“辩论赛：我方是中国电影制作方。我们反对Globalization（全球化）因为我们很难与好莱坞的大片竞争。”

关于全球化问题(原因、表现、后果）~

1.全球化是20世纪80年代以来在世界范围日益凸现的新现象，是当今时代的基本特征。
全球化还没有统一的定义，一般讲，从物质形态看，全球化是指货物与资本的越境流动，经历了跨国化、局部的国际化以及全球化这几个发展阶段。货物与资本的跨国流动是全球化的最初形态。在此过程中，出现了相应的地区性、国际性的经济管理组织与经济实体，以及文化、生活方式、价值观念、意识形态等精神力量的跨国交流、碰撞、冲突与融合。
总的来看，全球化是一个以经济全球化为核心、包含各国各民族各地区在政治、文化、科技、军事、安全、意识形态、生活方式、价值观念等多层次、多领域的相互联系、影响、制约的多元概念。“全球化”可概括为科技、经济、政治、法治、管理、组织、文化、思想观念、人际交往、国际关系十个方面的全球化。

2.全球化（globalization）是个具有煽动性的词。拥护者憧憬它会给整个世界带来空前的进步和繁荣；批评者断言它会给发展中国家带来贫困、战争甚至文化灭绝。什么是全球化？我们真的在经历空前的全球化？以往的全球化给我们带来过什么？

什么是全球化？

全球化是个进程，指的是物质和精神产品的流动冲破区域和国界的束缚，影响到地球上每个角落的生活。全球化还包括人员的跨国界流动。人的流动是物质和精神流动最高程度的综合。

科技进步是一切社会变迁的原动力，交通和通讯技术的进步是全球化的依托。交通的进步促进人员和物质产品的全球化，通讯的进步促进精神产品的全球化。当然，两类技术的作用经常分不开。互联网能调动资本，轮船也能传播精神。

抛开技术进步因素，全球化是资本的全球化，亦是关于资本之“主义”的全球化，即利润至上观的全球化——马克思在150年前就讨论了全球化的这个本质。除了战争时期，资本在全球范围里疯狂地追逐利润，每天24小时，从不疲倦。所以，到目前为止的全球化体现为市场经济体系在全世界的扩张。其他一切方面的全球化，包括国际化的共产主义运动，都从资本全球化衍生而来。若世界市场的扩张是必然的，全球化也是必然的。既然全球化影响到地球上每个角落的生活，人们当然希望拥有自己鲜明的立场。全球化问题的复杂性在于不同的事情在不同的空间和不同的时间里能产生不同的结果。这四类变量无限多。既然人们无法预知所有的变量，只好依赖意识形态决定自己的立场。

对众多的支持者而言，全球化是一种基于世界大同理想的意识形态。支持全球化就是尊重“市场规律”，顺应历史潮流。对众多的反对者而言，反全球化是一种基于平等世界理想的意识形态。反全球化就是反对扩大贫富差距，反对霸权。意识形态倾向是人类的天性，也是人类进步的重要动力。然而，笔者在这里不想谈论意识形态，只想就事论事。

我们正在经历空前的全球化？

“日不落”帝国时代的全球化比美利坚时代逊色吗？如果麦当劳、肯德基能体现全球化，中餐馆可是在上上个世纪就在世界各地登陆了，如今其普及程度远非美国快餐能比。我怀疑，今天的全球化被迅速膨胀的“新闻界”给夸张了。

眼下的全球化主要是通讯技术的飞速进步引起的，交通技术并没有飞跃的进步。自19世纪后半期到20世纪初，以轮船、铁路、汽车和飞机为代表的交通技术出现了质的飞跃，人员和物资的国际交流呈几何级数增长。那个时候移民是容易的，入境管理并不严格，护照也可有可无。美洲就是在那个时代开始住满移民，中国人就是从那时开始改穿西式服装，改用西式笔墨，扛洋枪、住洋房、用洋火、使洋钉，以及下南洋、闯西洋、赴东洋。

即便是资本流动，旧时代恐怕也未必差得远。100年前就有很多中国人在外国人开办的银行里存钱、取钱、借钱。那时的货币可以自由兑换。资本输出被列宁看成传统帝国主义的主要特征之一。据说，今天的全球化体现为惊人规模的“金融资本”流动。每天全世界有1万多亿美元在世界金融市场上进行赌博投机，每年全球“热钱”高达400万亿美元。可那又能说明什么呢？当今的国际贸易量才8万亿美元。国际金融赌博能影响地球每个角落的生活？资本是经济的三要素之一，其根本意义在于促进劳动力和生产资料结合的效率。可是，用于国际赌博的“资本”促进多少效率呢？全球化的脊梁是工业和商业资本，不是“赌博资本”。

