NationStates Jolt Archive

I was talking to my gf about how the first world countries don't really want second and third world countries to become first world countries because that way they could no longer exploit those poor bastards in those second and third world countries. An exploitation that makes our high standard of living possible.

The way I see it, after they saw that actual open occupation no longer benefited their pocket, supressing the locals would be too costly, in addition, an open occupation wouldn't jibe with the promoted self-image of 'beneficial doo-goodies', think of the current Iraq occupation and how the US Gov is basically killing itself trying to sell off the idea that it really is not for their own sake but the Iraqi's well-being that they are occupying the place, they decided to take the next best route: eco-colonialism.

An example would be the buying of fertile land in Africa, use the local slave labour to produce at bottom prices, and next export it to the rich West to make a fortune selling it against huge profit.

What do the first world countries have to win by, for example, China becoming a first world country? Nothing! Estimates are that in 35 years 85% of natural resources will be depleted, i.e. there simply isn't enough to go around (right now there isn't even enough iron ore in the earth's mantle to supply every chinese with a car if they wanted one), and we simply need the slave labout in order to ensure our own eco-survival!

And in light of the way first world countries (mainly the US, and everybody in and out knows it) treat the third and second world countries, is it now obvious why Communism is still around? And stronger in the second world countries?

Why bother hiding it anymore? Let's just bring back the British Empire so everyone knows where we stand.

Very interesting. Could you perhaps explain at which point Australia switched from being an exploited colony to being a first world exploiter? Did it happen overnight? Were convict labourers allowed to trade in their iron chains for top hats and cigars one afternoon? Australia seemed to move from exploited colony to first world country okay, perhaps developing countries should copy Australia?

Very interesting. Could you perhaps explain at which point Australia switched from being an exploited colony to being a first world exploiter? Did it happen overnight? Were convict labourers allowed to trade in their iron chains for top hats and cigars one afternoon? Australia seemed to move from exploited colony to first world country okay, perhaps developing countries should copy Australia?
Australia wasn't exploited by outside parties, such as the times' U.S., Germany, France, The Netherlands, etc. The problem is, the U.S. subverts second or third world countries for its or a few of it citizens' own good/profit, with no REAL interest in actually bettering the situation of that country. Case is point: shoe factories (and other products) in places like Indonesia.

You are by-passing the fact that Australia is still occupied territory; the violent and bloody history of Australian capitalism says it all, and the whites are still there as far as I know.

You are also ignoring two centuries-long oppression of the Australian Aborigines, oppression that lasts to this very day.

In other words, Australia is still a colony where the offspring of the original settlers are living the good live that they aquired by the systematic destruction of the original inhabitants. A real accomplishment. Especially considering that those original inhabitants didn't have shit to fight back with. Kinda like stealing candy from a baby.


Very interesting. Could you perhaps explain at which point Australia switched from being an exploited colony to being a first world exploiter? Did it happen overnight? Were convict labourers allowed to trade in their iron chains for top hats and cigars one afternoon? Australia seemed to move from exploited colony to first world country okay, perhaps developing countries should copy Australia?

From what I understand, expressions like 1st, 2nd and 3rd world were used to determine political alignment during the cold war. I think the scenario you are describing in this thread is the relationship between developed nation and undeveloped nation. However I do agree with your point that globalisation is simply an extension of colonialism and that nationalism is one of many tools used by the wealthy to get the poor to fight their battles for them.

From what I understand, expressions like 1st, 2nd and 3rd world were used to determine political alignment during the cold war.

I didn't know that! I take it 1st = pro capitalism and 3rd = pro communism? If so, what does the 2nd stand for? "neutral" "to be decided"?

I didn't know that! I take it 1st = pro capitalism and 3rd = pro communism? If so, what does the 2nd stand for? "neutral" "to be decided"?

1st was capitalist
2nd was communist
3rd was non aligned countries many of which were victimized by either the U.S. or U.S.S.R. this is why 3rd world became synonymous with developing nations.

Thanks! I can now say I actually learned something useful at the NS forum. :D

1st was capitalist
2nd was communist
3rd was non aligned countries many of which were victimized by either the U.S. or U.S.S.R. this is why 3rd world became synonymous with developing nations.

Is Australia an exploiter of other nations? Was Australia an exploiter of other nations in the past? If Australia wasn't an exploiter of other nations in the past and is now, at which point did it change? What caused the change?

1st was capitalist
2nd was communist
3rd was non aligned countries many of which were victimized by either the U.S. or U.S.S.R. this is why 3rd world became synonymous with developing nations.
Oh crap, so the whole time I've been thinking I came up with 2nd world as my own term to describe a country moving from 3rd world to 1st world? Oops. Thank you for this valuable info.

You don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that Australia is still openly colonized and as such is an extension of the first world, i.e. it doesn't meet the criteria I set up in my opening post.

To apply this to your post:

Is Australia/the First World an exploiter of other nations? = Yes

Was Australia/the First World an exploiter of other nations in the past? = Yes

In other words, nothing changed!

Is Australia an exploiter of other nations? Was Australia an exploiter of other nations in the past? If Australia wasn't an exploiter of other nations in the past and is now, at which point did it change? What caused the change?

How did the aboriginals exploit people in other countries they had no contact with? Magic?

Oh crap, so the whole time I've been thinking I came up with 2nd world as my own term to describe a country moving from 3rd world to 1st world? Oops. Thank you for this valuable info.

No problem, although you could argue that was the case with Cuba during the revolution.

we simply need the slave labout in order to ensure our own eco-survival!

