Depends, will i be the ruler of both?

Hmmmm...
I'd probably have to go Utopia. because it would be a step towards Unification.
that small country would probably get crushed anyway if they decided to get in the way, and let's face it, if they became 1st world and powerful, they probably would. and they'd have the power to at least slow another 1st world country.

Greyfox105:
Hmmmm...
I'd probably have to go Utopia. because it would be a step towards Unification.
that small country would probably get crushed anyway if they decided to get in the way, and let's face it, if they became 1st world and powerful, they probably would. and they'd have the power to at least slow another 1st world country.

No, making the first world country would be a step closer to the big Unification. More people to deprogram who have a good education and weaponry.

Valate:

Greyfox105:
Hmmmm...
I'd probably have to go Utopia. because it would be a step towards Unification.
that small country would probably get crushed anyway if they decided to get in the way, and let's face it, if they became 1st world and powerful, they probably would. and they'd have the power to at least slow another 1st world country.

No, making the first world country would be a step closer to the big Unification. More people to deprogram who have a good education and weaponry.

Sorry, I'm used to thinking in the terms of 'Unify or Die'.
Basically, crush anything that refuses to join. after one thing has been crushed, people get the point and join. from there you start building them up.

Greyfox105:
Sorry, I'm used to thinking in the terms of 'Unify or Die'.
Basically, crush anything that refuses to join. after one thing has been crushed, people get the point and join. from there you start building them up.

That was part of the deprogramming. We save more potential soldiers for future conflicts that threaten the species as a whole by simply hiding behind the curtain.

I'd turn the 3rd world country into a 1st world country, definitely.

Valate:

Greyfox105:
Sorry, I'm used to thinking in the terms of 'Unify or Die'.
Basically, crush anything that refuses to join. after one thing has been crushed, people get the point and join. from there you start building them up.

That was part of the deprogramming. We save more potential soldiers for future conflicts that threaten the species as a whole by simply hiding behind the curtain.

I've never been too worried about available soldiers. I'm too used to Imperial Tech with its DCT and cloning vats. just churn out a few more soldiers, programmed with all the memories of... well, whatever you want them to know. But I see your point. we don't have access to that kind of technology here. yet.
But the possible 'Utopia' may have that kind of availability.

Come to think of it, id probably go whit the Utopia deal.
After all, it wont be hard to conquer that 3rd world country. Especially since it unpopulated.

Greyfox105:

Valate:

Greyfox105:
Sorry, I'm used to thinking in the terms of 'Unify or Die'.
Basically, crush anything that refuses to join. after one thing has been crushed, people get the point and join. from there you start building them up.

That was part of the deprogramming. We save more potential soldiers for future conflicts that threaten the species as a whole by simply hiding behind the curtain.

I've never been too worried about available soldiers. I'm too used to Imperial Tech with its DCT and cloning vats. just churn out a few more soldiers, programmed with all the memories of... well, whatever you want them to know. But I see your point. we don't have access to that kind of technology here. yet.
But the possible 'Utopia' may have that kind of availability.

Check your inbox.

Utopia.
Screw everyone else. I only care about my citizens, and I don't even like them that much either.

Australia has tried helping out the nearby countries and it hasn't really helped us...

There's as many problems with a first-world country as a third-world one. To get anywhere, we need to focus on one problem at a time, and stabilize that, and then move on, with all our resources to the next one. In the long run, turning the country I run in to a utopia would be better, especially if it's permanently. From there, I could lead both by example, and help other countries rise to my level. If I just turn another country into a first-world country then we haven't gotten anywhere, in the long run, I haven't changed anything. Sure, it's a sacrifice, and since it's not my own it's even harder to make, but it's the best for everyone in the long run.

Of course, that's not what this thread is about, since you've stated that the word Utopia in this thread doesn't MEAN Utopia, so it's all moot anyway.

Just being stronger and richer, no, then I'd uplift the third world country. Riches and power have a habit of turning out to be the opposite of an ideal society.

Develop 3rd world, simple business. Take from what is working to help fund what isn't until the later is better, then repeat, but the other way around.

Besides I want a challenge.

The world's resources would not cope with the strain of another economically developed country if it started manufacturing heavily as well.

Sod the third world country, I want a Utopia!

Although social meltdown also sounds entertaining, so can I just choose to erase all social norms and laugh as the world collapses? It would sustain me from boredom for another few weeks.

Help everyone because I'm a stupid Good Guy.

If I was to be honest I say it is impossible for the 1st world countries to retain their wealth and power without 3rd world countries. Much depends on these people willing to work for incredibly low wages.

If indeed every country was equal we would go to war over the remaining fuel required to power an entire world of consumerist countries. So for that I would say no.

If I could however make the world a happy place i.e. Energy and food are no longer problems then the third worlds would vanish pretty quickly.

bodyklok:

Demented Teddy:
EDIT: Utopia now means: A country richer then all the world put together and stronger then all the world put together.

That's the worse definition of Utopia that I've ever heard. It says nothing about the state of that country, all the wealth could, and probably would be, in the hands of a few people so everyone else could be poor.

I think this merely goes further towards showing that there's no such thing as Utopia.

Also, in what way would destroying a poor, impoverished nation of absolutely no value ever come close to making your country the most rich and powerful? I mean, maybe if there was some sorta natural resource native to that country, but when it that ever going to realistically happen?

Oh my god!
I said that in response to the point a person was making.
I know that is not what a utopia means.

I'd turn my country into a utopia, obviously.

Valate:
Utopias never pan out economically. No, really. I'd develop the other country so my country has a new market and becomes more competitive.

I would still save the third world country, because the Sweden has antimatter, and reparations could be costly. (AKA: Boom! /goodbye utopia!)

They have nine atoms of it. And that exploded.

From ruin comes glory.

Sacrifice the third world country to create a utopia, then take over the world to turn all that is remaining into a utopia.

What are a few million deaths compared to billions of happy people in a perfect world?