How to develope the 3rd world

[ríomhaire]

I know this sounds harsh but leave them do it themselves. Seriouly, all our 'helping' is making stuff worse. The only ones doing any good IMO are charities. And at that only a few charities like Trocaire.

 

[short recoil]

Why do people want to "develop" third world countries?

 

[ríomhaire]

Why do people want to "develop" third world countries?

So the people there can be fat and lazy like us.

 

[Razor]

I know this sounds harsh but leave them do it themselves. Seriouly, all our 'helping' is making stuff worse. The only ones doing any good IMO are charities. And at that only a few charities like Trocaire.

Then all these people will say "oh no, we're abandoning them, the evil government".

The problem with leaving the third world to their own gains is that there are a lot of very nasty people in power over there who do things that would make Saddam Hussein look like Jacque Chirac.

 

[short recoil]

Imo i hate the thought of people "developing" the whole world with a passion.
I hate anyone who thinks we should try and cram as many humans on this planet "because we have a right to reproduce therefore we should"
Generally developing a country means upping "quality of life" (being compfortable) lowering death rate etc, this is usually through higher technology to beat "natural problems"

I'd rather be dead than living on a planet covered in human pods, everyone living the same "easy life" with no purpose.

Developing 3rd world countries means they will all get a large house, a car, a perfect family with no illness......it would be awful.
Life is no fun without a struggle.

 

[Razor]

Imo i hate the thought of people "developing" the whole world with a passion.
I hate anyone who thinks we should try and cram as many humans on this planet "because we have a right to reproduce therefore we should"
Generally developing a country means upping "quality of life" (being compfortable) lowering death rate etc, this is usually through higher technology to beat "natural problems"

I'd rather be dead than living on a planet covered in human pods, everyone living the same "easy life" with no purpose.

Developing 3rd world countries means they will all get a large house, a car, a perfect family with no illness......it would be awful.
Life is no fun without a struggle.

Well, if you ever win the lottery send it my way. Wouldn't want you not enjoying the millions :thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

globalization will evetually do away with the 3rd world ...then they'll become productive underpaid exploited workers like the rest of us ...the difference now is that they're "productive x-tremely underpaid x-tremely exploited workers"

 

[CptStern]

Imo i hate the thought of people "developing" the whole world with a passion.
I hate anyone who thinks we should try and cram as many humans on this planet "because we have a right to reproduce therefore we should"
Generally developing a country means upping "quality of life" (being compfortable) lowering death rate etc, this is usually through higher technology to beat "natural problems"

I'd rather be dead than living on a planet covered in human pods, everyone living the same "easy life" with no purpose.

Developing 3rd world countries means they will all get a large house, a car, a perfect family with no illness......it would be awful.
Life is no fun without a struggle.

so I guess you're just itching to switch places with someone from a 3rd world country?

 

[Jandor]

Dosn't there have to be poor for their to be rich?

Dosn't there have to be someone at the bottom?

 

[Beerdude26]

so I guess you're just itching to switch places with someone from a 3rd world country?

Of course he is, who wouldn't want to get AIDS and die :O

 

[Solaris]

Dosn't there have to be poor for their to be rich?

Dosn't there have to be someone at the bottom?

Exactly. Under communism, everyone would be in the middle, and as the Surplus production stock pile increases, the amount each person gets will increase.

Riomare were not helping at all, except the charities, are governments are intent on doing harm.

This debt cancellation, is only under the terms that they adopt neo liberalistic policies, which creates work for american mulitcorps, but damages the people of the country. Such as selling of healthcare, and schools ect. to private industry.

Short recoil, all were trying to do, is make it so a mother doesnt have to see half her children die before there 2, and the rest of her children live in a shanty house, with a low standard of life.


Short recoil

Developing 3rd world countries means
Giving everyone enough to eat
Allowing everyone to go to school
Letting everyone have a decent life

I'm sorry if making these peoples lives worth living makes your life less fun, you'll just have to f****g put up with it,

 

[The Mullinator]

More developed countries means more competition for producing more/better stuff for the rest of the world which will benefit us all.

