The robber barons were also real people with individual hopes and dreams. The real problem is so are all those other people in those poor countries. The 99.99% who are left behind are also individuals with hopes and dreams.
Practically, yes, I know society expects people to be nationalist to some degree.
But wealthy countries are not doing this for the benefit of those people, they are doing it for their own benefit. To the detriment of the rest of those in poor countries. This pretty much seals the lot of those countries to be dependent client states subject to the whims of wealthy countries and prone to having their other natural resources plundered as well. Let's not lie to ourselves about this being some kind of altruism or net positive outcome.
During colonialism, many collaborators in the countries being exploited got great benefit, they were put in positions of power installed as local rulers, for example. I don't see a lot of difference in the dynamics or results.
Theoretical question, because it's quite interesting to me that almost everyone I have talked with about this who has made arguments in this direction have tended to be leftist or collectivist leaning -- what do you think? Also do you think the 0.01% of people in a western country have any obligation towards the 99.99% of people in that country?
In a patriotic, nationalist culture, yes. But if you explicitly reject things like patriotism and nationalism as being chauvinist or racist, then of course there is no obligation to privilege your countrymen over anyone else. So you have the same bonds to everyone, which is just another way of saying you have no special bonds to anyone.
Now in real life, we always have bonds to some group and that group is usually your own family first and your own tribe second, and it radiates out. So if you preach class consciousness, then you would have loyalty to members of your own class, etc. So then here, too, you can't expect the very top to have any loyalty to you.
It's really strange how people advocate for certain value systems without even taking a moment to think about the logical consequences of their values, let alone devoting serious consideration as to whether a given value system promotes long term human flourishing. This is also why most of these values have terrible consequences for human flourishing whenever they are adopted on a large scale.
That's a fair point, but I guess the question then becomes - is that non-zero obligation greater than the emigrant's personal quest for a better life. Which, in the real world for most people, seems to be no.
> Let's not lie to ourselves about this being some kind of altruism or net positive outcome
Probably the best outcome for collective human knowledge would be to develop every country, research in every single country = more total research / unit time. But for individuals who just want to be able to invent something in their lifetimes and have a better daily life, this is very far away and humans are bad at long-term decision-making.
> Also do you think the 0.01% of people in a western country have any obligation towards the 99.99% of people in that country?
I don't think so. That's actually similar to the premise behind Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged [1]. But, I am very happy that we share the same world and I the same country (US) with some of the best people in pretty much every field.
Sure, maybe that is the case when looking at the 'Greater Good' of the whole population, but the
> best and brightest people -- from disadvantaged countries
are also real people with individual hopes and dreams. Just because they happened to be born in a bad place doesn't mean that their desire to achieve better things (think research facilities, schools for kids) and contribute to the future of humanity should be discounted.