Is globalization a consequence (result?) of the second law of thermodynamics?

These two chapters have sparked some ideas in my head which I am not sure have been discussed in the literature yet or not. (I am not so vain to think that I am the first to think it however.)

Initially I began thinking about our current economic system (for the most part a globally interconnected, semi-free market), and the multitudinous layers of chance that have lead to its realization. I wondered, "in a thousand (or perhaps a hundred thousand) iterations of our world, with randomized variables of geography, resource availability and concentration distribution, and population development, among others, where would our current situation fit (rank?) among the potential outcomes for our economic system?" In other words, given the many negative issues that we face - overpopulation, vast differences in wealth and comfort, global climate change, and resource depletion - how does our current economic system and our societies rank among many other possible outcomes, given the initial starting conditions? Then I began to consider how the distribution of potential outcomes would look? Would it be normal? Random? Are some potential outcomes more probable than others? (e.g. in some iterations of this world, we could live in small divided countries, each trying to make due with the resources that they possess; in an other iteration, we could potentially live in a nearly equally divided wealth, but with less freedom of thought, movement, or a lack of many of the comforts that we possess now, and so on... one can use their imagination.)

Today, I am thinking about how although the outcomes of the iterations might be disparate, the laws of nature still guide the foundation of economics. The first law (appears to) prevent a Jetsons like utopia of flying cars, push-button jobs, robot maids, and high levels of happiness for all. i.e. There is no free lunch. Does the second law of thermodynamics make the trend towards globalized trade and interdependence a more likely outcome? High concentrations of resources, be it productive land, energy deposits, ores, etc. are distributed over large geographic areas, with some nations (regions) flush with one resource but lacking in another. Is the successfulness of each iteration (not fully defined at this juncture) dependent on how humans are able to extract, consume, and trade resources with each other? Is an economic system in which there are highly concentrated resources that evolve to globally available resources and waste heat/materials, more likely given the entropy law?

There's no denying that humans are a very successful species. Successful to the point, perhaps, of becoming self-limiting. The question is, given the same starting conditions, would we "do it all over again"? Were we predestined (by the laws of thermodynamics) to create the same economic system in place today?

Chapters 3 and 4 from Environmental Economics (Faber)

image from here

Most interesting to me for these two chapters was the overlying themes of "opening up" and "letting go". Looking back at my notes, I am not sure if I read the exact words "monkey trap" here, but I have come across the term or idea in several readings lately. We, like the proverbial monkey, cling to the fruit (the American Dream, BAU, prosperity as growth), seemingly gripping tighter to avoid letting go - even though exogenous threats creep closer and closer to us. Examples of this are all around: electric cars, biofuels, the "information economy", and the like. Anxiety over resource depletion and pollution drives many to come up with solutions or ways to try and mitigate against these threats. I have observed this general thought pattern and reaction in many of my fellow environmental thinkers and bloggers: First we grip tighter to hold on to the world that we grew up in, thinking "well, we've overcome adversity in the past, and ingenuity has triumphed over the past 150 years. We can do this!" We rant and rave (as my advisor puts it "wave our arms") at the world, promoting "green" living and technology. However, as we delve deeper into the issues, examining the complexity in our lives and the world around us, our faith in growth and ingenuity fades, and slowly our grip on the fruit begins to loosen. This is directly related to the concept of ignorance. Many academics, as well as the self-taught, delve deeply into proposed solutions for our existing environmental and social threats. As we learn, and as the general knowledge on the issue expands, new areas of ignorance are discovered and we move from closed to open ignorance on the subject. Some are driven to give up "changing the world" and focus more on personal development - a few are successful in letting go of the growth as prosperity mantra, and find new avenues of personal growth, enlightenment, and happiness. For those still "in the fight", especially we as academics face an upward battle, as the inertia of our Faustian world is immense - for as difficult as it is to let go of our banana, it is far easier than convincing others, and in theory everyone else, to let go of theirs.

Pushing the boundaries of knowledge, especially of area revealed as prior ignorance, is a difficult frontier. This is true of environmental economics especially, as it is difficult to let go of many of the tenets of economics that, until recently, worked well to improve the lives of not all, but many. Like Faber et al. say, we must let go to be able to move forward.