EU, US accuse China of "steel dumping"

[ray245]

And your point being? I am not understanding what you are trying to argue here. I merely restated what I thought was incorrect in that they are first world country with a third world government.

You might want to tell me what is your definition of a first world nation.

Obviously that's the big problem with China, and I have no idea why the Communist Party isn't doing much about it. My take is that they don't want to lose face because cracking down too hard also damages the authority of the Communist Party and makes them look bad rather than good. Neither are they willing to grant the peasants too much power either.

While the massive industrialisation has improved, it hasn't done great for every one, and mostly for those along the coast.

Of course there will be losers in the process, but the overall HDI of China has improved over the years, jumping from 0.530 to 0.777. With the additional fact that the coastal regions has been the traditional areas for investors to arrive in, I'm not surprised that the coastal regions are more developed than the inland areas. Also, bear in mind that the CCP views the development of the inner land regions as a secondary as compared to a primary concern.

Building the economy ASAP at what cost? There's such a thing as a runaway environmental effect. When incidence of people getting health related problems due to the smog start going up into the millions, it would have been too late.

By the time they are done, they would have successfully polluted almost all of their water sources, their air, and next minute they would have to spend huge tonnes of cash to build desalination plants to purify their water. How's that for improvement?

Let's see, given the fact that the poorer nations tends to be the ones that will suffer the most from whenever a global crisis occurs, and global warming is going to affect them badly even if China didn't contribute much to the global pollution, don't you think they have enough reason to industrialise before the opportunity is gone?

With the additional fact that they have been screwed over again and again for a rather long period of time by the more developed nations, I think they have strong justification to ensure they are not going to end up in a worse position if they failed to develop their economy.

Industrialising a big nation like China is not only going to be troublesome, but requires a sizeable amount of time to accomplish it. And time is running out for them, if industrialisation is going to become more and more expensive, and more and more people are turning against the idea of globalisation.

No major nations around the world is going to give much damn about China if they get stuck as a third world nation.

And bash what? The Chinese don't care about our bashing.

Given the fact that one of the primary reason for shoddy products is due to corruption than anything else, bashing that as compared to bashing China in general seems more sensible to me.

That's because people are myopic and regard the central government as too far away to care about. When the central government becomes the pickle of everyone's eye, we will be looking at a revolution.

All I am doing is pointing out the fact that the most severe case of corruption exist at the local level, and that is the core problem with China.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You might want to tell me what is your definition of a first world nation.

What? YOu can't tell that the further you go away from the east coast, the closer to the ground people have to scrap for food? Statistics without breakdown are not meaningful.

Of course there will be losers in the process, but the overall HDI of China has improved over the years, jumping from 0.530 to 0.777. With the additional fact that the coastal regions has been the traditional areas for investors to arrive in, I'm not surprised that the coastal regions are more developed than the inland areas. Also, bear in mind that the CCP views the development of the inner land regions as a secondary as compared to a primary concern.

Isn't that the problem? The inner land regions hold a good bulk of the population. They have been trying to improve things, but they have to spread it further in faster than at the pace they are doing it. Also, at this point, it is not good enough just to cite some nice numbers. Statistics only has meaning when you start showing the breakdowns.

Let's see, given the fact that the poorer nations tends to be the ones that will suffer the most from whenever a global crisis occurs, and global warming is going to affect them badly even if China didn't contribute much to the global pollution, don't you think they have enough reason to industrialise before the opportunity is gone?

You have this bloody "Chinese victim complex" which I suspect is rooted in your love of Chineseness but that aside and I have stated before, I have no objection to their industrialization, only to the methodology of getting there.

With the additional fact that they have been screwed over again and again for a rather long period of time by the more developed nations, I think they have strong justification to ensure they are not going to end up in a worse position if they failed to develop their economy.

That victim complex again. Let's put it this way, if a country let's itself get screwed around, it has mostly itself to blame because it laid itself the foundations of its weakness, which led to it getting screwed around.

Given the fact that one of the primary reason for shoddy products is due to corruption than anything else, bashing that as compared to bashing China in general seems more sensible to me.

They will only start to react to the bashing only when it starts to hurt their profits, and probably also their bribes.

[ray245]

What? YOu can't tell that the further you go away from the east coast, the closer to the ground people have to scrap for food? Statistics without breakdown are not meaningful.

