Comment by HPsquared
1 day ago
Isn't that basically what happened to the USSR? (Yes not technically "first world" but highly industrial and bureaucratic)
1 day ago
Isn't that basically what happened to the USSR? (Yes not technically "first world" but highly industrial and bureaucratic)
First World was US/NATO aligned. Second World was USSR/Warsaw Pact aligned. Third world was unaffiliated with either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
I think this is relevant because the colloquialism of it meaning "developed" versus "undeveloped" doesn't work when you try to build on top of it
it's impossible to build on what Third World means or add lore like Fourth World when the definition is on a shaky and now non-existent foundation, while much of the unaffiliated world is highly developed now.
Yes. Also, fitting the USSR into the extended framework, by not recognizing that it already was in the framework to begin with.
IIRC Wikipedia says the term was coined ca. 1950s, so it could be argued that the USSR's decline was already factored into the term.
3 replies →
People in the USSR at least had the good fortune of already living in a world where they were highly adept at recycling and barter and maintenance, and in the case of the chechens also community self defense.
I think most of America would be fucked as most people don't know to how to do anything but their job plus buy things with money from their job. The top 25% of handy people might be able to change their own oil and that is it (not that they can't learn more, but it takes time).
>I think most of America would be fucked as most people don't know to how to do anything
Most of America would be substantially less fucked than the slice of mostly officer workers who mostly have enough money that "spend money rather than upskill or barter" is their default mode of operation you see via HN.