电力的使用，广播的兴起，电话的出现，新闻出版的普及，乃至后来的电视时代，上述任何一种通讯技术的进步，其意义未必低于互联网。因此，过去精神产品的全球化程度不亚于今天，精神产品的多元化也不亚于今天。否则，民主思想、共产党人的思想乃至形形色色的其他意识形态怎样传遍19和20世纪的世界？除了巨额的“金融资本”，据说今天的全球化还体现为互联网的兴旺普及。互联网使得信息传输变得快捷和方便。但拥有信息与拥有知识显然不是一回事，信息量的增大未必增加观念的多元化。今日美国人的观念并不比越战时更多元，也不比印度更多元。中国知识界今日的观念甚至不一定比2300年前的战国时代多元。比起今天的大学，上个世纪20年代的北大在思想上难道不是多元化得多？中国人现在的观念当然比20年前多元化了，但那并不是互联网的结果。

两次世界大战加上冷战，绵延80年，切断了世界的全球化进程，使冷战后开始恢复的国际交流显得突然和新颖。笔者不是历史学家，但倘若某个历史学家告诉我，在上上个世纪和上个世纪早年，人员、物资、资本和精神的国际交流程度高于今天，我不会感到惊奇。

当然，我并没有说未来的全球化不会超过以往的全球化。

全球化带来什么？

无论我们是否处在一个空前的全球化过程里，以往的经验都具有启发性。全球化的历史经验可以分成四大类：道义问题；收益问题；趋同与逐异问题；国际主义与民族主义问题。而以下四个全球化特征正对应着这四个问题。

1．缺少法治道义的全球化。任何国家内部的市场化都是随着法治环境的逐渐成熟而成熟的。国际的市场化却不是在法治环境下进行的，也就不可能“成熟”。只要缺少世界政府，所谓国际市场的法治化是根本不可能的。当立法、司法和执法都归于一家，只有理想主义者才去奢望公平，也只有那些最有能力从不公平中获利的国家才去奢谈国际秩序有多公平。如果没有全球的法治政府，所谓“全球治理”（global governance）就不可能是体现国际公义的治理。

2．无法预知国家损益的全球化。抽象谈论在全球化中获益或受损的条件非常困难。强国、弱国、大国、小国都可能获益，也都可能吃亏。传统的中国是被全球化击败的，却也是从全球化里高速崛起的。大英帝国是从全球化中崛起的，也是在全球化中衰落的。眼下的美国，虽然一直是全球化最大的获益国，却呈现冷淡全球化的倾向，因为美国开始感受到代价。

3．刺激追求差异的全球化。全球化导致的“趋同”是浅薄的，全球化导致的“逐异”却是深刻的。追逐不同是全球化时代最深刻的特征。全球化的资本毫无人性可言，它带来激烈的社会变迁，刺激形形色色意识形态的兴起，也必然伴随激烈的社会集团、意识形态乃至民族国家之间的冲突。以往的全球化带来了繁荣和进步，也带来了大革命，带来了国内战争，带来了“世界大战”。

4．促进民族主义和国家疆界的全球化。毫无疑问，近代以来形形色色的国际主义都产生于全球化。可是，全球化带来了更强大的民族主义，带来了护照和海关，带来了人员交往的阻隔，带来了“神圣不可侵犯的”国家疆界，带来了更先进的武器和更强大的国防。在以往的全球化里，获胜的不是国际主义，而是国家主义，特别是民族主义。在今天，我们看到了“欧洲合众国”主义的兴起，欧洲货币的使用，欧洲边界的巩固，欧洲海关的确立，欧洲防卫的统一。是什么刺激出这种新“西欧民族主义”？美国、日本、西欧……哪一个还在谈论国际主义？当人们已经把保卫疆界安全的战场延伸到外太空，谁还能说全球化消灭国家疆界呢？曾几何时，为普世欢乐而设立的奥林匹克和世界杯居然成了民族的角斗场，国家之间的竞争，甚至成了在民族国家内部进行竞争的资本。

