Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

[Sculptor1]

Most countries were doing fins before the white man came with his guns, and enslaved them, brought them disease.

I suppose that depends upon what you consider "fine." If you mean regular famines, constant inter-tribal warfare, high childbirth and infant mortality, regular outbreaks of malaria, cholera, typhoid, sleeping sickness, and other diseases, and an average lifespan of ~ 30, I suppose you're right. As for slavery, African and North American tribes were enslaving each other long before Europeans entered the game.

LINK

Thanks for citing that. It supports my view, not yours. Nothing of what you say is contained in the link.

No one is buying your "slavery is the best thing that ever happened to them" trope.

[Sy Borg]

Is this what the world feels like at the moment? Do rich countries exploit the poorer ones for their own gain? Are they the predators and the third-world countries are the prey?

Or is it a problem within these third-world countries alone? Is the corrupted local politics the reason for their remaining as poor countries forever?

Wrong questions. The first question you need to ask is why some countries are poor, and some rich, to begin with. Today's poor countries were poor long before Europeans arrived on the scene. Most of them are somewhat less poor today. And keep in mind that ALL countries were poor at some point.

Exactly. This ancient differential is what I referred to as geographic chance.

AKA luck.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the OP's characterisation is correct. There was nothing wrong with the question at all. GEM just didn't like it because it doesn't suit his political agenda. If one ignores the tribalism of politics, the dynamic pointed out in the OP is absolutely clear.

Human societies have always operated along the lines of survival of the fittest, both internally and externally, despite some affectations of increased refinement along the way. Natural selection continues to play out at all scales. As Belinda noted, much of the exploitation is more akin to milking cows than slaughtering them.

[GE Morton]

Most countries were doing fins before the white man came with his guns, and enslaved them, brought them disease.

I suppose that depends upon what you consider "fine." If you mean regular famines, constant inter-tribal warfare, high childbirth and infant mortality, regular outbreaks of malaria, cholera, typhoid, sleeping sickness, and other diseases, and an average lifespan of ~ 30, I suppose you're right. As for slavery, African and North American tribes were enslaving each other long before Europeans entered the game.

LINK

Thanks for citing that. It supports my view, not yours. Nothing of what you say is contained in the link.

Huh? Quote (from the link):

"Slavery was prevalent in many West and Central African societies before and during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. When diverse African empires, small to medium-sized nations, or kinship groups came into conflict for various political and economic reasons, individuals from one African group regularly enslaved captives from another group because they viewed them as outsiders. The rulers of these slaveholding societies could then exert power over these captives as prisoners of war for labor needs, to expand their kinship group or nation, influence and disseminate spiritual beliefs, or potentially to trade for economic gain."

No one is buying your "slavery is the best thing that ever happened to them" trope.

No one made such a claim. Try to offer rebuttals to claims actually made, rather than to words of your own you've put into someone's else's mouth.

[GE Morton]

Human societies have always operated along the lines of survival of the fittest, both internally and externally, despite some affectations of increased refinement along the way. Natural selection continues to play out at all scales.

Indeed it does. So follow up on that.

As Belinda noted, much of the exploitation is more akin to milking cows than slaughtering them.

So the question, then, is, Why do some countries become the milkmaids, and others the cows?

[Sy Borg]

Human societies have always operated along the lines of survival of the fittest, both internally and externally, despite some affectations of increased refinement along the way. Natural selection continues to play out at all scales.

Indeed it does. So follow up on that.

As humans, we appear powerless to do anything about it, to rise above mere natural selection, if you will. Attempts have been made for a very long time to create more fairness, but the reversion still happens. It seems to me that this dynamic builds strong societies. Once a society stops trying to be fair that go downhill. So the point is to perform the dance of equality, while accepting that progress depends on the dance not ending, the balance between ethics and pragmatism. As a general note, "balance" seems to be a more potent quality generally than extremes, even though the latter may seem more powerful "on paper".

Back to the thread ... while prosperity seems to come from balancing ethics and profit, growing wealth stimulates greed, ultimately diluting the ethics. At that point, a society will be in decline. There will tend to be an initial lift because of the cutting of costs related to future-proofing. So a society with dwindling fairness will effectively "live off the fat" of more effective and ethical times results before the decline.