It would also mean a better eduction for people in those countries which will most certainly help the whole planet. I would hate to think of the next Eintstein being born someplace where he/she would never be able to put that mind to good use. It is a total waste when good minds are never put to use.

Word of advice to anyone trying to get more countries to become developed: Don't talk about improving the living conditions of those people there. It is a totally useless thing to argue since we are really quite selfish and the fact is we have become almost totally immune to such cries. Tell people how it will benefit them, and not in the "You will feel better about yourself" crap.

 

[Gunner]

Imo i hate the thought of people "developing" the whole world with a passion.
I hate anyone who thinks we should try and cram as many humans on this planet "because we have a right to reproduce therefore we should"
Generally developing a country means upping "quality of life" (being compfortable) lowering death rate etc, this is usually through higher technology to beat "natural problems"

I'd rather be dead than living on a planet covered in human pods, everyone living the same "easy life" with no purpose.

Developing 3rd world countries means they will all get a large house, a car, a perfect family with no illness......it would be awful.
Life is no fun without a struggle.

You think your life has a purpose? you think you have it tough? grow up kid, there's a WHOLE world outside your bedroom, you're not special. You're an ignorant piece of trash that deserves a swift kick in the teeth.

 

[kirovman]

You think your life has a purpose? you think you have it tough? grow up kid, there's a WHOLE world outside your bedroom, you're not special. You're an ignorant piece of trash that deserves a swift kick in the teeth.

You are so dead when he reads this post... :O

 

[Icarusintel]

as great as the idea is that everyone can live in luxury its not going to happen anytime soon, or ever if people with money and power have their way... without the third world they lose their source of cheap labor, so, its just not gonna work out, no matter how many good samaritans there are out there

 

[Flyingdebris]

As it stands there was some sort of estimate done saying that for the entire world to enjoy the same standard of living as the 1st world countries, you'd need 4 more earth biomasses to support that.

I'm hoping humanity reaches space coloniztion by that point to help stem off overpopulation. I know i sure as hell want to get off this rock.

 

[Glirk Dient]

We need to cut down on population. If we could do that the world would be an easier place to live in. There are signs of America being over populated for the land to sustain us. The way we are combating this is education and hope people have 1 kid hence halving the population over generations. If we could do that then we may be able to support the whole world to have a high standard of living. Of course the whole situtation is many more times complicated than that and is far beyond the scope of our debate.

 

[Milkman]

As it stands there was some sort of estimate done saying that for the entire world to enjoy the same standard of living as the 1st world countries, you'd need 4 more earth biomasses to support that.

I'm hoping humanity reaches space coloniztion by that point to help stem off overpopulation. I know i sure as hell want to get off this rock.

Tera-form Mars ftw.

And cut down on our wasteful stuff, its not all that hard, really. Make people carry around a fork, spoon, knife to eat with. Viola, no more plastic shit.

 

[Solaris]

As it stands there was some sort of estimate done saying that for the entire world to enjoy the same standard of living as the 1st world countries, you'd need 4 more earth biomasses to support that.

I'm hoping humanity reaches space coloniztion by that point to help stem off overpopulation. I know i sure as hell want to get off this rock.

Under capitalism yes.
Under communism we could all be very well off.

 

[ComradeBadger]

You still haven't explained how it would be set up and function.

Who would watch the watchmen needed to regulate the equality?

 

[$kelet0r]

Under communism we could all be very well off.

lets just say NO
under communism the well-being of the people would deteriorate because of diminishing marginal returns in a stagnant system
there is no innovation or progress in an equal society thus the social depreciation would internally destroy a communist nation eventually

it is blind utopian idealism to say that communism would work because above all it is a rigid model whatever way you look at it that is goes against human nature by advocating the community over the self interest

 

[ComradeBadger]

It's alright, this discussion has been going round and round for ages



I'll take this over American politics ANYDAY.

 

[$kelet0r]

comrade vs solaris: battle for civilisation
sort it out like men - online deathmatch (badger would win )

 

[kirovman]

Agreed, I'm fed up of hearing about politicians who I've never heard of in the States, and this right vs. left stuff.

