Right; I am in the developed world and I do recognize to some degree what is going on in Africa and rural parts of Asia and South America.
I think most of the first world's 'intruding into other peoples wars in the name of peace' are generally flat-out lies. We are invading their countries for resources, political gain, or strategically place military bases. So I am with you on that one, I think.
However, the rise of information sharing in the lower rungs of society, of which we are going to see all but the opt-outs being a part of by the end of this century, is going to breed (in my estimation) a feeling of camaraderie trans boarder.
It's really a matter of class consciousness. As people come to realize the similarity of their situation with others, those people will naturally ally with each other; and the shrinking middle class will see the direction it's heading and ally with the lower class as well.
The fact is, 98%~ of people on earth would greatly benefit from an fair world, its only the very very top that stand to lose something; and as people come to realize this (which they will as cheap information sharing gets to every corner of the globe in the next 15-20 years) the power will inevitably move away from those who keep their power by misinforming their constituency.
But there are many problems that information sharing just can't solve. Let's take African village X, imbue the population with a shared desire to break free of their government bondage, and give them a very poor infrastructure. Once they stop celebrating their defeat of the government, they're going to have to face issues such as who gets how much water. These things can't be solved by the Internet, and this is basically my original point about competing for resources.
I'd also take issue with the idea of the middle class being allied to the poor. Doesn't seem to work that way in the U.S., at least.
Don't get me wrong - I wish you were right. A more fair and equal world would undoubtedly be a better place, but I think the probability of that occurring anytime soon is pretty slim. Even if you solve issues like famine, medicine and economic development (which is a pretty gigantic if), something new will take their place as a focal point for competition.
EDIT: We could argue this til the cows come home. I think it just comes down to your optimistic view versus my pessimistic view. Only time will tell who's right.
Well let me try and convince you anyway that optimism is the rational view in this case.
I'd also take issue with the idea of the middle class being allied to the poor. Doesn't seem to work that way in the U.S., at least.
You're actually just wrong here; liberalism is inherently an ally with the poor; and you will find more liberals in the middle class than any other alignment.
Beyond that, the reason I am optimistic is because I perceive a clear trend between sharing of information and 'fairness'. In virtually all cases of inequality, a small percentage of people control, have power over, or exploit a majority of people. The only reason they are able to maintain their regime is that when isolated instances of rebellion start to quell, they are quickly extinguished through force or other manipulation.
Historically, it's organization of these exploited-majorities, including efficient means of internal communication which has led to successful revolutions; and without the internal communication they are bound to remain fragmented, and thus easily extinguished.
The internet has completely changed the game in that regard; the total ramifications have not been seen yet; as the first people to mass adopt the internet were middle class and upwards and used it for what those people do with all their lives, entertainment and work.
However, that's not what poor people do. Not having ever been poorer than an avg broke 20-something; I can't speak directly; but at least in South America I know there is intense power struggles happening between the rich and the poor.
The rich can 'stay on top' the poor due to their power-advantage. They have control of the social structure, and beyond that just generally have capital, more freedom and ability to move and communicate, etc.
However, as the information age progresses, more and more things that used to require capital, or large amounts capital can now be infinitely distributed for free (or nearly free) as software; thus raising the power of the poor.
As the power of the poor, or the lowest classes of society raises, they will be more and more successful.
Beyond that, having an attitude of brotherly love and compassion for all humans is the best 'meta-game' strategy. That is, if life is a game and being altruistic or selfish is a strategy, altruism is going to win in the long run. Players tend to trend toward successful strategies as a game gets played more and more (and results of others success get more and more eyeballs), and thus I have to assume that overtime altruism will become more and more common as a life-strat.
I think most of the first world's 'intruding into other peoples wars in the name of peace' are generally flat-out lies. We are invading their countries for resources, political gain, or strategically place military bases. So I am with you on that one, I think.
However, the rise of information sharing in the lower rungs of society, of which we are going to see all but the opt-outs being a part of by the end of this century, is going to breed (in my estimation) a feeling of camaraderie trans boarder.
It's really a matter of class consciousness. As people come to realize the similarity of their situation with others, those people will naturally ally with each other; and the shrinking middle class will see the direction it's heading and ally with the lower class as well.
The fact is, 98%~ of people on earth would greatly benefit from an fair world, its only the very very top that stand to lose something; and as people come to realize this (which they will as cheap information sharing gets to every corner of the globe in the next 15-20 years) the power will inevitably move away from those who keep their power by misinforming their constituency.