“Si mai vorbim despre “globalizare”…”
“And we are still speaking about “globalization”…”

“- What’s your opinion about the food shortages in the rest of the world?
– What does ‘food’ mean?
– What’s that a ‘shortage’?
– What’s that ‘the rest of the world’?
– What’s that an ‘oppinion’?”

“- Ce parere aveti despre lipsa de alimente din restul lumii?
– Ce sunt alea ‘alimente’?
– Ce inseamna ‘restul lumii’?
– Ce este aceea ‘lipsa’?
– Ce este aceea ‘opinie’?”

Pai da, vorbim!
Si pe drept cuvant.
Din pacate ‘globalizare’-a asta inseamna deocamdata ca toti alergam ca disperatii dupa bani. In loc sa actionam firesc, sa reactionam la imprejurarile in care ne aflam, incercam, in disperare, sa folosim aceste imprejurari pentru a ne umfla conturile din banci.
Si dupa aceea ne miram de ce a iesit…

Yes we do!
And rightfully so!
Because, until now at least, ‘globalization’ only meant a planet wide treasure hunt. Instead of acting naturally – reacting to the circumstances in which any of us happens to find himself – we desperately/obsessively try to use those circumstances with the sole goal of inflating our bank accounts…
And then we are flabbergasted by the outcome…

Bine, inteleg ca pentru asta ar trebui sa intelegem odata (?) ca bogatia este doar o unealta, ca telul suprem ar trebui sa fie doar ‘supravietuirea’/capacitatea de a evolua si ca astea doua nu sunt chiar identice  … dar oare de cate argumente in acest sens mai avem nevoie?
OK, I understand we’d need to understand, once and for all (?) that wealth is nothing but a tool, that the sole reasonable goal is survival/ability to adapt and that these two are not exactly similar… but how many more proof do we still need?