Population Control

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317168106' post='2311239']
Right not every Catholic family needs 20 children, but I guess the crisis is this: people are gonna have sex no matter what. We can't stop people from having uncontrolled sex but we can just dole out condoms and pills! Catholic teaching on sexual morality is derived from natural law right? So it doesn't need to necessarily appeal to specific doctrine to be understood by any given person? How can we make these ideas more concrete amongst the developed world? It seems like an almost impossible task.

Also, do you think if contraception was done away with, that human population would rise exponentially?

As for consecrated celibacy, it's some something I think we really need to advertise. Everyone thinks you absolutely 100% need sex to exist and be fulfilled and that denying yourself of such pleasures is detrimental. Aren't we past this Freudian bs? I would like to think so. But here you mention something very important: convenience. Convenience seems to rule the day, and is perhaps a symptom and cause of our massive consumption. How do we as Catholics convince people that convenience and comfort are not the most important things in the universe.[/quote]
There's a lot of hypotheticals involved in the first argument. One could just as easily say that if people were to convert en masse to really taking Catholic teaching seriously, vast numbers would join holy orders and religious and live lives of consecrated virginity.

It would be best to first try to convince people of the sacredness and dignity of human life and its procreation before getting bogged down in hypothetical arguments about overpopulation.



[quote]I've heard a lot discussed about economics and to be honest its way over my head. So I can agree with you here, but only tentatively until I somehow study this in depth myself (which may never happen). But I generally think that less government intervention is usually the way to go. I have trouble not seeing corporations as giant monoliths of evil though </div>[/quote]
I'd say they're probably generally no more evil than governments or other bodies of sinful human beings. (The difference being that we are not forced to give money to any one corporation, and a corporation that fails will dissolve - unless, of course, it is artificially bailed out by government.) However, they do make convenient bogeymen to scare people into accepting various increases in government size and power.

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rCc4SZNSI[/media]

[Laudate_Dominum]

overpopolation is a mith. saw a kickass cartoon on youtubes about it. pwned.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1318923202' post='2323081']
overpopolation is a mith. saw a kickass cartoon on youtubes about it. pwned.
[/quote]

sarcasm I get it,

but I do recall that in the past you in a way agreed taht overpopulation could indeed be a problem? Is my memory deceiving me? If not, I'd be interested in what you have to say

[Amppax]

Yesterday, here at Steubenville, there was a talk by the President of the Population Research Institute, Steven Mosher, about the "Myth of Overpopulation." I really hope the speech he gave here wasn't the one he conventionally gave, because he failed to prove a single one of his points.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317030890' post='2310399'][b]First I'd like to discuss the evidence for the link between population growth and environmental degradation.[/b]

A Cornell professor: if we don't take action to reduce the world to an optimal population (of 2 billion) then "12 billion miserable humans will suffer a difficult life on Earth by the year 2100"[/quote]People have been working out the "optimal population" for the better part of a century, and it's largely based on the carrying capacity of the planet. Then people will come up with projections looking ahead 20 or 50 or 100 years and they'll say "Look at how fast the population is growing, and look at where the carrying capacity is. This is really bad!" What they generally fail to take into consideration, however, is the fact that our planet's carrying capacity is not static. That's going up pretty fast, too. Over the past 50 years, there have been some tremendous advances in agricultural technology that allow farmers to get a lot more out of a given plot of land. So when we look back to the mid-50's, the carrying capacity was estimated (by various people) at anywhere from 7 to 9 billion people, while the global population at that time was around 5 and projected to continue rising quickly. Looking at the present day, we just hit 7 billion but the carrying capacity of planet Earth has risen to somewhere between 11 and 13 billion people.

Now, granted, global resources are not evenly distributed at all. While the planet is producing enough food to feed over 10 billion people, it's not getting around to anywhere near 7 billion people. And the places that suffer the most from this inequity are always, always, always, always, always the ones the have the fastest population growth- partly because they're trying to outpace infant mortality, partly because of cultural values that say having lots of kids is a sign of wealth even if you can't feed them, partly because ways of life have changed in such a way that 15 kids used to have plenty to do in a household but now they don't have anything productive to do. There is a general pattern where a people-group- especially an industrializing people-group- can only sustain that kind of growth for so long before all the misery and suffering on our planet is conspicuously concentrated in those areas where people aren't planning for small families. There's also plenty to be said for the condition of women in these kinds of situations. On so many levels, there's an unmistakable connection between smaller families and positive societal change for women and girls of all ages.

