(My response to you is also unoriginal but worth stating imo.)
I would prefer if you used the phrase “US geopolitical sphere of influence” instead of “developed world”. It makes it clear your take is political.
Leaders within the US govt have obviously contributed to multiple wars and genocides, you just happen to be born into a family that is not on the receiving end of any of them. Part of the reason (but not the full reason) for the economic prosperity is crude oil deals made by the US govt under threat of nuclear war.
Statements such as yours give leaders within the US govt implicit consent to continue this sort of rule over the world.
Global utility includes the above two things (first two tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy) not just counting the number of deaths (where I agree health-related deaths are the biggest bracket).
I consider US govt partially responsible for unequal distribution.
Neither the mortality-rate nor the energy-use map lines up that closely with the US geopolitical sphere of influence. (E.g. Russia and China on the one hand, Latin America on the other.)
I’m not saying the US government isn’t partially responsible for unequal distribution, but your previous comment sounds like treating it as the only or primary significant factor.
(I’m also not sure what point you’re trying to make at all with the energy-use map, given how similar it looks to the mortality-rate map.)
Russia and China obviously have significant crude oil reserves which they use domestically. They get to keep them instead of exporting to someone because they have nuclear weapons.
All of industry is ultimately based on a few resources such as crude oil, coal and water. These are then used to make steel and electricity which are then used to make industrial supplies for chemicals and so on.
So a shortage of drugs or of roads or of hospitals does indirectly tie into the energy use of the country.
“Crude oil deals made by the US govt” are responsible for a negligible proportion of global economic prosperity, which comes out of the global scientific ecosystem that has been centered in the US for nearly 100 years.
I agree the US exports a variety of goods including weapons, food, industrial products, aircraft and so on, and this gives them more money to purchase crude oil. And being on the leading edge of science and engineering for these industries enables them to make these exports in the first place.
US military protection including nuclear protection is obviously another reason why US gets favourable deals from its allies though.
(My response to you is also unoriginal but worth stating imo.)
I would prefer if you used the phrase “US geopolitical sphere of influence” instead of “developed world”. It makes it clear your take is political.
Leaders within the US govt have obviously contributed to multiple wars and genocides, you just happen to be born into a family that is not on the receiving end of any of them. Part of the reason (but not the full reason) for the economic prosperity is crude oil deals made by the US govt under threat of nuclear war.
Statements such as yours give leaders within the US govt implicit consent to continue this sort of rule over the world.
This period of global safety is not fairly distributed,
But it is also real
https://data.unicef.org/resources/levels-and-trends-in-child-mortality-2024/
Rule of law
Energy use per capita
Global utility includes the above two things (first two tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy) not just counting the number of deaths (where I agree health-related deaths are the biggest bracket).
I consider US govt partially responsible for unequal distribution.
Neither the mortality-rate nor the energy-use map lines up that closely with the US geopolitical sphere of influence. (E.g. Russia and China on the one hand, Latin America on the other.)
I’m not saying the US government isn’t partially responsible for unequal distribution, but your previous comment sounds like treating it as the only or primary significant factor.
(I’m also not sure what point you’re trying to make at all with the energy-use map, given how similar it looks to the mortality-rate map.)
I’m not claiming it’s the only factor.
Russia and China obviously have significant crude oil reserves which they use domestically. They get to keep them instead of exporting to someone because they have nuclear weapons.
All of industry is ultimately based on a few resources such as crude oil, coal and water. These are then used to make steel and electricity which are then used to make industrial supplies for chemicals and so on.
So a shortage of drugs or of roads or of hospitals does indirectly tie into the energy use of the country.
“Crude oil deals made by the US govt” are responsible for a negligible proportion of global economic prosperity, which comes out of the global scientific ecosystem that has been centered in the US for nearly 100 years.
I’m mainly trying to explain this graph of energy use per capita.
I agree the US exports a variety of goods including weapons, food, industrial products, aircraft and so on, and this gives them more money to purchase crude oil. And being on the leading edge of science and engineering for these industries enables them to make these exports in the first place.
US military protection including nuclear protection is obviously another reason why US gets favourable deals from its allies though.
@Arjun Panickssery I’m not sure what counts as definitive proof to you.
US crude oil imports: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/us-oil-imports-by-country
You can read history of US relations with Saudi Arabia or Iraq or South Korea or any of the other countries at the top of this list.