Archer Hong Qian：最简明的全球化三段论
最简明的全球化三段论
钱 宏Archer Hong Qian
全球化的历史划分，是一个不断引发争议的主题。
本文作者Archer Hong Qian坚持认为：全球化，是原初人类渐次突破地理、地缘、文化隔膜，不断扩大生产、生活、生态半径，用生命拥抱陌生的世界，逐步走向从主客性相互依存，到主体间性共生文而化之，最后臻于“全球共生，永久和平”的演化过程。
一、全球化1.0（323 BC - 1944 AD）：主客对立与扩张
3个时代：
1.古全球化：美国德裔社会学家和经济史学家Andre Gunder Frank（1929-2005），认为古全球化始于公元前三千年苏美尔与印度河流域文明之间的贸易联系，但其可感性显然不足，因而本文把规模性、可感知性足够的亚历山大逝世开始的希腊化时期，算作古全球化的开始。
2.原始全球化：欧洲海上帝国的崛起，在15、16和17世纪，首先是葡萄牙和西班牙帝国，后来是荷兰和大英帝国。补充一句，16 世纪始，随着哥伦布大交换，全球一体化的植物、动物、食物、人口、传染病和文化在东西半球间，有着广泛的交流，特别是欧洲海员从美洲传来的新作物对世界人口增长做出了重大贡献
3.现代全球化：伴随18世纪工业而来的帝国主义，开启了英国对印度、中国、撒哈拉以南非洲和太平洋岛屿地区的对外战争与贸易，使这些地区被不同程度地纳入世界体系的广大人口，成为欧洲出口商品的现成消费者，全球贸易以及资本、投资、经济模式和文化交流与抵牾，在19世纪至20世纪中页达到全盛时期。最后，现代全球化时代，亦即全球化1.0，终结于二次世界大战。
8大阶段划分
希腊化：亚历山大东征开启文化交融（如希腊文化与希伯莱文化、东方文化融合，托勒密、古罗马促进军事、宗教、经济、科学与哲学交流）。
伊斯兰大同：伊斯兰文明通过征服与贸易传播知识（如阿拉伯数字、天文学），形成跨区域文化圈。
文艺复兴：宗教改革（马丁路德、加尔文），欧洲思想觉醒（哥白尼、伽利略、笛卡尔、培根），科学（开普勒、牛顿）、艺术（如达·芬奇绘画）推动全球化萌芽。
丝绸之路：东西方商旅经济和文化交流巅峰（如瓷器、丝绸西传，佛教、伊斯兰教东传、利玛窦）。
哥伦布交换：新大陆发现后，物种（如玉米、马铃薯）、人口（如非洲奴隶）、文化（如基督教传播）大规模流动、英国政府重商主义后，古典经济学的兴起。
工业革命：蒸汽机、纺织机等技术进步推动生产力，全球化进入现代阶段（如英国工业化影响全球）。
金融力量：资本流动、金融杠杆（如荷兰东印度公司、伦敦金融中心、纽交所）、金融危机（1929-1933）。
经贸-经济危机（含一战、二战）：全球化在战争与危机中走向终结（如1929年大萧条、一战、二战）。
特点
历时性加速：从希腊化到二战，全球化周期逐渐缩短，速度越来越快。
共时性扩展：全球化覆盖范围和深度扩大，从地中海到全球。
推动力量：1）. 国家间征战（如亚历山大东征、成吉思汗西征、奥斯曼扩张）推动土地和人口兼并。 2）. 国家、宗教、个人通过商旅经济和文化交融（如丝绸之路、文艺复兴）促进全球化。
哲学基础：主客对立统一、轴心扩张、特权支配操控。
矛盾与终结：随着被支配对象（Object）的主体（Subject）意识觉醒，主客冲突加剧。全球化1.0始于战争（亚历山大东征等），也终于战争（一战、二战）。
二、全球化2.0（1945年-2025年）：自由贸易结构失衡乌托邦
背景
二战后，国家分化、民族独立、人民革命频发，同时“自由竞争，公平交易”的呼声高涨。
美国主导下，基于布雷顿森林体系（1944-1973）、关贸总协议（GATT）、国际货币基金组织（IMF）、世界银行（WB）、北美自由贸易协议（NAFTA）、欧盟（EU）、世贸组织（WTO）等框架，开启经济商贸科技产业一体化的全球化2.0。
核心理念
“自由竞争，公平交易”：作为制度性文明机制，强调国家、公司不分大小强弱的平等竞争。
哲学基础：依然承继关主客对立统一、轴心扩张、特权支配操控。但是以科技至上、生产力至上的名义为包装、裹挟。
价值参量
资本增值/减值的国民生产总值（GDP）。
