Do developed countries contribute more than less developed countries in science and technology?
970015
This is a well thought of question which can be debated on.see,,every country \nconsists of specialists and generalists.(i hope the terms are explanatory in itself).Only through the broad-perspective minded \ngeneralists, service is rendered to the sp making their innovation and creative ability's stand out..\nAs in the developed countries,the proportion is balanced compared to the developing countries.The gen' in the so called de' count' venture out exploiting every specialist not only in his country but throughout the world.Now its clear why the dev' coun' \nstand high..\ncoming down to your question,its obvious who contributes more reasoned out in the above statements.
779669
There's sadly only about 10-12 percent of actual US built things!\n\nI buy USA always, but the odds are against us!
607908
India is still considered as a developing country. I think its gonna take a long time before it can be declared as a developed country.
289205
Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day. source 1\nThe GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined. source 2\nNearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. source 3\nLess than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen. 4\n51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations. source 5\nThe wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. source 6\nThe poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. source 7\n20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods. source 8\nThe top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%. source 9\nIn 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much. source 10\nAn analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about: \n3 to 1 in 1820\n11 to 1 in 1913\n35 to 1 in 1950\n44 to 1 in 1973\n72 to 1 in 1992 source 11\n“The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year [2000] because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels” source 12\nThe developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. source 13\nA few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people. source 14\n“The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global exports.” source 15\n“The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion.” source 16\n“Of all human rights failures today, those in economic and social areas affect by far the larger number and are the most widespread across the world’s nations and large numbers of people.” source 17\n“Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.” source 18\nAccording to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”\n\nThat is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year. source 19\n\nFor economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 - 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings: \nGrowth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.\nLife Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).\nInfant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.\nEducation and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalizatio
576541
yes ,but this is only in one case.india must get benefir of its scientists ,they must help their nation ,by returning back and transfer teir knowledge to the new generations.\n\ngood luck
932748
The site below has some interesting facts.  The developed world set a target of 0.7% of its gross national income to be given to the poor nations.  Almost every nation came up short.  Except for Luxembourg and the Scandinavian nations who are always good. We give alot in gross dollars but as a proportion of our income we are cheapskates.  Italy beats us.  Tiny little Belgium beats us.  Belgium!  What have they got to give away anyway?  Chocolate?
636094
Science and Technology both are growing rapidly. Every day there comes many new theories, designs, patterns, machines etc developed by the human. Some of them are known by public and some not. Thousands of Mega Bytes about Science and Technology is uploaded daily on WWW by the Researchers. Recently, I was working on Artificial Intelligence and come to know that how huge field it is. So, in my opinion we can not answer this question
1117657
will make more countries with same interests
280154
The United Kingdom contains some of the world's leading universities, including the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford and the University of London (which incorporates, amongst others, King's College London, Imperial College London, The London School of Economics and University College London). It has produced many great scholars, scientists and engineers including Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, James Clark Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel; the nation is credited with many inventions including the locomotive, vaccination, television, the railway, and both the internal combustion and the jet engine.\n\nIn 2006, it was reported that the UK was the most productive source of research after the United States; with the UK producing, for instance, 9% of the world's scientific research papers with a 12% share of citations [3].\n\nIn the UK, there are two types of schools, Public Schools and State Schools. Public schools are typically funded by the individual whom attends it, making it a more popular choice among the more wealthy citizens. State schools, however, are funded by the government through Tax.
411528
rich countries get richer and poor nations get abused and used
228172
technically it could contribute in the future, but especially given the current state of nanotech it is really not a large possibility.  you have to consider that nanotechnology is mostly doing what we already know how to do, but on a smaller scale.  for weapons it is much more practical to simply use proven large scale technology that already exists rather than spending billions of dollars on extremley complex equivalent technology.
153302
yes,why not ? \nall u mention are nations that have lot of people who have smart brain and guts.and money can easily find with that 2 resources.so the only matter just time and conscious to manage and channel their resource better .
267504
The more "rich" countries have used and abused the more poor countries, after sucking up all their resources they leave them high-and-dry. Its so easy to ignore the rest of the world unless they have something you want, IE: oil, coal, coco beans, rice, cattle, etc.
251667
Persons in countries need trade, to ensure an effective work-sharing and specialisation in solving tasks. Further, it stimulates development and give the people something to strive for and through this make progress. The dramatic improvement in living conditions for hundreds of millions of Asians would have been much more difficult without the Western world buiyng the products. Intellectual property in one place can lead to new inventions in other places. What would computers outside of US have been without MS and Intel and what would US have been without imported oil and imported cheap quality products? As people need this, countries, consisting of people, need it as well.
473925
A developed country is a country hated by everybody else.\n\nA developed country is a country that is paranoid and this is enough reason for it to wage wars against other countries.\n\nA developed country can impose nuclear power/weaponry regulations on other countries while excluding itself from the same regulations.\n\nA developed country is a major contributor of pollution and global warming.\n\nA developed country eats most of the world's resources.\n\nA developed country houses tyranny under the guise of democracy.\n\nA developed country holds the UN by the b@lls.\n\nA developed country is the only country that has the audacity to talk about peace and global well-being when it continues to test nuclear weapons in the backyards of its neighboring countries.\n\nThe word of a developed country is cr@p.
89972
You didn't really specify if you mean trade between states as in American states or as in different nations. Fundamentally, there is not that much of a difference though. The most important concept in economics is that different economies are really intertwined in one large economy. Different regions and populations possess different resources that others do not. The best examples are natural resources. Imagine how our world would be if the Middle East (or in the domestic case, say, Texas) did not trade their oil. Imagine what would happen to the small island nation of Japan if it could not import raw materials such as iron/steel to produce automobiles. Human resources are also important. The cost of many products we buy would be much higher if Chinese labor were not so inexpensive or if we were forced to produce microchips in southern California for ten times the cost! And far fewer of us would have wine if it weren't for countries like France and Australia, or states like California and Oregon. And what if we couldn't get potatoes from Idaho or peanuts from Georgia? As you can see, states depend on one another to provide raw materials, finished goods, services and labor that they themselves cannot. Without trade between different regions, our world would not function as it currently does and we would all be worse off!
863187
Consumers in developed countries have more disposable income and so the demand for services is higher, developing countries have low capitol and labour costs and so are attractive for manufacturing companies. I believe these are the main reasons, but there is a lot more to your question than meets the eye.