Bottom line- people can't breed like rabbits for the long term, it's just not sustainable for a people-group. On a planet-wide scale, however, we are not on the precipice of catastrophe. But there is some truth to the idea that we'd be closer to the precipice if it weren't for some measure of population control, and we aren't so far away from it that we don't have to keep an eye on it.

[quote]Now for[b] the second thing I want to discuss[/b], I doubt that many of you non-theists will be able to help me,[b] the implications, should overpopulation be a real environmental problem, the moral solutions to this problem, and how to circumvent the shoddy patchwork that modern wisdom offers as a solution: abortion and contraception.[/b][/quote]I'm not ok with abortion, although I realize there won't ever be a nationwide ban- the best we can hope for is a repeal of Roe v. Wade, and even then, the question will be up to each individual state. Even that might not happen within any of our lifetimes. Morally, of course, I continue to be against it.

Contraception, on the other hand, is a different story. It doesn't matter what the CC says, there's nothing morally wrong with it and it can be tremendously useful, especially in parts of the world that have serious problems with STDs and overpopulation. It's an important part of the solution to many of our world's problems, even if most of those problems are not local to America or Western Europe. So that's what we're going to do, and you can either get on board with it or not. That largely depends on where Magisterial authority winds up going with it, and it's only a matter of time before they relax on this one a little bit.

What's that, you don't think it's possible? You think it's insane to believe an ancient, apostolic church with this type of crystal-clear imperative from Catholic Tradition can and probably will....no, it just can't....they've been very clear on where they stand, they couldn't possibly....ok, take a look at your Eastern Orthodox friends. Challenge a few of them on this issue. Ask for explanations from Scripture and from Tradition. Then when PB16 is replaced by someone from the southern hemisphere, you can look back on their explanations with less derision and more familiarity. Unlike the repeal of Roe v. Wade, this is something that probably will happen within our lifetimes. Not to the point where the pope is handing out condoms, of course, but there will be some allowances that you don't think will ever be possible.

[quote]The Earth is a finite area with a finite amount of resources that can only support a finite amount of organisms for a finite amount of time. This we obviously know,[/quote]That's not entirely true. This finite limit has shown a tendency to be very elastic over time. It responds very well to advances in science and agricultural technology. This will prove to be especially true as the most populous part of the world continues to industrialize. There probably will be 11 or 12 billion people on this planet by the year 2100, but its carrying capacity will also increase to at least 15 billion, maybe more.

[quote]But for this second moral/philosophical aspect let's assume for all intents and purposes that we either are overpopulated, or are readily approaching overpopulation, which will shortly after cause a massive dieback because the earth can't support us all. How do we, using moral theology, solve this problem?[/quote]The solution: We increase the planet's carrying capacity faster than the population increases. You might be thinking "Easier said than done," but it's really not. It's kind of normal, and we can do this indefinitely.

[quote]I will admit at first glance I can understand why passing out condoms and birth-control hormones and aborting the "unwanted" seems like the easiest (an on the surface most "humane" way) to cut numbers.[/quote]This grouping makes some sense in your mind, but this set of initiatives doesn't appear in any one place at the same time in reality. Condoms yes, birth-control hormones maybe (although let's be honest, it's too pricey for even the kind-of-poor). But abortion of the "unwanted" isn't ever a part of humanitarian efforts. When people are trying to put together a plan for improving the lives of people in an impoverished country, abortion isn't a part of that.