成就
全球化2.0带动日本、欧洲、中国的财富爆发式增长。
全球经济一体化程度显著提高，科技和产业勰作深化（如全球供应链整合）。
问题与矛盾
制度差异导致失衡：各国政治、经济结构不平衡，导致“自由竞争不自由”“公平交易不公平”。
系统性互害
权贵与资本：沆瀣一气又勾心斗角，特别是在中国权贵与美国资本“双赢”博弈中，两国国民沦为被损害的“韭菜”或“炮灰”。
中国：乡村败落、劳工低人权、土地、空气、微生物环境污染、贸易顺差、权势集团坐大（全官寻租化、全民佃户化）。
美国：城市空心化、产业出走（2000-2010年制造业岗位减少600万个）、“中产阶级占领华尔街”、国债高筑（2024年贸易赤字1.2万亿美元）、贸易逆差过大、内生能力塌陷。
双方各自结构性失衡被包装为“互利共赢”，WTO规则丧失公孞力。
自由贸易乌托邦的破灭：以川普为代表的实干家和美国民众意识到，新古典经济学的“自由贸易”理论，成为经济乌托邦，试图砸烂其枷锁，终结全球化2.0。
三、全球化3.0（2025年-）：交互主体共生态的新文明逻辑
起点
2025年4月2日，川普在白宫玫瑰园发表演说，将该日定为“解放日”，宣布“美国的经济独立宣言”，以“对等关税”（Reciprocal Tariffs）取代“自由贸易”，共生经济学（Symbionomics）相继在阿根廷-美国兴起，正式开启全球化3.0。
核心规则
三零规则：零关税、零壁垒、零歧视。
贸易模：从“输血型分工”（谁带动谁）转向主体间结构对等与责任互嵌的勰作机制。
文明重构：“零歧视”不仅指“零补贴”，更要求贸易行为实现主体间一一对应、动态交互、激励性间道竞合（博弈）。
摒弃特权代表、意识形态排斥和既得利益取代公平起点的做法。
哲学基础
交互主体共生态（Intersubjective Symbiosism）：强调主体间性觉知和对等交互，走出“结构互害”的全球困局。
不是延续美国模式，也不是复制中国模式，而是各国领导人在内外负责的基础上构建新秩序。
价值参量
资源能效/能耗国民生活总孞态（GDE，国内能量转换总值）。
实现路径
一对一谈判：通过“对等关税”施加结构压力，倒逼各国内部转型升级，实现责任唤醒。
非地缘结构式全球盟约：逐步实现三零规则，而非“一签全包”的协议政治（如WTO模式）。
普及及五因交互指数：通过《新民调基准纲要》等机制，实施五因交互指数（C、E、H、T、P），评估政策在成本降低（C）、赋能（E）、健康（H）、孞任（T）、和平（P）上的表现，实现能效/能耗动态平衡。
意义
全球化3.0不是对全球化的破坏，而是全球化2.0走到尽头的文明转场。
通过和平但坚决的责任唤醒，重构关税、制度、主权与文明关系。
补充分析与未来趋势
全球化1.0的哲学根源与历史教训
全球化1.0的主客对立统一模式反映了人类早期文明的扩张逻辑：强者通过战争、宗教或文化输出实现支配，弱者被迫融入或被消灭。例如，亚历山大东征通过军事征服传播希腊文化，但也引发当地反抗；丝绸之路虽促进东西文化交流，却常伴随宗教冲突（如佛教与伊斯兰教的竞争）。这种模式在历时性上加速（全球化周期从数世纪缩短至数十年），在共时性上扩展（从地中海到全球），但其核心矛盾在于主体意识的觉醒。被支配的“对象”（如殖民地人民）逐渐觉醒为“主体”，反抗特权支配（如印度反抗英国殖民），导致主客冲突加剧，最终以战争终结。
历史教训：1）.全球化不能仅靠强权推动，必须尊重各主体的自主性。2）.文化交融若以支配为目的，必然引发冲突，需转向平等交互。
全球化2.0的制度性缺陷
全球化2.0试图通过“自由竞争，公平交易”实现全球经济一体化，但其制度设计存在根本缺陷。
WTO的“一签全包”模式：忽视各国发展阶段和责任对等。例如，中国加入WTO后利用低成本劳动力迅速崛起，但乡村败落（农村人口流失严重）、环境污染（2000年代煤炭占比超70%）等问题凸显；美国则因产业外移导致城市空心化（底特律破产）和国债高企（2024年贸易赤字1.2万亿美元）。
权贵与资本勾结：全球化2.0表面上是国家间的自由贸易，实际上是跨国资本和权贵集团的“双赢”游戏。例如，中国权贵通过出口补贴和低汇率政策获利，美国资本则通过全球化外包赚取高额利润，两国民众却承担后果（中国劳工低人权，美国工人失业）。
