Global local social changes

The title of this post seems to contain a contradiction: can be social changes local and global at the same time?

The modern phenomenon of Globalization is mostly supported by the world-wide extension of communication networks, allowing the distribution of any message almost instantly to large audiences. Advances in communication technologies have improved the usage of resources, the access to larger audiences and the availability of messages during longer periods. Increasingly powerful tools (printed books, radio, cinema, television, communication satellites and most recently Internet) play an important role in the change of social structures.
Despite many times the target of a message is restricted to a community (with limits based on geographical, temporal or cultural criteria), the globalization of the communication networks has broken the boundaries and local messages are frequently available for any person around the globe (TV programs of local channels are broadcasted through satellites, local newspapers can be read through Internet, etc.).

At first, we can just study this phenomenon to understand the effects on the behaviour of the people around the world.
For instance, the models seen in the media (TV programs, movies, ads) have a strong influence in the opinions and customs of the audiences, determining the products they buy and how they use it, the attitude towards other people and Nature, etc.

The understanding of the effects and the comprehension of the ways how media can be used to control the behaviour of people may be a scary idea for the most.
But it’s scarier to close the eyes and choose to avoid the issue hoping that nobody will make a bad usage of these means, and that a magic force will keep a balance between the opportunities and the risks.

It’s necessary to improve our knowledge of the globalization of communication media to be able to use it as a powerful tool to correct the many problems that they have contributed to extend and amplify.
Not only setting new rules and filters to minimize the bad effects (similar to the restrictions applied to the tobacco industry, aiming to stop the spread smoking) but also establishing long-term strategies aiming to achieve concrete results that can improve the social structures and the quality of life for every individual.

This idea gives a new meaning to the motto “Think global, act local”.
It's not only about the way how the actions of a person can make a difference on the natural environment.
It's also about how the distribution of ideas and models though globalized media can multiply the effect of individuals by the influence on other persons.

Evolution or revolution?

Not having analyzed or demonstrated (yet) the depth of the crisis of our civilization, we can assume that it’s real and serious and so we can guess what kind of solutions may be available.

Solutions to such complex problems cannot be decided following impulses without previous reflection, because the risks are great and the opportunities to correct errors can be small (at least with regard to global solutions).

Simplifying a lot, the possible solutions could be classified in a scale between two extremes:

- To maintain the “status quo”, patching with remedies for the most serious symptoms, hoping that the tendency reverts and gradually the balance will be restored.

- To abandon the current system and doing “tabula rasa” to concentrate all the resources and efforts in the development of a new civilization following a new model.

According to the values and experiences of each person, we may feel tempted to choose between two extremes, or find a new solution combining both tendencies.

Given to the complexity of the problem and the long time scope required by the solutions, it’s normal that many people may not perceive it (or deny its acknowledgement) and consequently do not feel any necessity to choose.

Personally, my option is to solve the dilemma aiming to find the most constructive solution.

To maintain a critical situation just putting patches palliating only the most serious symptoms will not solve the root problems, and the cost to maintain a tendency that consumes resources and causes more sufferings is too high.

But to throw away everything suddenly, dismantling the fabric of society at once (even if it’s very damaged), putting all the attention to the creation of a new world means not only a short term suffering for those who depends more on the old system but that also implies the risk to throw away the good things together with the bad ones.

For that reason, I believe that the best solution is to begin the construction of a new social model before dismantling the old one, and to plan a gradual transition minimizing the risks to maintain the factors that created the problem while maximizing the preservation of the most valuable resources accumulated along a long history of social evolution (mostly the accumulated knowledge).