结 语

为了“经济效益”，人们从辽阔分散、自给自足的乡村走入了城市。他们密密麻麻地住在一起，近在咫尺，相互依赖，但只有依靠斤斤计较、彼此竞争、相互倾轧才能生存。城里的人们看上去没什么不一样，可每个人都从骨子里在追求与众不同。惟有不同才能在生存竞争里脱颖而出。残酷的市场竞争使越来越多的“村民”逐渐变成缺少道德感、失去了正义观的人，他们崇拜资本所带来的一切“文明”，或者根本就是崇拜资本本身。人们很自然便忘记阿富汗贫民的生命与世贸大厦里的生命是平等的。他们会为纽约2000多条“文明的”生命燃起祭奠的蜡烛，但绝想不到为阿富汗那4000多个“野蛮的”殉葬者焚一炷香。人类可以公然声称自私自利和弱肉强食是其本性，并能导致“最大多数人的最大幸福”。如此的人类，只好用钢铁制造的防盗门来取代分隔家庭的篱笆，用武装到牙齿的警察来取代调解邻里纠纷的长老。当贫穷辽阔的地球村变成了繁荣细小的地球城，各自的“国家利益”理所当然地成为国际关系的最高准则，武力也自然成为安全和秩序的前提

当国际化开始倾向于代指这样一个过程时???，今天的全球化用来区别一系列的趋势，很多是在二战后变得尤为突出。它们包括：

全球范围内的通用标准的数目的增长，例如：版权法

国际贸易以比世界经济增长速度更快的速度增长

由跨国公司控制的世界经济的股份的增长

全球金融体系的发展

更多的国际间的文化影响，例如通过好莱坞电影的出口

文化多样性的减少

国际旅游业的发展

通过诸如互联网和电话等的技术使得共享的信息资源不断增长

移民的增长，包括非法移民

很多的趋势被各种各样的全球化支持者的组织看作是积极的，在很多情况下，全球化受到政府和其它人积极地推动。例如，有这个样一种经济理论：相对优势使得自由贸易可以使得资源分配变得更加有效，并且对参与贸易的双方都有利。

二战后通过很多诸如关贸总协定等的国际组织已经使得国际贸易间的障碍得到相当大的降低。特别是从关贸总协定演化而来的世界贸易组织：

提升自由贸易

商品：较少或消除关税；建立自由贸易区来降低关税

资金：减少或消除资金控制(资金控制会影响贸易发展)

减少、消除对当地产业的津贴补助金(达到公平贸易)

知识产权保护

在国家间对知识产权法律进行协调（通常来说，是添加更多限制）

跨国界承认知识产权限制（例如，在中国获得的专利权可以在美国获得承认）

也有很多反全球化运动认识认为这些是有害的。

质疑中的全球化

对关于全球化是一个现实存在的现象还是只是一个说法还存在学术上的讨论。虽然这个词已经被广泛使用，但是一些学者争论到这个现象在其它的历史时期就已经出现了。另外，很多人注意到，那些令人相信我们是处在全球化进程中的现象，例如国际贸易的增长和跨国公司扮演越来越重要的角色，在它们开始被建立的时候并不是制定了的。因此有很多学者更喜欢使用“国际化”而不是“全球化”。简单的说，它们两者的区别在于国家的角色在国际化中更重要。也就是说，全球化程度比国际化要深。所以，这些学者认为国家的边界还远没有达到要消失的地步，因此，完全的全球化还没有开始，也可能不会开始——从历史上考虑，国际化从来没有变成全球。


世界正在变的越来越平
[编辑本段]
全球化曾是我们用来描述政府政府和大企业关系变化的词汇，但现在我们看到的是意义更广阔也更为深远的现象。
全球化并不仅仅是政府，企业和个人相互交流的方式，也不仅仅是机构间相互影响的方式，它意味着新的社会，政治和商业模式的出现！

社会学中的全球化
“全球化”是当今国际学术界最为热门的课题之一。90年代以来，随着全球化进程的加快，人们对全球化的理论认识也在不断深化，不同学者纷纷从政治学、经济学、历史学、文化学、社会学等不同学科角度来考察与研究全球化问题，并不断加强了不同学科之间的联系与合作。社会学对全球化的理论研究始于20世纪中后期，六、七十年代主要有P·索罗金的全球趋同论、R·阿隆的国际社会论、D·贝尔的后工业社会论、I·沃勒斯坦的世界体系论，七、八十年代又出现了A·托夫勒的超工业社会论、J·奈斯比特的大趋势论，九十年代除了沃勒斯坦的世界体系论有了新的发展外，又形成了更具有全球化研究针对性的A·吉登斯的制度转变论、R·罗伯逊的文化系统论和L·斯克莱尔的全球体系论等。社会学研究的综合性特征使其对全球化这样一个复杂性问题的探讨具有较强的优势。
吉登斯的制度转变论
英国社会学家安东尼·吉登斯(Anthony Giddens)是从制度转变的角度来阐述和深化全球化理论的，其主要贡献是他把全球化与现代化紧密地连在一起，并认为全球化是现代性的最明显的结果之一，是世界范围社会关系的紧密化。

