-states. No longer is a threat represented by another nationstate, but by an undefined group of people in all areas of the world, possibly even within the nation-state itself. So we see that even conflicts have now evolved into a cellular process. The process of globalization and the expansion of capitalism have resulted in a number of unfortunate externalities. There is no doubt that the growth and movement of industry around the world has

severely damaged the environment and many groups of people, as well as physically separating members of specific cultures. Those who resist this way of life are not without reason, despite their sometimes violent actions. In his last chapter, Robbins makes suggestions as to how these externalities could be reversed by rebuilding natural, political, and social capital. While making his recommendations, Robbins political beliefs and biases become blatantly obvious. In my opinion he presents too hard a view of globalization and the rise of global capitalism. I do not mean to suggest that the culture of capitalism is without any fault; simply that it has also had a great deal of positive effects on the world as well. Because of globalization my generation and those that follow have a new and completely unique view of the world. I do not see the world in rigid terms of nationality and belief. To me, the connections between people around the world, the ability to rapidly share ideas and information, and the perpetual expansion of the global economy is a good thing. I can see among my peers a growing sense of respect, if not understanding, of those with different beliefs. I think the evolution of cellular organizations represent an amazing change in the way our world functions. These networks can be used for so many beneficial purposes, although as we have seen they can be used for the opposite as well. It is for this reason that I must disagree with the suggestions put forth by Robbins. What he describes sounds to me like a movement back in time to strictly vertebrate, isolationist nations; resistant to any form of change. I agree with him in that there are many problems facing our world and that if something is not done soon there will be disastrous consequences; however, one must look at the whole picture. Capitalism, despite its current faults, has the potential to create a utopian world. What I believe many, including Robbins, have done is shut their eyes to this fact; they see the problems, but not the potential benefits. I would propose instead that we focus on what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of capitalism, but without removing it all together. Cellular processes I believe can greatly help in this endeavor. Change is a good thing; it leads to progress and innovation. Capitalism encourages both, and should therefore be preserved. Without capitalism and the industrial revolution we would still be living in the middle ages; without any of the goods, technology, or medicine that define our age. I do not understand how It is impossible to travel back in time, and any attempt to bring back these outdated and inefficient world orders would lead to stagnation and ultimately failure. As with natural selection, only the fittest survive. Those that do not change are

at an evolutionary disadvantage, and in the end will die out. We cannot move backward, only move forward. In this class we have observed the importance of identity to an individual and to a population. However, this distinctive sense of self comes with a whole plethora of values and cultural norms that must be adhered to. In this way a persons identity becomes so engrained that it dictates how one communicates and interacts with others, how one views the world, and what one considers to be of utmost importance. It is understandable then, how the convergence of two opposing or different ideologies has provided the spark for much of the world conflict throughout history. In the past, ones identity was typically determined by where they were born. It was difficult to travel, and therefore most did not move far away from where they were raised. This meant that the same values and culture were passed on from generation to generation, without very much change. In this way a very firm sense of us and them arose, in which those who did not share the same values were seen as evil and a threat; giving rise to the idea of the nation-state. Identity became firmly confined within the boundaries of the nationstate. As such, when conflict did erupt it often resulted in a war not between random groups of people, but between clearly defined nationstates. In recent years however, the world has become much more interconnected as a result of rapidly growing technology and globalization. The barriers that once restrained efficient travel and communication have been torn down. We live now in a world where information flows freely regardless of national borders. People, capital, and ideas are able to travel around the globe with a speed that would have been unimaginable no more than 200 years ago. This has led to the emergence of multinational corporations, international trade unions, and world regulatory organizations; however, far more importantly, it has created a world in which culture is no longer necessarily tied to geography. This rise of global capitalism has changed the world in ways beyond counting, but just as importantly, it has done so incredibly quickly. The nation-state has attempted to respond by expanding upon, as Appadurai refers to it in Fear of Small Numbers, its vertebrate structure. He suggests that this can be seen, ...by the large and growing body of protocols, institutions, treaties, and agreements that seek to ensure that all nations operate on symmetrical principles in relation to their conduct with one another, whatever their hierarchies in power or wealth. (25) They have attempted to structure and control this new

