How would YOU change a developing country?

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
30,709
You pose many questions which will take some time to comment on.
For the time being, here are two quick answers.

Yes, I would like to head back home and live on a farm.

Pharmaceuticals do not exist to improve quality of life. They are there to make a profit for itself and its shareholders.
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
You pose many questions which will take some time to comment on.
For the time being, here are two quick answers.

Yes, I would like to head back home and live on a farm.

Pharmaceuticals do not exist to improve quality of life. They are there to make a profit for itself and its shareholders.
correction.WESTERN PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES exist to make money. you cannot possibly say that all pharmaceuticals are evil and bad and are just there to make money.

I get and agree with what you guys are saying, but your being far too negative. your talking like there is no point developing the third world at all and they are fine how they are.

Obviously we need to sift througgh the bad and take the good. we dont want the bad things from the pharmaceutical companies but we shouldnt throw the baby out with the bath water, it can bring a lot of good aswell if done correctly and the errors are identified. these people in indonesia are surely better off with hiv drugs than not. all because some clever indonesians knew how to manufacture the drugs. knowledge is power.

my question is what GOOD can engineering do and how do you implement that to improve the third world, all I'm seeing so far is that all engineering is evil and there is nothing good we can do. I'm sure that is not correct at all. Britain has benefitted immensely from engineering and it has created our modern life. do you watch tv, use computers and the internet, take vaccines before you get on your plane to a foreign country, live safely because of our powerful miltary and police force, use trains and cars, we're all clearly benefitting from engineering so it would be incredibly hypocritical for us to live like this whilst saying the third world is better off without it

we wouldnt do things the same way over there as we've learned from western mistakes but surely there is some ways engineering can make life better if done correctly. my question is what CAN we do if we had a country in mind, not what we SHOULDN'T do. Personally I wouldn't want to see mass production of coke cans, what a waste of aluminium and energy, and healthy teeth, but i would like to see a good lifestyle for everyone, not just europeans and a few other select countries, and I would like to figure out how a person could develop their nations if they had that goal in mind. personally Im british by lineage and birth so dont have an attachment to a particular country as such in the third world but a model that people can use to go home and improve their countries is wort thinking about so it can improve the standard of living there. lots of international students will be kicked out as soon as their degrees finish so its good they have a plan on how to improve the land they move to.

I agree its a deep question and I will look forward to hearing everyones thoughts on this.

So far I have seen a big emphasis on avoiding the pitfalls we are falling into as opposed to actual solutions. thats not to say we shouldnt bare these things in mind as of course we dont want to see the rest of the world fall into the same traps but we also cant just leave things how they are. any ideas on possible solutions?

If you say leave em how they are you should stop engineering and join greenpeace because your in teh wrong profession if you think engineering only brings evil :p its like a knife, it can cut your food or be used to kill someone. its a tool, its how you use it that counts. its good to know how to use it in a positive way.
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
30,709
I don't have the time right now to get into a long discussion. I appreciate the thought that you can engage in some friendly disagreement without getting into a rage.

Nothing personal, but I take issue with Americans and Brits (and any other nation) having a feeling of self righteousness believing that they have created or can create a better world. I think we can all learn from history.

The English gave us the Magna Carta and the habeas corpus. They also destroyed the commons. British imperial expansionism created long lasting havoc to societies and cultures across the globe that continue to have profound effect today. America continues the practice.

I think I'm gonna stop here.
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
30,709
Oh, I forgot to mention. I don't watch TV, don't use vaccines, avoid using cars, trains and planes and would prefer not to have a powerful military or police force where I live.
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
Yes of course, keeping things civilised is the only way to keep things productive. Such a topic can lead to a lot of learning and thought development. I already got some good vids to watch out of it :-D

I agree that Europe has caused massive destruction to the world. The natives of north and south america, australia and new zealand are almost eradicated, africa faced centuries of slavery, colonialism, exploitation, and when we couldn't get away with that any more we moved to slightly more covert forms of meddling like coups and support of dictators and arms trade and such like. Asia also faced massive problems, at our hands.

So I agree with what your saying.
]
But it doesnt change the fact that they did make some good scientific discoveries aswell.

