This seems to be the dominant terminology today.
It replaces the old "First world"/"Third World" terminology, which now seems to be polictically correct.
But I wonder if "developed" and "developing" are really the correct words. "Developed" implies that those countries have already developed and that they have no more developing to do, when in reality all societies and countries are constantly in flux and changing and developing in some way or another.
Developing can also be something of a misnomer, since many of the countries that fall in this category, may not actually be doing much "developing", at least in the Western sense of the word (i.e. "economic development")
And I honestly am not convinced that economic development is always the best course for a country. It is not sustainable. We can't keep increasing production and consumption with the limited resources on this earth.
So if developing/developed doesn't work, what do you think is a better way to describe the world?
2006-09-23
18:51:38
·
7 answers
·
asked by
worldpeace
4