Good idea. You can be my first slave. :D

*very sarcastic*

How did the aboriginals exploit people in other countries they had no contact with? Magic?

The aboriginals did not exploit others, but were the ones being exploited by the British colonists. The same way Africans and Native Americans were exploited by the British in the U.S.

It is only because the conquerers write history and assign names to the people and places they conquer that we refer to white people who live in Australia as Australians and white people who live in U.S. as Americans.

However I hope people in this thread will not stoop to playing race cards or using white guilt to distract from a more important issue.

So Australia was not an exploiting nation in the past. What caused the change?

How did the aboriginals exploit people in other countries they had no contact with? Magic?

I never said that the aboriginals ever exploited other countries. :)

You are aware that you were not referring to the aboriginals, right? After all, you explicitly stated "Australia" several times, i.e. "australians" as oppossed to "aboriginals". And you are aware that in common parlance "australians" refers to the white colonists from mainly Great Brittain, and their offspring who are still occupying the place?

edit: I just saw that Oye Oye beat me to it but I'll just let this stand.

So Australia was not an exploiting nation in the past. What caused the change?

The invasion of what I referred to as the First World repressented by Great Britain.

Okay, I am interested in working out how a country changes from being exploited to being an exploiter. There are many countries that started off poor, for example, Australia, South Korea, Japan, England, but which are now rich. If we can work out the change, then developing nations can do the same thing and become exploiting nations themselves. Then all countries will be rich.

We don't have to use the example of Australia if you don't like. How about South Korea, a formally exploited Japanese colony. How did they become a first world exploiter and where is the change over?

Okay, I am interested in working out how a country changes from being exploited to being an exploiter. There are many countries that started off poor, for example, Australia, South Korea, Japan, England, but which are now rich. If we can work out the change, then developing nations can do the same thing and become exploiting nations themselves. Then all countries will be rich.

We don't have to use the example of Australia if you don't like. How about South Korea, a formally exploited Japanese colony. How did they become a first world exploiter and where is the change over?

When you say started off how far back in history are you going? Several times over the course of their history Japan has been considered a powerful nation and they have made several attempts to colonize China, the Phillipines and other neighbouring countries. England was once a colony of the Roman Empire and it took several centuries before the British became a challenge to the Spaniards and it was with the help of piracy that they became a major colonial power. I don't know much about Australia and Korea's history but from my own experience I've found that luck has as much to do with a nation's destiny as anything else.

Okay, I am interested in working out how a country changes from being exploited to being an exploiter. There are many countries that started off poor, for example, Australia, South Korea, Japan, England, but which are now rich. If we can work out the change, then developing nations can do the same thing and become exploiting nations themselves. Then all countries will be rich.

We don't have to use the example of Australia if you don't like. How about South Korea, a formally exploited Japanese colony. How did they become a first world exploiter and where is the change over?

As far as I can tell, it is not possible for all countries to be rich; the cake isn't that large. Natural resources are running out and in order to uphold the filthy rich lifestyle that the West has gotten accustomed to -- someone has to pay for that in terms of reduced wealth on their part.

I don't know first thing about how South Korea turned from being exploited into a exploiter itself, but I imagine it started by taking measures that prevented the exploitation of their own nation and next adobting the in-human standards that allows one to have peace of mind with the systematic exploitation of others. Maybe others know a thing-or-two about South Korea's history and can shed light on how that transition took place.

1st was capitalist
2nd was communist
3rd was non aligned countries many of which were victimized by either the U.S. or U.S.S.R. this is why 3rd world became synonymous with developing nations.

That is not the definitition I learned...

1st world: the rich and developed countries.
2nd world: areas inside otherwise rich countries that are extremely poor (e.g. slums)
3rd world: poor countries

The term "2nd world country" is meaningless in this definition.

EDIT: after looking it up it seems the cold war definition is the original one - or at least the original one in the USA. Considering the large differences in interpretation of other social and economic terminology between Europe and the US however (e.g. Liberals, Left and right wing) it is hard to say which one was first.

I just looked up some info on South Korea. In 1975 the aveage South Korean made $1,310. In 2002 the average South Korean made $16,950. (These are U.S. dollars and are adjusted for cost of living in South Korea.)

Obviously that is a big improvment. Prior and during world war two, Koreans were terribly exploited by the Japanese. They were forced to take Japanese names, adopt Japanese customs, and many of them were used as slave labourers. But now they are doing quite well. If we can find out what they did that dragged their people out of poverty and apply it to other countries, then, hopefully they can become just as rich.

As far as I can tell, it is not possible for all countries to be rich; the cake isn't that large. Natural resources are running out and in order to uphold the filthy rich lifestyle that the West has gotten accustomed to -- someone has to pay for that in terms of reduced wealth on their part.

I don't know first thing about how South Korea turned from being exploited into a exploiter itself, but I imagine it started by taking measures that prevented the exploitation of their own nation and next adobting the in-human standards that allows one to have peace of mind with the systematic exploitation of others. Maybe others know a thing-or-two about South Korea's history and can shed light on how that transition took place.

I have to disagree on a few points. First, I think that the cake is large enough for all of us to live well (if you are refering to land and natural resources) Second, there are people in Africa who live better than people in the U.S. The wealthy people do not distinguish between East and West if things get bad in one country they can afford to move.