乌托邦的破灭：川普等实干家认识到，“自由贸易”在实际运行中无法实现真正的自由和公平，必须通过“对等关税”等机制打破这一乌托邦。
教训：1）.全球化需要对等责任，而非单方面的“普适性”规则。2）.制度设计必须考虑各国结构性差异，避免“赢家通吃”。
全球化3.0的潜力与挑战
全球化3.0以“交互主体共生态”为核心，通过“三零规则”和一对一谈判重构全球秩序。其潜力在于：
责任对等：通过“对等关税”倒逼各国转型升级，避免单方面“输血”或“占便宜”。例如，川普对中国的高关税（2025年4月达125%）促使中国加速内需转型。
文明重构：从主客对立转向主体间性觉知，强调动态交互和公正博弈。
和平路径：通过谈判而非战争实现全球化转型，是一种更可持续的模式。
谈判复杂性：一对一谈判需要各国领导人具备高度的责任感和智慧，可能面临观念、制度的“普世叙事”与“特色叙事”的冲突，而博弈或拖延失败。
权力平衡：如何确保“三零规则”不被大国操控，真正实现“零歧视”，是一个难题。例如，美国可能利用经济优势影响谈判结果。
内部阻力：各国权贵和既得利益集团可能抵制转型升级。例如，中国部分权贵反对减少出口补贴，美国部分资本反对制造业回流。
全球化3.0价值参量
2025年，一个充满转折的历史节点，我们正在见证世界从“全球化2.0”向“全球化3.0”的根本转型。川普“对等关税”促谈“零关税、零壁垒、零歧视”三零交互主体共生规则后，全球化3.0的新国际格局，不再以大国家为中心，而是以“个体生命”为本，依靠交互信任的Transform of Trust新平台，引领组织结构、经济协作、国际关系的全面重构。标志性事件：
1）、从波音危机到SpaceX成功：Trust组织的胜利：2025年3月18日，美国总统川普下令撤回滞留国际空间站超9个月的两名NASA宇航员。执行任务的不是波音，而是马斯克领导的SpaceX。这次史诗级救援成为信任组织取代传统举国体制的象征。SpaceX的胜利，是小团队、高协作、全球信任网络赋能的结果——小而美胜过大而无当。
2）、全球化3.0的价值观转型：从理念到生命：传统全球化强调集体理念、国家战略、资源集中。但疫情、战争、AI冲击之后，人类意识到：若不能保护个体生命，任何国家叙事都将失效。全球化3.0强调：个体是价值起点，信任是组织核心，去中心化的“生命孞态系统”将取代旧的金字塔权力结构。
3）、Trust组织平台：从降本赋能开始：Trust平台的目标，不是扩大权力，而是降低信任成本。无论是SpaceX的任务协同、Web3的DAO共治，还是AI领域的开源合作，核心都在于：降本：去中介、去谎言、去层级化，提高效率，赋能：让个体能在Intersubjective Symbiosism中自组织、自协作、自演化中连接激活。
4）、全球化3.0的趋势与结构：Trust去中心化：国家不再是信任唯一背书，平台、技术、协议成为新信用基础。区域化协同组合，形成灵活共生体，新国家崛起：苏格兰、柯尼斯堡、加泰罗尼亚、乌东乌西、俄罗斯高加索、西伯利亚、南北美、南东亚等文化共生体，将以“小而美”形式嵌入全球秩序。
5）、俄乌战争与地缘政治的终结：俄乌战争是一场旧体制末期的结构性爆炸。川普2020年败选是“延迟的转型”，而他的归来，是一次全面重启。和平不再依赖于大国争霸，而是建立在区域信任与交互主体协商的基础上。
6）、2025，全球化3.0的真正转折点:Transform of Trust不是某一国的胜利，而是整个人类文明从重Trust理念走向重生命的历史性转向。Transform or be Transformed——在这个伟大的转型时代，愿我们都是有生命、有信任、有共生力的未来建设者。
未来趋势展望
技术驱动的全球化：全球化3.0可能进一步依赖技术实现贸易透明性和责任对等。例如，区块链可用于追踪贸易流程，确保“零歧视”落实；AI可优化全球资源分配（如新加坡2024年智能交通提升能源效率10%）。