在吉登斯看来，全球化是现代性从社会向世界的扩展，是现代性的基本制度特征向全球范围转变的必然结果。而现代性的基本制度特征是由四个不同层面所构成的，即资本主义(capitalism)、工业主义(industrialism)、军备力量(military power)和社会监督(social surveillance)，这四个现代性的制度特征向全球范围转变的结果便形成了全球化的四种维度，即全球资本主义经济(world capitalism economy)、国际劳动分工(international division of labour)、全球军事秩序(world military order)、民族国家体系(nation-state system)。时至今日，西方资本主义国家已成为世界经济体系的主要权力中心。全球化趋势，并不是“西方制度在全世界的慢延和其他文化的消亡”，而是一个复杂的、非连续的和偶然的过程，这个过程是由一系列不同的而又相互交错的逻辑推动的，是一个不均衡的发展过程。因此，我们必须面对一个事实：现代性与全球化的发展及其带来的代价，造就了一个不是“现在”(now)，而是一个“从现在开始就会存在”(from now on)的危机性问题。例如，各种制度性转变的全球性导向如果无限地急剧化，就会相应地构成经济增长机制的崩溃(collapse of economic growth mechanism)、极权主义提升(growth of totalitarian power)、核冲突或大规模战争的爆发(nuclear conflict or large-scale warfare)及环境大灾难的发生(ecological decay or disaster)等危机。但是，吉登斯认为全球化的这种可能性危机是可以而且只有被积极参与的社会运动所克服和抵消，相反，如果没有此类社会运动的抗衡，未来社会便难逃于恶性的发展，更不会出现制度性转变的理想结果。

罗伯逊的文化系统论
美国匹兹堡大学社会学教授罗兰·罗迫逊(Roland Robertson)是社会学中从文化的视角来理解和关注全球化问题的代表性学者之一，他从1960年代初期就开始涉及全球化问题的探讨，在以后30多年的时间中，他又通过对经典社会学研究方法的检讨与重建逐步确立起了自己对于全球化研究的理论框架。尤其是1980年代以后，罗伯逊与其他一些学者一起，从社会学角度共同对全球化问题进行了全面而深入的探讨，在学术界产生了广泛而深远的影响。

基于自己的分析框架和全球化模型，罗伯逊把全球化的基本历程从15世纪初叶到20世纪90年代分别划分为萌芽阶段、起始阶段、起飞阶段、争霸阶段和不确定阶段。并简要地勾勒出了近六百年来全球化过程的基本特点和目前状况，罗伯逊不同意像吉登斯和沃勒斯坦那样抽象化、简单化地解释全球化现象，他强调，全球化进程是在相对独立于严格意义上的社会进程状态下进行的，它有其自己的自主性和逻辑性，它的发展将随着进程的加速而变得越来越复杂化，因此，全球化问题不仅是一个跨学科研究的对象，而且也更应该是一个跨文化研究的对象，当前社会学理论的主要任务就是要以多维的方式，并超越“世界政治”或“世界经济”的单一模式来说明全球化的转迹及其动因。

