Hypothetical question

[Zep 0]

Just for discussions sake,

Lets say the first world eradicates the population of the third world,

Would the first world live happily ever after.
or
Would the first world after a time start fighting amongst themselves.

I think they would start fighting, The nature of the beast,

Your thoughts, No flaming, remember it's hypothetical.

Gone fishing

[Darius11 12]

The 3 world countries in many ways are used to provide cheep labor and products.

Also don’t forget a lot of resources are from many of the 3rd world countries.
It makes you think why are these countries so poor? And why are their people living in such horrible conditions.

Politics is a bitch.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Rebecca 0]

Well, I don't know about the remaining first-worlders and the economy, but the Earth would be better off...

Hey, anyone have the Impact Equation? Something like Population * Affluence / Technology = Impact (I'm sure I got that wrong, but you get the idea)

Best I remember, given current affluence levels and technology, and other variables, the Earth's population would have to be around 500,000 to prevent detrimental impact to the Earth...

Stuff would be expensive. Cultural and ethnic variety would diminish. We'd fight. A whole bunch. And we'd have a dead body problem - 3rd world's got a lot of people in it...

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[SpeedRacer 1]

hmm, not necessarily. increased education leads to improved education, therefore more advanced technology, so we would be better equipped to deal with the challenges ahead. Contrary to widely-held beliefs, improved science & technology leads to LESS damage to the environment, not more. If our technology had remained where it was a century ago, the environment would be MUCH worse off than it is now.

also add in the fact that more educated, wealthier people have FEWER children.l and are less likely to ascribe to beliefs like blowing yourself & other people up for some f&*ked up reason or other.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[markd_nscr986 0]

Fighting.........no question about it

Most efficient/effective means to eradicate "enemy" populations and preserve infrastructure............a bio-engineered virus.............something along the lines of Ebola........

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Contrary to widely-held beliefs, improved science & technology leads to LESS damage to the environment, not more.

That's why technology is divided in the Impact Equation. It's the only thing keeping the damage from being even worse.

If we were able to continue in a bubble, living as we are now, despite the complete abscence of 3rd world populations, I'd agree with you.

I think the immediate effects would include severe economic disruption, followed by grabs for power and control of the now-unclaimed 3rd world resources, followed by more bad things.

Think of all the crap we buy that they make.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Contrary to widely-held beliefs, improved science & technology leads to LESS damage to the environment, not more. If our technology had remained where it was a century ago, the environment would be MUCH worse off than it is now.

How much electricity do you use per month? How much garbage do you throw out? How much do you drive instead of walking? We use a hell of a lot of resources now than we would have a century ago. Factories polluted much more, but we were manufacturer fewer goods.

As for the OP, first world nations haven't directly fought since WWII thanks to nukes. If everyone got a big enough piece in the recolonization of the world, should be relatively peaceful.

[wmw999 2,517]

The first world would have to make a whole new third world.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[shropshire 0]

<>

I think that the other way around, the Earth would be better off if the 1st world naddef off or died... The First World consumes most of the resourses and generates most of the polution and starts most of the large scale conflicts

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

The first world would have to make a whole new third world.

Wendy W.

Yep. Relative poverty and wealth lines would be redrawn. The 1st world poor would become relatively poorer as things got more expensive due to the lack of cheap labor provided by the 3rd world poor.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Muenkel 0]

Violence begets violence. Wasn't this basically the goal of Hitler?

If today's third world were eradicated, a new third world would emerge from the first world. In a matter of time that new third world would have to be eradicated and so on and so on.

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,063]

>Lets say the first world eradicates the population of the third world,
>Would the first world live happily ever after.

I don't believe in killing people until there's peace. If there are still people capable of genocide, they will find new targets when the old ones are gone. If there ever comes a day when people can't think of a good reason to hate the third world (or the first world) then we'd have a much better shot at living happily ever after.

[Zep 0]

Quote

The first world would have to make a whole new third world.

Wendy W.

That is a very good point. I think too, A whole new third world would guickly emerge from the first world.

Gone fishing

[shropshire 0]

What ever happened to the 2nd world?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Angelfish 0]

Quote

What ever happened to the 2nd world?

If you take the square root of the 1st world - 3rd world = -2nd world squared which can be interpreted as i2squared world ... and thus an imaginary world. The 2nd world is in our heads!! See... this is what happens when one checks the forum instead of going to sleep.

______________________________
Don't fear the reaper. ... BOC

[Erroll 80]

Quote

Lets say the first world eradicates the population of the third world,

In your opinion:-
Are the USA, Canada and Australia part of the first world?

In your opinion:-
What constitutes the third world?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't believe in killing people until there's peace.

Sorry, I'm a bit tired this morning. Do you mean:

1 - Wait until there is peace and then start killing people or;
2 - Keeping killing those considered bad until peace breaks out?

1 is just a funny statement and I assume your are being funny
2 is just plain obtuse when offered a hypothetical

Either way, thanks for the chuckle

The basic statement is whether we think a particular class of people are naturally/instinctively prone to violence and whether that class can be defined by poverty level on a macro scale. I speculate that on a macro scale it's true - regional environment can breed certain behavior (on a statistical/population basis). But I bet there are other, more critical inputs to societal based violence. One could even argue that poverty levels could foster cooperation to improve resource use rather than violence and resentment from competition for resources (we see both examples in today's world).

However, you don't eliminate violence by eliminating entire populations. You only eliminate populations with a larger proportion of violent people in them. So we kill off 40% of the world and they have violent aspects in 25% of their population (we got 10% of the target and unnecessarily killed 30% of the 'innocent'). Leaving us with 60% of the world who have a more normal 10% of violent people (leaving us with 6% of the target population living and they have more resources at their disposal).

That's poor screening and not addressing the root problem.

Eliminate violence? We should then issue every child a banjo upon birth. The resulting chaos will scare everybody so much, that violence will be eliminated forever.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Angelfish 0]

Just look at history (not just of the US, but of every nation) and you'll see a scaled-down model of the answer to your question.

Start from the beginning. You have the native inhabitants of a land (again, I am not just talking about US history) , then you have a more sophisticated conqueror that would set up shop and somehow introduce new ideas and tools to build a society. Then, you have a better armed, better educated conqueror to swoop-in and attempt to take over. Now, everything is more complicated, there are more liasons, more intrigues, more options... thus there will be some sort of conflict that would develop naturally. Should I say more, or can this scaled-down model now be used to answer the hypothetical question?

______________________________
Don't fear the reaper. ... BOC

[Zep 0]

My thoughts are that the first world is made up of, Northern America, Europe ECC, Australasia, an Japan

Gone fishing

[Zep 0]

My political map makes no reference to the second world.

I think it git oblitarated, when the haves, not wanting any middle ground between them, an the havenots

Gone fishing