区域化与全球化的平衡：全球化3.0可能在全球盟约的基础上，鼓励区域化勰作（如欧盟、东盟），形成“全球-区域”双层结构。例如，欧盟CBAM可作为区域试点，逐步推广至全球。
“修昔底德陷阱”终结与新竞合秩序：数字化战争边际收益递减，Trust体系重构了国际安全。未来不是谁的地多、兵多、资源多，而是谁拥有更灵活、更可信、更动态的组织信任网络。
文化与价值观的共生态：全球化3.0不仅关注经济贸易，还需推动文化和价值观的交互共生态，避免意识形态冲突。例如，新加坡通过东西文明交互，2024年市民幸福感显著提高。
公众参与的增强：全球化3.0通过公众参与的《新民调基准纲要》等机制，实施“五因交互指数”普及，激发“交互主体共生态的孞念与活力”，让普通民众在全球化进程中发挥生命自组织连接平衡作用。例如，瑞士通过公民参与降低社会交易成本，2024年HDI排名全球前列。
爱之智慧孞态网：地球人-AI生活方式创新与再选择的基础设施。例如，未来可通过AI驱动的全球孞态网，实现通讯全开放、能源全自足、运载全覆盖的共生态。
全球共生公约：未来的全球秩序将如春秋战国——百国争鸣、交互协同，但不是战争，而是文化、技术、制度的创意竞赛。365个文化节日，365种生存智慧，全球文化轮值成为经济活力的新引擎。Minds Network作为文化孞态系统的连接协议，让全球进入有机协同的时代。
总 结
全球化1.0以主客对立和扩张为主，始于战争，终于战争；全球化2.0以“自由贸易乌托邦”为目标，但因制度性失衡和结构互害走向终结；全球化3.0以“交互主体共生态”为新文明逻辑，通过“三零规则”和一对一谈判重构全球秩序，强调主体间性觉知和对等交互。
全球化3.0的实现需要克服谈判复杂性、权力平衡和内部阻力等挑战，但其潜力在于通过和平路径实现责任对等和文明重构，为全球困局提供新的解决方案。
但事实是，全球化2.0将终结，全球化3.0的曙色熹微已现，这就是“解放日”命名的原意。
2025年4月9日草拟，4月15日修订于大温哥华
The Simplest Triad of Globalization
By Archer Hong Qian
Drafted on April 9-15, 2025 · Vancouver, Canada
The Simplest Triad of Globalization
By Archer Hong Qian
Drafted on April 9, 2025 · Vancouver, Canada
The historical division of globalization remains a topic of ongoing debate.
The author, Archer Hong Qian, firmly believes that globalization is an evolutionary process in which early humanity gradually transcended geographical, geopolitical, and cultural barriers, continuously expanding the radius of production, life, and ecology. It involves embracing the unfamiliar world with life, progressing from subject-object interdependence to an intersubjective symbiotic ecosystem, ultimately achieving "global symbiosis and lasting peace."
Globalization 2.0 will come to an end, and the dawn of Globalization 3.0 is faintly visible—this is the true meaning behind naming April 2, 2025, as "Liberation Day."
