I don't like the term "developing nation"

[mizzou]

Ok, it is sounds sort of like my drug addict uncle who is going to "beat his drug habit". Just not going to happen folks!

And what exactly are they developing? Film? Bananas? Movies? WHAT ARE YOU DEVELOPING!

de·vel·op
dəˈveləp/
verb
gerund or present participle: developing

1.
grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate.

No but seriously, I think we should not use the term anymore

 

[Thebobo]

3rd world country work for you?

 

[mizzou]

3rd world country work for you?

No. That makes no sense if we don't account for the 2nd world. I know it exists, but I've NEVER heard someone say "Second" you are either first or third.

 

[rcpratt]

Complaint not found.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How about geoeconomically underprivileged?

 

[Red Squirrel]

When I hear the term developing nation I picture a place full of people coding for slave wages. So, India, I guess.

 

[smackababy]

In the case of India, I'd say they are developing shitty Java code.

A developing nation is one entering their industrial revolution, and a place prime to be exploited for cheap manufacturing labor. They are developing their countries infrastructure to meet the standards of the time we live in.

 

[mizzou]

How about geoeconomically underprivileged?

Let's add 10 Classes of this and 4 Degrees. That would be hilarious for social studies classes in grade school.


Here children, we have a 4th Class GeoEconomically Privileged Area in the 3rd Degree.

 

[poofyhairguy]

3rd world country work for you?

Cold War term

 

[Ruptga]

Yeah, 2nd world used to refer to the Soviet bloc nations.

Also, "developing nation" is much more polite than my preferred term, "bumfuckistan", so that's not likely to gain traction.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Obvious troll thread so who fuckin cares.

 

[IronWing]

Blooming into the flower of nationhood?

 

[smackababy]

Yeah, 2nd world used to refer to the Soviet bloc nations.

I never knew that, until I looked it up today. That is incredibly stupid. I thought it had more to do with how industrialized they were.

 

[Ruptga]

I never knew that, until I looked it up today. That is incredibly stupid. I thought it had more to do with how industrialized they were.

It made perfect sense at the time (particularly from the unique perspective of Cold War Murricah). There was the western allies, the soviet bloc, and everyone else. Thus the first, second, and third worlds, respectively.

 

[gevorg]

#developingworldproblems

 

[poofyhairguy]

I never knew that, until I looked it up today. That is incredibly stupid. I thought it had more to do with how industrialized they were.

Nah, that what "developed" and "undeveloped" is for.

A real nomenclature issue is the fact that many countries don't fit either category in 2014, and are kinda a mix of the two. Those are the "newly industrialized countries."

 

[BurnItDwn]

Developing as in, going from extremely high mortality rates,starvation, misery, to lower mortality rates, food, water, life.

Look at the expected lifespans and mortality rates in any 3rd world country, and you will find they are developing, and have been for the last few decades pretty significantly.

Yes, they are still poor, yes, many places still are quite hostile to humans, but, they are developing in terms of survivability is improving. They are building infrastructure, things are getting better.

 

[brianmanahan]

how about "emerging market"?

 

[SMOGZINN]

And what exactly are they developing? Film? Bananas? Movies? WHAT ARE YOU DEVELOPING!

They are developing a industrial economy.

For the most part they are slowly moving from a rural agrarian society to a urban industrial society.

This can be seen clearly in China. Where large industrial bases are being created and every year fewer and fewer people live and work on food production and more and more live in a urban area and work in a factory. In a few decades China will have the vast majority of it's population working in an industrial job and very few people working in rural food production, then it will be a developed industrial nation.

 

[WelshBloke]

Tplac?

 

[mammador]

Depends...

I'm no developmental economist..but then it's a fact some countries are more developed economically....The USA, Canada, UK, Germany, Japan, Australia, etc. are all wealthier, have more manufacturing/services, better education and healthcare, less relative/absolute poverty, etc. than Nigeria, Brazil, India or China. This is fact, not belief.

So Nigeria and India are developing (or called as such) since they're at a lower level than than Canada or the UK/Germany, and are...well developing to a higher level.

It's patent fact, not some underhanded plot by economists....

 

[TheSlamma]

They are developing a industrial economy.

For the most part they are slowly moving from a rural agrarian society to a urban industrial society.

This can be seen clearly in China. Where large industrial bases are being created and every year fewer and fewer people live and work on food production and more and more live in a urban area and work in a factory. In a few decades China will have the vast majority of it's population working in an industrial job and very few people working in rural food production, then it will be a developed industrial nation.

Was that so hard OP

 

[mammador]

They are developing a industrial economy.

For the most part they are slowly moving from a rural agrarian society to a urban industrial society.

This can be seen clearly in China. Where large industrial bases are being created and every year fewer and fewer people live and work on food production and more and more live in a urban area and work in a factory. In a few decades China will have the vast majority of it's population working in an industrial job and very few people working in rural food production, then it will be a developed industrial nation.

This..

 

[lxskllr]

I don't like the word "impact(ed)" used as a replacement for "affect(ed)". It's used by lazy half illiterate people that can't keep effect and affect straight, so they avoid it altogether.

 

[mammador]

I don't like the word "impact(ed)" used as a replacement for "affect(ed)". It's used by lazy half illiterate people that can't keep effect and affect straight, so they avoid it altogether.

No, they're legitimate synoyms...to impact is to affect...