Is globalization actually disempowering?

I don't think that globalization, globalism, this idea that the world is a village is true. In fact, it's remarkable how culture bound we are. And that's not a limitation. That's just a feature of us as a species. We are animals and animals. Animals operate based on their empirical senses. So take a a deer in a forest. A deer in a forest has the eyesight, the smell, and the hearing that it needs to survive. So there's an interesting concept in zoology of of flight distance, which is the distance that an animal needs to be aware of something that might endanger it, that will trigger a flight response. So animals have different kinds of flight distances. So Flamingo, if it sees a threatening animal needs a certain distance so that it can start flapping its wings and fly away. Flamingos are not natural swimmers as Flyers. So they need a, so it's like maybe 150 meters, let's say. So they have senses that are good enough for them to survive. What we have done with our technology is so increased our sensorial capacity that if a share, if a ferry overturns in Bangladesh, we hear about it here in New York, 50,000 miles away, which means our senses are overloaded with information which in an animal would stress it to death. If you increase the deer's capacity to hear beyond the whatever it can hear, let's say a deer can hear. I don't know what you know. Let's say a deer can hear 300 meters away. That's what it needs. Let's say I'm sure it's closer than that. Let's say it's 100 meters away. You know, a deer needs to hear that distance and if anything is coming and running towards it, a lion, a tiger, a wolf, the 100 feet will be enough for it to turn and decamp. And so it's not stressed. If there's a perimeter of 100 meters around a diameter, a radius, sorry, 100 meters around it where there's no sounds, it'll be at rest, unstressed. If you gave it hearing capacity here, 1000 feet, you'd be hearing way more noises than it needs to process. You'd be hearing about wolves or tigers that are way too far to endanger it, yet it's aware of them. Therefore, be stressed. And I suspect in our world, in this idea of globalization, we are hearing about things that are so far away from us that actually have no consequence on us as individuals. Now, cumulative, of course they do. We are ultimately connected. There are 6° of separation. So, you know, that's the right, that's the reason behind, you know, human rights advocacy, that when an individual is being tortured to death in Egypt or in China, it should matter to us. It should. But in a practical way, each one of us, every single day, there's only so many groans and cries and shrieks from around the world that we can hear where it keeps on being meaningful. At one point, we block it out because it's too much. So I think globalization creates a sense of unity without empowering us that we can really do something about it. And so that's it's that schizophrenia that I think we live with every single day. You read about, you know, you read the New York Times, which is a fantastic newspaper with an extraordinary coverage of many realities. Most articles there's very little you can do about. And so it's kind of disempowering. So I find globalization, while in a sense being well meaning, giving us eyes around the globe, is also in some ways disempowering because it tells us things for about which we can do nothing. So ultimately, I think we have to limit the information and go deeper. And so I think that's what often happens. You see that, for example, with NGOs, with charitable organisations who specialized, so you know, they'll specialized about saving the panda bear or the human rights situation in Haiti or about educating girls in Africa. They will narrow their focus so they can have an impact. And that of course, that has been helped by globalization. We are aware of more knowledge is that it's overwhelming. It's a tidal wave coming our way and you sort of select which bit of the water, which bit of the wave you want to try to engage with meaningfully.