In history there seem to be cycles, or, perhaps, pendular swings might be a better term. For quite a long time we have been in an era of 'globalisation' and it has rather seemed to be as an inevitable and unstoppable linear progress. Although there might be protests, it seemed that wider and wider free trade and internationalism was the future and would go on being so. However, there has been a considerable mismatch between two of the main components of economics - capital and labour. The third pillar of classical economics - land - is, of course immobile. In the era of globalisation, capital has been more mobile than labour and the resistance to mobility of people has actually grown. Despite improvements in transport technology, people are less international now then they were fifty years ago. Resistance to migration, travel restrictions, sectarian wars and ethnic cleansing have all in very different ways contributed to keeping supposedly different breeds of humans apart. When i was young one could , with a minimum of formalities, hitch-hike from London to Delhi and take in Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on the way. Now you have to queue for hours even to take the Dover crossing.
Now there appears to be a growing undertow even to the free trade and mobile capital aspect as well. Shadows of protectionism and hints of withdrawal from treaties, especially by several of the people participating in the current American election may well prove to be harbingers of a new trend. We have for some time been living in a kind of 'Pax Americana' that may be beginning to unravel. The resulting chaos is likely to be reflected in a pulling back, not just by America, but also by many other countries that start to be more concerned about security than opportunity. No doubt it will be a mixed picture with a minority taking more risks. Among the latter one would expect some disasters and some great successes that will shape the world of half a century hence. There are also likely to be paradoxes. Brexit, for instance, seems to have been substantially motivated by xenophobia and a desire to close the door to outside influence, but it may well have precipitated Britain into a position where it will have little choice but to takes exceptional risks internationally, form new alliances and open up to foreign influence even more than formerly. Britain is a mercantile country that can barely survive without some form of internationalism.
Although there are likely to be exceptions, it rather feels as if the pendulum is starting to swing back toward protectionism and nationalism - a world of more boundaries and less cosmopolitan life. I hope not.
Replies
Thank you, Massimo. Yes, it sounds as though a general change of 'climate' may be happening and that will mean approaching things in new ways.
yes, for sure, more boundaries and less cosmopolitan life. This will entail more stringencies in local relationships and bonds, less individual freedom, increased power of local (also at the micro and meso level) parties, cliques and mafias. All this goes hand in hand with the rise of inequalities and poverty due to the blockage of the global economic system, which was not at all the "best world where to live" but at least a fly-wheel of chances for employment, innovation, exchanges. Economic freedom can be dangerous for the weakest strata of society but allows some degree of freedom in more general terms for all. When boundaries regain importance the life conditions become worst for all, first of all for the weakest.
The appearances of dukkha-anicca-anatta are changing on this planet: a big challenge for our (Buddhist) mindsets...