[quote]Also NFP, I really doubt, could be integrated into impoverished areas because as far as I know that requires somewhat extensive education and medical instruction. Popping a pill or throwing a condom on just seems way easier.[/quote]It's also more effective, both in terms of how well it works and in how it prevents the transmission of STDs. NFP is a relatively ineffective solution for the world's problems. I'll go with what works, thank you, provided that there are no valid moral concerns on the issue. Regarding contraception, there are no valid moral issues. This is where we disagree. If Catholic leadership removed the moral stigma, you would no longer try to push NFP in situations where contraception is a far more effective option. It just works. It's the best option. Moral concerns aside- and there will come a time when your moral concerns are lessened- contraception is often a better option than NFP, especially in the neediest parts of the world.

[quote]If the idea is to leave cultures with their own unique beliefs and all those fluffy sentiments uninfluenced by the wild wild West, then they should not be forcing Africans, Latin Americans, and Asians to assent to the modern glories of abortion and the pursuit of unrestrained sexual pleasure. Ah, there goes the dictatorship of relativism. So they would either help impoverished peoples without the heavy-handed ideology, or leave em alone to suffer and die.[/quote]You're right, you're definitely not an expert. It looks like you're really mad at someone- I'm not sure who, but you're quite angry and frustrated with some type of person. Take heart, though, the majority of your frustration is not reality-based.

[quote]Other questions:

[b]Does the overpopulation theory contain classist implications?[/b]
It's the poorest of the poor that are booming in numbers, is this idea the panic of "oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) we're gonna be outnumbered real soon!" similar to the eugenics movement and the propagation of sterilization and abortions of minority races?[/quote]I assume you're a white person? Assuming you are....I don't know if you're familiar with southeast Asia at all, but Asian people already outnumber everyone. A rapidly growing population is the kind of problem that needs to get solved, but the clamor for a solution does not come from outside such a country. It comes from within.

[quote][b]what are some real moral solutions to reduce overall population?[/b]

and why are these moral solutions overlooked or dismissed as too difficult. Why the resistance, and how to we get around it?[/quote]I would recommend contraception as a huge part of the solution. That can be extremely effective and very helpful. What, are you dismissing it? Why the resistance? How can we get around that?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1318991877' post='2323472']

sarcasm I get it,

but I do recall that in the past you in a way agreed taht overpopulation could indeed be a problem? Is my memory deceiving me? If not, I'd be interested in what you have to say
[/quote]
Yeah, sort of. My views are not fully formed as I'm largely ignorant of such things, but I currently think that there are many legitimate concerns that are often packaged with the overpopulation agenda, but that using overpopulation as a catch-all, and family planning/reproductive technology as a silver bullet solution, is the wrong way to go. I actually question the concept itself as I think it is too simplistic and often inaccurate - although I do recognize the validity of the concept in certain contexts. Population stresses can contribute to resource shortages, epidemics, political instability, war, and a general lowering of quality of life, and I don't agree with those who seem completely closed to the idea that population can be a negative factor at all. Still, I think fixation on overpopulation is unwarranted and to be fair it must be recognized that population growth is in many cases correlated with economic growth and development. I could go on but I feel like I'm talking out of my arse already.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1318923202' post='2323081']
overpopolation is a mith. saw a kickass cartoon on youtubes about it. pwned.
[/quote]
Your face is a mith.

[Ice_nine]

nevermind, your bs is not worth responding to

Edited October 20, 2011 by Ice_nine

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1319063251' post='2323924']
Yeah, sort of. My views are not fully formed as I'm largely ignorant of such things, but I currently think that there are many legitimate concerns that are often packaged with the overpopulation agenda, but that using overpopulation as a catch-all, and family planning/reproductive technology as a silver bullet solution, is the wrong way to go. I actually question the concept itself as I think it is too simplistic and often inaccurate - although I do recognize the validity of the concept in certain contexts. Population stresses can contribute to resource shortages, epidemics, political instability, war, and a general lowering of quality of life, and I don't agree with those who seem completely closed to the idea that population can be a negative factor at all. Still, I think fixation on overpopulation is unwarranted and to be fair it must be recognized that population growth is in many cases correlated with economic growth and development. I could go on but I feel like I'm talking out of my arse already.
[/quote]

razzle dazzle, that's kind of where I'm at. It's just difficult I guess having a-holes on both sides being pretentious and condescending while I'm trying to look at an issue and assess it honestly. I very much appreciate your humility

[Amppax]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1319055395' post='2323862']
[/quote]

tl;dr

But contraception is wrong. I'm not sure how you can be opposed to abortion seriously and not at the same time oppose contraception. If you could possibly write a more concise summary of why you think it is morally licit, I'd like to hear. I just really don't have time to read the long responses, sorry.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1319129922' post='2324228']tl;dr

But contraception is wrong.[/quote]I can haz tautology?