Even space travel was born during the second world war. You take the good and leave the bad. we dont throw away space travel because it was started by hitler.

The only reason africa and asia got invaded in the first place is because you didnt have a powerful enough military to stop them invading and eradicating the local populations and the only reason you have armed gangs running parts of africa is because the civilian government has no ability to prevent them.

I dont have a TV either but Im pretty sure you got to this country by a feat of engineering, and I'm pretty sure you visit home using that same mode of transport. nothing is stopping you returning to your homeland and telling everyone the evils of modern engineering and working on a farm. you must understand the good in engineering for you to still be here and still working.

Its about identifying how to use engineering in a good way instead of a bad way. Thats the crux of what conclusions I'm trying to draw from this discussion. Noone seems to be truly considering this problem.

Im sure if you went to Gambia you would take malaria tablets

You may not use cars and aircrafts and TV but you cant deny that you use computers and the internet :p presumably your involved in some sorts of electronics too or you wouldnt be a contributor to this forum?
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
30,709
Thanks for this Geo. I was going to mention Bhutan, Gross National Happiness and the Happy Planet Index to demonstrate that technological advancement and high GDP does not correlate with human happiness.
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
Ok so your saying the ultimate goal is happiness for the population and the way to a happy population is brutal repression, lack of basic clean water, horrible diseases, high infant mortality rates, illiteracy, no capability to discover space or understand the universe and get a decent education, I'm sure people on an electronics forum living in developed countries (developed enough to have internet and electronics equipment) do not seriously believe that the third world should be left poor and that they are the lucky ones for being so privileged to live in those where tap water can give you horrible disease or poisoning.

My question was HOW to develop but I didn't realize we'd first have to discuss what development even really means and whether there is actually any need for it.

So I guess we should deal with that topic first then and find the common ground on this issue.

Take a country like somaliland that has political stability, a happy and patriotic population, functioning democracy, no corruption, good financial management, and the only thing lacking is the engineering, actual infrastructure and high end businesses making pharmaceuticals and military equipment and roads and skyscrapers or whatever YOU consider to be positive development.

Now somaliland has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world.

So a western educated somalilander pack in her midwife job, sold her property and opened a hospital in haregisa, the capital of somaliland (very beautiful).

It grew and now trains midwives and gives them degrees, jobs, and saves lives and is opening up other branches around somaliland:

http://www.ednahospital.org/

ARe you saying she shouldn't have done this and that Somaliland would have been better off not being able to save children in basic situations that western hospitals would have no problems resolving such as Preeclampsia?

Are you saying that somaliland needs no development at all or just that it shouldnt hold the western world as its end goal and method of development?
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
No.



Technology IS available to these nations. They have other problems to solve. Corruption, in some countries ethnic conflicts, very unequal education for everybody, including adults. Very unequal salaries, such that it is easier to do some drug trafficking than to work.
It can help to bring adults to be interested in politics and making the right choice when election comes. I used to live in such a country and I've seen many people voting for a candidate who was in prison for having stolen literally millions of taxpayers money. How ignorant do you have to be to do that??
britain has very corrupt politicians and we're still developed
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
I think supplying a country with an important step of the global economy, i.e. silicon refinement, could be a way to create a cheap labor for a while, while stimulating a country's economy. Once the country was self-sufficient, they could offer another competitor in the global economy for whatever product they were geared toward...
what sort of silicon refinement did you have in mind? IC construction? how much does it cost to make an IC factory? or do you mean steps before the ic fabrication?
 

monster_catfish

Joined Mar 17, 2011
116
Oh, I forgot to mention. I don't watch TV, don't use vaccines, avoid using cars, trains and planes and would prefer not to have a powerful military or police force where I live.
No cars ? Wow, that is amazing. I thought only the Amish lived that kind of lifestyle that harks back to the days of yore. If you don't mind me asking, Mr. Chips, how do you get around ? Is it something obvious like a motorbike, or are you out in the Alaskan boonies, where snowmobiles are the preferred means of transport ?

Now this is what I'm trying to fathom. Electronics is about as close to the leading edge of technology as one could get, and in this internet forum your answers to very complex questions establish your credentials as someone with a very deep understanding of electronics.