I. Globalization 1.0 (323 BCE - 1944 CE): Subject-Object Dichotomy and Expansion
Three Eras
Ancient Globalization: American archaeologist and economic historian Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005) argued that ancient globalization began around 3000 BCE between Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, involving extensive exchanges in cities, technologies, currencies, populations, diseases, and cultures. For example, crops introduced from the Americas (e.g., corn, potatoes) significantly contributed to global population growth.
Pre-Modern Globalization: With the rise of capitalism during the 18th-century Industrial Revolution, Britain initiated wars and trade with India, China, sub-Saharan Africa, and Oceania, integrating these regions into the global system to varying degrees. Large populations became consumers of European exports, with global trade, capital, technology, economic models, and cultural exchanges peaking from the 19th to mid-20th centuries.
Modern Globalization: Driven by the Industrial Revolution and financial power, globalization entered the modern era but ultimately ended due to wars and economic crises.
Eight Phases
Hellenization and Ancient Rome: Alexander the Great’s eastern campaigns and the Roman Empire facilitated military, religious, economic, scientific, and philosophical exchanges (e.g., the Ptolemaic Dynasty advanced astronomy).
Islamic Golden Age: Islamic civilization spread knowledge through conquest and trade (e.g., Arabic numerals, astronomy), forming a cross-regional cultural sphere.
Renaissance and Reformation: The Reformation (Martin Luther, Calvin) and European intellectual awakening (Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon), alongside scientific (Kepler, Newton) and artistic (e.g., Da Vinci) advancements, drove the seeds of globalization.
Silk Road: The pinnacle of East-West trade and cultural exchange (e.g., porcelain and silk to the West, Buddhism and Islam to the East).
Columbian Exchange: Post-discovery of the New World, massive flows of species (e.g., corn, potatoes), populations (e.g., African slaves), and cultures (e.g., Christian missions) occurred, followed by British mercantilism and the rise of classical economics.
Industrial Revolution: Technological advances like the steam engine and textile machines boosted productivity, ushering globalization into the modern era (e.g., British industrialization impacted the world).
Financial Power: Capital flows and financial systems emerged (e.g., Dutch East India Company, London as a financial hub, stock exchanges), accompanied by financial crises (e.g., the 1929-1933 Great Depression).
Trade-Economic Crises (Including WWI and WWII): Globalization ended amidst wars and crises (e.g., the 1929 Great Depression, WWI, WWII).
Characteristics
Temporal Acceleration: From Hellenization to WWII, globalization cycles shortened, accelerating over time.
Spatial Expansion: Globalization’s scope and depth expanded, from the Mediterranean to the globe.
Driving Forces:
Interstate wars (e.g., Alexander’s campaigns, Genghis Khan’s conquests, Ottoman expansion) drove territorial and population annexation.
Nations, religions, and individuals promoted globalization through trade and cultural fusion (e.g., Silk Road, Renaissance).
Philosophical Foundation: Subject-object dichotomy, axial expansion, privileged domination and control.
Contradictions and End: As dominated objects (e.g., colonies) awakened as subjects, subject-object conflicts intensified. Globalization 1.0 began with wars (e.g., Alexander’s campaigns) and ended with wars (WWI, WWII).
Characteristics
Temporal Acceleration: From Hellenization to WWII, globalization cycles shortened, accelerating over time.
Spatial Expansion: Globalization’s scope and depth expanded, from the Mediterranean to the globe.
Driving Forces:
Interstate wars (e.g., Alexander’s campaigns, Genghis Khan’s conquests, Ottoman expansion) drove territorial and population annexation.
Nations, religions, and individuals promoted globalization through trade and cultural fusion (e.g., Silk Road, Renaissance).
Philosophical Foundation: Subject-object dichotomy, axial expansion, privileged domination and control.
Contradictions and End: As dominated objects (e.g., colonies) awakened as subjects, subject-object conflicts intensified. Globalization 1.0 began with wars (e.g., Alexander’s campaigns) and ended with wars (WWI, WWII).
II. Globalization 2.0 (1945-2025): Free Trade Utopia and Structural Imbalance
Background
Post-WWII, national divisions, independence movements, and people’s revolutions surged, alongside calls for "free competition, fair trade."