[quote]I'm not sure how you can be opposed to abortion seriously and not at the same time oppose contraception. If you could possibly write a more concise summary of why you think it is morally licit, I'd like to hear. I just really don't have time to read the long responses, sorry.[/quote]Abortion kills a human being whose life needs to be protected, whereas contraception does not kill a living thing and the haploids in question do not have the quality or condition of being inviolable.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1319135718' post='2324296']
Abortion kills a human being whose life needs to be protected, whereas contraception does not kill a living thing and the haploids in question do not have the quality or condition of being inviolable.
[/quote]
The pill is an abortient. It prohibits the fertilized egg (aka a living thing) from attatching to the uterine wall. If the baby does not attach to the uterine wall, he/she dies. So while it may not directly cause the death of the baby outright, it prohibits the baby from living further. (which kinda sounds like killing the baby outright)

If viability is your argument, they you have no problem with an abortion before 20 weeks?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1319137302' post='2324310']
The pill is an abortient. It prohibits the fertilized egg (aka a living thing) from attatching to the uterine wall. If the baby does not attach to the uterine wall, he/she dies. So while it may not directly cause the death of the baby outright, it prohibits the baby from living further. (which kinda sounds like killing the baby outright)

If viability is your argument, they you have no problem with an abortion before 20 weeks?
[/quote]Viability is not my argument. Implantation is where I draw the line.

Consider the following. In the course of regular baby-making, a lot more conception happens than you might think. About three times more, as a matter of fact. That's right, on average, for every one fertilized egg that implants and gets a woman somewhere along the way to pregnancy (which can end in miscarriage, abortion, or some type of live birth), there are two fertilized eggs that fail to implant after conception and are expelled from the woman's body in exactly the same way that eggs are normally expelled. To the naked eye, nothing is different- either way, we are talking about a microscopic bunch of cells. Difference is, conception happens in one instance (one out of three) and not in the other (two out of three).

So let's say your family has three living children, one that died at a young age, and two miscarriages over the years. Total, that's six fertilized eggs that implanted. Based on overall averages, though, you and your significant other probably conceived an additional 12 times or so, but none of those zygotes succeeded in implanting. So you "lost" them, and to you, that must kinda sound like 12 outright dead babies.

But in this situation, do you really, honestly think of this as a family that's lost 12 children? I know I don't. It's awful when young children die. It's horrible when babies die. Miscarriages are terrible. Abortions are ugly, and they often deliver a much harder psychological hit than either of the would-be parents are expecting- even if they have a strong history of being pro-choice. Zygotes that fail to implant, on the other hand....if you're being honest with yourself, you know that's not the same kind of thing. It's not a dead baby. It's visually indiscernible from an unfertilized egg (mostly because they're both microscopic), and while one of them is just one haploid and the other one has united two haploids and formed a gamete, neither one of them is really a dead baby in any sense of the word.

Getting back to the example of the family that I gave- they have three living children, they lost one post-natal, and they lost two while still pre-natal. The numbers suggest that they probably conceived an additional 12 times, but these are not 12 dead babies by any stretch of the imagination and they are not 12 "dead children" that you "lost." They are zygotes that didn't implant. So if it's necessary, you might want to make an adjustment to what your imagination normally does.

Getting back to [b]your[/b] argument, though. If your argument is against anything that remotely straddles the line between contraceptive and abortifacient, does this mean you join the vast majority of Catholics worldwide in being completely ok with barrier-type means of contraception? Let me remind you- this type of contraception is most relevant to the topic of humanitarian aid in developing countries where overpopulation and STDs are major concerns, and therefore most relevant to the OP.