With that in mind, may I ask whether your stated aversion to technology is simply a matter of personal choice arising out of a need to live closer to the earth, as it were, or if there may be a religious basis for this philosophy you describe here.

Pardon the personal questions, but it is rare to run into someone with a highly technical background, yet who speaks out so strongly against technological advancement. Enquiring minds want to know, Mr. Chips.
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
I don't know about EE holding the key to a developing nation. That seems akin to talking about which part of an engine is most important or whether your liver is more important than your heart.

While some nations certainly suffer because of a lack of natural resources, many (probably most) undeveloped countries remain undeveloped for cultural/political reasons that have to be dealt with before any substantive progress is realistically likely to occur.
it's possible to develop in oppressive cultures/political situations. look at USSR and China.

I dont think any culture is so backward that they cant develop. there are definitely examples of countries considered culturally backward that have achieved a fair bit scientifically speaking.

as engineers our job isnt to solve culture or politics, its to take care of te engineering parts
 

tshuck

Joined Oct 18, 2012
3,534
what sort of silicon refinement did you have in mind? IC construction? how much does it cost to make an IC factory? or do you mean steps before the ic fabrication?
Doesn't really matter, so long as there is demand on the global scale.

As I said before, a large number of obstacles need to be overcome before this is feasible, but getting a country to import & export on the global scale will help its economy, but won't fix all the problems.
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
30,709
If you don't mind me asking, Mr. Chips, how do you get around ?

Pardon the personal questions, but it is rare to run into someone with a highly technical background, yet who speaks out so strongly against technological advancement. Enquiring minds want to know, Mr. Chips.
I ride a bicycle.
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
well I'm only talking about countries that have fixed the other problems such as corruption and political instability. Not every developing country is rife with political instability and corruption. There are some genuine happy nations with good leaders but who simply lack the infrastructure and technology, businesses and technical skills. Those are the countries I'm interested in. Places in the middle of a civil war can't really have any sort of industry or infrastructure until the political situation is resolved so thats a different situation and one that requires a political solution, not an engineering one and it becomes no longer my field of expertise as I am not a politician.

RE: silicon refinement what are the potential options?

Also how much would it cost? How much technical skill is involved?

If you were in the hypothetical situation I mentioned would you start with silicon refinement or would there be other steps first?
 

Mathematics!

Joined Jul 21, 2008
1,036
Obviously the answer is taylor it to develop by what you believe / what perceived believe you have on how it should grow :)

From an economical point of view have growth that makes economics easy :)

Nature adores the path of least resistance so do we
 

Thread Starter

David_Baratheon

Joined Feb 10, 2012
285
Yeah but development can't be THAT subjective. Surely we all agree on the need for pharmaceutical products for example. If pharmaceuticals are too expensive, you can go into industries with similar skills that cost less and are less skill jobs, then export some goods, build up the funds, then move into the pharmaceutical industry. perhaps you would need to be connected to a pharmacist from the diaspora who would know the composition of various cures, probabily you'd need to know what is still patented to avoid causing political problems for your government, you'd also need to gain access to all materials and chemicals used, you may need to buy PLC software liscense etc. So there is a lot of considerations.

I'm really interested in very specific idea's on how you would develop countries. If you think it's subjective, tell it from YOUR perspective what YOU would do?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
I will disagree strongly on several points I've seen here, The true strength of the USA is transparancy. The rest of the world simply doesn't understand what true freedom of speech is.

True freedom of speech is a foreign concept in most of the world, period. Everyone want exceptions, to keep the peace or some other reason that is important to them (religion ranks well up there). The internet is a very disruptive influence because of this, but in my eyes it is a force for good, warts and all.

The only exception for freedom of speech in the USA is classified information (where our enemies will use our own data/tech against us) or where lives will be lost due to disinformation (the Supreme Court ruled yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there was none is illegal). The former is used by politicians to cover up their misdeeds way too often, and I have no problem with the second.

As for meddling in the rest of the world, we will protect our interests. It is stupid to think otherwise. Some resources only exist in a few places. The US is not clean historically, but we are not the evil empire either.

This is basically the only post I will make in this thread, but I have been and will be following this thread with interest.
 
Top