Reading Analysis of 'The Case for Contamination'

What did you find interesting or uninteresting about the piece? Was there something that seemed intuitive or counterintuitive? Explain.
To me, the most interesting part of this piece was that people who believe isolation preserves diversity exist. Globalization is part of the benefit of today's myriad of technological advances. Worldwide communication allows us to share ideas and culture like never before. When various backgrounds come into contact with one another, one isn't negated by the other. As with the trade of tangible goods, cultural exchange also isn't a zero-sum situation. Instead, two cultures coming together promotes the development of a whole new lifestyle. This occurs if and only if the exchange is fair. Instances of colonization and take over don't foster cultural growth. They inhibit progress just as unfair trading in the market hinders innovation. If some force was to prohibit the trade of cultural traditions and values, our world would become stagnant, monotonous, and boring. The nay-sayers addressed in the article argued that the Western influence was overpowering, and would overtake all other cultures in its path. Canada, America, England, Japan, and all other developed countries fall under the Western culture umbrella, and yet are all vastly different. Even regions within the aforementioned nations are widely dissimilar. The idea that less contact fosters culture is just extraordinarily invalid.

Discussion Questions
Can you foresee any unintended consequences that could arise if government or some other force mandated isolationism to preserve culture?

How are the people who would advocate for the type of situation posed above similar to the Mercantilist fallacies we previously studied?

Annotation
If the laws of a fair market are correctly followed, trade within any market isn't zero-sum. One side does not effectively become poorer than the other within the concept of exchange. Collaboration makes both sides wealthier. The riches aren't always monetary, but intangible wealth is just as valuable. Innovation is fostered by globalization, not hindered by it.