Why do we insist on calling non-technological societies by the above name? Isn't it a euphamism for "exploited people?"

Would you see "third world" and "developing world" as being synonymous?

It's a handy label. It's certainly better than "exploited people". Do you think that every country in the developing world is exploited? It's certainly less emotive and more descriptive.

BTW, I suppose I brought up a related, but different, question and I didn't answer you, Geoff. I don't think that "developing world" is a euphemism for "exploited people." After all, we were all "developing" at some point. While one could say the U.S. was exploited when people from England first arrived, it was that exploitation that freed us.

It's an interesting question, though.

quote:

it was that exploitation that freed us.

Um... Isn't that somewhat recursive? If the British hadn't exploited America you wouldn't be free, as there would be nothing to free yourselves from.

Actually, I know what you mean. If we hadn't exploited America you'd probably all be subsistence farmers scratching a living on the east coast of America...

Since the first English settlers were religious fanatics who were not wanted in England, it was "good riddance" as far as the English were concerned.

My original point is that we seem to hubristically assume that our technological way of life is in all ways superior to successful lifestyles in less "high tech" countries or regions, and insist on "developing" them. I therefore think the "Borg" were symbols for us!

quote:

Um... Isn't that somewhat recursive? If the British hadn't exploited America you wouldn't be free, as there would be nothing to free yourselves from.

I suppose that's another way to look at it. BTW, Geoff, the first English settlers weren't all religious fanatics.