world in the same way they always have, through rigid, unyielding laws and regulations except on an international level. The nation-states response is understandable when you consider the fact that its right power is based upon the legislation it created. It is only natural that it should work to maintain control over its people, because if it does not, it will fade into nothing but a distant memory. The problem with this method of strict legislative adherence is that the world we now live in is no longer constrained by national boundaries. Capitalism, and the way of life that comes with it, has pervaded every country in the world. In the age of the Internet, someone in the United States can find and communicate with someone in India who has similar views. Identity is no longer completely tied to the place one is raised. Someone born in Croatia can be raised in America, and this melding of cultures creates a new identity, a hybrid of both. Traditions, values, ways of living, they are all subject to rapid and drastic change in this newly globalized world. This emergence of global connectivity and change has led to what Appadurai calls, cellular organizations, describing them as, Connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in their central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects... (28) We can see that the evolution of modern capitalism into a global capitalistic system has split, to form a dichotomy of both vertebrate and cellular elements. These disjunctive components of our world today have been the source of much tension, and it is this tension that has led to many modern day conflicts. As capitalism spreads around the globe, it carries with it a certain way of life. It has become so strong that to resist means isolation. There are many people who do not want to convert to the ways of capitalism, and wish to retain their traditional identities. So nations are forced to play a strange game in which they appeal to their people by emphasizing their national sovereignty and independence, but at the same time must enter the global market in order to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. However, by doing so they create unrest and anger within their citizens, some of which take advantage of the autonomy provided by cellular organization. This in and of itself has created a new problem for nation-states. No longer is a threat represented by another nationstate, but by an undefined group of people in all areas of the world, possibly even within the nation-state itself. So we see that even conflicts have now evolved into a cellular process. The process of globalization and the expansion of capitalism have resulted in a number of unfortunate externalities. There is no doubt that the growth and movement of industry around the world has

severely damaged the environment and many groups of people, as well as physically separating members of specific cultures. Those who resist this way of life are not without reason, despite their sometimes violent actions. In his last chapter, Robbins makes suggestions as to how these externalities could be reversed by rebuilding natural, political, and social capital. While making his recommendations, Robbins political beliefs and biases become blatantly obvious. In my opinion he presents too hard a view of globalization and the rise of global capitalism. I do not mean to suggest that the culture of capitalism is without any fault; simply that it has also had a great deal of positive effects on the world as well. Because of globalization my generation and those that follow have a new and completely unique view of the world. I do not see the world in rigid terms of nationality and belief. To me, the connections between people around the world, the ability to rapidly share ideas and information, and the perpetual expansion of the global economy is a good thing. I can see among my peers a growing sense of respect, if not understanding, of those with different beliefs. I think the evolution of cellular organizations represent an amazing change in the way our world functions. These networks can be used for so many beneficial purposes, although as we have seen they can be used for the opposite as well. It is for this reason that I must disagree with the suggestions put forth by Robbins. What he describes sounds to me like a movement back in time to strictly vertebrate, isolationist nations; resistant to any form of change. I agree with him in that there are many problems facing our world and that if something is not done soon there will be disastrous consequences; however, one must look at the whole picture. Capitalism, despite its current faults, has the potential to create a utopian world. What I believe many, including Robbins, have done is shut their eyes to this fact; they see the problems, but not the potential benefits. I would propose instead that we focus on what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of capitalism, but without removing it all together. Cellular processes I believe can greatly help in this endeavor. Change is a good thing; it leads to progress and innovation. Capitalism encourages both, and should therefore be preserved. Without capitalism and the industrial revolution we would still be living in the middle ages; without any of the goods, technology, or medicine that define our age. I do not understand how It is impossible to travel back in time, and any attempt to bring back these outdated and inefficient world orders would lead to stagnation and ultimately failure. As with natural selection, only the fittest survive. Those that do not change are