 

[Cole]

The Development of the 3rd World, and how they will Develop, should be left to them. I don't mean we shouldn't help out, with donating money and aid but they have to figure out how they want to grow up, what kind of government they want, what they want. How they want to run it, we should hold there hand some parts of the way but they decide what they want to do and where to go.

without the third world they lose their source of cheap labor, so, its just not gonna work out, no matter how many good samaritans there are out there

Some Companies will fall, true. But it will also help. America has high tariff's to tax this cheap labor so American Business can compete. As the rest of the world grows, we may just not need those tariff's thus really prices will stay somewhat where they would be today(or the ratio at least).
Tariff's are everywhere, in every country protect there homeland business.

 

[15357]

What the countries in the 3rd world need is a strong military police state goverment which would focus on the economy. When the people are all fed, democracy can begin.


Ok, perhaps not a police state, but a strong goverment.

 

[Murray_H]

Swit swoo!

Who is that in Short Recoil's avatar? If it's you, big boy, give me a PM! Whatever we do together, we can't reproduce, everyone is a winner!

 

[$kelet0r]

What the countries in the 3rd world need is a strong military police state goverment which would focus on the economy. When the people are all fed, democracy can begin.


Ok, perhaps not a police state, but a strong goverment.

you scare me more every day - south korea even today after decades of growth is still very undemocratic

 

[Solaris]

You still haven't explained how it would be set up and function.

Who would watch the watchmen needed to regulate the equality?

The watchmen would be voted. Society would be a complete democracy.

Say you worked for a box 'company', its state owned. You'd all elect a supervisor, who would elect his higher up, who would elect the 'boss' of the company, to stand for each position you need to be qualified, but being voted in means you wont abuse your workers (if you do your voted out).

It would be set up like this.

Each town would create a workers council, who act like local authorities, but also elect someone to a county(state level) these would make other descions and vote for higher ups ect. Much like we have now. Then when the requeired infrasture is in place, the state will panic, it will proably call in the army, but with enough support it will be powerless. The people will then just ignore the state, the police refuse to obey it ect. There will be troubles, probably violent confrentations as the state desperately tries to keep power. When the turnover happens, the economy will fall, living conditions will fall, this is expected.

Money will stop being printed, instead vouchers would be issued, these would be redeamable for things in state shops. Privately owned shops, will still exist but with the lack of money the prices will inflate, making it alot cheaper for people to shop in state shops.

As the surplus value of each worker no-longer goes to the rich, but to the state, it will gradually increase, so the living allowance of each citizen will as more stuff is produced. Living conditions will continously increase.

Sorry if its a bad explanation, I'm trying to find a quote from the book ' The ragged troused Philanthropist' which gives an excellant explanation, Ill make that in a new thread, and we can really go for it

 

[jondy]

You think your life has a purpose? you think you have it tough? grow up kid, there's a WHOLE world outside your bedroom, you're not special. You're an ignorant piece of trash that deserves a swift kick in the teeth.

Yup

As for the communism debate, just.... no.

Money will stop being printed, instead vouchers would be issued, these would be redeamable for things in state shops. Privately owned shops, will still exist but with the lack of money the prices will inflate, making it alot cheaper for people to shop in state shops.

There's a lot of potential corruption inherent in that theory; you have too much faith in human nature

 

[Solaris]

Why, explain how it would be more open to fraud than with normal money?

 

[Flyingdebris]

your communist ideal assumes that people are not going to mind their money becoming worthless, their property being taken away, their children raised by the state, and their religion being abolished.

this is the reason the 2nd ammendment exists in the U.S. so that people could have a means not only to protect themselves from criminals, but to also have a means of fighting back (however so small) in case the government tries to take all your rights and property away.

As for corruption and fraud, it will happen. If any slim posibility of it being able to work exists, people will do it. You will create a system just as corrupt if not more so than the one you replaced, only there'd be several millions killed in achieving that goal.

