Would we all be better off in the long-run if we didn't have such a big 3rd world?

The human brain is capable of near infinite understanding… AND complacency. We are not sure of it’s limitations and are amazed at it’s ability to adapt, understand, create, evaluate and seemingly overcome obstacle after obstacle.

But we do this not as individuals, we do this as a collective. We climb on each other’s shoulders reaching for even greater knowledge, understanding, creativity, evaluation and continue to surmount future obstacles that, as individuals, we couldn’t ever hope to overcome.

Well, apart from the myriad of problems associated with questions pertinent of a 10 year old kid, re-asking those questions is sometimes warranted, given the fact that it is a tug-o-war between our idealist and realist selves. We see the world as either how it is or how we want it to be. With that in mind, how do you see not just the industrialising of the 3rd world, but more specifically, the RESULT of this industrialisation having an effect on humanity?

sure there will be more pollution, more competition for business/resources/what have you.

but what about the bright side? are there bright sides to this equation?

we see china and india industrialising… and a lot of brainpower is coming from those areas. i’ve been pleasantly surprised at the number of tech articles and video presentations over the past few months being led by people hailing from that part of the world. from Google’s keynote regarding the Google Chrome OS, to HP’s new line-up of ULPCs, AMD’s foray into the mobile device space with their newer Neo CPU…

In another thread, we see that the world’s population and distribution of wealth is severely skewed. 80% of the wealth is owned by the top 20% of the population. The bottom 40% have a mere 2% of the world’s wealth. How many brilliant minds are there out there? If technological progress is influenced more by brilliant minds working together rather than time and money (even though they obviously are necessary factors) how much quicker will we arrive at breakthroughs in computing, science, biology, nanotechnology… if instead of 60million people earning 60k or more… but 600million people earning 60k or more? leading to more people going to tertiary institutions… having the ability to contribute to Ph.D programs in various fields… pushing the limits of human understanding and technology and innovation?

Instead of waiting 100 years for something to come to fruition, perhaps it can come in a fraction of that time, given the simple fact that more brains, more “amazing” brains, more people, the technology of computers and the internet linking these great minds… and the mental ecosystems that result… forging forward the intelligence of the human species faster and further than ever.

I really want to see cancer cured, life extensions explored, dna not only mapped but studied and developed, the brain explored and understood better - space exploration furthered… and I don’t want to wait till i’m inches away from the grave to see all this. It’s selfish… but being selfish isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Ultimately, we all want to have a better tomorrow…

and having a better more prosperous world may just be one of the keys in making that happen… sooner rather than later, if at all.

And how do you see this happening? How will the “3rd world” achieve this improvement in education, standard of living, etc.?

I’m not going to lie, I’m with you on this one. The problem in the world is that some people are just not open minded at all about anything. They think that their way is the best and the only “true” path when in reality it isn’t. People just can’t take a step back and realize what they are actually doing. They can’t think before they put their actions into motion. Also, leaders, politicians, CEO’s of megamillion companies, etc have gotten so greedy that things can become worse.Also, Socialism is on the rise and I think that it is coming faster than what people really think and it will change things for the worse.

For technology, there is much talk about starting a space elevator within the next 10 years. This is to truly be the first stepping stone for exploration into space. Japan wants to put a solar panel into space for energy. I think that some of the stuff coming is just mind boggling. A quick google search would pull up loads of articles on the subject. Also, to me, I think solar power is the future energy source that some are neglecting. It is the energy source of the future and we should use it! It is continuous, until the sun goes super-nova on us in like 5 billion years from now, and no pollutant. There is just sooo much going on it’s crazy. I would love to see a cure for cancer. Heck, there has been much research in the field of “cell regeneration”. Basically, if you are got cut of, you quite possibly could regrow another are where you lost yours. Many scientists have actually “grown” organs such as hearts, lungs, livers, etc by taking cells from that persons say heart, and making it anew.

