First World vs Third World

It's quite hard to judge a nation based on its development as the development itself is subjective. First of all, many people think that we should stop using these terms as it is insulting and vague and happy life doesn't decide by vast economic development. Simply to say, not everyone needs McDonalds or Starbucks for a happy tummy. There was an idea of three worlds and a planet. By the first world, it meant the United States, Japan, South Korea and Western Europe while the second had China, Soviet Union and certain communist allies while the rest falls into the bottom (mostly Agrarian & poor societies) but there wasn't really much analysis.

Living conditions in developed countries seems to be good, but humanity and basic survival needs is still a struggling condition for middle and lower class society (high living costs). Development was just credited based on relative wealth. There is another term; the Fourth World, whereby there's a clear wall between wealthy society and another side would be extreme poverty. Countries like India had this plight slum settlements are still at a larger scale (Dharavi in Mumbai). Basically they're living in a third-world standard by wearing a first-world 'bubble'. Relatively in other Asian countries such as China, Indonesia and Thailand whereby poverty rate is still to be debatable while the economic flow is getting expanded year by year. Why is it so important to make smartphones that are contributing majorly to world destruction (physically deteriorating environment while infecting social mentality) while neglecting agriculture?

But in a context, 'new' money had contributed to the growth of infrastructure and gone through major changes. Let's go back to India; basically a very easy case study relative to the discussion where you can literally see poverty plights rather than looking pr researching for it. But in the world context, India had a higher literacy rate and young generations than it's contemporaries and economic growth fairly uprising. Is it developing? Doesn't mean starving to death is the symbolisation of poverty; whereas daily struggles to reconcile their rights and opportunities with other class is poverty as well. Basically, I would project the governance as the pungi (snake flute) who basically charming the deaf snake (the people) with alluding sounds of hopes and manifestos. But the snake charmers (government) still need the snake for living.

Life expectancy, human rights and environmental care are to be calculated as real development. There's no use of charted as developed state with interior infringement of human rights, political violence, corruption, labour rights violation and etc. Comparision and case study was taken an example. To a certain extent, the underdeveloped region was to be exploited for the namesake of development in many developing nations. Original settlers cleansed or driven out of their homeland; losing their economic gain. It is happening In Malaysia as well; particularly in Bornean islands of Sabah and Sarawak whereby the locals are assimilated into other major regions to give away to urbanisation which was never to be completed in near future. You'll know the term failed when a rich man needs a sleeping pill to rest due to hypertension (It is just a thought of comparison).

There is a lot to be discussed regarding this issue as its vague. But in a nutshell, the term is to revise completely and instruments of measuring the status should be redefined precisely.