As far as I can tell, it is not possible for all countries to be rich; the cake isn't that large. Natural resources are running out

I don't see lack of resources as being a giant problem. People can use geothermal, wind, solar and other renewable power sources. Plastics can be made from plants. Metals can be recycled. Both Japan and U.S. have a high standard of living, but Japan uses much less energy per head. You don't have to tear through a huge amount of resources to be rich. Being rich can mean being healthy, having a comfortable place to live, maybe an electric or hybrid car, peace and safety, and the ability to raise a familly, have fun, etc.

South Korea made its move in two steps:

1) South Koreans were originally offering very cheap labour, this turned them into one of the world's big workforces. In short, they worked their asses off (and didnt accumulate debt like a number of other countries)

2) With the moderate wealth this created, they invested hugely in education, and this allowed the workforce to move into high-tech industries that generated more money (think of Samsung)

Also, on the resources thing. The US uses FAR more resources than it has to (to be rich). The big example I'd use is fuel. Obviously these days there's hybrid cars/fuel cells/whatever else which are emerging, but still, your cars are huge! Over here in the UK, there's a massive tax on fuel (compared to you guys, at least). All it means, is on average, people get smaller cars which use less fuel (and I beleive there are tax breaks and incentives to get hybrid or electric cars). There's no way that most people need a 4x4 which does under 20mpg, but your government is too scared to put in the restrictions which would stop people using all that fuel.

South Korea made its move in two steps:

1) South Koreans were originally offering very cheap labour, this turned them into one of the world's big workforces. In short, they worked their asses off (and didnt accumulate debt like a number of other countries)

2) With the moderate wealth this created, they invested hugely in education, and this allowed the workforce to move into high-tech industries that generated more money (think of Samsung)

People in poor countries already work damned hard in most cases, so it looks like education is the most important investment to make for a country to grow rich.

People in poor countries already work damned hard in most cases, so it looks like education is the most important investment to make for a country to grow rich.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't suggesting that people in other countries don't work hard but I would say that education is the key. I'm not entirely sure why South Korea has been able to afford it where other countries havn't, however. It could be to do with corrupt governments and stuff. Like I mentioned, debt is a huge problem for a lot of poor countries, which is what keeps many in the state they're in today. Maybe the South Korean government was somehow just more fiscally responsible.

And in light of the way first world countries (mainly the US, and everybody in and out knows it) treat the third and second world countries, is it now obvious why Communism is still around? And stronger in the second world countries?
That's for neglecting to point out that the freely provided technologies of the West and particularly the US are what the economies of India and China are counting on to leap from agrarian to post-industrial. The policies of the 1st world nations, as odious as they might be, are going to save more lives and provide far more happieness in the long run than they ever "stole".

As far as Korea goes, it became an exploiter in large part because the U$ willed it to be one. After the Korean War, it was strategically in the best intrest of the U$ to turn South Korea into a prosperous bulkwark against then spreading communisim. So America transfered a great deal of wealth and technology into the forming of a powerful and capitalist South Korea. In the post WWII era, most nations that went from underdog to powerhouse did so by placing their noses firmly in Uncle Sams postierior. However, since the "fall" of communisism, that is begining to change. China is on it's way to super power status despite the fact that it scares the hell out of Washington.

Just my two cents.

I have to disagree on a few points. First, I think that the cake is large enough for all of us to live well (if you are refering to land and natural resources) Second, there are people in Africa who live better than people in the U.S. The wealthy people do not distinguish between East and West if things get bad in one country they can afford to move.

I admit that "the cake is or isn't large enough" is a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that our natural resources are finite. The question is: how long will they last? As has been pointed out by Aldisia, the US uses much more than it needs to have a good life, so our resources might last longer than I suspect if the US would sober up and other countries refuse to follow their bad example, but even then we have to take into consideration the population growth, current estimate is that in 30 years the earth will be at its maximum carrying capacity, and thereby greatly increased consumption is unavoidable, hence my expectation that it will be sooner than later that those resources will run dry.

I don't get your second point because I never said that there aren't wealthy people in underdeveloped countries, there onviously are.

The policies of the 1st world nations, as odious as they might be, are going to save more lives and provide far more happieness in the long run than they ever "stole".

That has yet to be proven.

BTW You count the US among those 'life saving' 1st world nations? The same US who vetoed against selling meds to underdevolped countries against bargain prices?

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't suggesting that people in other countries don't work hard

Sorry! I didn't mean to suggest you thought that! You just pointed out a fact, South Koreans did work damn hard.

As far as Korea goes, it became an exploiter in large part because the U$ willed it to be one. After the Korean War, it was strategically in the best intrest of the U$ to turn South Korea into a prosperous bulkwark against then spreading communisim. So America transfered a great deal of wealth and technology into the forming of a powerful and capitalist South Korea.

Intersting idea, but South Korea's economy didn't take off until 1975, long after the U.S. wanted to strengthen it to withstand communism. They seemed happy with a South Korean leader who was anti-communist, but not terribly good for the economy. But yes, America bought South Korean products, accepted students, and provided security.

Nowadays the all the developed countries of the world can help developing nations by providing security, buying products, and helping to educate people.

That has yet to be proven.

BTW You count the US among those 'life saving' 1st world nations? The same US who vetoed against selling meds to underdevolped countries against bargain prices?
Hey, if you want to hijack this thread and talk about all the innovation the US just gives away, much of it the fruit of military labors BTW, it absolutely can be done. China and India can't support the slow grind through industrialization that the west endured. They've got too many people, they'd collapse under social ills and famine. And maybe they still will, but the opportunity to make the leaps is made at all possible by the hard won capital and know-how of the West and in particular the US.

