The First World World

If all countries were like America, with massive use of technology, industrialization, health care, government, transportation, education, and all other aspects of a first world country, what would happen?  What would go wrong?  How long could such a world sustain itself before resulting in chaos, overpopulation, war, famine, pestilence, and all kinds of destruction of the environment?

What would go wrong? The environment would collapse, we'd have a bitter bloody war over what resources were left, and then we'd all be very thankful we played Fallout. Unless we could reduce our population to something like just one bilion, then it'd be peachy.

I'm speechless. You take America as a shining example in regards to health care, government, transportation, and education? Please, take a trip to Europe.

Being democracies they would collectively find a way to live together, there would be poverty, but it's better than war. After 50 years the economy would be stable and predictable and though poorer, the populations would be free.

You're joking, right?

>>3
TRUTH.

Any 1st world country. It doesn't have to be the US.

>>5
There were many liberal pussy faggot national socialists like you who thought democracy would crumble when the luftwaffe decided to bomb London. It just doesn't work like that, sorry Stalin, democracy works and tyranny's over.

True democracy will never exist, capitalists will always beat those politically correct pansies down.
Look at how horrible America is now.
Compare this to the 70's and 80's when we scoffed at PC. Democracy is even more destructive than socialism.

>>9
Wait, democracy and capitalism are opposing forces? And if America is so horrible now, why has its standard of living consistently risen over the past decades?

>>10
It's gone down since 1950, what are you smoking?

>>10
Certainly. Capitalism seeks to make a profit at any cost, while democracy is equality BS disguised as majority opinion. Stagnant popculturalism is the result of a marriage of the two, as are 90% of the current powerful lobbyist groups, especially those with no actual resource/recreation content production like feminism and censorship boards, and annoying old twats with nothing better to do, buying public listening time with their deceased/invalid husband's earnings. I would prefer the technology-laden devastator of humans rights super-capitalism (the way 1970's-80's liberals and cyberpunk afficiandos thought the US would develop) over this falsely cheery, bright, blindingly sunny and optimistic theocracy we got going now. No surrealist could have dreamt up a more annoying, aggravating caricature of a 'civilised society.' Scarily enough some families might even be working less hours in that society.

>>12

SNAP.

Stagnant popculturalism

What the hell is that?

Some kind of new term used by professors of political science?

Or some bs thing you made up on the spot?

>>12
Actually, that sounds a lot like some sort of frankenstenian ancient greece.  Full of thinkers who don't actually produce anything.  Only they were cutting edge, ours are well, teh suck.

>>15
BARBARA STREISSAND!

How old are you?  You shouldn't be using that kind of language.

If the whole world was like the first world, we´d run out of ressources yesterday.

In the end overpopulation will be at it´s end. Almost all Countries with a high HDI have stagnant birthrates.
World Peace will be very likely. Trade is more important than territory for 1st Worlders.

Maybe we will see Space or Submarine Colonization.

As a realist I doubt that Africa will ever reach our level of development in the next x00 years. Asia and Latin America will catch up, no doubt about that.
The arabs will be rich as long as we need their stinking oil.

>>3
The hiliarious part is that you probably actually believe this.

>>19
Duude, /newpol/ has been through this a hundread million times... whenever you want to end the debate about why america sucks, just mention finland, and the thread is over.

Universal healthcare, education, poor people taken care of, NO POVERTY.  And guess what?  Their tax rate is nearly 50%.  Kind of flies in the face of everything you believe, doesn't it? 

>>20
with a homogeneous population and most people actually working instead of leeching.

>>20
100% white, socialism = 100% tax etc..

The thread always ends with you going "finland!" then smugly claiming socialism is superior. Then us pointing out Finland isn't socialist, it's economy is capitalist, you can start a privately owned business there if you have enough money and can do it without being executed or taxed into the ground (as you would in socialist cuba).

In a speech at the Republican National Convention in 2004, President Bush referred to the United States as "the greatest country in the world". Certainly this is a sentiment that many Americans share, but what kind of objective basis is there behind the statement? It’s time to take a closer look. Do we make the pronouncement because we are the wealthiest nation in the world? Based on Gross Domestic Product per capita, in 2003 we were not first but fourth. Luxembourg at $43,940 was considerably ahead of the US ($36,000) by a 17% margin. Norway and Switzerland were in between. Most of us believe we have the highest standard of living in the world. But according to the UN Human Development Report of 2004, their list of the world’s most livable countries show the US in eighth place, four places behind Canada, and trailing Norway and Sweden in first and second place.

Is our judgment based on the belief that the US is a paragon of democracy and freedom in the world? In 2003, World Audit, an international non-profit organization, computed the relative level of democracy of 149 countries with population greater than one million. Analyzing data from a number of human rights organizations, they developed a formula that factored in levels of personal, political and press freedoms, as well as human rights. The results? On the list of top ten, the US was last, just behind Canada, and with all three Scandinavian countries leading.

Has our perception been that our democracy means equal rights for all? Economically, the case is hard to make. In the US, over the past thirty years, wealth inequality has nearly doubled. At present, 20 percent of the people control 80 percent of the wealth, and of all the major industrialized nations, we are the most unequal. According to the World Bank’s World Development Index of 2002, the US doesn’t even appear in the top thirty of greatest equality, which includes the three Scandinavian countries and Japan in the top ten.

Worldwide, the proportion of income for the wealthiest one-fifth of the earth’s population compared to the poorest one-fifth dropped from 30 to 1 in 1960, to 59 to 1 in 1989, according to the UN Development Program. This trend has not only continued since then, but is also reflected nationally. The middle class is shrinking. Fact Check confirmed this, and that the lower class is growing as a result.

Do we believe that we enjoy the best standard of health and health care in the world? Hardly. Surprisingly, we (at 6.6 deaths per 1,000 live births) do not appear in the list of the lowest ten infant mortality rates in the world, which is topped by Singapore, and followed by Sweden, Japan, Iceland, Finland and Norway. Even more surprising, neither do we (with 77.4 years, both sexes) appear in the list of top ten in highest life expectancy. It includes Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Iceland. Much of this has to do with the rich-poor gap and the selective availability of health care in our privatized system. Forty four million Americans are going without costly health insurance while premiums continue to escalate. According to 2001 World Health Organization statistics, the U.S. ranked a lowly 37th in the world for health care, between Costa Rica and Slovenia, and trailing all other industrialized nations.

Is our national pride based upon the perception that as the only superpower we are the world’s primary caretaker? Another illusion. Of the 21 wealthiest nations in the world, we are in last place in percentage of national income devoted to aiding less fortunate nations. That was less than 1/7th of one percent, according to the late Paul Simon, former Senator and Director of the Public Policy Institute in his 1998 book, Tapped Out. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and even Saudi Arabia donated seven times what we did, he said. And the trend has continued.

In other terms, we are giving only 13 cents for every $100 of income. Furthermore, when we look at who actually receives this "aid", we wonder how much of it is actually meant for humanitarian purposes; Russian was the top recipient in 2001-2002, followed by Egypt, Israel and Pakistan in second, third and fourth place respectively. Colombia was in sixth place and Peru in tenth. If we subtracted what was effectively used for political leverage, military advantage, economic interests or an alleged war on drugs, how much would truly be left for genuine aid and development?

Are we persisting in the belief that our system is the most honest, transparent and least susceptible to corruption there is? Here comes disillusionment. According to the organization Transparency International, the U.S. scored a lowly 19th on their 2003 list (a three place fall from the year before) with a 7.5 CPI (Corruption Perception Index). Finland, Iceland and Denmark were the top three, with Norway, Sweden, Canada, the U.K. and Australia all in the top eleven. The next place on the list following the U.S., interestingly enough, was Chili.

Have we insisted that the U.S. is the best place in the world to live? According to the UN Human Development Index for 2004, the U.S. places only eighth on the list of most livable countries. First through fourth place went to Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada.

per person the US isn't that great, but some people are better off than they could have ever been in other countries, short of being a despot

The US is the greatest national entity in the world and the most militarily powerful.

Could Africa become as wealthy and democratic as Europe without turning to shit?

>>26

If other first world countries leave it's resources alone and the country itself is able to unite under such a cause, then yes.

But you can take one look at the Afghan pipeline or Iraq and realize- that's not going to happen.

>>23
>>25

TRUTH GOT TOLD.

And seriously, if you guys start bitching about the racial identity of these countries---I think you should take a look good look at Canada and it's apparent success of US. It's virtually the same country. Any white person that comes on here and says shit is totally equal will eventually find out otherwise as the middle class dwindles.

>>27
Colonialism ended 50 years ago, like it ended 50 years ago in Singapore and ended 8 years ago in Hong Kong. So whitey's not to blame, who is?

P.S. The pipelines go south. Maybe the Palestinians and Indians are responsible for putting the black man down?

P.P.S. Love Saddam? Lower yourself into a plastic grinder like he did with his political enemies to prove to others that he wasn't a monster!

>>24
Delicious copy pasta.

A.  We've got so many dumb nigers and immigrants, they skew the averages.

B.  We may not give them money, but we sure as hell can tell them what to do.

C.  Again, it's all the small-time popliticians in backwater areas full of nigars and immigrants.