In my eyes, I think we are still a very young race and by the time we actually come around, most of us, to open-mindedness, we will probably have destroyed ourselves. But, I still have hope for humanity. Only we can change our ways.

Yes I have heard about Japan’s space elevator. I’m not sure about the specifics but a Space Launch Loop (google “space launch loop”) seems like a nicer option… but alas I’m viewing it through layman’s eyes and from a layman’s understanding of such technical things.

… not to mention other concepts floating out there such as nano-particles like C60 (further reading, google “bucky balls”) could be utilised to create “vacuum” airships that simply “float” into space much the same way as submarines use ballast tanks to rise/fall through water. Would be nice to be able to launch vast amounts of mass via this method and build up some heavy dedicated infrastructure…

Steve: Ohh I don’t know… it’s obviously going to initially require political congruence across the nations of the world on things such as minimum wages at least, then minimum levels of education… then gets harder and harder to simplify into pieces consumable in this forum format without derailing the entire topic so perhaps I’ll just avoid trying to answer that question in a serious manner until perhaps much later.

Some people are just not as smart as the rest. It’s a widely known fact some are more gifted than others, and because of this, there will never be equality. And it’s 5% of the population that holds 95% of the wealth. Plain and simple, there will never be equality, it’s naive to hope so. Humans aren’t all that big of a deal, it’s a myth that we only use 8-10% of our brains. We use all 100% of it already. Saying you want all these diseases cured is just plain selfish. If that were to come true we’d screw future generations because of over-population. And nature fits this analogy very well, “For ever poison there is a cure, and vice versa.” Something will always come along to snuff life out as surely as it gives it. But, I for one, do want to see space exploration. But what pisses me off is seeing people chase a future that simply won’t exist. There will never be equality and racism will never be abolished. If you have a hard time believing this, then read about evolutionary biology so you can understand why such things will never exist.

And I read NASA held a contest for space elevator designs, and some team won like a few hundred thousand dollars for their design. In any case, this won’t come to fruition till at least 2040-2050.

NeverDie: Not sure why you are such a pessimist. As Nick910 pointed out, some people are just not open minded at all about anything. Well, the world isn’t so black and white. 100 odd years ago, if you suggested that slavery would be abolished and women would vote you’d be laughed at. Going to the moon in the 60s and 70s? Pure fantasy. The similar position is that people are going against something that has always existed and has overcome such problems through human collaboration, the spirit to overcome and perseverance. Things you obviously don’t understand in this context.

Where did you get these fantastic correlations that disease curbs population growth and that we use 100% of our brains? Wanting cancer cured is selfish? That it’s going to “screw” future generations because of over-population? I think you’d better rethink your train of thought.

If you want a technial explanation of population growth, such an explosion happens between Stages 3 and 4, where most of the developing nations are at. You may click on the link to be enlightened:
Reference: Demographic transition - Wikipedia

What’s more, your logic for giving people access to healthcare and curing diseases as a cause for a huge population explosion is confounding when compared to existing examples around the world:
For example: we have some of the best medical care in Australia - far better than the United States which is in utter ruin, yet we struggle to increase the size of our population, yet we have all this medicine to cure the sick - and our system - “Medicare” is a government initiative which gives each Australian access to healthcare… something that may be passed very soon by the Democrats in the US I believe.

In contrast, third world countries rely on man-power to get work done… and with the high level of mortality, having lots of people and lack of birth control can do these things. But educating the third world and giving them access to healthcare and curing diseases like cancer has about as much to do with causing a population explosion as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If you want to read up on the reasons why populations increase in the third world.

My own personal family tree echos this trend: My mother had 1 child (in Australia), me… but my grandmother had 16 children (in the Philippines). She needed more kids to work and bring in the money. That’s how it works.

It is also demonstrated globally that industrialisation and education and access to wealth reduces population growth.