Under U.S. leadership, frameworks like the Bretton Woods system (1944-1973), GATT, IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, EU, and WTO launched Globalization 2.0, integrating economy, trade, technology, and industry.
Core Concept
"Free competition, fair trade" as an institutional civilizational mechanism, emphasizing equal competition regardless of a nation or company’s size or strength.
Value Parameter
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), based on capital appreciation/depreciation.
Achievements
Globalization 2.0 spurred explosive wealth growth in Japan, Europe, and China. For instance, Japan’s GDP grew at an average annual rate of over 8% from the 1960s to 1980s, and China became the world’s second-largest economy between 2000 and 2020.
Global economic integration deepened, with enhanced technological and industrial collaboration (e.g., global supply chains).
Issues and Contradictions
Imbalance Due to Institutional Differences: Political and economic structural disparities led to "unfree competition" and "unfair trade."
Systemic Mutual Harm:
China: Rural decline (massive rural exodus), low labor rights (e.g., the 2010 Foxconn incident), environmental pollution (coal use over 70% in the 2000s, Beijing’s PM2.5 exceeding 100 ?g/m? in 2013), and rising elites.
U.S.: Urban hollowing (e.g., Detroit’s bankruptcy), industrial exodus (6 million manufacturing jobs lost from 2000-2010), soaring national debt (2024 trade deficit at $1.2 trillion), and weakened endogenous capacity.
Bilateral structural imbalances were masked as "mutual benefit," eroding the WTO’s credibility (公孞力).
Elite-Capital Collusion: Chinese elites and U.S. capital achieved a "win-win," while citizens became "leeks" and "cannon fodder." For example, Chinese elites profited from export subsidies and low exchange rates, while U.S. capital reaped high profits through global outsourcing.
Collapse of the Free Trade Utopia: Leaders like Trump and the American public recognized "free trade" as an economic utopia, seeking to break its shackles and end Globalization 2.0.
III. Globalization 3.0 (2025-): The New Civilizational Logic of Intersubjective Symbiotic Ecosystem
Starting Point
On April 2, 2025, Trump delivered a speech in the White House Rose Garden, declaring the day "Liberation Day" and announcing "America’s Economic Declaration of Independence," replacing "free trade" with "reciprocal tariffs," officially launching Globalization 3.0.
Core Rules
Three-Zero Rules: Zero tariffs, zero barriers, zero discrimination.
Trade Model: Shifting from "transfusion-style division of labor" (one driving another) to a collaborative (勰作) mechanism of structural parity and mutual responsibility.
Civilizational Reconstruction:
"Zero discrimination" goes beyond "zero subsidies," requiring trade behaviors to achieve one-to-one correspondence, dynamic interaction, and incentivized competitive-cooperative (博弈) pathways.
Rejecting privileged representation, ideological exclusion, and vested interests replacing fair starting points.
Value Parameter
Gross Domestic Energy-Conversion (GDE), based on resource energy efficiency/consumption and the state of national life (國民生活總孞態).
Implementation Pathways
One-on-One Negotiations: Using "reciprocal tariffs" to apply structural pressure, forcing internal transformation and responsibility awakening. For example, Trump’s reciprocal tariffs on 185 countries prompted China to accelerate its domestic demand transformation.
Non-Geopolitical Global Covenant: Gradually achieving the three-zero rules, rather than "one-size-fits-all" agreement politics (e.g., WTO model).
Adoption of the Five-Factor Interaction Index: Through mechanisms like the "New Polling and Rating Framework," implementing the Five-Factor Interaction Index (C, E, H, T, P) to evaluate policies on cost reduction (C), empowerment (E), health (H), trust (T, 孞任), and peace (P), achieving energy efficiency/consumption balance.
Philosophical Foundation
Intersubjective Symbiotic Ecosystem (交互主體共生態): Emphasizing intersubjective awareness and reciprocal interaction, breaking the global deadlock of "structural mutual harm."
Neither perpetuating the American model nor replicating the Chinese model, but building a new order based on leaders’ internal and external accountability.