The processes that we now think of as “globalization” were central
to the environmental cause well before the term “globalization”
came into its current usage. Global environmental concerns were
born out of the recognition that ecological processes do not always
respect national boundaries and that environmental problems often
have impacts beyond borders; sometimes globally. Connected to
this was the notion that the ability of humans to act and think at a
global scale also brings with it a new dimension of global responsibility—
not only to planetary resources but also to planetary fairness.
These ideas were central to the defining discourse of contemporary
environmentalism in the 1960s and 1970s1 and to the
concept of sustainable development that took root in the 1980s and
1990s.2
The current debate on globalization has become de-linked from its
environmental roots and contexts. These links between environment
and globalization need to be re-examined and recognized. To
ignore these links is to misunderstand the full extent and nature of
globalization and to miss out on critical opportunities to address
some of the most pressing environmental challenges faced by
humanity. The purpose of this paper is to explore these linkages in
the context of the current discourse.
For its February 2007 meetings, the Global Ministerial
Environment Forum (GMEF) of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) has selected environment and globalization as
one of its areas of focus. This paper has been prepared as an independent
input to that process. The thrust of the paper, therefore, is
on policy-relevant debates and its principal audience is environmental
leaders assembling in Nairobi, Kenya, for the GMEF meetings.
However, the paper aspires also to be relevant to audiences and
debates beyond this meeting. We hope that the paper will inspire
discussions—even if they are critical of our analysis—on the nature
and importance of the links between environment and globalization.
It is hoped that the discussions that will begin in Nairobi willnot end there—that these conversations will not only be carried
back to national capitals, but will also be carried forward by leaders
of government, international organizations, civil society and business.
We hope that this paper will contribute to a more vigorous
conversation on environment and globalization at Nairobi, and
beyond.
This paper has been produced independently by the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) with financial support
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of
Denmark. The process was led by David Runnalls (IISD’s President
and Chief Executive Officer) and Mark Halle (IISD’s Director of
Trade and Investment and European Representative). The principal
author is Prof. Adil Najam (IISD Associate and Associate Professor
at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University),
who was assisted in the research by Mihaela Papa and Lauren K.
Inouye.3
The paper has benefited tremendously from the insights and ideas
of an ad hoc advisory group that met twice in Geneva (October
2006 and January 2007). These meetings were attended by the
authors and researchers as well as by Hussein Abaza (Egypt), Tariq
Banuri (Pakistan), Susan Brown (Australia), Tom Burke (United
Kingdom), Kim Carstensen (Denmark), Marion Cheatle (United
Kingdom), Dharam Ghai (Kenya), Jean-Pierre Lehmann (France),
Kilaparti Ramakrishna (India/United States), Phillipe Roch
(Switzerland), Laurence Tubiana (France) and Dominic Waughray
(United Kingdom), all of whom inspired and shaped the ideas contained
here in countless ways. In addition, this paper has also benefited
from the advice and encouragement of Achim Steiner,
Executive Director of UNEP.We are also grateful to Aaron Cosbey
of IISD for providing very useful comments on the final draft.We
are especially grateful to Mihaela Papa and Lauren K. Inouye of the
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, for their
invaluable research assistance, and for their substantive and significant
contributions to the ideas contained here. The paper remains
a totally independent publication, and the views expressed here do
not necessarily represent the official position of either the
Government of Denmark or of UNEP.

