First World were countries aligned with the United States, Second World were countries aligned with the Soviet Union, and Third World were countries who were "neutral" or not aligned with either major superpower. Many Third World countries were newly independent, and were economically struggling but also wanted to assert sovereignty. Many were given aid packages to attempt to court them to one side or the other. The terms are outdated because of reality, not because of "progressives".

We didn't, though! At least, not for that purpose. When India's PM Nehru said to the UN, "We are the third world," it was a profound statement that had absolutely nothing to do with economics. "Developing" and "developed" were introduced to the public conscious as a desperate attempt to stop the ignorant masses (including, at one point, me) from ruining a useful descriptor.

I haven't read the link you posted because I want to expand on my initial reaction.

A layman who is not familiar with the reasons behind Global North/South would not think about imperialist relations. I'm somewhat okay with "developing" because the term is easier to understand: some countries are less developed than others. Plus the terms are fluid. If a country becomes developed enough then they switch labels.

Global North/South makes no sense at all, again from a layman's perspective. From the original story:

> Psychologically, we tend to view things nearer the top as ‘good’ and those lower as ‘bad.’

When I see Australia in the southern hemisphere being characterised as "North", I think that the creator of this term is discriminating against countries they consider inferior. There is no room for growth here. A country being characterised as "South" will always be as such, because intuitively we know we can't switch geographies.

As an Australian, I do find it a bit perjorative for countries north of us (many of them in the northern hemisphere!) to be deemed the "global south", while we are excluded despite actually being the only inhabited continent entirely in the south. It just reminds one that nobody cares about the southern hemisphere, and that northern hemisphere types think anything south of the mediterranean is "south".

North/South doesn't have anything to do with it, anyway, as you alluded to. What people actually want to talk about is whether a country is a former colonial master, a former settler colony or a former extractive colony (or possibly multiple of these, as with e.g. the US).

> What are "developing" countries developing into? Nice white western ones like the global north? Nope. That one is the worst of the choices.

The way to think about it is along economic, social, and infra/tech dimensions, and are not coupled to culture or ethnicity (your "white western").

Specifically, developing countries:

- Economic: low income, underdeveloped industry

- Social: lower quality of life, limited access to basic services (jobs, food, clean water, education, healthcare, housing)

- Infra/tech: poor infrastructure, limited access to technology

Furthermore, the following countries in Europe ("white") can be considered developing: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. while Japan is not developing (and not "white western").

Some countries have a high HDI (e.g. in Africa you can think of Algeria, Egypt, South Africa, Morocco, Botswana, etc.) but can still be considered developing on other dimensions.

In the Middle East, counties like Qatar, UAE, Israel, Kuwait, and Bahrain can be considered developed (and not "white western").

I said "somewhat okay" in my original comment to mean developing/developed classification is better than the Global North/South. Not that it's good or should be widely used. I wanted to communicate that even that bad classification is "better" than Global North/South which I'm hearing about today for the first time.

They are "developing" into industrialized countries.

They’re becoming developed like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.

"Economically developed" doesn't imply race: you are the one bringing white up... Or perhaps you are projecting your bad impressions onto others?

Developing is a fine word, with little taint.

You remind me of a lady who objected to me saying "retarded" who then righteously lectured me about not saying retarded, and she proceeded to give an example of her having a friend in a wheelchair as to why the word was offensive. I couldn't even start to tell her just how grossly disgusting her comments were.

Parts of reality suck, but denying reality sucks even harder - especially if you think you are helping less developed peoples.

Do you live in a white western country?

If so, do you have a plan for emigrating?

If you've no plan, why not?

Only because their population is so huge. Their Dollar GDP is about 2/3 that of the USA and is 4.5x that of Japan. In a sense it’s set of highly developed urban industrial zones that also has a massive underdeveloped rural area.