The Trust (孞任) Paradigm Shift in Globalization 3.0: From Ideology to Life
Traditional globalization emphasized collective ideologies, national strategies, and resource concentration. However, after pandemics, wars, and AI disruptions, humanity realized that without protecting the individual, grand national projects would fail. Globalization 3.0 posits that the individual is the starting point of value, trust (孞任) is the core of organization, and a decentralized "biological ecosystem" will replace the old pyramidal power structure.
Trust (孞任) Organization Platform: From Cost Reduction to Empowerment
Case Study: From Boeing to SpaceX’s Success: On March 18, 2025, Trump ordered the U.S. to end International Space Station cooperation with Russia, with two NASA astronauts retrieved by SpaceX, not Boeing. This historic mission demonstrated that trust (孞任) structures can outperform traditional state-led systems. SpaceX’s success stemmed from small teams, high collaboration (勰作), and a global trust (孞任) network—proving "small and beautiful" surpasses "large and unwieldy."
Trust (孞任) Platform Goal: The aim is not to expand power but to reduce trust (孞任) costs. Whether it’s SpaceX’s supply chain collaboration, Web3’s DAO governance, or open-source cooperation in AI, the core lies in cost reduction: eliminating intermediaries, monopolies, and exploitation, enabling the most efficient, decoupled, and transparent self-organization, collaboration (勰作), and evolution of individuals within an intersubjective symbiotic ecosystem.
Trends and Structure of Globalization 3.0: Decentralized Trust (孞任)
Nations are no longer the sole bearers of trust (孞任); platforms, technologies, and protocols become the new foundation for trust (孞任).
Regional collaboration (勰作) improves, forming flexible symbiotic ecosystems. For instance, cultural symbiotic ecosystems like Scotland, Venice, Catalonia, East Malaysia, Russia’s Caucasus, Siberia, the Americas, and Southeast Asia integrate into the global order in a "small and beautiful" form.
Philosophical Reflection: In this grand transition, we are all creators of a future with life, trust (孞任), and symbiotic capacity.
Significance
Globalization 3.0 is not the destruction of globalization but a civilizational transition as Globalization 2.0 reaches its end.
Through peaceful yet resolute responsibility awakening, it reconstructs tariffs, institutions, sovereignty, and civilizational relationships.
Supplementary Analysis and Future Trends
1. Philosophical Roots and Historical Lessons of Globalization 1.0
Globalization 1.0’s subject-object dichotomy reflected early human civilization’s expansion logic: the strong dominated through war, religion, or cultural export, while the weak were absorbed or eradicated. For instance, Alexander’s campaigns spread Greek culture but sparked local resistance; the Silk Road facilitated East-West exchange but often led to religious conflicts (e.g., Buddhism vs. Islam). This model accelerated temporally (globalization cycles shortened from centuries to decades) and expanded spatially (from the Mediterranean to the globe). However, its core contradiction was the awakening of dominated "objects" (e.g., colonized peoples) as subjects, resisting privilege (e.g., India’s resistance to British rule), culminating in wars (WWI, WWII).
Historical Lessons:
Globalization cannot rely solely on coercion; it must respect each subject’s autonomy.
Cultural fusion, if aimed at domination, inevitably leads to conflict, requiring a shift to equitable interaction.
2. Institutional Flaws of Globalization 2.0
Globalization 2.0 aimed for global economic integration through "free competition, fair trade," but its institutional design had fundamental flaws:
WTO’s "One-Size-Fits-All" Model: It ignored developmental stages and reciprocal responsibilities. For example, China’s WTO entry led to rapid growth via low-cost labor, but rural decline (massive rural exodus) and pollution (coal use over 70% in the 2000s) emerged; the U.S. faced urban hollowing (e.g., Detroit’s bankruptcy) and soaring debt ($1.2 trillion trade deficit in 2024).
Elite-Capital Collusion: Globalization 2.0 was ostensibly about free trade among nations but was a "win-win" for transnational capital and elites. Chinese elites profited from export subsidies, while U.S. capital reaped gains from outsourcing, leaving citizens to bear the cost (low labor rights in China, unemployment in the U.S.).
Collapse of the Utopia: Leaders like Trump realized "free trade" failed to deliver true freedom and fairness, necessitating mechanisms like "reciprocal tariffs" to dismantle the utopia.
Lessons:
Globalization requires reciprocal responsibility, not unilateral "universal" rules.
Institutional design must account for structural disparities to avoid "winner-takes-all" outcomes.