So what if the US won't let countries manufacture non-generic medications for free? We haven't given them enough with accurate weather forcasting, industrialized food (which has already saved more people than AIDS will likely ever kill), open telecommunications standards, ubiquitous world wide communications, and a collossal explosion of free engineering know-how. To say nothing of the erradication of smallpox, and near erradication of polio (no thanks to the crazy Africans). How about the little bitch potentates each give up a gold plated toilet to develop their own HIV drug which they can then sell back to the post-industrial economies? I guess that's just asking too much.

Views like yours are the reason isolationism is such a popular idea. No matter how much we give, no matter how much selfless good is done, it's never enough.

the freely provided technologies of the West and particularly the US are what the economies of India and China are counting on to leap from agrarian to post-industrial. The policies of the 1st world nations, as odious as they might be, are going to save more lives and provide far more happieness in the long run than they ever "stole".

Yes, that's true. We all benefit from the efforts of past generations. However, very few people nowadays feel greatful towards the Chinese for printing presses, gunpowder, compasses, etc. And more people in China curse Britian for the opium wars than thank them for making improvments to the steam engine. That's human nature. I think that intelligent efforts made now to "lend a hand" to developing coutries will more than pay for themselves in greater trust and security in the future.

Intersting idea, but South Korea's economy didn't take off until 1975...


Of course it didn't fully take off untill the mid 70's. These things don't happen over night. An infrastructure has to be built. A whole generation has to be educated and indoctronated into the new economic and political system. A population doesn't accept radical change instantly. Their children have to be raised with these new ideals before they completely take root. That would take at least 20 years or so.

So what if the US won't let countries manufacture non-generic medications for free? We haven't given them enough with accurate weather forcasting, industrialized food (which has already saved more people than AIDS will likely ever kill), open telecommunications standards, ubiquitous world wide communications, and a collossal explosion of free engineering know-how. To say nothing of the erradication of smallpox, and near erradication of polio (no thanks to the crazy Africans). How about the little bitch potentates each give up a gold plated toilet to develop their own HIV drug which they can then sell back to the post-industrial economies? I guess that's just asking too much.

The refusal to allow the manufacture of cheap drugs is typical of the US (and much of the western world's) attitude to trade. Sure, China and various other countries may have picked up plenty of engineering/military/agricultural 'know how' from the west. Unfortunately, they are entirely unable to use it to their advantage because trade barriers set up in the form of taxes on imports (to 'protect' domestic industry) stop the majority of underdeveloped countries from being able to compete in the global market (though china doesn't fall into this category, and guess what, it's the fastest growing economy in the world).

South Korea made its move in two steps:

1) South Koreans were originally offering very cheap labour, this turned them into one of the world's big workforces. In short, they worked their asses off (and didnt accumulate debt like a number of other countries)

2) With the moderate wealth this created, they invested hugely in education, and this allowed the workforce to move into high-tech industries that generated more money (think of Samsung)
<snip>
IIRC South Korea also had a rule that Capital Flight=Capital Offence. Needless to say they didn't have Russia's problem of people making billions and then taking it away.
Also, SK has a marked habit of totally ignoring the advice of the IMF and the World Bank, an excellent idea given that both institutions are incompetent.

I have to disagree on a few points. First, I think that the cake is large enough for all of us to live well (if you are refering to land and natural resources) Second, there are people in Africa who live better than people in the U.S. The wealthy people do not distinguish between East and West if things get bad in one country they can afford to move.


Huh????????? since when is this cake big enough, (I am a complete doofuss btw and am the worst in politics but....)......it would be nice if we had enough of everything to go around but due (from what I can see) to rediculously greedy and over ambitious countries such as the GB and the U.S, no one else stands a chance! Forgive me, I know nothing! :headbang:

No one (at least I don't think anyone) is suggesting that there are sufficient resources for everyone in the world to be like the US. I do beleive however, that there is enough for everyone to live comfortably, and at the very least, not in poverty.

Huh????????? since when is this cake big enough, (I am a complete doofuss btw and am the worst in politics but....)......it would be nice if we had enough of everything to go around but due (from what I can see) to rediculously greedy and over ambitious countries such as the GB and the U.S, no one else stands a chance! Forgive me, I know nothing! :headbang:

If you recognise that you're a doofuss, then truely, you are not a doofus.

There is enough pie to go around, or at least there will be in the future. I am interested in making sure that there is enough pie for all.

Some people think there aren't enough resources to go around for everyone to be rich, but I disagree.

If we wanted to, we could live very comfortable, rich, lifestyles using very little resources. Each house could have solar and or windpower, an electric car, energy efficent appliances, a rainwater tank, high speed internet and computers, and all garbage could be recycled. There is no reason why everyone couldn't eventually enjoy the same.

Of course, not every house would actually have to be self sufficent, but it does illustrate the point.

There are still plenty of resources on earth, and even if we somehow used up all deposits of valuable metals, the atoms wouldn't be destroyed. We could always extract metals and other elements from seawater if we wanted to. (Difficult, but possible.)

Poor nations can become rich by educating their people and investing in improving their economies. Since almost all poor people want to get richer, often this just means creating an environment where people can use their talents freely. Of course this is still difficult to achieve. There are wars and corruption and disease in poor countries. Given time, even the poorest countries will gradually improve. Almost all the improvment in the lives of the people in developing nations were achieved by their own sweat. However, a little assistance could still help millions.

It might appear that rich nations of the world are helping themselves to the world's rescources while the poor nations make do with a pitance, but it only appears that way because it's true. However, if we don't stand in the way of poor nations development, and maybe even lend a hand, everyone can enjoy a high standard of living in the future.

That sounds like a perfect view of the future. I'd love to beleive things will be like that, but to me, it seems incredibly unlikely, close to impossible. I''m sure you're right that things wil improve, though. It just seems a bit optemistic to think that all the corrupt governments in the world will change, that the abuse of resources will cmpletely end everywhere and that war will end. We can dream though :)

No one (at least I don't think anyone) is suggesting that there are sufficient resources for everyone in the world to be like the US. I do beleive however, that there is enough for everyone to live comfortably, and at the very least, not in poverty.

I think there are more than sufficient resources for everyone in the world to enjoy a standard of living higher than that in the United States. We we had to we could do it using technology we have today. However, I think we will gradually achieve it using improved technology. We will gradually make use of cleaner sources of energy, we will gradually improve the efficency of power use and manufacturing, we will lower the cost of many things that nowadays seem expensive.

I'm not saying that everyone in the world will be able to drive a gas guzzeling SUV, but I am saying that everyone in the world could have a lightweight, efficent, electric or perhaps hydrogen powered car.

I agree with you. The standard of living can (in my opinion) be as high for everyone as in the US. I just meant that if the rest of the world used resources as fast as America does, we'd run out pretty quick.

Wealth is not distributed, it is created.

What distinguishes the world's poorest places from the richest isn't history, or natural resources.

Its governance.

Poor nation's which haven't developed have governments which do not respect fundamental rights.

Why would anyone in the West invest in a country like Zimbabwe, when anything invented is likely to be seized by some thug with a Party Badge?

For a nation to advance, and get richer, it needs a government that will protect all people's rights, and a government that will invest in infrastructure (essential infrastructure, not white-elephants), and education (not political indoctrination)

However, I think we will gradually achieve it using improved technology. We will gradually make use of cleaner sources of energy, we will gradually improve the efficency of power use and manufacturing, we will lower the cost of many things that nowadays seem expensive.

The thing is that the human race is running out of time at a very fast pace, i.e. there is no time to do things 'gradually'.

As I said in a previous post, the earth's maximum carrying capacity will be reached in approximately 30 years, which translates into an increased exploitation of the natural resources and more conflict between humans, i.e. more war. I suspect the later will give rise to the politicians to try to install rules that will turn the most democratic nation into a 'democratic dictatorship', (yes, I am aware what a oxymoron that one is!) all under the excuse of: "It is for your own safety!!" Kinda the way the US is going now, don't you think?




-

Poor nation's which haven't developed have governments which do not respect fundamental rights.

According to that line of reasoning the West should be dirt poor. With the US arguable the poorest of them all. Installed, what was it? Ah yes, 30+ dictatorships since WWII. Talk about "respecting fundamental rights"!

Mmmh, aren't investors pulling out of the US since that GWII started? Maybe an omen!

As I said in a previous post, the earth's maximum carrying capacity will be reached in approximately 30 years,

Really? Lets think about what Japan would do if resources started to run out today. Japan has a population of 126 million living on a land area of 250,000 km2. Most of Japan is mountainous and 66.7% is forest.

Fortunately Japan has decades worth of nuclear fuel and an extensive hydroelectric system. If Japan couldn't obtain fossil fuels they could invest in more alternative energy, wind, solar, geothermal. Japan would make cars even more efficient. Biomass could be used as a sustitute for gasoline and plastics stock. There is little mining currently because mineral deposits in Japan are generally too expensive to mine, but if they couldn't get minerals from overseas it would be easy enough for them to mine in their own country. Materials could be recycled. Japan has some oil deposits which have been kept for emergencies. These could be used until gasoline burning cars are replaced. The continental shelf could be mined. Japan's forests can produce a substanial amount of wood on a sustainable basis. In world war two Japan proved just barely able to support a population of 100 million with food produced in Japan. With modern greenhouses, genetically modified crops, and bacterial and yeast conversion of waste material into foodstuffs, Japan could manage to feed a population of 126 million even if food imports were cut off for some reason. Japan has an extremely well educated, brainy, population that would be hard at work developing new ways to save current resources and develop new resources. They could well develop fusion power and then use the cheap energy to extract elements from sea water if they wanted to.

So, even a resource poor, overpopulated country like Japan can adapt to resources running out. They will be in a lot better position in 30 years time as technology improves. I doubt that we're heading for a lack of resources disaster.

You are conveniently ignoring the rest of the world. Also, the fact that man will exceed the earth's maximum carrying capacity, i.e. continue taking from the environment what the environment needs to sustain itself, and as a result trigger natural disasters that might very well whipe us off the map. Think "dinosaur": a vastly more succesfull species in terms of survival and yet they did bite the dust because of a simple natural disaster.

P.C., I think you put too much stock on man's ability to be reasonable. History shows us that overall man is a very unreasonable and self-destructive species, and there is nothing that indicates that this has changed or will change in the future.

You are conveniently ignoring the rest of the world.
I chose Japan as an example because it's it is so resource poor and has such a large population. If Japan can adapt to resources running out, think of how much better positions countries such as the E.U. Brazil, the U.S., and Australia will do. Indeed Australia has enough coal for it's own use to last thousands of years. It also has enough iron, enough aluminium and enough of numourous other minerals to last thousands of years. If other coutries start to run out of resources then Australia could help them out by trading with them. So what happens in the rest of the world could help other countries.