at an evolutionary disadvantage, and in the end will die out. We cannot move backward, only move forward. In this class we have observed the importance of identity to an individual and to a population. However, this distinctive sense of self comes with a whole plethora of values and cultural norms that must be adhered to. In this way a persons identity becomes so engrained that it dictates how one communicates and interacts with others, how one views the world, and what one considers to be of utmost importance. It is understandable then, how the convergence of two opposing or different ideologies has provided the spark for much of the world conflict throughout history. In the past, ones identity was typically determined by where they were born. It was difficult to travel, and therefore most did not move far away from where they were raised. This meant that the same values and culture were passed on from generation to generation, without very much change. In this way a very firm sense of us and them arose, in which those who did not share the same values were seen as evil and a threat; giving rise to the idea of the nation-state. Identity became firmly confined within the boundaries of the nationstate. As such, when conflict did erupt it often resulted in a war not between random groups of people, but between clearly defined nationstates. In recent years however, the world has become much more interconnected as a result of rapidly growing technology and globalization. The barriers that once restrained efficient travel and communication have been torn down. We live now in a world where information flows freely regardless of national borders. People, capital, and ideas are able to travel around the globe with a speed that would have been unimaginable no more than 200 years ago. This has led to the emergence of multinational corporations, international trade unions, and world regulatory organizations; however, far more importantly, it has created a world in which culture is no longer necessarily tied to geography. This rise of global capitalism has changed the world in ways beyond counting, but just as importantly, it has done so incredibly quickly. The nation-state has attempted to respond by expanding upon, as Appadurai refers to it in Fear of Small Numbers, its vertebrate structure. He suggests that this can be seen, ...by the large and growing body of protocols, institutions, treaties, and agreements that seek to ensure that all nations operate on symmetrical principles in relation to their conduct with one another, whatever their hierarchies in power or wealth. (25) They have attempted to structure and control this new

world in the same way they always have, through rigid, unyielding laws and regulations except on an international level. The nation-states response is understandable when you consider the fact that its right power is based upon the legislation it created. It is only natural that it should work to maintain control over its people, because if it does not, it will fade into nothing but a distant memory. The problem with this method of strict legislative adherence is that the world we now live in is no longer constrained by national boundaries. Capitalism, and the way of life that comes with it, has pervaded every country in the world. In the age of the Internet, someone in the United States can find and communicate with someone in India who has similar views. Identity is no longer completely tied to the place one is raised. Someone born in Croatia can be raised in America, and this melding of cultures creates a new identity, a hybrid of both. Traditions, values, ways of living, they are all subject to rapid and drastic change in this newly globalized world. This emergence of global connectivity and change has led to what Appadurai calls, cellular organizations, describing them as, Connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in their central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects... (28) We can see that the evolution of modern capitalism into a global capitalistic system has split, to form a dichotomy of both vertebrate and cellular elements. These disjunctive components of our world today have been the source of much tension, and it is this tension that has led to many modern day conflicts. As capitalism spreads around the globe, it carries with it a certain way of life. It has become so strong that to resist means isolation. There are many people who do not want to convert to the ways of capitalism, and wish to retain their traditional identities. So nations are forced to play a strange game in which they appeal to their people by emphasizing their national sovereignty and independence, but at the same time must enter the global market in order to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. However, by doing so they create unrest and anger within their citizens, some of which take advantage of the autonomy provided by cellular organization. This in and of itself has created a new problem for nation-states. No longer is a threat represented by another nationstate, but by an undefined group of people in all areas of the world, possibly even within the nation-state itself. So we see that even conflicts have now evolved into a cellular process. The process of globalization and the expansion of capitalism have resulted in a number of unfortunate externalities. There is no doubt that the growth and movement of industry around the world has

