I think you have completely misread Alex’s point.

He explicitely does NOT link a connected humanity to globalization.

Rather, a particular type of neoliberal globalization, 1) which is materially unsustainable 2) increases inequality both within and between nations, is what is problematic. Does it make sense to ship goods and parts several times across the globe, and is it inefficient and sustainable outside a context of cheap energy and cheap labour?

On the other hand, there is another kind of spiritual and intellectual globalization, which Alex favours.

Expensive energy and raw material, true costing of ecological costs, and the use of labour with increasing rights and power, coupled with cheap international communication and global coordination, and cheaper productive machinery, point to a different solution: an interconnected humanity of open design communities, freely sharing innovations; coupled with production closer to home.

This is not born out of any hatred of the foreigner, but on the contrary, on increased cooperation with the foreigner.

Michel

Globalization, apparently, is opposed by people who are opposed to integration. They affirm whatever is local, they distrust what is far away. Alex explicitly associates a global, connected humanity with cheap labor in foreign countries. He talks about manufacturers worrying about diversity, and frames it as a risk, which is best solved by preferring whatever is ‘close to home’.

He identifies foreign countries with political corruption, and transparency (which is something I personally value) with causing enormous damage. And then he starts talking about vulnerability to extreme acts of terror.

I think this article exposes some potentially serious problems in the discourse about a P2P society. I don’t see how innovation and culture can flow more freely in a world where people are encouraged to feel that level of hatred and distrust towards ourpeers.