Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

What stops developing countries from advancing?

Recommended Posts

It occurred to me I have always wondered why some countries just can't grow from being 3rd world.


Take Africa for example, they receive lots of aid but it's said that corrupt pollies keep it for themselves. South Africa is somewhat westernized but the place is f**ked, very high crime and poverty.


Some countries are just unfortunate to have no resources that they can grow/harvest and trade, or the climate is bad for growing food. And I know some cultures aren't really compatible with capitalism. India seems to be turning around finally but plenty of places are stuck in the dark ages.


I'm starting to wonder if certain races are just too self serving to get a community happening. Or is it the impoverished environment that brings out the scavenger in ppl. I'm really not sure, that's why I'm fishing for ideas.


Why are we so lucky?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of Africas problem is precious stones and metals. I dont want to pretend to know much about it, but there is plenty of fighting over there and criminal organisations are taking the resources to sell.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we so lucky?


That is about as categorically untrue as a statement can possibly get. Australia was settled by the English. There is nothing even vaguely lucky about Europe and its nations having become more civilised, powerful and wealthy than 3rd world countries. Europe has experienced thousands of years of war, conquest, gruesome atrocities, technological development, art, culture and political uprisings, which have produced a far more advanced culture to the 3rd world nations in question. What have the 3rd world nations done since 2000BC? Not a whole lot to be perfectly honest.


Having spoken to guys that have been over to East Timor with the Army, their comments were that the people are far too tribal to socially and politically advance in any reasonable period of time. Sure, they might have wrist watches, AK47s and machetes, but they'll still rape, pillage and butcher the village down the road because their Witch Doctor put a curse on their tribal leader, or any other reason that seems completely insane to a Westerner.


The UAE is no better; they still issue death sentences for "witchcraft" and pretty much anything that doesn't fall in line with their stupid book. They'll then issue jihads, burn effigies, riot and murder people over cartoons, send death squads to kill vocal ex-patriots in foreign nations (e.g. Syria), and then tell you how Islam is a "religion of peace". LOL.


India has a caste system that's so f**king stupid that you would *think* that it was an ancient tradition, but in fact it was actually created around 50 years ago and the people just went along with it. China is 2nd-3rd world in a lot of areas, and it's no surprise, considering their government does things like forcibly remove references to Tiananmen square and... well just read about The Great Push. Really messed up stuff. Europe sacked governments like that a long, long time ago... well most of them did.


Ultimately, the answer to your question is a very simple one Spazo; the cause of the problem is not the resources, climate, race or trade opportunities, it's entirely the people. The cultures, religions and superstitions of the areas absolutely suck d*ck, and until the people collectively recognize this and actively try to correct the problematic views and attitudes they hold, those areas will remain Bronze-Age for an eternity.


Just look at the migrants in this country that hail from the 3rd world. Some folks hate their home country and the issues/culture/attitude, trying to Aussie-ify themselves to the max, whereas others want to do everything the exact same way as they did in their own country, but with free welfare, housing, and no subjugation. I live in an area with a LOT of migrants and I see both categories every day, and on many occasions I have looked at someone's actions and behavior and thought "how bad would it be to live in a place where people like that were the majority".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many factors at play here, all of them interacting with each other.


People forget that first and foremost a civilization must exist in the minds of its people. You cannot (nor should you) easily change the mind of an individual. That person must believe that the current ruler of the country deserves to be there. Ask any citizen of a european civilization why their leader is their leader and they will tell you something about a monarchy or a democratic system that needed a monarchy to get it started.


The other way to create a nation is through religion. Israel and Palestine both existed in the minds of people long before they were drawn on a map.


Africa is as unstable as it is because of European interferance, but that is not the full story. Many will question the chances of African nations developing into anything significant without European intervention. We will never know for sure now, but here is what we do know:


For a civilization to develop and advance it needs trade, lots of it. When you have lots of people moving around and interacting with each other, usually motivated by profit from exchange of goods, you also get inevitable exchange of ideas.


In Europe this exchange started with the mediterranian then spread across the whole European continent. The only reason it was able to spread like this is geographical. Because Europe spans east west, the climate does not change all that significantly as you travel across it, allowing for free movement of primitive people with little need for a change in equipment or knowledge. Africa spans north to south, meaning an individual that wants to span the continent will need to acquire different equipment and skills to proceed as the climate changes.


The geographical barriers have an enormous effect on cultural and technological advances over generations because it forces everybody to keep to themselves. Ideas do not spread which prevents them from developing.


This brings us to the colonial periods of the 18th and 19th century. European nations have gained a significant lead on African people both socially and technologically. Through self serving motivations they use these advantages to conquer and exploit these people for their land and resources. In the process of doing this they completely destroy any budding monarchy or other ruling entity of just about every nation in Africa. The people are now told they serve the monarchy of the nation who conquered them, which works fine so long as that nation keeps their guns trained on the conquered people.


Next comes the 20th century. Political and logistical factors come into play that quickly render colonies unviable. The worst of these factors being that the conquered people start to learn about democracy and revolution. The European nations high tail it out of Africa and leave behind a people with no idea how to self govern.


Think about this for a minute. Imagine if tomorrow our whole government is dismantled and we are held captive by a ruling entity until the only Australians alive are those who grew up under this rule and have no knowledge of the previous government. Now suddenly take that control away and wait for these people to form a stable and efficient government.

The only thing that keeps government officials honest is a pre-established system of accountability that is in turn enforced by people who are subject to the same system. Without the people you have no system, without the system you don't have honest people. How do you form a system that produces its own prerequisites?


European nations formed democracy under the instruction of an incumbent monarchy which was formed over thousands of years of tribal warfare eventually producing a small number of victorious sovreigns.


So in colclusion to my ramble. African nations developed slowly due to geographical restrictions, resulting in them being overthrown by tyrannical European colonists. These colonists removed any trace of the previous government, and with it thousands of years of history that would demonstrate to the people that persons right to rule. The colonies are then dismantled and the people are left to rule themselves. No single person now posesses any claim to the top job so it must be taken by force, which does nothing to win the people over and cement that government in their minds as the rightful leader. The system of government is formed around the people who run it, and so the self perpetuating wheel of accountability never gets turning.


The end result is a shaky system of government where everybody involved is only motivated by their own self interests, causing corruption to run wild and the people to regularly become disollusioned with the present government fuelling revolution.


You need stability to make history, and you need history to have stability. Africa has neither.


I focused a lot on Africa, but this concept also applies to America for the most part, but the outcomes are a little different due to colonization actually resulting in nations forming.

Edited by Chappy

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you guys really did hit it on the head imo and the same way i do see it also.


I really do think Africa does put alot of pressure on itself and the people in the extremely poor areas are just not smart enough to figure the basics.


If you don't have enough food for yourself, then why are you having more kids? I would highly say till the day i die that i will see comericials on TV saying 'give money to the kids of Africa' like sorry people but if your parents thought for a few seconds that this is a very bad idea your whole country may be in a better state.

The population of Africa wont die off, but your parents who live in a village 2hours away from water probably should think abit smarter before brining a further 20 children into the same lifestyle.


Therefore it is a big fact that some countries will not come out of being 3rd world, or will not really be a 'super power' purely due to the highly populated amount of people with a low IQ forcing the country down.


Some of the country's in the middle east do have very smart people in charge who run the country, but when the greater population isn't as smart and only has 1 view in sight and that is death and destruction even the leaders know they now must follow the wrong path in order to stay in leadership.


Many European country's came out of war, shook hands and went on there ways and together they evolved themselfs to being 1st world and high profitability countrys.


Russia is said to be suffering and i do expect them to go into a big recession aswell

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch a series called guns germs and steel.


It hypothesizes that the Western world became more civilised thanks to an abundant of fertile, arable land that was easy to grow crops on. When food production became easier, other people in the group could work on other things like tools, child care, animal farming, weaponry and defenses and the arts and culture.


It shows how tribes in PNG spend so much time making time consuming food from inefficient crops, which requires more man power, so they cant advance their technology or intelligence as no one has the time to do so.


further on it looks into how white settlers brought diseases and advanced weaponry that they created and became immune to from having these geographical advantages.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this