bad terminology

Words like third world, first world, developed and developing are bullshit. People spout them out like they know what they're taking about but really they are just ignorant. First of all the definition third world implies that a country is neither aligned with the West (USA, etc) or the Soviets. It's a term from the cold war, so pretty much it is outdated and doesn't mean anything in today's world.

As for developed and developing, they're BS as well. Not even Europe and the USA have stopped developing, the may have run out of land to exploit but there is still room for development. Developing on the other implies that someday these developing countries are going to live like people in "developed" nations. That would pretty much be the end of the world, the amount of waste and inefficiency that takes place in developed nations could not be sustained worldwide. What is development anyways? I consider female prime ministers like Chile's a sign of development. The majority of "developed" nations haven't reached that point yet (Well Canada if you consider Kim Cambell taking the fall for Brian Mulroney). People refer to Brazil as a developing nation but have you seen GM cars that run on either alcohol or gasoline in the states yet? Don't worry they be arriving soon.

Anyways I'd like to suggest some better terms. Over wealthy and not as wealthy, draw the line in the sand where you see fit. Hmmm...maybe Overconsuming nations and underconsuming nations is better.