Remove this Banner Ad

Equalisation

  • Thread starter Thread starter bkozican
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

bkozican

bkozican

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Posts
8,209
Reaction score
4,082
Location
W.A
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Boston Celtics
I was talking to a few baby boomers the other day and we stuck up a good convo.......

Q, Does the globe need 3rd world countries to support the way we live ??

It sounds really bad but is a legitimate question. If 3rd world countries/citizens were all on good money, could the lifestyle as we all know sustain itself ?

I know there is a few posters that have a good mind for these sorts of topics, Would love to hear from you.

Thoughts ?
 
Middle eastern (persian nations) have been trying to get equality for decades. Americans and poms keep arming, supplying and training groups to make sure that doesn't happen.

so yes, we need them to be 3rd world countries to support our way of life.
 
little graham said:
Middle eastern (persian nations) have been trying to get equality for decades. Americans and poms keep arming, supplying and training groups to make sure that doesn't happen.

so yes, we need them to be 3rd world countries to support our way of life.
Click to expand...

Lets say it happens........Does everybody go under the poverty line, except for the rich of the rich. With US conspiracies.....wouldn't they want it to happen.
 
bkozican said:
Lets say it happens........Does everybody go under the poverty line, except for the rich of the rich. With US conspiracies.....wouldn't they want it to happen.
Click to expand...

We go into civil war. Social decay is long drawn out process that creeps up on you. Only ends with a cleansing.

but, we're going into that now.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

There's no '3rd world', as such anymore after the fall of the Soviet Bloc -

The paradigm is now, simplified as 'Developed States' and 'Developing States' (or the global North and the global South) -

I take issue with the term 'developing states' because it implies they are on the path to 'development', in the Western sense of the word. However, as the OP has brought up, the idea of over 7 billion people on the planet living and consuming the amount of resources that we do is completely out of the realms of possibility.

True global equalisation and equity would require a combination of lifting living standards of those in the poorest parts of the world while the affluent lifestyles will have to be curtailed to an extent to meet somewhere in the middle... Therein lies the main issue as 'we' have collectively become very acustomed to our extremely affluent ways and even just debates about the Carbon Tax in this country demonstrates there isn't a chance in hell of the greedy voluntarily altering their lifestyles to allow for a more equitable global system...
 
The notion that tribes and cultures hundreds-of-thousands of years old even want the shit white people have, fridges and cars and debt and depression, is pretty galling. It's this western notion that they all want to live like us, so we'll help them out, that's the issue. Some people might think living in a humpy and hunting all day is third world – I'd say spreading unneeded religion, changing their views on reproduction and sex, introducing irrelevant western notions of teaching... that's the issue with 'developing' some places.
 
radiojake said:
There's no '3rd world', as such anymore after the fall of the Soviet Bloc -

The paradigm is now, simplified as 'Developed States' and 'Developing States' (or the global North and the global South) -

I take issue with the term 'developing states' because it implies they are on the path to 'development', in the Western sense of the word. However, as the OP has brought up, the idea of over 7 billion people on the planet living and consuming the amount of resources that we do is completely out of the realms of possibility.

True global equalisation and equity would require a combination of lifting living standards of those in the poorest parts of the world while the affluent lifestyles will have to be curtailed to an extent to meet somewhere in the middle... Therein lies the main issue as 'we' have collectively become very acustomed to our extremely affluent ways and even just debates about the Carbon Tax in this country demonstrates there isn't a chance in hell of the greedy voluntarily altering their lifestyles to allow for a more equitable global system...
Click to expand...

Or "putting a cap" on population maybe......Like the Chinese do with children. You bring up a good point in the fact that the Western World could not go back in lifestyle changes....well voluntarily anyway.
 
My take on the general premise of the OP is the the world/society needs to be stratified to a degree - otherwise nobody would do the shit jobs, nobody would have capital to pay for middle-class jobs, etc. and that old (but very valid) chestnut - there would be nothing to strive for.

They key in my opinion to a fair society is social mobility - so that no matter where your lot lands you at birth you are give an opportunity to better your life through working and making your contribution to society.

