With the continuous proliferation of capitalism post 1990's New Order Regime, and the ongoing incessant expansion into what are now becoming fewer “wild” and ostensibly “empty” territories, there have been new developments in the “whys” and “hows” for extracting and utilizing both natural and human resources globally that are beyond “an enactment of commodification or conquest” (Tsing p. 33). The injustices of commodification and conquest have been seen and experienced for centuries. More recently, the relentless push toward a globalized world, although continues to include such century-old foundational forms of power insertions, also encompasses newer neo-colonialism/neoliberalism counteracting initiatives. Such initiatives, which will be described more below, that have been adopted by government and corporate relations, are used as an attempt to “off-set” the various destructive effects of globalization, as well as both the damaging short-term, yet perhaps productive long-term, effects on human quality of living (that is depending on what side of the 1% you might be on). Using Ulrich Beck's “Risk Society” as mentioned in Etienne Balibar's Politics of the Debt (Balibar p.1) and Joseph Schumpeterian's theory of “Creative Destruction” in Geert Lovink's Friends with Money (Lovink p. 6) the following paper will attempt to draw from these two theories to explain both the disadvantages of neocolonialism's heroic intentions for sustainability, along with some of the purported advantages that claim to be experienced in the long-run, in the ever-changing unstable economic system.