It's not easy to get large and disparate societies to coordinate, especially when bad actors can benefit from division. Free societies always exist on a fine balance that is easily tipped. Authoritarianism is more stable, where regimes can persist for a long time relatively unchanged.

As Belinda noted, much of the exploitation is more akin to milking cows than slaughtering them.

So the question, then, is, Why do some countries become the milkmaids, and others the cows?

Geography and history.

[Tegularius]

Historically, to an extent, it's undeniably true since most of the rich countries have the technological means to satisfy their greed. What's equally true in many cases are the home-grown predators who rule the country on behalf of themselves and family.

[Sy Borg]

Historically, to an extent, it's undeniably true since most of the rich countries have the technological means to satisfy their greed. What's equally true in many cases are the home-grown predators who rule the country on behalf of themselves and family.

Yes, the same dynamic flows from moguls to bacteria.

[GE Morton]

Back to the thread ... while prosperity seems to come from balancing ethics and profit . . .

Of course. But if the ethics you have in mind demands "fairness," and fairness is understood to demand material equality, then prosperity is rendered impossible.

. . . growing wealth stimulates greed . . .

What it stimulates is envy. "Greed" is a term of disparagement invoked, like a curse, by the envious upon anyone who has more than they do and refuses to give them a free lunch.

Free societies always exist on a fine balance that is easily tipped. Authoritarianism is more stable, where regimes can persist for a long time relatively unchanged.

Agree.

So the question, then, is, Why do some countries become the milkmaids, and others the cows?

Geography and history.

Geography does seem to play a role, in that the prosperous countries are all in temperate zones, while the poorer ones are concentrated in tropical and subtropical zones. History is not an answer, however. History is made by people, and so reduces to, How do those people differ?

[Sy Borg]

So the question, then, is, Why do some countries become the milkmaids, and others the cows?

Geography and history.

Geography does seem to play a role, in that the prosperous countries are all in temperate zones, while the poorer ones are concentrated in tropical and subtropical zones. History is not an answer, however. History is made by people, and so reduces to, How do those people differ?

History is very much the answer, which is not just made by people but also by the environment, and these are more deeply entwined than fossil fuel shills would have us believe.

Humans, like all animals, are shaped by environment, including other humans. That shaping over millennia makes a difference. The answer is not race.

[Sculptor1]

Most countries were doing fins before the white man came with his guns, and enslaved them, brought them disease.

I suppose that depends upon what you consider "fine." If you mean regular famines, constant inter-tribal warfare, high childbirth and infant mortality, regular outbreaks of malaria, cholera, typhoid, sleeping sickness, and other diseases, and an average lifespan of ~ 30, I suppose you're right. As for slavery, African and North American tribes were enslaving each other long before Europeans entered the game.

LINK

Thanks for citing that. It supports my view, not yours. Nothing of what you say is contained in the link.

Huh? Quote (from the link):

"Slavery was prevalent in many West and Central African societies before and during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. When diverse African empires, small to medium-sized nations, or kinship groups came into conflict for various political and economic reasons, individuals from one African group regularly enslaved captives from another group because they viewed them as outsiders. The rulers of these slaveholding societies could then exert power over these captives as prisoners of war for labor needs, to expand their kinship group or nation, influence and disseminate spiritual beliefs, or potentially to trade for economic gain."

Classic victim blaming.

The discovery of the Americas was the most potent force of economic insentive to build the largest slave trade in history. The slave trade was almost nothing before Europe demanded millions of slaves from Africa.
But you are typical of the western mind. You complain about China's growth when it is is driven by economic demand for white goods principally by the US. The West once criticised China before it grew for its lack of growth, But in the post Nixon time the west complained about CHina's growth stimulated by the demand for goods from the west.
The trouble with you mind set is that it is always someone else's fault.

[GE Morton]

Classic victim blaming.

Egads. You had said, "Most countries were doing fins before the white man came with his guns, and enslaved them, brought them disease."

I responded, "As for slavery, African and North American tribes were enslaving each other long before Europeans entered the game."

You then replied, "Nothing of what you say is contained in the link."