severely damaged the environment and many groups of people, as well as physically separating members of specific cultures. Those who resist this way of life are not without reason, despite their sometimes violent actions. In his last chapter, Robbins makes suggestions as to how these externalities could be reversed by rebuilding natural, political, and social capital. While making his recommendations, Robbins political beliefs and biases become blatantly obvious. In my opinion he presents too hard a view of globalization and the rise of global capitalism. I do not mean to suggest that the culture of capitalism is without any fault; simply that it has also had a great deal of positive effects on the world as well. Because of globalization my generation and those that follow have a new and completely unique view of the world. I do not see the world in rigid terms of nationality and belief. To me, the connections between people around the world, the ability to rapidly share ideas and information, and the perpetual expansion of the global economy is a good thing. I can see among my peers a growing sense of respect, if not understanding, of those with different beliefs. I think the evolution of cellular organizations represent an amazing change in the way our world functions. These networks can be used for so many beneficial purposes, although as we have seen they can be used for the opposite as well. It is for this reason that I must disagree with the suggestions put forth by Robbins. What he describes sounds to me like a movement back in time to strictly vertebrate, isolationist nations; resistant to any form of change. I agree with him in that there are many problems facing our world and that if something is not done soon there will be disastrous consequences; however, one must look at the whole picture. Capitalism, despite its current faults, has the potential to create a utopian world. What I believe many, including Robbins, have done is shut their eyes to this fact; they see the problems, but not the potential benefits. I would propose instead that we focus on what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of capitalism, but without removing it all together. Cellular processes I believe can greatly help in this endeavor. Change is a good thing; it leads to progress and innovation. Capitalism encourages both, and should therefore be preserved. Without capitalism and the industrial revolution we would still be living in the middle ages; without any of the goods, technology, or medicine that define our age. I do not understand how It is impossible to travel back in time, and any attempt to bring back these outdated and inefficient world orders would lead to stagnation and ultimately failure. As with natural selection, only the fittest survive. Those that do not change are

at an evolutionary disadvantage, and in the end will die out. We cannot move backward, only move forward. In this class we have observed the importance of identity to an individual and to a population. However, this distinctive sense of self comes with a whole plethora of values and cultural norms that must be adhered to. In this way a persons identity becomes so engrained that it dictates how one communicates and interacts with others, how one views the world, and what one considers to be of utmost importance. It is understandable then, how the convergence of two opposing or different ideologies has provided the spark for much of the world conflict throughout history. In the past, ones identity was typically determined by where they were born. It was difficult to travel, and therefore most did not move far away from where they were raised. This meant that the same values and culture were passed on from generation to generation, without very much change. In this way a very firm sense of us and them arose, in which those who did not share the same values were seen as evil and a threat; giving rise to the idea of the nation-state. Identity became firmly confined within the boundaries of the nationstate. As such, when conflict did erupt it often resulted in a war not between random groups of people, but between clearly defined nationstates. In recent years however, the world has become much more interconnected as a result of rapidly growing technology and globalization. The barriers that once restrained efficient travel and communication have been torn down. We live now in a world where information flows freely regardless of national borders. People, capital, and ideas are able to travel around the globe with a speed that would have been unimaginable no more than 200 years ago. This has led to the emergence of multinational corporations, international trade unions, and world regulatory organizations; however, far more importantly, it has created a world in which culture is no longer necessarily tied to geography. This rise of global capitalism has changed the world in ways beyond counting, but just as importantly, it has done so incredibly quickly. The nation-state has attempted to respond by expanding upon, as Appadurai refers to it in Fear of Small Numbers, its vertebrate structure. He suggests that this can be seen, ...by the large and growing body of protocols, institutions, treaties, and agreements that seek to ensure that all nations operate on symmetrical principles in relation to their conduct with one another, whatever their hierarchies in power or wealth. (25) They have attempted to structure and control this new

world in the same way they always have, through rigid, unyielding laws and regulations except on an international level. The nation-states response is understandable when you consider the fact that its right power is based upon the legislation it created. It is only natural that it should work to maintain control over its people, because if it does not, it will fade into nothing but a distant memory. The problem with this method of strict legislative adherence is that the world we now live in is no longer constrained by national boundaries. Capitalism, and the way of life that comes with it, has pervaded every country in the world. In the age of the Internet, someone in the United States can find and communicate with someone in India who has similar views. Identity is no longer completely tied to the place one is raised. Someone born in Croatia can be raised in America, and this melding of cultures creates a new identity, a hybrid of both. Traditions, values, ways of living, they are all subject to rapid and drastic change in this newly globalized world. This emergence of global connectivity and change has led to what Appadurai calls, cellular organizations, describing them as, Connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in their central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects... (28) We can see that the evolution of modern capitalism into a global capitalistic system has split, to form a dichotomy of both vertebrate and cellular elements. These disjunctive components of our world today have been the source of much tension, and it is this tension that has led to many modern day conflicts. As capitalism spreads around the globe, it carries with it a certain way of life. It has become so strong that to resist means isolation. There are many people who do not want to convert to the ways of capitalism, and wish to retain their traditional identities. So nations are forced to play a strange game in which they appeal to their people by emphasizing their national sovereignty and independence, but at the same time must enter the global market in order to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. However, by doing so they create unrest and anger within their citizens, some of which take advantage of the autonomy provided by cellular organization. This in and of itself has created a new problem for nation-states. No longer is a threat represented by another nationstate, but by an undefined group of people in all areas of the world, possibly even within the nation-state itself. So we see that even conflicts have now evolved into a cellular process. The process of globalization and the expansion of capitalism have resulted in a number of unfortunate externalities. There is no doubt that the growth and movement of industry around the world has

