It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is it that separates 1st world countries from 3rd world?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
North America is a relatively young area compared to the rest of the world. What is it that enabled N America, having not been discovered by the developed world for so long, to populate and compete (and even surpass in some areas) with other much older developed countries in such a short amount of time? (few hundred years) If you could narrow it down to 1 or 2 factors, what would they be?

My initial thoughts on possible differentiating factors were:

different mindset (and if so, where does it come from and why is it so much more abundant in 1st world countries than in 3rd world?)

technology - maybe it became easier to replicate newly discovered facts which basically brought N America up to speed on the technological scale almost instantly? (maybe some other reason?)

climate - idk where I'm goin here lol

economic factors/government - the economy is subject to change based on law, domestic and international. Maybe some economic systems are designed to scale an economy faster? (competition/capitalism comes to mind)

Had a couple other ideas but I can't seem to recall atm



edit on 28-11-2014 by Gwampo because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2014 by Gwampo because: there i fixed it lolol




posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The hoarding of Wealth & Resources...


From 1st World Elite & 3rd World Elite alike...


Monopolies on Water, Land & Food...
3 things humans should be guarunteed in life...


Only thing left is Air...

But come WW3 Oxygen Tanks will also be monopolised.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Gwampo

not sure what you mean by 'ideas' but facts are facts.

There is developed Countries and developing Countries. The developing Countries are those that have the problems.
If you were to consider the mineral wealth in Africa, for example.. you might realize that some other Countries keep Africa in a perpetual state of 'developing' so they can benefit.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
oh sorry, I didn't really answer your question...

the thing that separates them is the developed Countries have great political strategists and the developing Countries do not have them.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gwampo
I think your categories need to be defined more carefully if you want a proper discussion.
In your first paragraph, you're contrasting America with "much older developed countries".
A couple of paragraphs later, you're contrasting America with "third world countries".
But "third world countries" doesn't mean the same thing as "older developed countries", so which contrast do you want to talk about?

(The expression "third world" originally meant those newly independent countries which were not really part either of the "Capitalist West" or of the "Communist Bloc")



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Gwampo

It depends on whether you are the one doing the shafting or the one being shafted. Sorry, that is as polite a way as I can put it.

There are the exploiters and the exploited. There are those nations who are kept poor so that the corporations can get labour at a bargain price. I know a little song about that:

"Union Sundown" by Bob Dylan


"Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore
My flashlight’s from Taiwan
My tablecloth’s from Malaysia
My belt buckle’s from the Amazon
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin’ thirty cents a day

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan
Well, the dog collar’s from India
And the flower pot’s from Pakistan
All the furniture, it says “Made in Brazil”
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin’ home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve
You know, that’s a lot of money to her

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Well, you know, lots of people complainin’ that there is no work
I say, “Why you say that for
When nothin’ you got is U.S.–made?”
They don’t make nothin’ here no more
You know, capitalism is above the law
It say, “It don’t count ’less it sells”
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Well, the job that you used to have
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador
The unions are big business, friend
And they’re goin’ out like a dinosaur
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way

Democracy don’t rule the world
You’d better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that’s better left unsaid
From Broadway to the Milky Way
That’s a lot of territory indeed
And a man’s gonna do what he has to do
When he’s got a hungry mouth to feed

Well, it’s sundown on the union
And what’s made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
’Til greed got in the way"

Copyright © 1983 by Special Rider Music



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gwampo

You should read the book "Open Veins of Latin America" by Edwardo Galeano. It talks about the origins of why Latin America is poor even today.

Fun fact: Hugo Chavez gave this book to Obama at a summit meeting in 2009.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gwampo

I think you've nailed a fair bit of the list. Mine would be the following:

Internal and regional stability - In the absence of internal and regional stability, a state would be more focused on its own survival, and less focused on its position in international affairs.

Economic prowess (imports/exports, government policies etc) - Without the ability to maintain a healthy economy, a state would be inflicted by economic problems. Something which does not bode well in today's globalised society.

Government's ability to function - This may tie into regional and internal stability, but a state must have a capable government in order to function correctly. Without a stable government, a state may fall into disarray and lack capable building blocks. See Libya after the fall of Gaddafi, or the Solomon Islands before Australia's intervention.

Natural resources - This ties into exports, but without natural resources, it would be difficult to become truly wealthy as a state. Some states survive on trading general goods. But like Greece, which doesn't have much to export, a state could very well fail to be regarded as a prosperous state.

Historic and ethnic influences - Some states may have deep historical and ethnic influences which may impact the running of a country. Countries with deep tribal systems often find it difficult to overcome internal political situations, and it may have an effect on their development in the world as a result. This can be seen in some African and Middle-Eastern states. Some have deep tribal structures that render their governments effectively pointless.


edit on 28-11-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

I wonder how many Bob Dylan products are made in foreign countries?

2nd line, the hippie tool shouting revolution while profiting off of disenfranchised youths never impressed me.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

I wonder how many Bob Dylan products are made in foreign countries?

2nd line, the hippie tool shouting revolution while profiting off of disenfranchised youths never impressed me.


I know what you mean. Lyrically Dylan is an acute observer and quite a good social critic. I am glad he has been around and I have found him very inspiring. He gets called everything from Judas to Devil Worshipper. No pleasing some. I posted that song because it spoke better than I could what I wanted to communicate in this thread.