We need people like you, NeverDie, because there are many people in the world that work even harder when people like you say it can’t be done. There will never be equality, it’s naive to hope so. Really? I think it’s not only a great goal, but if you don’t set goals you’ll never get anywhere. The world is more “equal” now than at any other time in human history. Women are in many positions of power. Racial lines are blurred and well, need I mention a black president?

SanneT: You are correct in that the “third world” is indeed a human construct. It was originally intended as the “rest” of the world that was not aligned with NATO. It just so happens to also follow, in general, most of the developing nations with little wealth.

rsherfan: If being a pessimist is following the facts, then excuse me. There will never be equality, because of the simple behavior known as Social Darwinism. You can’t change human nature. It is futile to outlaw racism because it is human nature. Laws against racism do have an effect because one of the more appealing aspects of human nature is that people calculate the consequences of their actions: But I am saying that even after a thousand years of strictly enforced laws against racism, we will not one day suddenly be able to declare the problem of racism solved and abolish the laws secure in the knowledge that racial prejudice is a thing of the past.

We humans like to see ourselves as rational creatures. We imagine that what separates us from animals is the ability to think and reason. But that is only partly true. What distinguishes us from animals just as much, is our capacity to laugh, to cry, to feel a range of emotions. We are in fact emotional creatures as well as partly rational ones, although we like to think we govern our actions through reason and thought, what most often dictates our behavior is the emotions we feel at the moment. We maintain the illusion that we are rational through the routine of our daily affairs, which helps us to keep things calm and apparently controlled. Our minds seem rather strong when we’re following our routines. But place any of us in an adverse situation and our rationality vanishes. We react to pressure by growing fearful, impatient and confused. Such moments reveal us for the emotional creatures we are. Under attack, whether by a known enemy or unpredictability by a colleague, our response is dominated by feelings of anger, sadness, betrayal.

And if you consider our 70 Billion Dollar a month Health-Care cost to be such a great thing, then I feel pity for you. This so called great health care system will all come crashing down when the baby boomers start pulling money out of their pension funds and then all of America will be in shambles. And this will all happen 2015-2020. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. … We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

A few comments.

I believe that the term “third world” comes from the French “tiers état”, used around the time of the French Revolutionin other words that section of the population that is poor and has nothing as compared to the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. China was a third world country when it was a totalitarian Communist under Mao, and now that is a totalitarian capitalist country it is about to become part of the first world, at least in some parts of the country. Whether we use the term “third world” or developing countries or undeveloped countries or poor countries does not matter a lot. Some countries are poor. The issue is why they are poor, and what needs to be done and by whom.

The idea that this is inevitable does not make sense. All countries used to be poor, earlier in history. Life expectancy was 30 years or so, only few people could read, and all work was done by hand. People regularly died in great numbers from famine and disease. So we need to look at what happened where this changed.

Education is important. So are a spirit of innovation, a willingness to invest in the future, which implies a sense of trust in the future and in other people, the freedom to be entrepreneurial, fair and transparent laws etc. Most countries that dramatically changed their standard of living did so by their own means.

Historically, socialism, minimum wage laws, or foreign aid have not been important elements in this process, and I do not think they will be in the future. Socialism and minimum wage laws can be the fruits of development, not the cause. Foreign aid is a distortion and a distraction in my view. A lot of the aid money ends up in the wrong pockets in both the donor countries and the recipient countries, and serves to hide the protectionism of the donor countries.

Slavery was abolished in the West in the mid 19th century Roy, although may have lingered longer in some areas of the world. Racism has been around since the beginning of time. I think we are programmed to feel antagonism towards the “others”. However, with education and regular contact, I think the stronger forms of this prejudice are in decline.

Things do constantly evolve. I am in favour of initiatives that favour access to education to the greatest number of people everywhere. Ultimately the progress in the poor countries will depend on the ability of people in those countries to focus their energies on building up their own societies, in respecting each other, and in having free access for their goods and services into the developed world where through trade they can acquire the wealth, and technology they need for investment in their own countries.

