Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Politeness doesn't mean that it's any less a moderator warning.
Even if the subject was on-topic, we've already covered the arguments both for and against the idea including the meaningfulness of GDP per capita in countries with rural demographics like India.
Right, it was that along with HDI, poverty rate, literacy rate and infant mortality rate. Point is, there's a good argument for why India does not count therefore its cities shouldn't be included in a topic about the "Densest cities in a first world country."
I think actual contenders are probably NYC and Hong Kong (though one can argue that it's technically in China which is also not generally considered a first world country), but a lot of it falls on how one defines the area of a city being measured for population density.
Right, it was that along with HDI, poverty rate, literacy rate and infant mortality rate. Point is, there's a good argument for why India does not count therefore its cities shouldn't be included in a topic about the "Densest cities in a first world country.".
These are mostly indices of a sizeable subsistence agricultural population adhering to cultural family farm traditions that pre-date colonialism - in the context of a country that is vastly populous to the degree that it is poorly amenable to governance. A concern certainly, but not as much of a concern as the poverty due to urban socio-economic decay that we're more familiar with here.
By this I'm referring to negative socioeconomic trends in long-standing first world populations, compared to the sheer pace of urbanisation in India, the rise of innovative entrepreneurship, demographic changes, extensive trade networks and foreign investment portfolios, a steady PMI and booming industry - all features of only the most highly sophisticated "first world" nations today.
This is not to mention the recent history of extensive squalor in pinnacles of the first world such as New York City, or the currently observable trend in Detroit, Michigan.
A large portion of the urbanization in India is substandard housing in slums. Some Americans have abandonment and high crime levels, but nowhere does living conditions approach India.
These are mostly indices of a sizeable subsistence agricultural population adhering to cultural family farm traditions that pre-date colonialism - in the context of a country that is vastly populous to the degree that it is poorly amenable to governance. A concern certainly, but not as much of a concern as the poverty due to urban socio-economic decay that we're more familiar with here.
Certainly there are urban slums in India (as there have been even in economically sophisticated western cities around the turn of the 20th century), but the point is that it is a country with a vast population in which the rural population is overrepresented - an index of subsistence tradition that acts to skew any observable metric we may have regarding their quality of life.
I used to think like many do here, that India is far from a developed country with a largely mud hut dwelling primitive culture, but in view of the broader metrics we have regarding this country, it is a view that simply does not hold up to scrutiny. I think two things must be considered here for this comparison to be fair:
1. The recent "catch down" trend in economies we have generally regarded to be world leaders; much of which is glossed over, tailored or omitted in legacy media.
2. Historical context: Many of the west's most advanced economies saw truly lamentable poverty and squalor during their ascendancy to global prestige, even in the early 20th century when they were seen as fully developed powerhouse economies.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 07-09-2013 at 09:21 AM..
I think you can do criteria for the development level of the somewhat ambiguous First, Second, and Third world by looking at hot water availability.
First World: Accustomed to almost always having hot water. Perhaps it's limited in poorer establishments or runs out soon, but there will be some hot water for showers.
Second World: Hot water is occasionally available, though don't count on it. You might be waiting a while. I travelled through Southern Mexico into Guatemala and El Salvador once and I probably had two hot showers in a couple weeks. Once I got back to Mexico there was better hot water in hotels though spotty.
Third World: Hot water? We have a pond and a creek...
All this is an exaggeration though, since even in the many of the poorest countries there's usually some group of privileged or upper class citizens who have access to better services--but in general you find that even in an urban business hotel in developing countries or low development countries things seem a little shakier.
This idea of first, second and third world is completely outdated. Nowadays it's more suitable to talk about developed (USA, Japan, most of Europe, etc.), underdeveloped (Zambia, Bangladesh, Somalia and others) and semideveloped (the BRICS plus other countries such as Thailand, Argentine and Mexico). The Islamic World, I think, doesn't fit in any of these categories, since these countries are oriented towards other values, rather than the western ones.
In the times of the Cold War, the "first world" was composed by the NATO members and other supporters of USA such as Japan and South Korea; the "second world" were the communist countries such as Soviet Union and China, and the "third world" were the non-aligned countries; most of them were (and many still are) very poor, so this association of the concept of "third world" as poor countries, but actually some very wealthy countries like Switzerland, Sweden and Austria were also "third world" due to their neutrality.
This idea of first, second and third world is completely outdated. Nowadays it's more suitable to talk about developed (USA, Japan, most of Europe, etc.), underdeveloped (Zambia, Bangladesh, Somalia and others) and semideveloped (the BRICS plus other countries such as Thailand, Argentine and Mexico). The Islamic World, I think, doesn't fit in any of these categories, since these countries are oriented towards other values, rather than the western ones.
In the times of the Cold War, the "first world" was composed by the NATO members and other supporters of USA such as Japan and South Korea; the "second world" were the communist countries such as Soviet Union and China, and the "third world" were the non-aligned countries; most of them were (and many still are) very poor, so this association of the concept of "third world" as poor countries, but actually some very wealthy countries like Switzerland, Sweden and Austria were also "third world" due to their neutrality.
Yeah, there's been plenty of threads about this sort of thing and we always point out that First World-Third World is outdated since the end of the Cold War.
I don't really see predominantly Muslim countries though as being somehow completely separate. A place like Dubai is developed. A place like Malaysia feels fairly semi-developed. A place like Somalia or Afghanistan is underveloped. A place like Morocco is moving towards semi-developed status in parts though poorer in others. There isn't even that much in common between Indonesia and somewhere like Algeria. Many Muslim countries are just as capitalist as anywhere in the West.
I used to think like many do here, that India is far from a developed country with a largely mud hut dwelling primitive culture, but in view of the broader metrics we have regarding this country, it is a view that simply does not hold up to scrutiny. I
Certainly, India isn't primitive; plenty of people have modern technology, there is modern industry and services. But a very large portion of people, including city dwellers, live in conditions almost unheard of in a developed country. Sure there's plenty advanced about it, but that's true of a lot of "third world" countries. By living standards it ranks somewhat badly world-wide. About 23% of urban dwellers in India lack access to safe drinking water, another fraction live in conditions that still considered not modern in a developed country.
But a very large portion of people, including city dwellers, live in conditions almost unheard of in a developed country.
But such conditions were certainly heard of if you add in the historical angle, during the geopolitical ascendancy of leading OECD member nations, even when these nations were regarded to be among the most developed in the world.
Should we be selectively perceptive in ignoring this? Are dark-skinned people in poverty somehow intrinsically worse off than light-skinned people in poverty, or is this an expression of ingrained bias or preconception?
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 07-09-2013 at 10:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
