A web search netted the following image contained in the Quora answer: ( preceded by several boring maps). I think it illustrates perfectly what I was getting at. The Quora answer may be illustrative as well.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-parameters-to-judge-developing-or-developed-countries


"The achievements that separate developing and developed countries mostly have to do with government, civil society, and infrastructure, all of which are interdependent."

is it not true that a country is judged on how high in the development scale it is by how everything looks - even down to the people, their appearance, their posessions, their housing. — FreeEmotion

I would say yes, in that the aesthetics of a society expresses its values.

Everything in developed societies tends to look neatly arranged, as you say, and rather utilitarian and uniform. Efficiency, order, and predictability is valued over aesthetics. The iron cage of reason, they call it, ugly and meaningless.

"Everything in developed societies tends to look neatly arranged, as you say, and rather utilitarian and uniform. "

Yes, and developed countries are envied and glorified the world over. They are idealized not only for their infrastructure but their well-dressed, well tanned, attractive populations, or so it is imagined.

The beauty and wonder of the developed world would all be very well, except for two main problems: the first is the 'ugly and meaningless' existence that many have characterized life in the developed world as being. It might have something to do with two "World" wars and the turmoil it created, the beginnings of hopelessness in western civilization.

The second is that, by creating a goal that few other countries can attain, namely being 'Fully Developed" classes the world into two camps - the haves and the have-nots. There are many reasons for this, one being the fact of limited resources which a few nations have grabbed as their prize, leaving others with what remains. In simple terms, run - down buildings and dilapidated cars are a result of real wealth in those countries, wealth that now cannot be shared. The streets of New York look different from the streets of some 'developing' country because there is no money to be spent on building clean streets, tall buildings and highways that host speeding BMWs , because no one in that poor country has the money to buy a BMW. Given the money, people will make their shops and homes look good, most often, and everyone knows what their car would be like if they had the money to buy it.

It all comes down to wealth, public spending, private wealth, at least when it comes to infrastructure.

What is it that makes a farmer living in a mud hut in a certain country lesser than his combine harvester riding cowboy counterpart in America? Poor? Less Developed? We even have a name for it "standard of living" and "quality of life". Whatever said and done it is a slap in the face to all religions and all ancestors to say that our lives are better than those who came before us because we have more money and toys. Each generation is greater than the one that went before, with the our earliest ancestors having the worst quality of life.

I am not aware of any philosophers who have explored these questions - as I have said I would be grateful for some names - what is the connection between wealth, a full, meaningful, not to say significant life, a life of value, and technology? Can a human being be 'developed' even if he lives in a country that is not? What is the pinnacle of human development, what is the end goal of human existence?

There are many threads here - colonialism, racism, and to complicate matters, someone has created a list of 'the worlds most beautiful people', needless to say, not every country is listed, giving the impression that the peoples of the world can be ranked on a scale from beautiful (10) to ugly (0). Note the countries listed but without exception these people rank from light skinned to deep tan.

https://www.therichest.com/high-life/top-15-countries-with-the-most-beautiful-people/

And I quote:

"The United States of America is the home of the brave, as well as some of the most attractive people in the world."

There are many threads here - colonialism, racism, and to complicate matters, someone has created a list of 'the worlds most beautiful people', needless to say, not every country is listed, giving the impression that the peoples of the world can be ranked on a scale from beautiful (10) to ugly (0). Note the countries listed but without exception these people rank from light skinned to deep tan. — FreeEmotion

There’s nothing the least bit complicated about a crappy website like that. It couldn’t be more shallow and meaningless.

Oswaldo De Rivero - The Myth of Development

"boldly states that the benefits of development, so long promised over the past sixty years, have not come about for most people. Nor are they going to. "


https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/M/bo47192581.html

Well this is a promising start. I tend to agree with him. So what next? Maybe for third world countries to stop beating themselves over the head over not being first world countries for a start. Material development and increase of personal wealth seems to be out of the question for the 7 billion here.

Is anyone aware of suggested alternatives? Some sort of bibliography here, it is hard to find anything on the philosophy of development. Maybe a few months of searching.

More correctly titled "spirituality and development" there are some encouraging new trends in the field.