Centralization of supply chains, economic monoculture, increased spread of disease, increased carbon emissions, massively increased pollution. That’s a lot of risks which are mostly unquantifiable; it’s dubious to claim we know which is worse, especially in the long run. We lived without globalism for many thousands of years, it’s incredibly new and unproven.

We had a much less global world in the early 1900s. Didn’t stop the Spanish flu and multiple world wars from happening.

I think the idea here is that keeping most humans alive, relatively healthy and out of poverty is good end goal and globalization helped with that.

We do have unquantifiable long-term risks but I would wager you don't want to live in the days where you did from a small wound because we don't have the technology or scale to provide antibiotics.

That is a false dichotomy. There was a sweet spot we had in between the invention of the antibiotic in the 1920s and now when societies were more localized. I find it quite doubtful, for example, that disposing of tons of forever chemicals (PFAS, etc.) in the ocean is at all compatible with keeping humans alive, even most humans. These are the unfortunate incentive structures we get when there is so little accountability.

Are you imagining that globalization will somehow create peace and prosperity between Chinese, Arabs, Jews, USAmericans, billionaires, cocoa growing child slaves, and the rest?

Looking at the statistics, it’s certainly more plausible than the idea it might be making those things worse.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190111-seven-reasons-wh...

...until you consider the looming environmental collapse.

Yes, it already has, between most of them most of the time.