I mentioned in another thread that it is a lonely world without having some people to respect, sins, warts an' all. I have been as naughty in my life as Bob Dylan, may be naughtier, so I don't judge. Martin Luther King was a bit of a womaniser. It does not detract from what he achieved.

A journalist over on the BBC is asking this question on their site right now:

"Can we judge an artwork purely on its own merits - be it a film, painting, play or sitcom - or do we inevitably take its creator's character into account?".

Can art and artist be separated? BBC

Can we? In my estimation we can and I do. I mean the poet Rimbaud behaved terribly, but I get so much from his words. Elvis could be very naughty, too, but I still love his voice.

Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone". I think along those lines. If we considered really what anyone is like then they will have skeletons in the closet and sins to confess. There would be nobody left to take seriously or think anything of. We have to think about the times the artist or whoever lived in. Times and values change. What is overlooked in one generation is intolerable to another, works the other way around, too.

Yep, I'm just a hippy as it stands who is disillusioned with the world. May be tomorrow I'll go get a haircut, may be not.


edit on 28-11-2014 by lonesomerimbaud because: correction.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I'd say it was because there were more ruthless individuals in the US that invested into factories to make profits. Risk takers using government backed loans to get ahead. The businesses were able to BS the public more than in other countries too. A higher grade of consumer conditioning than is done in other countries.

It is hard to comprehend that so many of the things we take as real are just deceptions. We parrot or ape these perceptions to others hoping that this economy won't collapse. It is easy to believe a lie if you understand that not believing in it can make it so you will be hurt financially.

I'm not complaining, just stating the way it is.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
1st World = Europe and USA/Canada

Europe and Russia have a history going back thousands of years. But even up to the 1950's, there was terrible poverty in some places in Europe and the UK. But we did have the Renaissance, and then an industrial revolution from automation and steam power. That started a chain reaction that continues now. Europe also benefited from having so many rivers, forests, mineral deposits and understand of scientific research. On the downside, just about every bit of land was owned by someone; the church, the crown, lords, dukes, barons, so much so that there wasn't space for people to move up.

Migrating to USA and Canada allowed people to break free from these constraints and do their own thing, especially since cities were so far apart.

3rd World - They have the land, resources and water, but lacked the scientific use of analysis, and put everything down to a spiritual basis. There was some metallurgy, but that was based on the assumption that hammering metal conveyed some spiritual energy to the metal.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gwampo

Industrialization or rather the original Industrialized nation's which also happened to be the Imperial power's and the wealthiest so by nature the one upon a time most powerful nation's.
The US by dint of it's size and it's close tie's both through immigration and trade is also fit perfectly into this, it is by dint of size an empire made up of unified state's and sharing a culture, language and recent history so it fit's into first world status perfectle though in truth the name's first and third were really economic in nature while to a degree they also stem back to the victorian idiology of the white man's burden where it was thought that the native's of many of these country's needed white rule and though this was really an excuse for colonization and resource harvesting it became entrenced at a cultural level of thinking.
In truth though with the notable exception's of the Italian and Belgien colonies most of these foreign european ruled provinces were stable, given infrastructure and had population explosions due to these and european farming and irrigation techniques being implemented which where actually based in science and knowledge not genetic superiority.
Notable exception, India had been cultured far longer than europe but the Islamic Moghul's were widely regarded as cruel by there Hindu and Buddhist serf's who welcomed the British East India company soldiers whenever they took over a province with minority islamic belief.

The truth is though there is in reality no such thing as a first, second and third world, we all live on one tiny planet in the immensity of the universe and there may potentially be more alien races than there are human being's, we are all family because we are all human but greed and wealth divide us as do tribal racism and indoctrinated responses to those who look different as we see with our eye's not our soul's.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
1st World = Europe and USA/Canada

Europe and Russia have a history going back thousands of years.


Countries like Ethiopia, Egypt, Mali, Vietnam and India also had civilizations going back thousands of years. There was a time when Timbuktu was six times as large as London and modern archaeologists still haven't worked out how the churches of Lalibela were created.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: meridie

originally posted by: stormcell
1st World = Europe and USA/Canada

Europe and Russia have a history going back thousands of years.


Countries like Ethiopia, Egypt, Mali, Vietnam and India also had civilizations going back thousands of years. There was a time when Timbuktu was six times as large as London and modern archaeologists still haven't worked out how the churches of Lalibela were created.


Correct though there is an interesting Templer cross on that one as well as the Templer Word anagram on a pillar that they ethiopian orthodox priests keep covered.

Sator
Arepo
Tenet
Opera
Rotas

forming a five by five square of character's.
Tenet (T is pronounced D) is latin for HELD or GRIPPED and is the origin of TENET OF THE LAW but the letter's form an anagram of PATER NOSTRE or holy father with the letters A and O left over and of course they are the latin equivelent of the greek letter's Alpha and Omega so AO PATER NOSTRE.

Some believe those rock hewn church's were possibly at least in part the work of Templer knight's in search of holy relic's who had travelled to ethiopia maybe to see the Ark the Ethiopian church believe's itself to be in possession of at Axum.



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Interesting. Allegedly, King Lalibela (the Ethiopian king after whom the city was named) spent some time in Jerusalem before it was conquered by Saladin, which would make contact between some Knights Templar and Ethiopians plausible.

But bear in mind that Christianity in Ethiopia predates the religion's influence in much of Europe and that the Ethiopians had traditions of Judaism going even further back. And Aksum has artifacts that are way older than the cave churches of Lalibela. The stelae for instance, as well as the 1700 year old Ezana Stone.

Ezana Stone



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join