So in other words, you are saying that China is a first world nation because the coastal regions are well developed? I thought that the coastal regions and the inland regions are still part of the same nation.

Isn't that the problem? The inner land regions hold a good bulk of the population. They have been trying to improve things, but they have to spread it further in faster than at the pace they are doing it. Also, at this point, it is not good enough just to cite some nice numbers. Statistics only has meaning when you start showing the breakdowns.

Except the fact that the overall HDI has improved over the years due to industrialisation. Bear in mind that I am not saying the inland regions is just as developed as the coastal regions, but trying to argue that industrialisation does benefit China as a whole, if you are looking at the big picture.

I'm not defending China's policy about making the economic disparity between the coastal and the inland regions even bigger, but defending China's industrialisation process as a whole.

You have this bloody "Chinese victim complex" which I suspect is rooted in your love of Chineseness but that aside and I have stated before, I have no objection to their industrialization, only to the methodology of getting there.

Well, I am definitely biased considering the fact that I do have a number of family members still living in China that I do care about, with the additional fact that I consider that China has more to lose than any other developed nations.

Bear in mind that I am responding to your earlier post before I noticed that you mentioned you have no objection to industrialisation.

That victim complex again. Let's put it this way, if a country let's itself get screwed around, it has mostly itself to blame because it laid itself the foundations of its weakness, which led to it getting screwed around.

So the people living in the present only have their forefathers to blame for not being able to live a better life? The idea that people have no justification to develop their nation and improve their nation just because they are born in a wrong nation? That seems like what you are trying to say.

Feel free to point it out if I misunderstood what you are trying to say.

[Lusankya]

What? YOu can't tell that the further you go away from the east coast, the closer to the ground people have to scrap for food? Statistics without breakdown are not meaningful.

What ray meant was: China isn't a first world nation, you doofus.

Isn't that the problem? The inner land regions hold a good bulk of the population. They have been trying to improve things, but they have to spread it further in faster than at the pace they are doing it. Also, at this point, it is not good enough just to cite some nice numbers. Statistics only has meaning when you start showing the breakdowns.

The western provinces (I am here defining the eastern provinces as Manchuria, the coastal provinces aside from Guangxi and Hainan, plus Anhui, Jiangxi, Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai and the western provinces as everything else - feel free to dispute that if you like, though personally I think I could have included Shanxi and Henan in the "eastern provinces") have about half the population, but maybe 1/4-1/3 of China's total area. They were also more developed initially, which gives them a head start.

The ten most developed provinces (discounting the municipalities, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) also contain about half the population.

Let's see, given the fact that the poorer nations tends to be the ones that will suffer the most from whenever a global crisis occurs, and global warming is going to affect them badly even if China didn't contribute much to the global pollution, don't you think they have enough reason to industrialise before the opportunity is gone?

You have this bloody "Chinese victim complex" which I suspect is rooted in your love of Chineseness but that aside and I have stated before, I have no objection to their industrialization, only to the methodology of getting there.

That victim complex again. Let's put it this way, if a country let's itself get screwed around, it has mostly itself to blame because it laid itself the foundations of its weakness, which led to it getting screwed around.

What? They've been screwed around in the past, which was their own fault, so they deserve it and therefore they shouldn't take steps to make sure they don't get screwed around again? Am I reading you correctly?

[J]

In terms of industrialization and living standards, there's a big elephant in the room which has been mostly ignore, and that is resource consumption. Let's say we bring China up to 1st world standards, to support those standards will require unprecedented levels of resource consumption which I frankly believe aren't supportable, period.

Let's take oil since I'm most familiar with it, let's assume China follows the EU model of efficiency in using rail transport instead of copying North America's love of cars. The EU with a population of around 500 million uses roughly 14 million barrels of oil a day, at a similar efficiency & living standard the Chinese with roughly 2.5 times the population would go through 35 million barrels of oil every single day, or as much as the US and EU combined. We'd need to find another 27 million barrels per day of oil production, which is to say 3 Saudi Arabias. Hmmm...bit of a problem isn't it?

And that leaves aside their need for coal, natural gas, base metals, grains & other agricultural commodities, and all the other things which 1st world nations consume on a large scale.

There aren't enough of resources available for China to industrialize to 1st world standards without the rest of the world being heavily squeezed, and the rest of the world isn't going to enjoy it. Which leads to resource wars.

[Samuel]

What? They've been screwed around in the past, which was their own fault, so they deserve it and therefore they shouldn't take steps to make sure they don't get screwed around again? Am I reading you correctly?

He is referring to future problems and saying that they are shooting themselves in the foot with their environmental policies which will backfire.

You have this bloody "Chinese victim complex" which I suspect is rooted in your love of Chineseness but that aside and I have stated before, I have no objection to their industrialization, only to the methodology of getting there.

Hey, If you are a humanitarian you have to love the Chinese- they are most of humanity.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What? They've been screwed around in the past, which was their own fault, so they deserve it and therefore they shouldn't take steps to make sure they don't get screwed around again? Am I reading you correctly?

No, I did not say that. I said that they screwed themselves thus allowed others to screw them. A country's weakness, especially in a case of a large country like this, often is traced to a litany of problems often of their own creation. In which case, the Chinese seem to be quite adept at screwing themselves over with multiple environmental disasters waiting to happen, along with the lack of resources that J mentions.

[ray245]

In terms of industrialization and living standards, there's a big elephant in the room which has been mostly ignore, and that is resource consumption. Let's say we bring China up to 1st world standards, to support those standards will require unprecedented levels of resource consumption which I frankly believe aren't supportable, period.

Let's take oil since I'm most familiar with it, let's assume China follows the EU model of efficiency in using rail transport instead of copying North America's love of cars. The EU with a population of around 500 million uses roughly 14 million barrels of oil a day, at a similar efficiency & living standard the Chinese with roughly 2.5 times the population would go through 35 million barrels of oil every single day, or as much as the US and EU combined. We'd need to find another 27 million barrels per day of oil production, which is to say 3 Saudi Arabias. Hmmm...bit of a problem isn't it?

And that leaves aside their need for coal, natural gas, base metals, grains & other agricultural commodities, and all the other things which 1st world nations consume on a large scale.

There aren't enough of resources available for China to industrialize to 1st world standards without the rest of the world being heavily squeezed, and the rest of the world isn't going to enjoy it. Which leads to resource wars.

Which led to this interesting dilemma that should the people living the developing world be denied of a chance to have a better living standards just because they are born into a poor nation.

No, I did not say that. I said that they screwed themselves thus allowed others to screw them. A country's weakness, especially in a case of a large country like this, often is traced to a litany of problems often of their own creation. In which case, the Chinese seem to be quite adept at screwing themselves over with multiple environmental disasters waiting to happen, along with the lack of resources that J mentions.

So in others words, China should not be given a chance to develop their economy? Hell, and why are you looking at China in a generic manner, where you are lumping people who make those decisions in the past like Mao with people in China today?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So in other words, you are saying that China is a first world nation because the coastal regions are well developed? I thought that the coastal regions and the inland regions are still part of the same nation.

I never said it was a first world nation. I said it is a second world government, with the population living in second to third world conditions.

Except the fact that the overall HDI has improved over the years due to industrialisation. Bear in mind that I am not saying the inland regions is just as developed as the coastal regions, but trying to argue that industrialisation does benefit China as a whole, if you are looking at the big picture.

Big Pictures often hide all the important details.

I'm not defending China's policy about making the economic disparity between the coastal and the inland regions even bigger, but defending China's industrialisation process as a whole.

Including all the chemical spills, polluted rivers, polluted air, high sulphur content emissions?

So the people living in the present only have their forefathers to blame for not being able to live a better life? The idea that people have no justification to develop their nation and improve their nation just because they are born in a wrong nation? That seems like what you are trying to say.

Feel free to point it out if I misunderstood what you are trying to say.

Which part to "I have no objection to their industrialization, only to their methodology" do you not fucking understand?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Which led to this interesting dilemma that should the people living the developing world be denied of a chance to have a better living standards just because they are born into a poor nation.

God... You do realise that this planet does not have enough resources to support the human race? And that poor people will remain a permanent fixture of life?

So in others words, China should not be given a chance to develop their economy? Hell, and why are you looking at China in a generic manner, where you are lumping people who make those decisions in the past like Mao with people in China today?

Your glorious straw man looks quite huge, and I think it's growing. Look a bird just sat on it!

[Samuel]

What? They've been screwed around in the past, which was their own fault, so they deserve it and therefore they shouldn't take steps to make sure they don't get screwed around again? Am I reading you correctly?

No, I did not say that. I said that they screwed themselves thus allowed others to screw them. A country's weakness, especially in a case of a large country like this, often is traced to a litany of problems often of their own creation. In which case, the Chinese seem to be quite adept at screwing themselves over with multiple environmental disasters waiting to happen, along with the lack of resources that J mentions.

Actually it is the lack of world resources- China will be hurt, but once they have enough cash the shortages will be shared equally among the poorer citizens of the first world.

God... You do realize that this planet does not have enough resources to support the human race? And that poor people will remain a permanent fixture of life?

You do realize the world population is expected to peak? Which means... less people! Lets not forget that if China can't afford consumerism, they might not go in that direction. They will have to go higher efficiency, which is different than poverty.

Which led to this interesting dilemma that should the people living the developing world be denied of a chance to have a better living standards just because they are born into a poor nation.

There are two schools of thought on this. One holds that we will be able to increase the resource base faster than population growth for the foreseeable future. The other holds that we will run into hard limits. I am really hoping A is true because I don't want to see China fighting a resource war over Alaska

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You do realize the world population is expected to peak? Which means... less people! Lets not forget that if China can't afford consumerism, they might not go in that direction. They will have to go higher efficiency, which is different than poverty.

It may peak, or be redistributed between the First world and the rest. And less people might mean starvation, death etc. As it is, the third world is still experiencing rather explosive growth which is mostly controlled either by disease, war etc.

[ray245]

I never said it was a first world nation. I said it is a second world government, with the population living in second to third world conditions.

So you are saying I am mistaken for saying China is a first world nation even thought I never said so?

Big Pictures often hide all the important details.

Strawman. You are not attacking me on saying that the overall HDI index has improved.

Which part to "I have no objection to their industrialization, only to their methodology" do you not fucking understand?

Firstly, I know you have no objection to industrialisation, and bearing in mind that I am attacking your earlier points before I noticed that you mentioned that the first time.

Then why the hell did you have to confuse people by saying:

Let's put it this way, if a country let's itself get screwed around, it has mostly itself to blame because it laid itself the foundations of its weakness, which led to it getting screwed around.

A few people besides me was confused by what do you mean by the foundation, is it the foundation for the modern economic development or the present foundation for the future. Mainly because I was talking about China getting screwed around by other nations in the past, especially from the late 19th century to the early 20th century and you basically said something like they deserved it.

Forgive me for getting confused.

[K. A. Pital]

1) This planet has enough resources to support the human race. It doesn't have enough resources to support atrociously luxurious life level for everyone, but it has enough to support a decent, 2500+ calorie diet and home for everyone. That's probably good enough and humanity should strive to that standard for most of it's inhabitants.

2) The First World is arrogant and utterly callous in it's overconsumption and utter disregard of any other nations willing to compete with it for resources. Sooner or later, the First World will face problems, and you can't say "Well China should stay poor just because the First World should enjoy their luxuries and fuck everyone else! Yeah Thomas Malthus and also yeah opression forever!"

The First World is not immune to competition, neither should it ever be.

3) Babbling about the problem of "there's not enough for everyone" is a concealed "I live in the First World, I have mine, and fuck everyone else who tries to take that from me, by the way of economic re-distribution or otherwise". It's poorly concealed arrogance and a denial of competition from other nations.

Nations always compete. Saying that someone should stop his industrialization because the First World is already "consuming lots" is just hideous. Maybe I have this view because my nation had to industrialize so fast despite whatever others wanted, or maybe it's because I've seen both the First World and Third World people, and the First World people in my view are not necessarily entitled to have their share of consumption being sealed forever as greater than anyone else's.

The world will be changing. Industrialization in it's early phases is always extremely polluting, inefficient and resource hungry. Especially of such a large nation as China.

I think someone should remind people here that the First World is not everything there is, and the First World has no right to dictate anything to anyone, especially when it's blatant economic interest to maintain an artificially high overconsumption level.

[Darth Wong]

The First World is arrogant and utterly callous in it's overconsumption and utter disregard of any other nations willing to compete with it for resources. Sooner or later, the First World will face problems, and you can't say "Well China should stay poor just because the First World should enjoy their luxuries and fuck everyone else! Yeah Thomas Malthus and also yeah opression forever!"

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it, and there is quite a bit of truth to your accusation. On the other hand, it could be argued that many First World nations have done a much better job of population control than third world nations, so it's not at all unfair for them to consume more per capita.

Per capita is just one way of measuring a nation's relative consumption rate. One could also measure it relative to land area. Canada and China have similar land area, yet China has a population of 1.3 billion while Canada has a population of 33 million. If you look at it that way, it's not so unreasonable for Canadians to consume more resources per capita than the Chinese, or India.

We often hear that the US has less than 5% of the population of the world but makes something like 20% of its pollution. That is a damning fact, to be sure. But then again, if the US had the population density of China, its population would be around the same: 1.3 billion or so. In this imaginary case, the world population would be 8 billion instead of 7 billion, and the US population would be more than 16% of the total world population. So if the US keeps its population density relatively low, would it be that unreasonable for its per-capita resource consumption to remain at 4 times that of China?

[ray245]

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it, and there is quite a bit of truth to your accusation. On the other hand, it could be argued that many First World nations have done a much better job of population control than third world nations, so it's not at all unfair for them to consume more per capita.

Except the fact that China is aware of the problems of birth controls, one reason why they adopted the one child policy in the first place.

It becomes far more reasonable to attack China if they choose ignore the problems of birth control in status quo than attacking them for the mistakes made by their forefathers. Then there is the additional fact that people in developed nations tend to have a different mentality in regards to how many children you are going to have as compared to a developing nation.

I would argue that developing their economy is the one of the few solution in regards to decreasing their nation's birth rate.

[Darth Wong]

It's not a matter of "attacking" China. It's a matter of pointing out some flaws in the reasoning used to attack first-world nations. Many of these nations have had a relatively depressed birth rate for a long time now, which is one of the reasons they are not overrun with people the way other countries are. Why shouldn't they get credit for that?

[ray245]

It's not a matter of "attacking" China. It's a matter of pointing out some flaws in the reasoning used to attack first-world nations. Many of these nations have had a relatively depressed birth rate for a long time now, which is one of the reasons they are not overrun with people the way other countries are. Why shouldn't they get credit for that?

Except that the current generation enjoying the benefits of being part of a developed nation is not the same generation who made those smart choice.

In other words, no one is entitled to anything just because they happened to be lucky enough to be born into a first world nation.

[Samuel]

Canada and China have similar land area, yet China has a population of 1.3 billion while Canada has a population of 33 million. If you look at it that way, it's not so unreasonable for Canadians to consume more resources per capita than the Chinese, or India.

I don't think having a mostly uninhabitable country counts towards being considered taking care of your population. Otherwise you run into countries claiming they deserve more resources because they have claimed more uninhabited land.

We often hear that the US has less than 5% of the population of the world but makes something like 20% of its pollution. That is a damning fact, to be sure. But then again, if the US had the population density of China, its population would be around the same: 1.3 billion or so. In this imaginary case, the world population would be 8 billion instead of 7 billion, and the US population would be more than 16% of the total world population. So if the US keeps its population density relatively low, would it be that unreasonable for its per-capita resource consumption to remain at 4 times that of China?

Given that China is beaten in population density by the UK, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Taiwan and others first the comparison doesn't work. All those nations manage to have high standards of living and high densities- the two are not tied completely.

In fact, land area is not the component of wealth. Greenland, Western Sahara and Mongolia are the least densely populated places on the planet and they don't deserve or have a higher per capite income by any stretch of the imagination.

I know- your point is that is why things are the way they are, not how things should be. But it doesn't work. Only natural resources are tied to land area and that is not the main source of GDP for the first world.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think having a mostly uninhabitable country counts towards being considered taking care of your population. Otherwise you run into countries claiming they deserve more resources because they have claimed more uninhabited land.

Nitpick much? You could discount 90% of Canada's land area and the point would remain: Canadians do not have anywhere near the population density of China. Why should we be forced to live as if we do?

Given that China is beaten in population density by the UK, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Taiwan and others first the comparison doesn't work.

It doesn't work for those other countries. Too bad for them. What about Canada and the US?

All those nations manage to have high standards of living and high densities- the two are not tied completely.

You will, of course, show me the place where I claimed they were.

In fact, land area is not the component of wealth. Greenland, Western Sahara and Mongolia are the least densely populated places on the planet and they don't deserve or have a higher per capite income by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you get frequent-flier miles for red-herrings or something?

I know- your point is that is why things are the way they are, not how things should be. But it doesn't work. Only natural resources are tied to land area and that is not the main source of GDP for the first world.

What the fuck? What exactly do you think my point is?

[Guardsman Bass]

Nitpick much? You could discount 90% of Canada's land area and the point would remain: Canadians do not have anywhere near the population density of China. Why should we be forced to live as if we do?

I think he was trying to reach towards the point that in the current economy, your land and natural resource allocation aren't really tied to your overall resource consumption, and your example doesn't really apply unless we were in a global economy of more or less autarkic national economies. In the latter situation, yes, the US has x amount of land and resources for y amount of people, and due to better population control its per capita resource allocation would be much higher (and free for its use). But in the current situation, it's more like "global population x has access to resources y, with some barriers on specific resources and products, and a major exception in terms of land usage". Kind of like how the US has a much higher per capita consumption of oil than certain other states, in spite of having a significantly lower per capita allocation of oil in its home territory.

Sorry if that comes out unclear.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm, there is quite a bit of truth to population control accusation, but isn't it also true that population control, as in centralized, government-directed measures, has only recently come into play (latter part of XX century), and prior to that it was just natural, cultural factors?

And isn't it also true that as soon as China started earnestly industrializing, it installed harsh population control measures (One Child Policy) which other Third World nations never gave a shit about - neither India, nor Africa nor Latin America?

In most nations, population downshifts came naturally or sometimes as a result of cataclysmic events (Nazi ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe precluded a large post-war population boom, and extremely harsh climate in general prevented some zones in the North - considering Northern Europe and Asia and Canada - from getting a large population density and runaway growth).

Isn't it unfair a bit that their natural damnation gets to be the same thing that basically kills any opportunities for them?

[Ryan Thunder]

The First World is not immune to competition, neither should it ever be.

3) Babbling about the problem of "there's not enough for everyone" is a concealed "I live in the First World, I have mine, and fuck everyone else who tries to take that from me, by the way of economic re-distribution or otherwise". It's poorly concealed arrogance and a denial of competition from other nations.

So I hear that the Second World can compete with the First, but the First isn't allowed to do anything about it to compete back.

Yeah, there's totally no double standard there at all.

And no, China should not industrialize. There are simply too fucking many of them. They're already an environmental disaster waiting to happen as it is. There's at least one town over there where ashes blow around in the streets like dust in a desert. It's insane.

I think someone should remind people here that the First World is not everything there is, and the First World has no right to dictate anything to anyone, especially when it's blatant economic interest to maintain an artificially high overconsumption level.

Oh, it has every right, Stas. Every right that the rest of the world gets, anyway. You can't try to say we somehow owe anything to the rest of the world just because we're better off.

[Androsphinx]

And no, China should not industrialize. There are simply too fucking many of them... Oh, it has every right, Stas. Every right that the rest of the world gets, anyway. You can't try to say we somehow owe anything to the rest of the world just because we're better off.

Is this parody? Do you really think it's fair/just/moral/good (delete as preferable) to live in a society where everyone lives more extravagantly and wastefully than the aristocrats of a century ago, and through a combination of greed, selfishness and carelessness deny even a small portion of that to people whose didn't have your great good fortune?

[Ryan Thunder]

And no, China should not industrialize. There are simply too fucking many of them... Oh, it has every right, Stas. Every right that the rest of the world gets, anyway. You can't try to say we somehow owe anything to the rest of the world just because we're better off.

Is this parody? Do you really think it's fair/just/moral/good (delete as preferable) to live in a society where everyone lives more extravagantly and wastefully than the aristocrats of a century ago, and through a combination of greed, selfishness and carelessness deny even a small portion of that to people whose didn't have your great good fortune?

Yes, given that providing that to them would cause an ecological disaster of unparalleled magnitude.

I'd happily support their industrialization otherwise.