So I quoted from the link, which obviously refutes that statement, to wit:

"Slavery was prevalent in many West and Central African societies before and during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. When diverse African empires, small to medium-sized nations, or kinship groups came into conflict for various political and economic reasons, individuals from one African group regularly enslaved captives from another group because they viewed them as outsiders. The rulers of these slaveholding societies could then exert power over these captives as prisoners of war for labor needs, to expand their kinship group or nation, influence and disseminate spiritual beliefs, or potentially to trade for economic gain."

So now, to deflect from that false statement, you claim I'm "victim blaming"? The only blame being cast in the above exchanges is in your original statement. I've not "blamed" anything on anyone. I've merely pointed out a fact.

The discovery of the Americas was the most potent force of economic insentive to build the largest slave trade in history. The slave trade was almost nothing before Europe demanded millions of slaves from Africa.

The British Empire inherited slavery as part of the common culture of the world. And, being the world's first global economic power, they commercialized it. But by the time the Empire reached its height, and for millennia before, slavery was a customary and ubiquitous practice throughout most of the world --- in Asia, the Middle East, in Africa, and in much of Europe. It was practiced by the Vikings, by American Indians, in ancient Egypt and Persia, and most notably in ancient Greece, where it was accepted without a second thought, barely attracting the attention of such enlightened minds as those of Plato and Aristotle. It was widespread in the Roman Empire, and accepted later by both Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"Historically, slavery was not just an Old Testament phenomenon, as slavery was practised in every ancient Middle Eastern society, such as Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, Rome and Israel. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion."

"Some forms of servitude, customary in ancient times, were condoned by the Torah . . . Hebrews would be punished if they beat a slave causing death within a day or two, and would have to let a slave go free if they destroyed a slave's eye or tooth, force a slave to work on the Sabbath . . ."

"It is clear from all the New Testament material that slavery was a basic part of the social and economic environment. Many of the early Christians were slaves. In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, 'as to the Lord, and not to men'."

"Slavery was the bedrock of the Roman and world economy. Some estimate that the slave population in the 1st century constituted approximately one third of the total population."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... on_slavery

And, of course, the European slave traders did not run around the continent with ropes and nets capturing Africans for slaves; they were sold to the slave traders by other Africans.

"The major Atlantic slave-trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish. Several had established outposts on the African coast where they purchased slaves from local African leaders."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

All these contemporary lamentations and protestations of the 18th and 19th century slave trade are curiously selective in their condemnations --- a ploy devised by the Left to convince the ignorant that slavery, rather than an ancient global practice, was a unique evil invented by European "capitalists." An especially devious charge, since it was in those very countries, and especially in Great Britain, where moral arguments against it began to be voiced, and which led, in less than a century, to the abolition of that hoary and near-universal social institution.

[Belindi]

SY Borg,I wish the metaphor about milking cows instead of slaughtering them had been mine but I don't recall writing it.

I did quote Ariparkhurst who wrote a similar metaphor

Like vampires sipping from goblets instead of ripping out their victims' throats, rich nations still take what they need. Although there is little or no overt violence, rich nations' systemically farm poor nations for their lifeblood.

The difference between refugee settlers and colonial masters is told again and again in famous Hollywood myths of the Wild West.

[GE Morton]

Humans, like all animals, are shaped by environment, including other humans. That shaping over millennia makes a difference. The answer is not race.

What environmental factors would you suggest are decisive?

[Pattern-chaser]

"Greed" is a term of disparagement invoked, like a curse, by the envious upon anyone who has more than they do and refuses to give them a free lunch.

"Greed" is a term used to refer to those who take more than their fair share.

[GE Morton]

"Greed" is a term of disparagement invoked, like a curse, by the envious upon anyone who has more than they do and refuses to give them a free lunch.

"Greed" is a term used to refer to those who take more than their fair share.

Yes, by those to whom "fair share" means, "an equal share," which means, "not having more than me."

The correct meaning of "fair share," of course, is, "the share you've earned or otherwise merit." E.g., if Alfie provides a service or product for which people willingly pay him, and he thus earns a $1 million, and Bruno contributes nothing to that product, then Alfie's fair share of the $1 million is 100%, and Bruno's is 0%.

And, of course, when Alfie refuses to hand over part of that $1 million to Bruno, Bruno will call him "greedy."