Neverdie: Racism is a natural instinct developed over thousands of years when human beings were living in tribal societies. To stick to those people who resemble you and to fear anything that doesn’t resemble you worked well for a long time… but recently it has caused problems. However, children who grow up in a multicultural society and who develop friendships are far less likely to show racist behaviour.

We human beings have 3 brains - the mammalian, the reptilian and the human. This is also known as the Triune brain ( Triune brain - Wikipedia ). The emotions such as happiness, sadness do not distinguish us from animals at all… these animals who possess a mammalian brain such as dogs and cats are completely capable of showing any mammalian range of emotion. Reptiles display more simplistic survivalistic versions of emotion such as anger. These emotional responses have nothing to do with the ultimately “human” part of our brain - the cerebral cortex… which is the least dominant of the three, but one which IS capable of rational thought, human speech and deep understanding - which in dramatic contrast to your claims - does in fact distinguish us from other mammals and reptiles.

You need to re-read my quote on your health system, I did say that it was “in utter ruin”. The rest of your paragraph is a disjointed mention of the rearing of animals and breeding which somehow by your logic relates to humans and health, no doubt. Such incredibly far-fetched non-sequitur, non-sensical logic has no place in a proper debate.

Steve: I believe also it is ironic that the concept of slavery originated by the slave traders of africa themselves. the europeans simply capitalised on this as, well, whatever can be exported and exploited from these newly discovered corners of the earth should be exploited. I even think i heard this point of view from one of your vlogs.

Neverdie: I am not sure about the space elevator as it is counting on materials that can’t actually be fabricated yet… whereas something like the space launch loop can be fabricated using conventional materials. Still, I wish them the best of luck… whoever gets a newer technology moving is to be commended in my books!

Space elevator would be so awesome. And I said that what separates us from animals is our “range” of emotions. Humans tend to base most of their actions of emotions. Racism will never be abolished from our hearts, sure it can be mitigated, but it will never completely leave. And the way you put my argument down shows how close minded you are. You put too much credit in humans, which to me shows either delusion or egoism. The fact that 5% control 95% of the wealth shows just how the 95% of the population is just unintelligent compared to the 5%. There will always be a gap in power, such is the nature of things. The 5% are up their for a reason, and we can be sure it’s because of higher knowledge. In any case I definitely support the advancement of technology. But one thing is for sure, there will always be a need for low salary workers to maintain our comfortable lifestyle in which most of us Americans currently live in.


The concept of slavery did not originate with the African slave traders. Slavery has existed in all societies, in Asia, in pre-Colombian America, in Europe, Ancient Greece, Rome,the Middle East. It was just a commodity.


The degree of inequality in different countries varies tremendously. In previous centuries only a few could read, now just about everyone can in developed countries. Societies are constructed such that certain groups, classes, families are able to protect their power and wealth. Many modern societies prefer to provide the means for as wide a spectrum as possible to be able to access education, health care and other facilities so that all humans can develop the best of their abilities. And yes these abilities vary, but it is not likely that the 5% wealthy are also the 5% most capable in all areas of endeavour.

The salaries paid for different jobs are a function of supply and demand. As long as there are lots of people, in many cases immigrants, willing to do menial jobs for low wages, these jobs will be poorly paid. On the other hand, when there is an oversupply of graduates in Humanities and an undersupply of plumbers and electricians, it is the salaries of the Humanities graduates that will decline.

"The 5% are up their for a reason, and we can be sure it’s because of higher knowledge. " Depends on what you mean by knowledge. If you mean the knowledge of business, well I guess that’s a small part of it. The rest is hard work passion or in many cases the luck of being born into the right family (Prince Charles, anyone?)

The triune brain is a model proposed by Paul D. MacLean to explain the function of traces of evolution existing in the structure of the human brain. In this model, the brain is broken down into three separate brains that have their own special intelligence, subjectivity, sense of time and space, and memory[1]. The triune brain consists of the R-complex, the limbic system, and the neocortex. Though still popular among some psychiatrists, the triune brain model is not accepted by researchers in comparative, evolutionary neuroanatomy

This theory is not even VALIDATED yet. So next time use something that actually is scientifically proven.