Also, the fact that man will exceed the earth's maximum carrying capacity, i.e. continue taking from the environment what the environment needs to sustain itself, and as a result trigger natural disasters that might very well whipe us off the map. Think "dinosaur": a vastly more succesfull species in terms of survival and yet they did bite the dust because of a simple natural disaster.


I'm not sure what you mean by carrying capacity. Japan squeezes a large population into a small area and doesn't seem to have exceeded the carrying capacity of Japan. Japan suggests that the "carrying capacity" of the earth must be immense. Global warming is a problem, but doesn't really have the capacity to wipe humanity out. If you're worried about an asteroid strike like what hit the dinosaurs, perhaps some sort of space based defence is called for.

I think you put too much stock on man's ability to be reasonable. History shows us that overall man is a very unreasonable and self-destructive species, and there is nothing that indicates that this has changed or will change in the future.

That's why I practice being resonable everyday. I try to think through things as best I can and discuss them intelligently with other people. I try not to accept statements at face value, but think about them in terms of what I know and weigh the evidence for or against the statement.

As for what history shows, a few thousand years ago, perhaps as many as a quater of all men died in tribal warefare and intra tribal violence. Whereas in the twentieth centuary only about 2% of people died from violence. So there is definately evidence from history to show that people have learned to get on better with each other, despite often being unreasonable at times.

As far as I can tell, it is not possible for all countries to be rich; the cake isn't that large. Natural resources are running out and in order to uphold the filthy rich lifestyle that the West has gotten accustomed to -- someone has to pay for that in terms of reduced wealth on their part.

I don't know first thing about how South Korea turned from being exploited into a exploiter itself, but I imagine it started by taking measures that prevented the exploitation of their own nation and next adobting the in-human standards that allows one to have peace of mind with the systematic exploitation of others. Maybe others know a thing-or-two about South Korea's history and can shed light on how that transition took place.

To clarify my earlier response to this post. I think that rich is a relative term that relies on the existence of the poor. So you are correct in saying that the cake isn't large enough if being rich implies that you can afford to hire someone to clean your toilets for you. However, if saying the cake isn't big enough implies that there aren't enough resources to comfortably support the worlds population, I disagree.

My second point about there being people in Africa who are wealthier than people in the U.S. was made because you state that "natural resources are running out and in order to uphold the filthy rich lifestyle that the West has gotten accustomed to--" I was only trying to make clear that the mismanagement of our resources is a global issue and should not be blamed on the West.

I was talking to my gf about how the first world countries don't really want second and third world countries to become first world countries because that way they could no longer exploit those poor bastards in those second and third world countries. An exploitation that makes our high standard of living possible.

The way I see it, after they saw that actual open occupation no longer benefited their pocket, supressing the locals would be too costly, in addition, an open occupation wouldn't jibe with the promoted self-image of 'beneficial doo-goodies', think of the current Iraq occupation and how the US Gov is basically killing itself trying to sell off the idea that it really is not for their own sake but the Iraqi's well-being that they are occupying the place, they decided to take the next best route: eco-colonialism.

An example would be the buying of fertile land in Africa, use the local slave labour to produce at bottom prices, and next export it to the rich West to make a fortune selling it against huge profit.

What do the first world countries have to win by, for example, China becoming a first world country? Nothing! Estimates are that in 35 years 85% of natural resources will be depleted, i.e. there simply isn't enough to go around (right now there isn't even enough iron ore in the earth's mantle to supply every chinese with a car if they wanted one), and we simply need the slave labout in order to ensure our own eco-survival!


Unless you're willing to move to Africa and live a peasant lifestyle, stop complaining about it and be glad you were born in the 1st World.

So what happens in the rest of the world could help other countries.

In other words, you expect man to suddenly start behaving in an all out altruïstic way when there is nothing that indicates that this change will come about. I say "change" because right now man is behaving like a very egoïstic species.



I'm not sure what you mean by carrying capacity.

It is mathematically impossible for any finite space (such as the Earth) to accomodate an unlimited number of anything. There is some maximum number of people the Earth can comfortably or even possibly hold.



Japan squeezes a large population into a small area and doesn't seem to have exceeded the carrying capacity of Japan. Japan suggests that the "carrying capacity" of the earth must be immense.

It is. We are already 4+billion over the ideal number of humans. Unfortunately the world population is still growing, and with nothing that can be taken as a sign that we will stop behaving like a bad virus that can't keep itself from multiplying.


Global warming is a problem, but doesn't really have the capacity to wipe humanity out. If you're worried about an asteroid strike like what hit the dinosaurs, perhaps some sort of space based defence is called for.

I was thinking more along the lines of : http://www.exitmundi.nl/ :)


That's why I practice being resonable everyday. I try to think through things as best I can and discuss them intelligently with other people. I try not to accept statements at face value, but think about them in terms of what I know and weigh the evidence for or against the statement.

If you are succesfull at this then you are the exception.


As for what history shows, a few thousand years ago, perhaps as many as a quater of all men died in tribal warefare and intra tribal violence. Whereas in the twentieth centuary only about 2% of people died from violence. So there is definately evidence from history to show that people have learned to get on better with each other, despite often being unreasonable at times.

I would not take that as 'evidence'. It just tells us that those who send us to war were content with peace, and the moment they change their mind they will send us to war once more. Nothing that has changed in that respect. A good example of this would be GWII.

And taking into consideration that tension is on the rise, and that worldpowers are upgrading and expanding their army's, I'd say there is a good chance there will be another WW, one that will last significantly shorter than the previous two but which will also have many more casualties. Of course this is just mere speculation, just as the idea of world peace is.