severely damaged the environment and many groups of people, as well as physically separating members of specific cultures. Those who resist this way of life are not without reason, despite their sometimes violent actions. In his last chapter, Robbins makes suggestions as to how these externalities could be reversed by rebuilding natural, political, and social capital. While making his recommendations, Robbins political beliefs and biases become blatantly obvious. In my opinion he presents too hard a view of globalization and the rise of global capitalism. I do not mean to suggest that the culture of capitalism is without any fault; simply that it has also had a great deal of positive effects on the world as well. Because of globalization my generation and those that follow have a new and completely unique view of the world. I do not see the world in rigid terms of nationality and belief. To me, the connections between people around the world, the ability to rapidly share ideas and information, and the perpetual expansion of the global economy is a good thing. I can see among my peers a growing sense of respect, if not understanding, of those with different beliefs. I think the evolution of cellular organizations represent an amazing change in the way our world functions. These networks can be used for so many beneficial purposes, although as we have seen they can be used for the opposite as well. It is for this reason that I must disagree with the suggestions put forth by Robbins. What he describes sounds to me like a movement back in time to strictly vertebrate, isolationist nations; resistant to any form of change. I agree with him in that there are many problems facing our world and that if something is not done soon there will be disastrous consequences; however, one must look at the whole picture. Capitalism, despite its current faults, has the potential to create a utopian world. What I believe many, including Robbins, have done is shut their eyes to this fact; they see the problems, but not the potential benefits. I would propose instead that we focus on what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of capitalism, but without removing it all together. Cellular processes I believe can greatly help in this endeavor. Change is a good thing; it leads to progress and innovation. Capitalism encourages both, and should therefore be preserved. Without capitalism and the industrial revolution we would still be living in the middle ages; without any of the goods, technology, or medicine that define our age. I do not understand how It is impossible to travel back in time, and any attempt to bring back these outdated and inefficient world orders would lead to stagnation and ultimately failure. As with natural selection, only the fittest survive. Those that do not change are

at an evolutionary disadvantage, and in the end will die out. We cannot move backward, only move forward. In this class we have observed the importance of identity to an individual and to a population. However, this distinctive sense of self comes with a whole plethora of values and cultural norms that must be adhered to. In this way a persons identity becomes so engrained that it dictates how one communicates and interacts with others, how one views the world, and what one considers to be of utmost importance. It is understandable then, how the convergence of two opposing or different ideologies has provided the spark for much of the world conflict throughout history. In the past, ones identity was typically determined by where they were born. It was difficult to travel, and therefore most did not move far away from where they were raised. This meant that the same values and culture were passed on from generation to generation, without very much change. In this way a very firm sense of us and them arose, in which those who did not share the same values were seen as evil and a threat; giving rise to the idea of the nation-state. Identity became firmly confined within the boundaries of the nationstate. As such, when conflict did erupt it often resulted in a war not between random groups of people, but between clearly defined nationstates. In recent years however, the world has become much more interconnected as a result of rapidly growing technology and globalization. The barriers that once restrained efficient travel and communication have been torn down. We live now in a world where information flows freely regardless of national borders. People, capital, and ideas are able to travel around the globe with a speed that would have been unimaginable no more than 200 years ago. This has led to the emergence of multinational corporations, international trade unions, and world regulatory organizations; however, far more importantly, it has created a world in which culture is no longer necessarily tied to geography. This rise of global capitalism has changed the world in ways beyond counting, but just as importantly, it has done so incredibly quickly. The nation-state has attempted to respond by expanding upon, as Appadurai refers to it in Fear of Small Numbers, its vertebrate structure. He suggests that this can be seen, ...by the large and growing body of protocols, institutions, treaties, and agreements that seek to ensure that all nations operate on symmetrical principles in relation to their conduct with one another, whatever their hierarchies in power or wealth. (25) They have attempted to structure and control this new

