Hey guys, I don't know if this is the right board for this but I can't think of a better one.
Do you think the world as a whole would be "better" (or better off) if every current civilization was a first world country or a third world country?
Well if every country had a massive pile of assets magically summoned to contribute to their gdp, the world would be better. There would be more international competition, but the quality of life would increase.
Until they bred like rabbits. Fucking third worlders
>>1058815
First world conditions directly lead to falling birth rates. The whole world being developed would mean global population would shrink.
Depends on your definition of "better".
I would prefer that we lived in pre-industrial world, but that's not necessarily better. I'm just the type of person that doesn't like most of what the modern world has to offer. That doesn't void the lack of quality healthcare or easy access to education at the time though. Still, I think people were happier before consumerism and factories. Life in an agrarian society wasn't so bad near the end of the middle ages.
>>1059249
Go to bed, Tolkien
>>1058616
if every country developed to full capacity overnight, we'd have an energy resource shortage and a lot of people would die.
if every country deindustrialized overnight, we'd have a food and finished goods shortage and a lot of people would die.
so...neither.
>>1059306
You mean like everyone consumes like say the U.S or they consume in te most efficient manner possible with minimized waste and maximized output?
>>1059249
>Life in an agrarian society wasn't so bad near the end of the middle ages.
It sure was, that's when the black death was going on.
You dumb shit.
the meaning for "Third World" is a region unaligned with Western powers and the communist regimes during the Cold War. "First Worlders" were Capitalist/Democratic nations aligned with the US, Western Europe, etc. and "Second World" was USSR, China, Cuba, etc.
The term took on an unintended meaning of a country being politically irrelevent, and people extrapolated and started using "the third world" to describe generally African and South American nations, or any shithole countries in general.
So what you are essentially asking is whether it would be better if every nation in the world shared the USA's interests, or if every single nation in the world avoided any communist/capitalist confrontation and continued to operate autonomously as they had before, in which case I would say, I believe it would be better if more nations had been Third World Nations.
If you think you're talking about every country in the world being rich or industrious all at the same time then this is a meaningless 'what if everyone had a million dollars' thought experiment that leads nowhere.
>>1059224
Which is a bad thing in no way whatsoever. Human population should be several hundred millions at most if we want to keep our high standard of life.
>>1059382
lol we'd lose a fuck ton of labour and all workers of various skill levels.
If you take a poor country and heavily reduce it's population it's not gonna make it's food issues disappear.
>>1059390
At some point in the future this will be inevitable. Vast majority of labor will be automated around the world and people from Nigeria to Japan to Canada will be filled with NEETs shitposting online.
