Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Manorfire · 12-27-2006, 05:17 AM

Many nations have historically endured poverty, war, famine, disease, and natural disasters, throughout their history...But, is it condescending to consider their calamities as simply unlucky, rather than the outcome of poor decision-making or cultural tolerances?. Is it fair to question why certain people originally chose to settle in places with permanent geographic obstacles or follow leaders who sought to make their nation more powerful by starting wars? Are people's lifechances based on the lottery of which country they were born in, or have individuals, generally, got more control over their futures than that?

It could be argued that certain societies have historically been their own 'worst enemies' at least, in part, owing to their culture. For example, the Russians existed as a defined ethnicity as far back as 7th century A.D., yet Russians tolerated undemocratic rule until the end of the 20th century. The Greeks, on the other hand, were living under democracy 2,500 years earlier.

On the face of it, some countries should have had more success than what they've achieved. For example, Angola; one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources: all sorts of gem stones, gold and silver, open air mines and oversea oil reserves (enough for European consumption alone) yet, it's been scarred by decades of war and famine...its wealth has never been used to benefit the people. Instead, it has one of the biggest landmine fields in the planet and has the highest percentage of prostate legs in the world.

In Brazil, there are no earthquakes, no volcanos, no hurricanes, etc. Its vast territory is full of every resource one can imagine; gold, diamonds, alluminium, oil, uranium and it has a very large population, which in theory should mean the potential for a huge a economy. Furthermore, Brazil has never suffered a genocide and fought in very few wars - all of which they've won.

However, there are countries that have very little going for them and it's understandable why they have made little progress. East Timor, for example, has the lowest per capita incomes in the world, one of the highest infant mortality rates, unemployment rates over 50% nationally, low exports & massive imports, very poor literacy rates, common landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones and they do not have huge natural reserves. Indonesian troops and anti-independence militias have wrecked what little infrastructure there was. With all those things going against them, it is impressive that East Timor has a GDP growth rate of less than 1% – which is still a positive growth rate not much worse than the GDP growth rates of Germany and Japan. If I were East Timorese, my only goal, other than food and shelter, would be to get out of East Timor. I doubt that luck alone would bring about such an opportunity.

Are countries like these authors of their own destiny - albeit to varying degrees - or just totally hapless victims of misfortune? Will they ever prosper significantly under their own steam, or are they now resigned to similar outcomes indefinitely? Is it morally correct of me judge their achievements, decisions, and thus, culture, against countries like my own?

12-27-2006, 05:17 AM	#1 (permalink)
Manorfire Upright Location: England	Unlucky Nations? Many nations have historically endured poverty, war, famine, disease, and natural disasters, throughout their history...But, is it condescending to consider their calamities as simply unlucky, rather than the outcome of poor decision-making or cultural tolerances?. Is it fair to question why certain people originally chose to settle in places with permanent geographic obstacles or follow leaders who sought to make their nation more powerful by starting wars? Are people's lifechances based on the lottery of which country they were born in, or have individuals, generally, got more control over their futures than that? It could be argued that certain societies have historically been their own 'worst enemies' at least, in part, owing to their culture. For example, the Russians existed as a defined ethnicity as far back as 7th century A.D., yet Russians tolerated undemocratic rule until the end of the 20th century. The Greeks, on the other hand, were living under democracy 2,500 years earlier. On the face of it, some countries should have had more success than what they've achieved. For example, Angola; one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources: all sorts of gem stones, gold and silver, open air mines and oversea oil reserves (enough for European consumption alone) yet, it's been scarred by decades of war and famine...its wealth has never been used to benefit the people. Instead, it has one of the biggest landmine fields in the planet and has the highest percentage of prostate legs in the world. In Brazil, there are no earthquakes, no volcanos, no hurricanes, etc. Its vast territory is full of every resource one can imagine; gold, diamonds, alluminium, oil, uranium and it has a very large population, which in theory should mean the potential for a huge a economy. Furthermore, Brazil has never suffered a genocide and fought in very few wars - all of which they've won. However, there are countries that have very little going for them and it's understandable why they have made little progress. East Timor, for example, has the lowest per capita incomes in the world, one of the highest infant mortality rates, unemployment rates over 50% nationally, low exports & massive imports, very poor literacy rates, common landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones and they do not have huge natural reserves. Indonesian troops and anti-independence militias have wrecked what little infrastructure there was. With all those things going against them, it is impressive that East Timor has a GDP growth rate of less than 1% – which is still a positive growth rate not much worse than the GDP growth rates of Germany and Japan. If I were East Timorese, my only goal, other than food and shelter, would be to get out of East Timor. I doubt that luck alone would bring about such an opportunity. Are countries like these authors of their own destiny - albeit to varying degrees - or just totally hapless victims of misfortune? Will they ever prosper significantly under their own steam, or are they now resigned to similar outcomes indefinitely? Is it morally correct of me judge their achievements, decisions, and thus, culture, against countries like my own?