Environment and
Globalization: Understanding
the Linkages
Although the contemporary debate on globalization has been contentious,
it has not always been useful. No one doubts that some
very significant global processes—economic, social, cultural, political
and environmental—are underway and that they affect (nearly)
everyone and (nearly) everything. Yet, there is no agreement on
exactly how to define this thing we call “globalization,” nor on
exactly which parts of it are good or bad, and for whom. For the
most part, a polarized view of globalization, its potential and its
pitfalls has taken hold of the public imagination. It has often been
projected either as a panacea for all the ills of the world or as their
primary cause. The discussion on the links between environment
and globalization has been similarly stuck in a quagmire of many
unjustified expectations and fears about the connections between
these two domains.
Box 1. Defining globalization.
What is Globalization?
There are nearly as many definitions of globalization as
authors who write on the subject. One review, by Scholte, provides
a classification of at least five broad sets of definitions:4
Globalization as internationalization. The “global” in globalization
is viewed “as simply another adjective to describe
cross-border relations between countries.” It describes the
growth in international exchange and interdependence.
Globalization as liberalization. Removing governmentimposed
restrictions on movements between countries.
Globalization as universalization. Process of spreading ideas
and experiences to people at all corners of the earth so thataspirations and experiences around the world become harmonized.
Globalization as westernization or modernization. The social
structures of modernity (capitalism, industrialism, etc.) are
spread the world over, destroying cultures and local self-determination
in the process.
Globalization as deterritorialization. Process of the “reconfiguration
of geography, so that social space is no longer wholly
mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and
territorial borders.”
Although the debates on the definition and importance of globalization
have been vigorous over time, we believe that the truly relevant
policy questions today are about who benefits and who does
not; how the benefits and the costs of these processes can be shared
fairly; how the opportunities can be maximized by all; and how the
risks can be minimized.
In addressing these questions, one can understand globalization to
be a complex set of dynamics offering many opportunities to better
the human condition, but also involving significant potential
threats. Contemporary globalization manifests itself in various
ways, three of which are of particular relevance to policy-makers.
They also comprise significant environmental opportunities and
risks.
1. Globalization of the economy. The world economy globalizes
as national economies integrate into the international economy
through trade; foreign direct investment; short-term capital
flows; international movement of workers and people in general;
and flows of technology.5 This has created new opportunities
for many; but not for all. It has also placed pressures on the
global environment and on natural resources, straining the
capacity of the environment to sustain itself and exposing
human dependence on our environment.6 A globalized economy
can also produce globalized externalities and enhance global
inequities.7 Local environmental and economic decisions cancontribute to global solutions and prosperity, but the environmental
costs, as well as the economic ramifications of our
actions, can be externalized to places and people who are so far
away as to seem invisible.
2. Globalization of knowledge. As economies open up, more
people become involved in the processes of knowledge integration
and the deepening of non-market connections, including
flows of information, culture, ideology and technology.8 New
technologies can solve old problems, but they can also create
new ones. Technologies of environmental care can move across
boundaries quicker, but so can technologies of environmental
extraction. Information flows can connect workers and citizens
across boundaries and oceans (e.g., the
rise of global social movements as well
as of outsourcing), but they can also
threaten social and economic networks
at the local level. Environmentalism as a
norm has become truly global, but so
has mass consumerism.
3. Globalization of governance. Globalization places great stress
on existing patterns of global governance with the shrinking of
both time and space; the expanding role of non-state actors;
and the increasingly complex inter-state interactions.9 The
global nature of the environment demands global environmental
governance, and indeed a worldwide infrastructure of international
agreements and institutions has emerged and continues
to grow.10 But many of today’s global environmental problems
have outgrown the governance systems designed to solve
them.11 Many of these institutions, however, struggle as they
have to respond to an ever-increasing set of global challenges
while remaining constrained by institutional design principles
inherited from an earlier, more state-centric world.
The relationship between the environment and globalization—
although often overlooked—is critical to both domains.12 The environment
itself is inherently global, with life-sustaining ecosystems
and watersheds frequently crossing national boundaries; air pollution
moving across entire continents and oceans; and a singleshared atmosphere providing climate protection and shielding us
from harsh UV rays.Monitoring and responding to environmental
issues frequently provokes a need for coordinated global or regional
governance. Moreover, the environment is intrinsically linked to
economic development, providing natural resources that fuel
growth and ecosystem services that underpin both life and livelihoods.
Indeed, at least one author suggests that “the economy is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the ecology.”13
While the importance of the relationship between globalization and
the environment is obvious, our understanding of how these twin
dynamics interact remains weak. Much of the literature on globalization
and the environment is vague (discussing generalities);
myopic (focused disproportionately only on trade-related connections);
and/or partial (highlighting the impacts of globalization on
the environment, but not the other way around).
It is important to highlight that not only does globalization impact
the environment, but the environment impacts the pace, direction
and quality of globalization. At the very least, this happens because
environmental resources provide the fuel for economic globalization,
but also because our social and policy responses to global environmental
challenges constrain and influence the context in which
globalization happens. This happens, for example, through the governance
structures we establish and through the constellation of
stakeholders and stakeholder interests
that construct key policy debates. It
also happens through the transfer of
social norms, aspirations and ideas
that criss-cross the globe to formulate
extant and emergent social movements,
including global environmentalism.
In short, not only are the environment
and globalization intrinsically linked,
they are so deeply welded together
that we simply cannot address the
global environmental challenges facing us unless we are able to
understand and harness the dynamics of globalization that influ-ence them. By the same token, those who wish to capitalize on the
potential of globalization will not be able to do so unless they are
able to understand and address the great environmental challenges
of our time, which are part of the context within which globalization
takes place.
Table 1. Environment and globalization: some examples of interaction.

中国人如果连自己的文化都继承不好，怎么去吸收他国的东西，那样是学不到真正的外国电影精髓。中国企业家学习日本的企业家精神，结果只学来了奥特曼的娱乐文化，甚至连人家的樱花精神都没学到。中国人也学美国创新，可你看看中国的现状和环境，山寨倒是蒸蒸日上，邯郸学步只会浪费更多资源。
要说电影这方面，个人认为中国几千年的文化，你们电影人有好好继承吗？中国的题材何止万千，中国的民间故事比历史还厚，我完全赞同电影要结合中国的特色去发展，创意最重要，科学技术只是辅助手段，中国这几年也出了许多有代表性的好电影，比如《桃姐》等，很多我也记不住名字。发挥我们的长处，不要一味的崇外而丧失中国人自己独有的东西。

---

“辩论赛：我方是中国电影制作方。我们反对Globalization（全球化）因为我们很难与好莱坞的大片竞争。”视频