3. Potentials and Challenges of Globalization 3.0
Globalization 3.0, centered on the "intersubjective symbiotic ecosystem (交互主體共生態)," restructures global order through the "three-zero rules" and one-on-one negotiations. Its potentials include:
Reciprocal Responsibility: "Reciprocal tariffs" force internal transformation, preventing one-sided "transfusion" or exploitation. For instance, Trump’s high tariffs on China (125% in April 2025) pushed China toward domestic demand transformation.
Civilizational Reconstruction: Shifting from subject-object dichotomy to intersubjective awareness, emphasizing dynamic interaction and fair competition-cooperation (博弈).
Peaceful Path: Transitioning globalization through negotiation rather than war, a more sustainable model.
Challenges:
Negotiation Complexity: One-on-one negotiations demand high responsibility and wisdom from leaders, risking delays or failures. For example, U.S.-China talks in April 2025 reached a preliminary agreement, but intellectual property issues remain unresolved.
Power Balance: Ensuring the "three-zero rules" are not manipulated by major powers to achieve true "zero discrimination" is challenging. The U.S. might leverage its economic advantage in negotiations.
Internal Resistance: Elites and vested interests may resist transformation. In China, some elites oppose subsidy cuts; in the U.S., some capital resists manufacturing repatriation.
4. The End of the Thucydides Trap and Strategic Competition
Globalization 3.0 reconfigures international security through trust (孞任) systems. Future competition will not be about who has more land, soldiers, or resources, but who possesses more flexible, trustworthy (可孞), and dynamic organizational trust (孞任) structures. For example, SpaceX’s small-team model outperformed Boeing’s traditional state-led system, highlighting the competitive edge of decentralized trust (孞任) organizations.
5. Future Trends Outlook
Technology-Driven Globalization: Globalization 3.0 will increasingly rely on technology for transparency and responsibility. Blockchain can track trade flows to ensure "zero discrimination"; AI can optimize global resource allocation (e.g., Singapore’s 2024 smart traffic improved energy efficiency by 10%).
Balance of Regionalization and Globalization: Globalization 3.0 may encourage regional collaboration (e.g., EU, ASEAN) within a global covenant, forming a "global-regional" dual structure. The EU’s CBAM could serve as a regional pilot for global expansion.
Cultural and Value Symbiosis: Globalization 3.0 must foster cultural and value symbiosis, avoiding ideological clashes. Singapore’s East-West cultural interaction enhanced citizen well-being in 2024.
Enhanced Public Participation: Through mechanisms like the "New Polling and Rating Framework," the Five-Factor Interaction Index (五因交互指數) will be widely adopted, igniting the "trust and vitality (孞念與活力) of intersubjective symbiotic ecosystems," enabling ordinary people to contribute to globalization via self-organizing life connections. Switzerland’s citizen participation reduced social transaction costs, ranking high in the 2024 HDI.
Network of the Love of Wisdom and Trust State (愛之智慧孞態網): A foundational infrastructure for Earthlings-AI lifestyle innovation and re-selection, enabling fully open communication, energy self-sufficiency, and comprehensive transportation coverage in a symbiotic ecosystem.
Global Symbiotic Covenant: The future global order will resemble the Spring and Autumn period—hundreds of nations competing and collaborating, not in chaos, but through creative competition in culture, technology, and institutions. With 365 cultural festivals and 365 forms of survival wisdom, global cultural diversity will become a new engine for economic vitality. The Minds Network, as a cultural symbiotic platform, will drive the realization of a global symbiotic covenant.
Summary
Globalization 1.0, driven by subject-object dichotomy and expansion, began and ended with wars; Globalization 2.0 aimed for a "free trade utopia" but collapsed due to institutional imbalances and mutual harm; Globalization 3.0, with the "intersubjective symbiotic ecosystem (交互主體共生態)" as its new civilizational logic, restructures global order through the "three-zero rules" and one-on-one negotiations, emphasizing intersubjective awareness and reciprocal interaction. While facing challenges like negotiation complexity, power balance, and internal resistance, Globalization 3.0 holds the potential to achieve reciprocal responsibility and civilizational reconstruction through a peaceful path, offering a new solution to global dilemmas.