world in the same way they always have, through rigid, unyielding laws and regulations except on an international level. The nation-states response is understandable when you consider the fact that its right power is based upon the legislation it created. It is only natural that it should work to maintain control over its people, because if it does not, it will fade into nothing but a distant memory. The problem with this method of strict legislative adherence is that the world we now live in is no longer constrained by national boundaries. Capitalism, and the way of life that comes with it, has pervaded every country in the world. In the age of the Internet, someone in the United States can find and communicate with someone in India who has similar views. Identity is no longer completely tied to the place one is raised. Someone born in Croatia can be raised in America, and this melding of cultures creates a new identity, a hybrid of both. Traditions, values, ways of living, they are all subject to rapid and drastic change in this newly globalized world. This emergence of global connectivity and change has led to what Appadurai calls, cellular organizations, describing them as, Connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in their central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects... (28) We can see that the evolution of modern capitalism into a global capitalistic system has split, to form a dichotomy of both vertebrate and cellular elements. These disjunctive components of our world today have been the source of much tension, and it is this tension that has led to many modern day conflicts. As capitalism spreads around the globe, it carries with it a certain way of life. It has become so strong that to resist means isolation. There are many people who do not want to convert to the ways of capitalism, and wish to retain their traditional identities. So nations are forced to play a strange game in which they appeal to their people by emphasizing their national sovereignty and independence, but at the same time must enter the global market in order to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. However, by doing so they create unrest and anger within their citizens, some of which take advantage of the autonomy provided by cellular organization. This in and of itself has created a new problem for nation-states. No longer is a threat represented by another nationstate, but by an undefined group of people in all areas of the world, possibly even within the nation-state itself. So we see that even conflicts have now evolved into a cellular process. The process of globalization and the expansion of capitalism have resulted in a number of unfortunate externalities. There is no doubt that the growth and movement of industry around the world has

severely damaged the environment and many groups of people, as well as physically separating members of specific cultures. Those who resist this way of life are not without reason, despite their sometimes violent actions. In his last chapter, Robbins makes suggestions as to how these externalities could be reversed by rebuilding natural, political, and social capital. While making his recommendations, Robbins political beliefs and biases become blatantly obvious. In my opinion he presents too hard a view of globalization and the rise of global capitalism. I do not mean to suggest that the culture of capitalism is without any fault; simply that it has also had a great deal of positive effects on the world as well. Because of globalization my generation and those that follow have a new and completely unique view of the world. I do not see the world in rigid terms of nationality and belief. To me, the connections between people around the world, the ability to rapidly share ideas and information, and the perpetual expansion of the global economy is a good thing. I can see among my peers a growing sense of respect, if not understanding, of those with different beliefs. I think the evolution of cellular organizations represent an amazing change in the way our world functions. These networks can be used for so many beneficial purposes, although as we have seen they can be used for the opposite as well. It is for this reason that I must disagree with the suggestions put forth by Robbins. What he describes sounds to me like a movement back in time to strictly vertebrate, isolationist nations; resistant to any form of change. I agree with him in that there are many problems facing our world and that if something is not done soon there will be disastrous consequences; however, one must look at the whole picture. Capitalism, despite its current faults, has the potential to create a utopian world. What I believe many, including Robbins, have done is shut their eyes to this fact; they see the problems, but not the potential benefits. I would propose instead that we focus on what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of capitalism, but without removing it all together. Cellular processes I believe can greatly help in this endeavor. Change is a good thing; it leads to progress and innovation. Capitalism encourages both, and should therefore be preserved. Without capitalism and the industrial revolution we would still be living in the middle ages; without any of the goods, technology, or medicine that define our age. I do not understand how It is impossible to travel back in time, and any attempt to bring back these outdated and inefficient world orders would lead to stagnation and ultimately failure. As with natural selection, only the fittest survive. Those that do not change are

at an evolutionary disadvantage, and in the end will die out. We cannot move backward, only move forward.