 

[ríomhaire]

As it stands there was some sort of estimate done saying that for the entire world to enjoy the same standard of living as the 1st world countries, you'd need 4 more earth biomasses to support that.

That's for American lifetyles. If everyone was European we whould only need 2 more, fact.

 

[Solaris]

your communist ideal assumes that people are not going to mind their money becoming worthless, their property being taken away, their children raised by the state, and their religion being abolished.

this is the reason the 2nd ammendment exists in the U.S. so that people could have a means not only to protect themselves from criminals, but to also have a means of fighting back (however so small) in case the government tries to take all your rights and property away.

As for corruption and fraud, it will happen. If any slim posibility of it being able to work exists, people will do it. You will create a system just as corrupt if not more so than the one you replaced, only there'd be several millions killed in achieving that goal.

Okay, I forgot to mention money can be exchanged for vouchers but not vice versa, there property wouldn't be taken away, it would be a gradual change. There children wont be raised by the state, they would be raised by the schools and parents(dude anti communist propoganda @u), dunno where you got that crazy idea from. There religion won't be abolished, churches and stuff would be built, but it would need enough demand, and people would have to contribute there vouchers to fund it. The state won't support religion, but will tolerate it, and encourage people to make there own mind up. Its all about giving people choice to live how they want, not having beliefs ect forced upoun you. It wouldn't be fair if the state payed for a church, becase then it would have to build a monument fore every religion, and it'd be a waste of money.

The 2nd ammendment is crap, youve had yoru rights taken away, youve done f**k all. Your going into a dictator ship willingly, you could vote in some pro-freedom people if you wanted, without needing guns.

Several millions would be killed? Erm, no. Not by teh state anyhow.

Corruption would be non existant, as the bosses would be lected, so corrupt ones would be de elected.

 

[kirovman]

Corruption would be non existant, as the bosses would be lected, so corrupt ones would be de elected.

So bosses are elected on what basis exactly? How much productivity they can get out of the business or on how good their public relations are?

Or how good they are at intimidating workers into voting for them?

How often do people vote and who is elligible to vote?

 

[Solaris]

So bosses are elected on what basis exactly? How much productivity they can get out of the business or on how good their public relations are?

Or how good they are at intimidating workers into voting for them?

Thats up to the workers, on why they vote for them, and the workers would vote in secret, and you dont get paid anymore to be a boss.

 

[gick]

So bosses are elected on what basis exactly? How much productivity they can get out of the business or on how good their public relations are?

Or how good they are at intimidating workers into voting for them?

To be fair, you could say the same about any election, including those in the US and UK.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, but when it comes to business, if you get the workers voting for who will be boss, rather than carefully looking at the person's management skills, the business will be doomed to fail. "I'd like Bob to be the boss because he can down 8 pints of ale"

It's pretty hard keeping a business on track to meet it's goals.

Comparing it with politics isn't really that relevant, because the political parties have already got their act sorted out, it's one of two (or three) parties who win, and the partys elect their leader internally anyway, so there's not much choice for us, the voters, anyway. And in politics it's on a national level.

 

[Solaris]

Yeah, but when it comes to business, if you get the workers voting for who will be boss, rather than carefully looking at the person's management skills, the business will be doomed to fail. "I'd like Bob to be the boss because he can down 8 pints of ale"

It's pretty hard keeping a business on track to meet it's goals.

Comparing it with politics isn't really that relevant, because the political parties have already got their act sorted out, it's one of two (or three) parties who win, and the partys elect their leader internally anyway, so there's not much choice for us, the voters, anyway. And in politics it's on a national level.

Thats why you need to be qualified to stand.

 

[gick]

Yeah, but when it comes to business, if you get the workers voting for who will be boss, rather than carefully looking at the person's management skills, the business will be doomed to fail. "I'd like Bob to be the boss because he can down 8 pints of ale"

Maybe i'm not a very good example, but I sure as hell wouldn't elect an incompetent boss who could bring down the company. I'd vote in somebody with good business skills, because a successful company would obviously benefit me, the employee.