@dooo: Most of the richest people in the world today are self-made. If anything less than 10% of the top 100 richest are born into their wealth. Most people have already accepted the fact that one needs to be in business to be rich. So why aren’t those people getting rich then?

I don’t know. Right idea, right place, right time? Ambition? Tenacity? Ruthlessness? Do you know? What do you mean by “higher knowledge” exactly? IQ? Alien technology? :wink:

NeverDie: “This theory is not even VALIDATED yet. So next time use something that actually is scientifically proven.”

Firstly, the theory is not accepted by researchers in it’s ability to describe the evolution of the human brain as there now exists better models. This DOES NOT mean the triune brain model can’t explain other simple concepts such as the distinctions of emotion and intelligence to different regions of the brain… which it CAN and DOES. The fact that there exist better theories now to better explain human brain evolution doesn’t discount this models ability to describe the things appropriate in this context. The triune brain describes the mammalian emotional response perfectly well and that is why I cited the reference.

“Racism will never be abolished from our hearts, sure it can be mitigated, but it will never completely leave. And the way you put my argument down shows how close minded you are.”

Since I did not put you down with my response to racism, I can only assume it was to my response on the US health care system, which I did notably and quite openly dismiss as “in utter ruin”. You simply (not sure how) misunderstood that entire paragraph to be me praising the US health care system… which, either way, has nothing to do with the main points of this thread… so it’s a strawman’s argument at best. The very act of me correcting you on incorrectly reading my perspective on the US Health system somehow does not convey how close-minded I am, rather it shows that i am pragmatic in my approach to defending my points of view.

Also, we don’t use 100% of our brain… and I’ll cite a reference for that below:---------

Research Report
Dormancy of the Human Brain
Dormant Brain Research and Development Laboratory
T.D.A. Lingo, Director

The human brain is only 10% functional, at best.
The first to outline this theory, later proved a fact by others, was Australian Neurology Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles. (Lecture: University of Colorado, University Memorial Center Boulder, July 31, 1974.) “The brain indicates its powers are endless.”

In England, John Lorber did autopsies on hydrocephalics. This illness causes all but the 1/6th inch layer of brain tissue to be dissolved by acidic spinal fluid. He tested the IQ’s of patients before and during the disease. His findings showed that IQ remained constant up to death. Although over 90% of brain tissue was destroyed by the disease, it had no impact on what we consider to be normal intelligence.

Russian neurosurgeon Alexandre Luria proved that the 1/3 bulk of frontal lobes are mostly dormant. He did this by performing ablation experiments on persons. He gave physiological and psychological tests before, cut out parts and whole frontal lobes, the re-tested after. His conclusion: removal of part or all of frontal lobes causes no major change in brain function, (some change in mood alteration). The frontal lobes are mostly dormant, asleep. (Luria, A.R. “Frontal Lobes and the Regulation of Behavior.” In: K.H. Pribram and A.R. Luria, Editors, Psychophysiology of the Frontal Lobes. New York, and London, Academic Press, 1973)

Finally, the human brain contains 10 billion neurons, mostly in the outer layer of brain cortex. the function of these currently dominant cells is fairly clear. but the brain also contains 120 billion glial cells. Aside from some secondary nurturing of neurons, the primary function of the glia is not clear. What big bang mirical awaits mankind within these mysteries?

Today, most would agree without argument that the potential of the human brain is infinite. Thus, to state that a person uses 10%, 5%, or even 1% of their potential brain capacity (infinity) is overly generous.

The point is this: There is no dispute among honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and what still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct: “The human brain is only 10% functional.” John Eccles thinks that number is too high. “How can you calculate a percentage of infinity?”


Thanks, I see that I misunderstood your vlog… you did state what you restated in this thread, I didn’t remember it accurately.

You also bring up some interesting points about the 3rd world in your vlog: