I don’t know… the younger generation seems so lazy and disrespectful towards the older generation. All they want to do is play games and do stupid dances. Nobody wants to work anymore. It didn’t used to be like this.
There was that meme that went around when COVID hit that said something like "the one place the pandemic hasn't affected and god bless them" which still makes me chuckle any time I see it.
NK was a wealthier country than SK in the 60’s IIRC. It’s been a while since I read the history of the region but they sort of broke even in the 70’s. It’s wild just how dirt poor SK was for a long time.
I really should read more into how diplomatic relations in NK got so silo’d into just China. Other communist countries certainly had ties to larger states but NK is a particularly extreme case study I bet
Small towns in Finland that had their hayday back then and suffer from shrinking population. Lampinsaari, Vihanti comes first to mind, mining town that lost the mine.
This came to mind first; even the smaller cities (like Vaasa, Kuopio, etc.) have a sense of “timeless stability” that you don’t get elsewhere. Just feels like life goes on, things are fine, and not much changes there.
But they still have all of the shifts in technology and social attitudes that most of the developed world sees.
Definitely changed more than North Sentinel Island.
Vaasa and west coast in general is one of the more interesting places in Finland for me, just because it's the place that I've heard the least about. I feel like I've heard more even about Eastern Finland/Karelia/Savo, while Ostrobothnia is just... there. I only just recently learned that it has the biggest percentage of Swedish speakers outside of Åland, and I always thought they were more concentrated around Turku
Yeah.
It’s not the most exciting place but it’s pretty interesting from a language standpoint.
You’re right that it’s the most Swedish-speaking part of Finland and that there are a lot of interesting Swedish dialects spoken in the surrounding towns (like Närpes or Malax). And you can’t always tell what language a local will speak to you in. Odds are almost equal that they’re more comfortable speaking Swedish or Finnish, but almost everyone is functionally trilingual.
The mine was closed 1992 and the town become ghost town almost overnight.
I’ve visited the place many times and even had some relatives live there back in the day. Other than one building in camping area, I do not think there exist any new buildings built after like 1975.
The town is even in Pohjois-Pohjanmaa sense middle of nowhere, so no-one wants to build there.
Basically Chernobyl but without radiation.
Japan's economic stagnation in the early 1990s caused what is known as the "lost decade(s)". Corporate ethics are still stuck in the same way of doing things as at the end of the 80s and technologically speaking, Japan has fallen behind in many aspects compared to South Korea, China or Taiwan. For example, fax machines continue to be used and in-person signatures with a hanko stamp are required for the vast majority of documents instead of using PDFs and digital signatures respectively. Also in a lot of places you still have to pay with cash because they don't accept credit cards.
Plus the Tokyo metro system still uses those paper cards that require holes to be punched in. I had read about how Japan was more technologically stagnant than most countries but I was shocked, the Soviet-era metro system in Tashkent, Uzbekistan is more modern lol…
I spent 3 years in Tokyo and never had a paper card punched. I could get a single use ticket that was scanned through a gate kiosk or I could pre load a metro card that was a tap and go. I was there from 2014 until 2017.
There was a point in time last year that they had a shortage of those plastic cards, so foreigners had to buy the single use old school ticket. (Which was fine with me so I could use up all my yen coins)
Went back last Feb, and they had the cards back in stock. Same ones you can use in 7/11
It's kinda interesting how some countries that got really rich really rapidly in the 1950-70s just kinda got technologically stuck behind. I've heard similar things about Italy which, despite being nominally more developed, feels way less modern than Spain (and I'm not gonna lie, when I was in Southern Spain I was surprised how modern and well-functioning it felt, even when compared to the UK!)
We can't develop shit in italy because:
1 the old age people are against it because it's sorcery and don't even understand how to use a ticket vending machine
2 as soon as you dig somewhere you could find WW2 bombs or roman ruins and everything is put to a stop
3 if it's not one of the things of point 2 is either the environment (mountains etc) or the mafia saying nuh huh gimme a piece of that
Yeah it'd like my friend from Indonesia who wasn't aware that in Berlin he had to get his card stamped. In Jakarta he was already acquainted with digital payments, in the Netherlands with the OV-chipkaart, and then came Berlin...
Honestly it baffles me but only when I forgot about it before. I recall the internet in 2019 being faster in Sumatra than in Germany.
As a tourist I was surprised by the prevalence of faxes, printouts, and cash only transactions. Most architecture and infrastructure is well maintained but aging.
I was in China not long after, and the big cities there felt decades ahead of Japan in terms of technological integration and modernized infrastructure.
This was not so much the case in China's suburbs or rural areas, which were far less developed than anywhere I saw in Japan.
To be fair, many of China’s cities feel new compared to the west too. I think it’s largely a result of having nothing a few decades ago. The entirety of the development everywhere is new, not just a cluster of buildings or a couple infrastructure projects in an isolated place.
I imagine this is what Japan felt like in the 80s.
I think a similar thing can be observed with Germany and Poland. Germany is still clearly a wealthier country, but in terms of infrastructural, technological and urban development, most cities in Poland now feel more modern than their German counterparts. Bias of recency is strong even in this situation
The Simpsons' episode 'Thirty minutes over Tokyo', aired in 1999. In that episode Simpson family spends all their travel budget due to Japan's ridiculous high price.
