In answer to "what do I say" - well, probably not much. Being introduced to 'the outside world' has happened to all populations on earth, it's not something I view as morally right or wrong (not saying you do) - it's an inevitability. If I did say something I might say "here, have at it".I actually agree that subsistence farming for many in Africa's current state is one brought on by their state of poverty and other envt factors like drought, but, that was the first example to come to my head - in general, I'm talking of the many examples of self-sufficiency survival, and people who were ignorantly happy to keep living that way (e.g., isolated indigenous tribes), for themselves, by themselves....until they got introduced to the extra variable called: the outside world.
What do you say to these people?
This is what I'm asking, who determines what is the 'best possible outcome' when globalization occurs? Is it not through inherent hegemonic pressures?(say, of the developed nations to pull those 'lagging' behind by the metric system/measurement scale of success they've developed, used, utilized, and now propagated and promoted?)
Capitalism/the market system was not imposed from above on, for example, European peoples. It naturally grew (partly - there were other factors) out of the ability to farm for profit - people now had the money and leisure time to explore other interests (profit making, formally education their children etc.).
When you talk of 'ignorantly happy' - I mean, again, do you really think significant numbers of people would choose to subsistence farm over profit farm? How do you know they were ignorantly *happy*? Always worrying about starvation and having a life expectancy of about 40 doesn't sound too happy to me, and I don't think that's cultural.
I don't really understand the point you're making. Are you conceding that most/all would choose for-profit farming? Or arguing it? Or is it a different point?