Whether or not all of this requires the lowest class to be actively oppressed or not is for greater economic minds than I to say.....
 
This argument is over 200 years old and hasn't come to fruition yet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

Generally people forget to take into consideration technological advancement. So if technology advances fast enough you could have 7 billion people living a reasonable lifestyle without crushing the planet.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Let's see if it works in the AFL first.
 
Silent Alarm said:
The notion that tribes and cultures hundreds-of-thousands of years old even want the shit white people have, fridges and cars and debt and depression, is pretty galling. It's this western notion that they all want to live like us, so we'll help them out, that's the issue. Some people might think living in a humpy and hunting all day is third world – I'd say spreading unneeded religion, changing their views on reproduction and sex, introducing irrelevant western notions of teaching... that's the issue with 'developing' some places.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should give up the internet then?
Are you implying that tribal folk don't spread uneccesary religion amongst their tribe?
I'd imagine most 3rd worlder's would love our fridges and cars, otherwise we would be on boats to another country.
 
Last edited:
Humans have come a long way in a short period of time

200 years ago, yikes, what a horrible time to live.

Many countries and societies have advanced themselves well beyond others, and we are left with this 3rd world situation

We tend to think we are smarter than we actually are I think. Im not saying living in mud huts and hiding from the militia is a better way to live than in a wamr house during winter with fresh food, but we are doing plenty of things here that are bad for ourselves

What we are doing now is new ground, with all of our technologies. We havent even lived a single generation with all these changes, we arent to know whether theyre good or bad for us. It may be a 'better' way to live, but probably not the best. We've all got a lot of learning to do on whats best for us and our survival

But the key to knowing better is education, and I dont think its good for any community to have an uneducated community across the ocean. The smarter we all are, the better we all will live

I'm certainly not going to say people living in the east who eat fresh food and are free of the social pressures we face are living worse than us, but those same people live in worse living conditions and in greater fear of safety than us. Whats more valuable? We dont really know, like I said, we havent even passed a generation with everything we have now. We have so much to learn
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

radiojake said:
There's no '3rd world', as such anymore after the fall of the Soviet Bloc -

The paradigm is now, simplified as 'Developed States' and 'Developing States' (or the global North and the global South) -

I take issue with the term 'developing states' because it implies they are on the path to 'development', in the Western sense of the word. However, as the OP has brought up, the idea of over 7 billion people on the planet living and consuming the amount of resources that we do is completely out of the realms of possibility.

True global equalisation and equity would require a combination of lifting living standards of those in the poorest parts of the world while the affluent lifestyles will have to be curtailed to an extent to meet somewhere in the middle... Therein lies the main issue as 'we' have collectively become very acustomed to our extremely affluent ways and even just debates about the Carbon Tax in this country demonstrates there isn't a chance in hell of the greedy voluntarily altering their lifestyles to allow for a more equitable global system...
Click to expand...

Just imagine if all those years ago they allowed us to purchase a light globe designed for economy and range. How much wealth, do you think, that one decision has cost? It's not a question of weakening the standard of living of the richest. Thats how they're being tricked in to continuing the absurdity that is today.
 
kickazz said:
My take on the general premise of the OP is the the world/society needs to be stratified to a degree - otherwise nobody would do the shit jobs
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Just look at your neighborhood. It wouldn't function well if nobody had to do the shit jobs. The 'third world' is this on a macro scale. Unfortunately many don't have the opportunity to improve things for themselves like they could in our countries.
 
iluvparis said:
This argument is over 200 years old and hasn't come to fruition yet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

Generally people forget to take into consideration technological advancement. So if technology advances fast enough you could have 7 billion people living a reasonable lifestyle without crushing the planet.
Click to expand...


I'm not a neo-malthusian because his argument looks solely at population, and his views were quite often driven by his absolute distaste for poor people, who he considered the problem.


The planet could very well easily feed up to 10 billion people, but the issue isn't hte number of people, it's the amount of consumption that the affluent partake in. That is the issue, and that's the biggest driver of inequality and poverty on the planet...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom