[Nuke]

So what do we do with the 3rd world, kill them? Keep them poor? Tell them that they can't have heated homes, or homes made out of anything more resource intensive than mud? Actually increasing scarcity will make the materials more expensive, which in turn actually makes going into space to get more resources that much more economical and appealing to investors.

what we do is stop exploiting them for resources and cheap labor. we bring manufacturing back here and do the work necessary to create environmentally friendly products for our own consumption.

[Scotty]

what we do is stop exploiting them for resources and cheap labor

Playing the devil's advocate: why?  It's perfectly possible to implement environmentally safe practices in 3rd world countries while still reaping the benefits of cheaper production and abundant natural resources.

[Titan]

How do we do that? Armed takeover? Developing nations don't have being eco at the top of their priorities

[Bobboau]

what we do is stop exploiting them for resources and cheap labor

Playing the devil's advocate: why?  It's perfectly possible to implement environmentally safe practices in 3rd world countries while still reaping the benefits of cheaper production and abundant natural resources.

yeah, this is uncharacteristically compassionate of you.

[Nuke]

what we do is stop exploiting them for resources and cheap labor

Playing the devil's advocate: why?  It's perfectly possible to implement environmentally safe practices in 3rd world countries while still reaping the benefits of cheaper production and abundant natural resources.

yeah, this is uncharacteristically compassionate of you.

i dont think its ever gonna happen though. so nuke it burn it and make the survivors have to eat each other to survive. might slap some sense into the species.

[Kosh]

So what do we do with the 3rd world, kill them? Keep them poor? Tell them that they can't have heated homes, or homes made out of anything more resource intensive than mud? Actually increasing scarcity will make the materials more expensive, which in turn actually makes going into space to get more resources that much more economical and appealing to investors.

what we do is stop exploiting them for resources and cheap labor. we bring manufacturing back here and do the work necessary to create environmentally friendly products for our own consumption.

Which deprives the people in those countries of employment, hence keeping them poor. And besides, if we did bring low end manufacturing back then you'll end up paying 4 or 5 times what you are paying now even for basic things.


EDIT: I'd also like to point out that many kinds of manufacturing, even with western environmental standards, is not really that clean or environmentally friendly. Even fabricating the chips in your computer does require the use of highly toxic and/or corrosive materials.

[Nuke]

So what do we do with the 3rd world, kill them? Keep them poor? Tell them that they can't have heated homes, or homes made out of anything more resource intensive than mud? Actually increasing scarcity will make the materials more expensive, which in turn actually makes going into space to get more resources that much more economical and appealing to investors.

what we do is stop exploiting them for resources and cheap labor. we bring manufacturing back here and do the work necessary to create environmentally friendly products for our own consumption.

Which deprives the people in those countries of employment, hence keeping them poor. And besides, if we did bring low end manufacturing back then you'll end up paying 4 or 5 times what you are paying now even for basic things.

it deprives them from employment and an influx of money but only in the short term. we stripmine their countries right now, dump toxic chemicals there, etc, so when the population does become self sufficient there is nothing left to sustain them.

[Pred the Penguin]

Which deprives the people in those countries of employment, hence keeping them poor. And besides, if we did bring low end manufacturing back then you'll end up paying 4 or 5 times what you are paying now even for basic things.

We'll never save the environment by doing things cheap in the short-term...
The enormous costs in saving the planet might dent the global economy for now, but the future will be much more sustainable.

[Kosh]

it deprives them from employment and an influx of money but only in the short term. we stripmine their countries right now, dump toxic chemicals there, etc, so when the population does become self sufficient there is nothing left to sustain them.

So, instead of them working in factories, what else are they going to do? Make products for themselves even though they are too poor to buy them?

[Titan]

Just wanna point out they already work for a penny a week.

[Nuke]

it deprives them from employment and an influx of money but only in the short term. we stripmine their countries right now, dump toxic chemicals there, etc, so when the population does become self sufficient there is nothing left to sustain them.

So, instead of them working in factories, what else are they going to do? Make products for themselves even though they are too poor to buy them?

they would be allowed to build up their agricultural base, instead of being drawn to cities and shantytowns in the vain hope to work in a factory. making products they cant afford, for peanuts, only to have the fruits of their labor shipped off to the west, marked up a thousand times to make some westerner filthy rich.

[NGTM-1R]

So, instead of them working in factories, what else are they going to do? Make products for themselves even though they are too poor to buy them?

You have this funny assumption that prices are somehow fixed and will not be adjusted to the market. If something is being made "in-house" in the country without external resources or interference then pricing it (and the production process) down to that country is completely possible.

And then you sell it to overmoneyed foreigners eager for cheap goods too. Revenge.

[Kosh]

it deprives them from employment and an influx of money but only in the short term. we stripmine their countries right now, dump toxic chemicals there, etc, so when the population does become self sufficient there is nothing left to sustain them.

So, instead of them working in factories, what else are they going to do? Make products for themselves even though they are too poor to buy them?

they would be allowed to build up their agricultural base, instead of being drawn to cities and shantytowns in the vain hope to work in a factory. making products they cant afford, for peanuts, only to have the fruits of their labor shipped off to the west, marked up a thousand times to make some westerner filthy rich.

You do realize the entire reason why they go to the cities for work is because the wages being offered are significantly better than what they could possibly hope to get by staying on their tiny farms, right? No one forces them to go. Wages are based on supply and demand. Can you name any non-oil and non-diamond rich country that got rich without industrializing?

You have this funny assumption that prices are somehow fixed and will not be adjusted to the market. If something is being made "in-house" in the country without external resources or interference then pricing it (and the production process) down to that country is completely possible.

Not always. Many things in China are actually not much cheaper than they are in the US.

And then you sell it to overmoneyed foreigners eager for cheap goods too. Revenge.

Actually that's what is usually done now. Foreign companies do not often own the factories that make their stuff in the third world, instead they are owned locally and contracted out.

[Nuke]

china barely qualifies as the third world anymore.

[Pred the Penguin]

You do realize the entire reason why they go to the cities for work is because the wages being offered are significantly better than what they could possibly hope to get by staying on their tiny farms, right? No one forces them to go. Wages are based on supply and demand. Can you name any non-oil and non-diamond rich country that got rich without industrializing?

Barely any of them get better jobs anyway. And those who do have jobs with horrible working conditions. Most of the money made in cities goes to the original inhabitants and investors... not the poor people at the bottom.

Not always. Many things in China are actually not much cheaper than they are in the US.

Not daily necessities...

Actually that's what is usually done now. Foreign companies do not often own the factories that make their stuff in the third world, instead they are owned locally and contracted out.

The end result is basically the same. Instead of foreign investors, local owners screw over workers to lower costs.

china barely qualifies as the third world anymore.

Tell that to the tons of people living in poverty.

[Nuke]

china barely qualifies as the third world anymore.

Tell that to the tons of people living in poverty.

china is not in as bad a shape as it used to be in. i normally wouldnt site any source but im going to in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
according to the map china is certainly doing better than india and most of africa. sure they have a huge number of people living in flat out poverty. even the us has its extreme poor. but when considering china's population your bound to have a larger than usual number of poor.

[Pred the Penguin]

You're right of course, but I'm bothered by the fact that most of those people barely have the slightest chance of getting out of poverty.
Then again that could be said for pretty much the rest of the world, too.

[Kosh]

china is not in as bad a shape as it used to be in.

Because it decided to industrialize.

Not daily necessities...

Food is not because farmers in third world countries are literally dirt poor. They only make a few hundred RMB per month with only a few exceptions, and have small operations with no machinery. Base factory wages on the other hand is over a thousand per month. If the wages weren't better, people wouldn't go.

The end result is basically the same. Instead of foreign investors, local owners screw over workers to lower costs.

Workers have low wages because staying on the farm has decidedly lower wages.

[Nuke]

the cost of living in an agricultural society will be less than in an industrial one. by living away from urban centers property tends to be much cheaper, and growing your own food, as well as any wild game you may hunt, reduces your dependency on trade and therefore money. not to say that trade doesn't exist, rather that basic survival does not depend on it exclusively. in an urban industrial situation you're entirely dependent upon a paycheck as a primary means of survival.

[Kosh]

the cost of living in an agricultural society will be less than in an industrial one. by living away from urban centers property tends to be much cheaper, and growing your own food, as well as any wild game you may hunt, reduces your dependency on trade and therefore money. not to say that trade doesn't exist, rather that basic survival does not depend on it exclusively. in an urban industrial situation you're entirely dependent upon a paycheck as a primary means of survival.

What you're essentially advocating is arnarcho-primitivism. Actually what you are describing is how things used to be 200 years ago and the result was basically rampant poverty and decidedly worse nutrition. By your own admission China is, at this stage, much better off than India and most of Africa, and the reason for this is because China is much more industrialized. If you want to look at agro based societies and how much they suck, look no farther than most of Africa.