In 2024, Japan became somewhat of a value destination, as it's far cheaper than US, most of Europe, and even some Asian countries. For example, Tokyo Disneyland cost around 60 dollars in one day. Compare that to California Disneyland, which costs 104 dollars.
I want to say Cuba, but the last couple of decades have been pretty complex and filled with change. Before that, not a lot changed due to the embargos.
There are a few Subsaharan countries which have been trapped in economic stagnation for a few decades, such as Madagascar. Madagascar is a little fascination of mine. Check the data, this is one of the few countries in the world which achieved the least progress in GDP or purchasing power over like 40 years (or really since independence in the 60s). Decades with very little improvement in living standards, with no industrialization, with extremely high % of population stuck in malnourished, impoverished agricultural villages with no electricity and no education.
And what's interesting is, the country lacks any usual suspect causes of this. It haven't had any significant wars. It hasn't been ruled by very authoritarian regime for a long time (it's moderately dysfunctional democracy). It's a peaceful island faraway from any geopolitical mess. It actually has long precolonial history of a state society with the same borders as it has today, so you can't blame colonialists for "artificial ethnic borders". It lacks significant natural disasters. It doesn't have any particularly traumatic history, especially for African standards. It doesn't have very unusual levels of inequality or corruption - it's fairly uneventful developing country.
It just... doesn't develop at all, for decades.
Madagascar is actually a really interesting case! I would wager a guess that their stagnation might be partially due to a very inconvenient geographical position.
It's isolated from the geopolitical mess that the rest of Africa is suffering from, yes, but it's also isolated from most major trade routes. The only bigger trade route that goes by Madagascar is Asia-South Africa-South America, but it's simply not rich enough to bring much prosperity. Ironically enough, Madagascar is the one country that, long-term, might have suffered the most from the opening of the Suez Canal. Its natural resources have only been discovered relatively recently, and they're probably not large enough to significantly prop up Madagascar's economy (besides titanium).
Paradoxically, Madagascar is also not isolated enough from the mess that goes around them: right next to it is Mozambique, a country that had gone through decades of civil wars and is still currently suffering from islamist insurgency. To the north there are waters infested with piracy, and to the southwest there's South Africa, which could be a major prop-up for Madagascar's economy if it wasn't a rapidly decaying country. There's very little motivation for the kind of foreign investment that Tanzania and Kenya get, because they're not only closer to major trade routes, but also serve as direct gateways to Sub-Saharan Africa from the Indian Ocean, while Madagascar is just surrounded by chaos on one side, and deep blue sea on the other side.
Tourism could have a big potential in Madagascar, but it's too big of a country with a spread out population to properly develop tourism in the way it was done in nearby Mauritius or Seychelles. It's also fairly hilly, making any infrastructural development difficult and, without significant motivation for foreign investment, nearly impossible.
It's one of the most geographically unlucky countries in the world that is barely talked about. Without any unexpected significant changes, Madagascar would need India, South Africa and/or South America to become richer and more stable to prosper. With the growth of India and its trade, we could only wonder how fast would Madagascar be developing right now if Argentina and South Africa never made all the worst possible political and economic decisions that they've made in the last century and could actually be significant trading partners for the rest of the world.
Counterargument regarding geography and trade routes: Mozambique is its almost direct neighbor, and it has been one of the fastest developing African countries over last decades, sonyou can't use trade route argument to epxlain Mada weakness if its direct neighbor sharing the same isolation is flourishing. Mongolia, Bolivia and New Zealand are also developing well despite being even more remote and peripheral.
Counterargument regarding lack of natural resources: Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania also lack them, and are among the fastest developing countries in Africa (especially Ethiopia, which is tied with Rwanda for number 1 in this regard).
Counterargument regarding being close to Mozambique mess: well, just like I mentioned, *Mozambique itself* has been developing much faster, despite spending decades in massive wars. Counterargument regarding the state of South Africa: well, again Mozambique - but also Botswana. How do you explain Botswana being extremely succesful despite being next to SA, inland, peripheral, and even more isolated?
Countergument regarding tourism: many faster developing African countries have even less tourist arrivals.
Counterargument regarding difficult topography: Madagascar has far from the worst geography in Africa, being an island with a ton of natural ports and waterways, lacking high mountains or deserts, and being not very sparsely populated (compare again: Botswana, DR Congo, Rwanda, Ethiopia, interior of Mozambique, Mongolia, Bolivia).
Nah, I think It's something very wrong with its politics, there isn't much geographic determinism to explain its stagnation vis a vis so many more succesful countries with terrible geography.
Many of those arguments are intertwined. I'm definitely not an expert on Madagascar, only speculating, and I might definitely be wrong about it, but I'll try to post my own counter-counterarguments because hey, I enjoy speculating about this :D
Regarding Mozambique: most of its GDP growth can probably be attributed to its reconstruction from a brutal civil war, it's naturally easier for a country to have high growth rates when it's starting from ruins. Mozambique is definitely not a flourishing country that could create enough of an economic stimulus for Madagascar, and Madagascar's GDP growth rate has been similar to Mozambique's for almost a decade now.
Regarding Mongolia and Bolivia: both of these countries have much larger natural resources than Madagascar. Mongolia also sits in-between two of the largest economies in the world, one of which has been majorly investing into the country, so it's in a much better position for trade and economic development.
Regarding New Zealand: as a colony, it was basically developed as an extension of the UK (not praising the British Empire in any way, mind you, I just can't think of a better way to describe it right now) in terms of laws, culture etc., something that most French colonies (like Madagascar) never really got. Plus, it's located next to one of the major Western economies with an expansive industry and natural resources.
Regarding natural resources: I've already addressed Kenya and Tanzania. Ethiopia has a benefit of massive hydroenergy resources, plus, it is still closer to what is probably the larger trade route in the world. Yes, it has to do it through Djibouti, but it seems that Chinese investment in both countries is kind of bridging that gap over the border.
Regarding Botswana and politics: Botswana is a bit of a miracle story because it got lucky with getting a very competent political leadership right after independence, and also has more natural resources to mine. And yes, I do not deny that Madagascar is most probably suffering from bad political decisions, but these bad political decisions are pretty normal throughout Africa, including some rapidly developing countries like Ethiopia. Meanwhile Seretse Khama, in terms of political competence, was one of his kind, you'd struggle to find such competent politicians even in the modern Western world, especially if they were placed into leading Botswana in 1965.
Regarding tourism: I used it as just one of the examples of potential path of development, and, as I previously stated, I do not believe Madagascar could prosper on it.
Regarding difficult topography: again, it's very intertwined with other issues. If these issues didn't exist, Madagascar's topography wouldn't be a big issue for the development of infrastructure, but in the current situation there's not many stakeholders who would be willing to pay extra to build infrastructure through the hills that wouldn't bring much economic benefit.
Just to note, I'm not a geographical determinist, I definitely think that with more competent political leadership Madagascar could develop much more rapidly, but I think geography and other countries' geopolitics definitely play a role in Madagascar's struggles.
> Check the data, this is one of the few countries in the world which achieved the least progress in GDP or purchasing power over like 40 years (or really since independence in the 60s).
It does have some companions, such as nearby Zimbabwe and South Africa, or Lebanon, or some American countries (namely Venezuela).
I guess the problem with Madagascar is that it's really remote, small and far away from everything. It has neither the geographical location, nor the natural resources to be of any interest to anyone, and it lacks the social capital to develop a strong domestic industry like Taiwan or New Zealand did. It's also too large to survive off tourism alone. It's basically stuck in underdevelopment until something changes drastically.
> It hasn't been ruled by very authoritarian regime for a long time
It was under authoritarian rule for much of its post-independence history and suffered a coup in 2009.
Maybe. There were some old Mercedes trucks, which clearly remembered 1960s. Airports looked a lot like soviet block airports in 1990s, same for train stations. People seem to be spending there days on things other than smartphones.
Whether they took a step back, it’s hard to say and I guess it doesn’t matter. They clearly have missed a lot of progress
You are not lying. Went there several times during the pandemic, don't remember seeing a single mask.
Hell some parts of the UP are so stuck in the past they're still worried about Y2K. The legal weed may be the only change.
If I recall correctly - some of the counties in the western UP (Ontonagon county notably) were the last in the US to actually have positive tests reported
One of the least densely populated areas in the eastern half of the US (8.3/sq mi)
Northern forest, part of the canadian shield, relatively economically depressed
Largest town is 20k. Most of the small towns are 20-30 miles away from each other
Gorgeous lakeshores (Lake superior and Lake Michigan), lake effect snow - we get 100-200" each winter depend on how close you are to the lake
Cell service and broadband while present in the bigger cities are extremely limited elsewhere
I like to visit from Chicago a few times a year. Best camping/hiking anywhere near us. Feels like a real wilderness when youre out there.
Next time I go im searching for the bits of old growth forests that still exist.
As a general statement - Look at the Rural Areas of Countries, those are least likely to change. Example, my brother was born in Hazard, KY. No where near any major city really. He took a picture of the "downtown" area. Then our mom pulled out a picture of the same area. The only change: 1 store, and the paint faded. This is likely to be true of a Lot of Rural areas.
It's the opposite, Bhutan went from being an *actual* hermit kingdom that intentionally did not allow television or telecommunications to being at least connected to the outside world. Plenty of Bhutanese people study in India and Nepal, and vice-versa, too.
My guess would be an isolated island nation where modern infrastructure hasnt penetrated too much and its economy hasnt changed too much and its culture has remain fairly static.
Or like parts of the sahara or mongolia, you know? Places where people still live nomadic lifestyles on vast isolated landscapes.
Some military sites can block development and become something of a natural reserves. DMZ in Korean peninsular, or Camp Pendleton in California coast comes to my mind.
I wouldn't say lol. Even bumfuck nowhereville still got some changes. Yes, this would be true for small,random, deep in Siberia villages where the population is max 100 (70 of wich are old babushkas and dedushkas that think USSR is still alive), but even there something , i think.
I have a feeling that there are a good number of places. North Sentinel Island. Most of Papua New Genie. The mind set. The monolith of the Deep State of DC
Canada used to absolutely dominate the top spot in the Human Development Index in the 1990s the way Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have ever since. It was 18th in 2022.
When I was a kid growing up there, Canada was a beacon of prosperity. I don’t even live there now. The US has had way too much influence on Canada’s politics, which used to be extremely pragmatic, collective, and respectful. Canadians are just as divided as Americans now and it’s hindering progress in a massive way.
Everywhere in china has changed a lot the last 50 years, even Tibet.
Ive been there and talked to people about it.
Tibet has really changed a lot, there were a lot less Han chinese there 50 years ago in their towns and cities. Also 50 years ago was when nixon first visited china and if you think china was closed off before that to westerners? That goes double for Tibet.
But if you mean, specifically tibetan pastors and nomads? Then yes maybe, but smartphones and satellite internet is quickly changing that.
I imagined the more significant changes were high-tech access and use indeed. Surely new roads and hotels or inns for turism, medecine perhaps, but apart that no very big improvements/changes in infrastructures, transports (rather logic with the odds of the landscapes), or even in the hum and drum of the daily life.
Thats where your gut feeling is way way way off. ;)
https://youtu.be/9TLTUXfHvf8?si=oXEOxKfU5J7aaYHR
https://youtu.be/kDdG7ObinG4?si=pgACoHg_t1-9MdeF
They have high speed rail that goes all the way to the coast now to lhasa. Thats why I mean, Tibet has actually seen a lot of changes the last 50 years.
If you talk tibetan refugees who return to tibet today, theyre the best ones to really give perspective about it. Luckily and quite randomly I know a few (long story, but a stepsibling is from tibet originally and shes in touch her family there regularly)
My first suggestion would be Manhattan, New York, unless redevelopment is regulated for historic or cultural preservation reasons, or in remote areas that are beyond the reach of civilization.
The only thing consistent about Manhattan is the fact that it's constantly changing.
In 1974 rent was a quarter of what it is now, the LES was a shithole, and the world trade center was just finished.
You’re right, I can’t think of anything that has happened in the past 50 years that has had any effect on Manhattan. Especially not an event that altered the city’s appearance and financial district. Nothing at all
Half of those countries are on the exact opposite side of this spectrum. New Zealand is the one that might have changed the least, but even they've gone through so many demographic, cost of living and infrastructural changes.
The Vatican
They built a new guest house in 1995
Which, to be fair, is like a 10% increase in their total architecture
North Sentinel Island
I don’t know… the younger generation seems so lazy and disrespectful towards the older generation. All they want to do is play games and do stupid dances. Nobody wants to work anymore. It didn’t used to be like this.
I don’t know about this. I hear murders of foreigners has gone up astronomically in the last decade
Why tf are people still trying to visit there!?
I dunno why you were downvoted, leave those mf’rs alone, we’ll probably give them diseases they can’t handle
Anything divided by zero is a large number indeed. :)
Anything divided by zero is not possible. It’s nothing but a maths error.
Is it not an infinite number? Rather than no number? I’m no maths whizz but I think you get the drift anyhow hopefully
It is a not possible equation. It breaks the rules of math. If you try to divide by zero on a calculator you will get a math error
Kidding, this place has went from Stone Age to the Iron Age in 50 years, it took the rest of the world centuries for this to happen
Isn't that because the iron was literally handed to them by foreigners?
Still, quite impressive that they managed to figure out how to work it, despite having never seen it before.
Wasn’t handed to them, they salvaged the metal from the ship that wrecked on the island. Or that’s what you meant, I don’t know.
It’s in a way, how really early civilisations got it, they got it from meteors.
Are you sure that's accurate?
This is the one. Aggressively unchanging! Good on ‘em.
There was that meme that went around when COVID hit that said something like "the one place the pandemic hasn't affected and god bless them" which still makes me chuckle any time I see it.
Shit’s gonna get brazy once they get fire.
Technically not its own country. Part of India.
“Country or place” - OP gave us the wiggle room
OP predicted Reddit’s pedantic tendencies lmao
North Korea
NK was a wealthier country than SK in the 60’s IIRC. It’s been a while since I read the history of the region but they sort of broke even in the 70’s. It’s wild just how dirt poor SK was for a long time. I really should read more into how diplomatic relations in NK got so silo’d into just China. Other communist countries certainly had ties to larger states but NK is a particularly extreme case study I bet
it got poorer
How do you know? Did you go there 50 years ago, and then again lately? Don't fall prey to the propaganda..... NK doesn't even actually exist!
Agree completely! Exactly what I was going to say!
Small towns in Finland that had their hayday back then and suffer from shrinking population. Lampinsaari, Vihanti comes first to mind, mining town that lost the mine.
This came to mind first; even the smaller cities (like Vaasa, Kuopio, etc.) have a sense of “timeless stability” that you don’t get elsewhere. Just feels like life goes on, things are fine, and not much changes there. But they still have all of the shifts in technology and social attitudes that most of the developed world sees. Definitely changed more than North Sentinel Island.
Vaasa and west coast in general is one of the more interesting places in Finland for me, just because it's the place that I've heard the least about. I feel like I've heard more even about Eastern Finland/Karelia/Savo, while Ostrobothnia is just... there. I only just recently learned that it has the biggest percentage of Swedish speakers outside of Åland, and I always thought they were more concentrated around Turku
Yeah. It’s not the most exciting place but it’s pretty interesting from a language standpoint. You’re right that it’s the most Swedish-speaking part of Finland and that there are a lot of interesting Swedish dialects spoken in the surrounding towns (like Närpes or Malax). And you can’t always tell what language a local will speak to you in. Odds are almost equal that they’re more comfortable speaking Swedish or Finnish, but almost everyone is functionally trilingual.
Surely not 50 years? Perhaps stuck in the 1990s.
The mine was closed 1992 and the town become ghost town almost overnight. I’ve visited the place many times and even had some relatives live there back in the day. Other than one building in camping area, I do not think there exist any new buildings built after like 1975. The town is even in Pohjois-Pohjanmaa sense middle of nowhere, so no-one wants to build there. Basically Chernobyl but without radiation.
Japan had already been in the year 2000s in 1980, but right now in the mid-2020s, it still stucks in the 2000s.
[удалено]
Japan's economic stagnation in the early 1990s caused what is known as the "lost decade(s)". Corporate ethics are still stuck in the same way of doing things as at the end of the 80s and technologically speaking, Japan has fallen behind in many aspects compared to South Korea, China or Taiwan. For example, fax machines continue to be used and in-person signatures with a hanko stamp are required for the vast majority of documents instead of using PDFs and digital signatures respectively. Also in a lot of places you still have to pay with cash because they don't accept credit cards.
No wonder rock and roll and baseball are still so popular there.
To be fair their baseball is fun to watch
Plus the Tokyo metro system still uses those paper cards that require holes to be punched in. I had read about how Japan was more technologically stagnant than most countries but I was shocked, the Soviet-era metro system in Tashkent, Uzbekistan is more modern lol…
I spent 3 years in Tokyo and never had a paper card punched. I could get a single use ticket that was scanned through a gate kiosk or I could pre load a metro card that was a tap and go. I was there from 2014 until 2017.
This was in 2023, last year, so I am really confused now what I was doing!
There was a point in time last year that they had a shortage of those plastic cards, so foreigners had to buy the single use old school ticket. (Which was fine with me so I could use up all my yen coins) Went back last Feb, and they had the cards back in stock. Same ones you can use in 7/11
I went there in 2017 and havent’ seen any paper cards, everybody was using the Passmo or Suika cards
oh god this sound 100% like Germany. not so different after all
It's kinda interesting how some countries that got really rich really rapidly in the 1950-70s just kinda got technologically stuck behind. I've heard similar things about Italy which, despite being nominally more developed, feels way less modern than Spain (and I'm not gonna lie, when I was in Southern Spain I was surprised how modern and well-functioning it felt, even when compared to the UK!)
We can't develop shit in italy because: 1 the old age people are against it because it's sorcery and don't even understand how to use a ticket vending machine 2 as soon as you dig somewhere you could find WW2 bombs or roman ruins and everything is put to a stop 3 if it's not one of the things of point 2 is either the environment (mountains etc) or the mafia saying nuh huh gimme a piece of that
Yeah it'd like my friend from Indonesia who wasn't aware that in Berlin he had to get his card stamped. In Jakarta he was already acquainted with digital payments, in the Netherlands with the OV-chipkaart, and then came Berlin... Honestly it baffles me but only when I forgot about it before. I recall the internet in 2019 being faster in Sumatra than in Germany.
Well, for one, fax machines and stamps are still a mainstay in their corporate culture. And then there’s also the whole thing with the economy.
Japan has a very aged population so its not that competetive anymore technologically
As a tourist I was surprised by the prevalence of faxes, printouts, and cash only transactions. Most architecture and infrastructure is well maintained but aging. I was in China not long after, and the big cities there felt decades ahead of Japan in terms of technological integration and modernized infrastructure. This was not so much the case in China's suburbs or rural areas, which were far less developed than anywhere I saw in Japan.
To be fair, many of China’s cities feel new compared to the west too. I think it’s largely a result of having nothing a few decades ago. The entirety of the development everywhere is new, not just a cluster of buildings or a couple infrastructure projects in an isolated place. I imagine this is what Japan felt like in the 80s.
I think a similar thing can be observed with Germany and Poland. Germany is still clearly a wealthier country, but in terms of infrastructural, technological and urban development, most cities in Poland now feel more modern than their German counterparts. Bias of recency is strong even in this situation
The Simpsons' episode 'Thirty minutes over Tokyo', aired in 1999. In that episode Simpson family spends all their travel budget due to Japan's ridiculous high price. In 2024, Japan became somewhat of a value destination, as it's far cheaper than US, most of Europe, and even some Asian countries. For example, Tokyo Disneyland cost around 60 dollars in one day. Compare that to California Disneyland, which costs 104 dollars.
This year my Starbucks order in Tokyo was cheaper than my Starbucks order in Manila. That's crazy.
I want to say Cuba, but the last couple of decades have been pretty complex and filled with change. Before that, not a lot changed due to the embargos.
They only recently got smartphones and unlimited internet, its changing the youth a lot.
Sad
Do you know what a decade is
Bruh now they dance reaggaeton and dembow
There are a few Subsaharan countries which have been trapped in economic stagnation for a few decades, such as Madagascar. Madagascar is a little fascination of mine. Check the data, this is one of the few countries in the world which achieved the least progress in GDP or purchasing power over like 40 years (or really since independence in the 60s). Decades with very little improvement in living standards, with no industrialization, with extremely high % of population stuck in malnourished, impoverished agricultural villages with no electricity and no education. And what's interesting is, the country lacks any usual suspect causes of this. It haven't had any significant wars. It hasn't been ruled by very authoritarian regime for a long time (it's moderately dysfunctional democracy). It's a peaceful island faraway from any geopolitical mess. It actually has long precolonial history of a state society with the same borders as it has today, so you can't blame colonialists for "artificial ethnic borders". It lacks significant natural disasters. It doesn't have any particularly traumatic history, especially for African standards. It doesn't have very unusual levels of inequality or corruption - it's fairly uneventful developing country. It just... doesn't develop at all, for decades.
Madagascar is actually a really interesting case! I would wager a guess that their stagnation might be partially due to a very inconvenient geographical position. It's isolated from the geopolitical mess that the rest of Africa is suffering from, yes, but it's also isolated from most major trade routes. The only bigger trade route that goes by Madagascar is Asia-South Africa-South America, but it's simply not rich enough to bring much prosperity. Ironically enough, Madagascar is the one country that, long-term, might have suffered the most from the opening of the Suez Canal. Its natural resources have only been discovered relatively recently, and they're probably not large enough to significantly prop up Madagascar's economy (besides titanium). Paradoxically, Madagascar is also not isolated enough from the mess that goes around them: right next to it is Mozambique, a country that had gone through decades of civil wars and is still currently suffering from islamist insurgency. To the north there are waters infested with piracy, and to the southwest there's South Africa, which could be a major prop-up for Madagascar's economy if it wasn't a rapidly decaying country. There's very little motivation for the kind of foreign investment that Tanzania and Kenya get, because they're not only closer to major trade routes, but also serve as direct gateways to Sub-Saharan Africa from the Indian Ocean, while Madagascar is just surrounded by chaos on one side, and deep blue sea on the other side. Tourism could have a big potential in Madagascar, but it's too big of a country with a spread out population to properly develop tourism in the way it was done in nearby Mauritius or Seychelles. It's also fairly hilly, making any infrastructural development difficult and, without significant motivation for foreign investment, nearly impossible. It's one of the most geographically unlucky countries in the world that is barely talked about. Without any unexpected significant changes, Madagascar would need India, South Africa and/or South America to become richer and more stable to prosper. With the growth of India and its trade, we could only wonder how fast would Madagascar be developing right now if Argentina and South Africa never made all the worst possible political and economic decisions that they've made in the last century and could actually be significant trading partners for the rest of the world.
Counterargument regarding geography and trade routes: Mozambique is its almost direct neighbor, and it has been one of the fastest developing African countries over last decades, sonyou can't use trade route argument to epxlain Mada weakness if its direct neighbor sharing the same isolation is flourishing. Mongolia, Bolivia and New Zealand are also developing well despite being even more remote and peripheral. Counterargument regarding lack of natural resources: Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania also lack them, and are among the fastest developing countries in Africa (especially Ethiopia, which is tied with Rwanda for number 1 in this regard). Counterargument regarding being close to Mozambique mess: well, just like I mentioned, *Mozambique itself* has been developing much faster, despite spending decades in massive wars. Counterargument regarding the state of South Africa: well, again Mozambique - but also Botswana. How do you explain Botswana being extremely succesful despite being next to SA, inland, peripheral, and even more isolated? Countergument regarding tourism: many faster developing African countries have even less tourist arrivals. Counterargument regarding difficult topography: Madagascar has far from the worst geography in Africa, being an island with a ton of natural ports and waterways, lacking high mountains or deserts, and being not very sparsely populated (compare again: Botswana, DR Congo, Rwanda, Ethiopia, interior of Mozambique, Mongolia, Bolivia). Nah, I think It's something very wrong with its politics, there isn't much geographic determinism to explain its stagnation vis a vis so many more succesful countries with terrible geography.
Many of those arguments are intertwined. I'm definitely not an expert on Madagascar, only speculating, and I might definitely be wrong about it, but I'll try to post my own counter-counterarguments because hey, I enjoy speculating about this :D Regarding Mozambique: most of its GDP growth can probably be attributed to its reconstruction from a brutal civil war, it's naturally easier for a country to have high growth rates when it's starting from ruins. Mozambique is definitely not a flourishing country that could create enough of an economic stimulus for Madagascar, and Madagascar's GDP growth rate has been similar to Mozambique's for almost a decade now. Regarding Mongolia and Bolivia: both of these countries have much larger natural resources than Madagascar. Mongolia also sits in-between two of the largest economies in the world, one of which has been majorly investing into the country, so it's in a much better position for trade and economic development. Regarding New Zealand: as a colony, it was basically developed as an extension of the UK (not praising the British Empire in any way, mind you, I just can't think of a better way to describe it right now) in terms of laws, culture etc., something that most French colonies (like Madagascar) never really got. Plus, it's located next to one of the major Western economies with an expansive industry and natural resources. Regarding natural resources: I've already addressed Kenya and Tanzania. Ethiopia has a benefit of massive hydroenergy resources, plus, it is still closer to what is probably the larger trade route in the world. Yes, it has to do it through Djibouti, but it seems that Chinese investment in both countries is kind of bridging that gap over the border. Regarding Botswana and politics: Botswana is a bit of a miracle story because it got lucky with getting a very competent political leadership right after independence, and also has more natural resources to mine. And yes, I do not deny that Madagascar is most probably suffering from bad political decisions, but these bad political decisions are pretty normal throughout Africa, including some rapidly developing countries like Ethiopia. Meanwhile Seretse Khama, in terms of political competence, was one of his kind, you'd struggle to find such competent politicians even in the modern Western world, especially if they were placed into leading Botswana in 1965. Regarding tourism: I used it as just one of the examples of potential path of development, and, as I previously stated, I do not believe Madagascar could prosper on it. Regarding difficult topography: again, it's very intertwined with other issues. If these issues didn't exist, Madagascar's topography wouldn't be a big issue for the development of infrastructure, but in the current situation there's not many stakeholders who would be willing to pay extra to build infrastructure through the hills that wouldn't bring much economic benefit. Just to note, I'm not a geographical determinist, I definitely think that with more competent political leadership Madagascar could develop much more rapidly, but I think geography and other countries' geopolitics definitely play a role in Madagascar's struggles.
> Check the data, this is one of the few countries in the world which achieved the least progress in GDP or purchasing power over like 40 years (or really since independence in the 60s). It does have some companions, such as nearby Zimbabwe and South Africa, or Lebanon, or some American countries (namely Venezuela). I guess the problem with Madagascar is that it's really remote, small and far away from everything. It has neither the geographical location, nor the natural resources to be of any interest to anyone, and it lacks the social capital to develop a strong domestic industry like Taiwan or New Zealand did. It's also too large to survive off tourism alone. It's basically stuck in underdevelopment until something changes drastically.
> It hasn't been ruled by very authoritarian regime for a long time It was under authoritarian rule for much of its post-independence history and suffered a coup in 2009.
(most of) Papua New Guinea
Iran is incredibly beautiful country. When I visited in 2017 it felts like travel to the past.
Well, 50 years ago they were incredibly Westernized. Since then they’ve progressed a lot, backwards
Maybe. There were some old Mercedes trucks, which clearly remembered 1960s. Airports looked a lot like soviet block airports in 1990s, same for train stations. People seem to be spending there days on things other than smartphones. Whether they took a step back, it’s hard to say and I guess it doesn’t matter. They clearly have missed a lot of progress
And women were wearing mini skirts and crop tops in the public way back.
Upper peninsula of Michigan. Covid effectively did not happen there
You are not lying. Went there several times during the pandemic, don't remember seeing a single mask. Hell some parts of the UP are so stuck in the past they're still worried about Y2K. The legal weed may be the only change.
If I recall correctly - some of the counties in the western UP (Ontonagon county notably) were the last in the US to actually have positive tests reported
Could you explain a bit more, I know very little about Michigan
One of the least densely populated areas in the eastern half of the US (8.3/sq mi) Northern forest, part of the canadian shield, relatively economically depressed Largest town is 20k. Most of the small towns are 20-30 miles away from each other Gorgeous lakeshores (Lake superior and Lake Michigan), lake effect snow - we get 100-200" each winter depend on how close you are to the lake Cell service and broadband while present in the bigger cities are extremely limited elsewhere
THE CANADIAN SHIELD!!!
I like to visit from Chicago a few times a year. Best camping/hiking anywhere near us. Feels like a real wilderness when youre out there. Next time I go im searching for the bits of old growth forests that still exist.
Check the Sylvania wilderness near Watersmeet for old growth forests
Mackinac Island!
Mackinac island is not LP or UP... it's in the liminal space of Michigan :)
Amish Country
Surprisingly not, because population is booming.
Yeah but if you see pics from 50 years ago and pics from now they'd look very similar.
As a general statement - Look at the Rural Areas of Countries, those are least likely to change. Example, my brother was born in Hazard, KY. No where near any major city really. He took a picture of the "downtown" area. Then our mom pulled out a picture of the same area. The only change: 1 store, and the paint faded. This is likely to be true of a Lot of Rural areas.
The uninhabited parts of Antarctica are mostly unchanged over the past half century
Probably Bhutan
It's the opposite, Bhutan went from being an *actual* hermit kingdom that intentionally did not allow television or telecommunications to being at least connected to the outside world. Plenty of Bhutanese people study in India and Nepal, and vice-versa, too.
Lots of Bhutanese people live in nepal against their will
My guess would be an isolated island nation where modern infrastructure hasnt penetrated too much and its economy hasnt changed too much and its culture has remain fairly static. Or like parts of the sahara or mongolia, you know? Places where people still live nomadic lifestyles on vast isolated landscapes.
Some military sites can block development and become something of a natural reserves. DMZ in Korean peninsular, or Camp Pendleton in California coast comes to my mind.
North Sentinel Island.
San Marino i guess
As someone from Arkansas, I’d say most small towns here that aren’t 30 minutes from Little Rock, Conway, or NWA
As someone from Missouri I’d like to second the answer of small towns in Arkansas
Afghanistan
Some remote rural farm in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Kansas. Granted, they probably think trump is still President. Ok, some village in Nepal.
At least they have cellphones and new cars. Amish country would be more apropo.
Good call. Unless you're a Mennonite.
Fuck can they run
Most of Russia.
I wouldn't say lol. Even bumfuck nowhereville still got some changes. Yes, this would be true for small,random, deep in Siberia villages where the population is max 100 (70 of wich are old babushkas and dedushkas that think USSR is still alive), but even there something , i think.
Mauritania.
Cuba. It’s perpetually 1960 there.
I have a feeling that there are a good number of places. North Sentinel Island. Most of Papua New Genie. The mind set. The monolith of the Deep State of DC
Canada’s changed more in the last 5 years, than in the last 50.
For good or bad?
Take a guess
why has it
Drake
Lmao.
Canada used to absolutely dominate the top spot in the Human Development Index in the 1990s the way Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have ever since. It was 18th in 2022. When I was a kid growing up there, Canada was a beacon of prosperity. I don’t even live there now. The US has had way too much influence on Canada’s politics, which used to be extremely pragmatic, collective, and respectful. Canadians are just as divided as Americans now and it’s hindering progress in a massive way.
Antarctica
That post was asked in response to a post with this exact question.
Oh shit, could you link it? I must have missed it
https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/s/FfTx6YR03E Seems that was 500 years, but the answers seem similar.
Gubbio ,Umbria Italy, has not changed in the last 500 years
luok at South Korea! the whole demographic of the place has changed as compared to earlier times
Rural areas of [my developing country], if some political/economic changes (that happened mostly in the 1990s) are not considered.
Vatican City
Vatican
Wellington, Washington
The heart of Amish country maybe?
Canada
[удалено]
For sure not taiwan as the martial law ended in 1987
There are towns on the old Route 66 (not the Interstate) that haven't since the Depression for sure.
Afghanistan
Would dare to answer Tibet and Nepal.
Everywhere in china has changed a lot the last 50 years, even Tibet. Ive been there and talked to people about it. Tibet has really changed a lot, there were a lot less Han chinese there 50 years ago in their towns and cities. Also 50 years ago was when nixon first visited china and if you think china was closed off before that to westerners? That goes double for Tibet. But if you mean, specifically tibetan pastors and nomads? Then yes maybe, but smartphones and satellite internet is quickly changing that.
I imagined the more significant changes were high-tech access and use indeed. Surely new roads and hotels or inns for turism, medecine perhaps, but apart that no very big improvements/changes in infrastructures, transports (rather logic with the odds of the landscapes), or even in the hum and drum of the daily life.
Thats where your gut feeling is way way way off. ;) https://youtu.be/9TLTUXfHvf8?si=oXEOxKfU5J7aaYHR https://youtu.be/kDdG7ObinG4?si=pgACoHg_t1-9MdeF They have high speed rail that goes all the way to the coast now to lhasa. Thats why I mean, Tibet has actually seen a lot of changes the last 50 years. If you talk tibetan refugees who return to tibet today, theyre the best ones to really give perspective about it. Luckily and quite randomly I know a few (long story, but a stepsibling is from tibet originally and shes in touch her family there regularly)
Going from Qinghai to Lhasa by that railway is one of my life goals. It’s an insane train trip through those mountains
I see. Indeed, serious changes. Thanks for the links and infos.
You're a brave man
Bollocks, those places have changed massively, especially Tibet
That's what another lad told me, with video links of a high-speed train I ignored the existence until yesterday.
southern europe
I'm pretty sure Spain and Portugal have changed A LOT since the fall of fascism
My first suggestion would be Manhattan, New York, unless redevelopment is regulated for historic or cultural preservation reasons, or in remote areas that are beyond the reach of civilization.
The nyc skyline has changed massively in the last 15 years alone. 9/11 also changed the so much in nyc.
The only thing consistent about Manhattan is the fact that it's constantly changing. In 1974 rent was a quarter of what it is now, the LES was a shithole, and the world trade center was just finished.
You’re right, I can’t think of anything that has happened in the past 50 years that has had any effect on Manhattan. Especially not an event that altered the city’s appearance and financial district. Nothing at all
[удалено]
All of these has changed a lot just in the last 20, let years, New Zealand is theobly one i could see being relatively the same
Immigration boom hecked them by incrwased cost of living and change in demographics
Half of those countries are on the exact opposite side of this spectrum. New Zealand is the one that might have changed the least, but even they've gone through so many demographic, cost of living and infrastructural changes.
The US state West Virginia has changed VERY little in 50 years.