To clarify my earlier response to this post. I think that rich is a relative term that relies on the existence of the poor. So you are correct in saying that the cake isn't large enough if being rich implies that you can afford to hire someone to clean your toilets for you. However, if saying the cake isn't big enough implies that there aren't enough resources to comfortably support the worlds population, I disagree.

Are you taking the growth of the world population into consideration?

My second point about there being people in Africa who are wealthier than people in the U.S. was made because you state that "natural resources are running out and in order to uphold the filthy rich lifestyle that the West has gotten accustomed to--" I was only trying to make clear that the mismanagement of our resources is a global issue and should not be blamed on the West.

My mistake. I should have specified that with "the West" I refer not just to the West but also to those who adopted the Western lifestyle.

Unless you're willing to move to Africa and live a peasant lifestyle, stop complaining about it and be glad you were born in the 1st World.

The only one here who is complaining is you.

If this fact really passed you by then I suggest you sign up for a reading comprehension class.

Good luck! :)

In other words, you expect man to suddenly start behaving in an all out altruïstic way when there is nothing that indicates that this change will come about. I say "change" because right now man is behaving like a very egoïstic species.

Australia already helps Japan with their lack of resources. They ship thousands of tons of coal and iron ore over there every year. So no need to begin anything, they just need to continue what they've been doing.

It is mathematically impossible for any finite space (such as the Earth) to accomodate an unlimited number of anything. There is some maximum number of people the Earth can comfortably or even possibly hold.

I think we're a long way from running out of standing room. I guess you're referring to things such as food production. No problem. The Earth's population is projected to peak at around nine billion. We can feed that many. We already produce enough calories to feed that many and I see no reason why we can't produce even more as demand increases.
We are already 4+billion over the ideal number of humans.

Ideal according to who? If my dad started saying that his familly had more than the ideal number of children I'd start to worry. For one thing my feelings would be hurt, and for another I might start thinking that he might want to get rid of a few of us.

Just as I think every child can add something to a familly no matter how large it is, I think that every person in the world has something to add to the human race.

Unfortunately the world population is still growing, and with nothing that can be taken as a sign that we will stop behaving like a bad virus that can't keep itself from multiplying.

You can relax. Birth rates have declined all over the developed world. As afluence increases people have less children. And afluence has improved a lot. The lives of billions of people living in absolute poverty have improved particulary in India and China over the past few decades.

tension is on the rise, and that worldpowers are upgrading and expanding their army's,

Actually millitary spending has declined overall since the end of the cold war. Indeed the U.S. millitary is currently going backwards in effectiveness to the the occupation of Iraq. I can't think of any countries that are spending more on their armed forces in real terms. The U.S. (minus occupation costs) Europe, China, they have all cut spending. There must be some smaller countries that have increased spending more but I can't think of them. Maybe it's just because I'm old, but the world seems to have become a lot more peaceful since I was a kid.

Phylum Chordata, I'm goning to reply to that later when I have sufficient time, right now it is time to eat. :)

Are you taking the growth of the world population into consideration?


Yes.

Australia already helps Japan with their lack of resources. They ship thousands of tons of coal and iron ore over there every year. So no need to begin anything, they just need to continue what they've been doing.

Are they actually "helping" Japan or is this simply a matter of "doing bussines as usual"? I'm sceptic about Australia just giving Japan thousands of tons of coal and iron ore, and if they are selling it then this is simply a matter of the Aussies helping themselves line their own pocket.


I think we're a long way from running out of standing room. I guess you're referring to things such as food production. No problem. The Earth's population is projected to peak at around nine billion. We can feed that many. We already produce enough calories to feed that many and I see no reason why we can't produce even more as demand increases.

Peak at 9 billion? Where did you get that? Many experts on the topic would disagree strongly with you on that one. As for being able to feed that many, sure, but the question is: for how long? Already our exploitation of the Earth is beyond what the eco-system can take. In other worlds, it is only a matter of time before the Earth's eco-system, of which we are dependant for our survival, collapses.

Ideal according to who?

I got that from my old biology textbook. The number was based on food production, the load that human activities are imposing on the biosphere, global warming, chemicals and pollution, labor and wages, issues of social equity, and the problems of crowding, disease, and misery.


Just as I think every child can add something to a familly no matter how large it is, I think that every person in the world has something to add to the human race.

That is all very nice but I fail to see how this changes anything about the non-negotiable fact that when you have finite space and finite resources you will eventually run out of both. The later can only result in total disaster. Again, this not my belief but a matter of empirical fact.

Maybe you are thinking along the lines of "technology will save the day" and think that we can all contribute to that techno advancement? In that case let me remind you that this is a believe, or "wishful thinking" if you want, that is only shared by non-scientists. Consensus among scientists is that despite technological advancements, human numbers will ultimately overwhelm our ecosystems. We will eventually run out of finite resources, such as space and water. Even the CIA has weighed in on the issue, predicting in its “Global Trends 2015” report that parts of the U.S. will experience water shortages by 2015. The report stated that water conservation, expanded use of desalinization, developing genetically modified crops that use less water or more saline water, and importing water “will not be sufficient to substantially change the outlook for water shortages in 2015". This is not even mentioning that the WHO has predicted that the West will eventually wage war just so they can lay their hands on water supplies. This is already happening in Africa as we speak.


You can relax. Birth rates have declined all over the developed world.

You mean that same "developed world" whose population comprises only a very small fraction of the world population? Why are you ignoring the underdevolped countries where birthrates are anything but on the decrease? I thought you said that you try every day to be reasonable, and yet you leave out important facts in an attempt to make your case, in the process only losing your credibility as a reasonable person.

As afluence increases people have less children. And afluence has improved a lot. The lives of billions of people living in absolute poverty have improved particulary in India and China over the past few decades.

You might really want to do a little research on that one. Fact is that the lives of only a fraction of those billions have improved, for the rest nothing has changed. In addition, in India and China having children is still very much a matter of social pressure,for example: having many children is a sign of virility, and the level of afluency won't reduce the number of children they have by much, if any, i.e. the population will continue to grow.


Actually millitary spending has declined overall since the end of the cold war. Indeed the U.S. millitary is currently going backwards in effectiveness to the the occupation of Iraq. I can't think of any countries that are spending more on their armed forces in real terms. The U.S. (minus occupation costs) Europe, China, they have all cut spending. There must be some smaller countries that have increased spending more but I can't think of them. Maybe it's just because I'm old, but the world seems to have become a lot more peaceful since I was a kid.

I wasn't referring to "after the cold war" but "the last few years". The last few years the military spending of nations like the US, China and Russia has been on the increase.

As for "more peaceful" I say that is just the silence before the storm. :)

You might find the following articles interesting:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/04/10/china_bolsters_its_forces_us_says/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=10000087&sid=a38FtMxfEJng&refer=top_world_news

http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/04-23-3.htm

Are they actually "helping" Japan or is this simply a matter of "doing bussines as usual"? I'm sceptic about Australia just giving Japan thousands of tons of coal and iron ore, and if they are selling it then this is simply a matter of the Aussies helping themselves line their own pocket.

I was hungry. I went to the shop. I bought some food. The people at the store helped me by giving me food. I helped them by giving them money. They lined their pockets, I lined my stomache. We are both better off. I had money, they had food. I valued food more than I valued keeping all my money. They valued my money more than they valued keeping the food. We both came out ahead on the deal.

Peak at 9 billion? Where did you get that? Many experts on the topic would disagree strongly with you on that one.

I got that from the U.N. report on population growth. I suppose they could be fooling.

That is all very nice but I fail to see how this changes anything about the non-negotiable fact that when you have finite space and finite resources you will eventually run out of both. The later can only result in total disaster. Again, this not my belief but a matter of empirical fact.

Yes, there is finite space and finite resources. And the amount energy falling on the earth from the sun is also finite, but on a human scale it is still quite a lot. If you have energy, you can use it to concentrate material. None of the atoms you use in your everyday life are destroyed. They just get spread around. Even if all the materials in the earth's crust were evenly distributed, we could still concentrate them by using energy from the sun. So for every 100 kilos of dirt on the earth we could extract 8.1 kilos of aluminium, 5 kilos of iron, and 2.1 kilos of magnesium. Obviously you won't get much in the way of rare metals, but I guess that's why they're called rare. While the sun's energy is finite, it's still good for a few billion years, as is geothermal energy.

Maybe you are thinking along the lines of "technology will save the day" and think that we can all contribute to that techno advancement? In that case let me remind you that this is a believe, or "wishful thinking" if you want, that is only shared by non-scientists. Consensus among scientists is that despite technological advancements, human numbers will ultimately overwhelm our ecosystems.

I'm a scientist.

You might really want to do a little research on that one. Fact is that the lives of only a fraction of those billions have improved, for the rest nothing has changed. In addition, in India and China having children is still very much a matter of social pressure,for example: having many children is a sign of virility, and the level of afluency won't reduce the number of children they have by much, if any, i.e. the population will continue to grow.

Between 1979 and 2003, the Chinese economy expanded, on average, by approximately 9.0 per cent per year. (Bank of Canada Review.)

This means that their wealth doubled every eight years. Which means that on average the Chinese were eight times richer in 2003 than they were in 1979. Now while there are people still living in extreme poverty by many people's standands, things have improved markedly for the vast bulk of the Chinese population. Thirty or more years ago there were villages were people literally had no clothes. They would use soot to cover themselves and weave "clothes" out of grass. I doubt you'll find many clothesless villages in China now a days.

China's population growth has slowed to about 1% per annum. About 1.3 billion people live in China now and there are expected to be about 1.6 billion by 2050. China has had much faster population growth in the past.

India's population is still growing rapidly, despite showing gradual declines since the 1980's. The six poorest provinces account for more than half the popultion growth. This suggests that there will be a lot of people living in poverty in India for a long time to come, but seems unlikely to cause the world's ecosystem to collaspe. I don't see how poor people in India could manage that. How could they do it? Sure they coul cause ecological damage in India, but I fail to see a mechanism which would cause a worldwide damage. Do they have some sort of evil plan?

So in conclusion, question what you read and hear. Get the facts, think about what can be done to help, and then put your energy into where it will do the most good.

"I was hungry. I went to the shop. I bought some food. The people at the store helped me by giving me food. I helped them by giving them money. They lined their pockets, I lined my stomache. We are both better off. I had money, they had food. I valued food more than I valued keeping all my money. They valued my money more than they valued keeping the food. We both came out ahead on the deal."

As it should be.

"According to that line of reasoning the West should be dirt poor. With the US arguable the poorest of them all. Installed, what was it? Ah yes, 30+ dictatorships since WWII. Talk about "respecting fundamental rights"!

Mmmh, aren't investors pulling out of the US since that GWII started? Maybe an omen!"

Bowled over by the overwhelming evidence presented :rolleyes: