Human Geography in Action (textbook) Should so-called 'less developed' countries pursue policies of 'development?' If yes, how can this be done without leading to the myriad problems our class examination of the concept has pointed out? If no, how can they then best address the legitimate desires of their people for increasing their material security and well-being (with things like access to clean water, adequate food, lower infant/maternal mortality, etc.)?

From the macro perspective of the globe, the world cannot afford more 'development' in terms of commodity-focused capitalism. As chronicled in The Story of Stuff, the planet simply cannot support any more cultures that are obsessed with disposable items and accumulating more goods. However, capitalism has also provided a great deal of material comfort to a large percentage of the population. Despite the systemic inequalities manifest in America, even the poor of America...

The developed world has better access to healthcare, food, and sanitation, and as a result it is understandable why the 'less developed' world wishes to emulate 'us.' This can be seen most starkly in the images of the new, modernized China on the evening news: the members of the rising middle class desire cars rather than bikes and want to eat fast food rather than a traditional rice and vegetable-based diet. The consequences for the planet of increased fossil fuel consumption and the use of more land for factory farming will be devastating, but the U.S. has been unable to significantly curtail its own consumption, so how can it act as a moral leader of the globe?
Furthermore, the legacy of colonialism and the negative effects of the control of institutions such as the IMF have caused many developing nations to be profoundly suspicious of…