Edited October 21, 2011 by cooterhein

[stevil]

A few things reduce population growth.
1. Education
Educated people tend to have significantly less babies than uneducated people. The longer they stay at school, the longer they leave it until they start having babies, often they put career first upto a certain age and then at the last minute have one or two babies.
2. Economics
In a lot of countries it is hard to get by on a single income. Often both Husband and Wife need to work, it becomes economically difficult for one to take time off to have babies. Not to mention the cost of bringing up a baby.
3. Birth Control
People educated in the proper use of birth control devices, pills etc, can easily avoid undesired pregnancies. Simply preaching abstinence does not work, as animals we have a strong desire and attraction for each other and sex. Most people (including Catholics who are taught to abstain) have sex for recreational purposes rather than procreational purposes at least at some point in their lives. Unprotected sex is extremely risky if you don't want to get pregnant.

[stevil]

With regards to overpopulation, there are many countries that are well overpopulated, have been for decades, Countires like Ethiopia quite frequently have people dying of starvation. Simply giving money to temporarily feed some of these people does not alleviate this problem.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319173456' post='2324530']
With regards to overpopulation, there are many countries that are well overpopulated, have been for decades, Countires like Ethiopia quite frequently have people dying of starvation. Simply giving money to temporarily feed some of these people does not alleviate this problem.
[/quote]Long-term systemic poverty on a nation-wide scale is a complex problem with tough, complicated solutions. What you generally need in order to get at the root causes of poverty is simultaneous, holistic improvements in education, technology, clean water, food, health care, and economic opportunities. It has to be sustainable improvement, and it's generally best if relief workers operate in partnership with people who actually live there so they can be trained to do what needs doing long-term. BTDub, this is precisely what World Vision does all over the world. It's an Evangelical relief and development umbrella organization with a statement of faith that corresponds to the one put forward by the National Association of Evangelicals. It's pretty huge. No one does it better. It's exactly the kind of thing that Catholics would normally get on board with, but much to their chagrin, World Vision takes a position on contraception that is cautiously and selectively favorable while being consistent with the UN Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5, which are to reduce child mortality and improve maternal health respectively. Additionally, in case there's any Catholics on here who feel the need to make an ill-timed accusation pertaining to forcibly shoving one thing down the throat of another person, "All contraceptive methods promoted by World Vision are reviewed with respect to ethical, medical and development standards. World Vision programs are also designed and implemented in partnership with communities, and in collaboration with national health policy, the local health system, local faith-based organisations and other non-government organisations undertaking similar programs." Some Catholics over-react a little bit, though, and in a misguided effort to make these kinds of organizations seem monstrous, they'll describe these efforts in ways that are as foolish as they are inaccurate.

More specific to overpopulation, though, education for women in particular is the most important thing, along with making a range of contraceptive options available according to what the situation dictates and according to what works best for those people. Educating females is especially important for the following reason: If the young ladies of a developing country spend more time on education and delay marriage (and, presumably, baby-making) by an average of four years (which is very realistic), those women will have- on average- 2.2 fewer children. It's kind of a huge transition for people when their women change the average age of marriage by this much, though, especially when the usual way of doing things is changed so drastically in a really short amount of time and the situation promises to change more in the future. Contraception can be an important part of easing the transition by allowing women to begin marriages (with sex included) before they've completed all of their education while delaying childbirth until their education is completed. Or they can wait an extra few years and break ties with their cultural tradition even more than they otherwise would- they still have that option, too. Additionally, they have the option of using contraception from their early-mid 30's into their early-mid 40's and decrease the chance of a high-risk pregnancy. By doing this, women in developing countries can effectively eliminate at least four of their most fertile child-bearing years on the front end and around 10 of their less-fertile but more high-risk years on the back end.

So that's how you handle overpopulation in developing nations. Focus on the women, beginning with education while getting an assist from contraception. There's a half-dozen other things that need to be worked on simultaneously in order to address the root causes of widespread cyclical poverty, but those are the things that do the most good for population growth.

Oh, there's some good news- since 1980, the global average for the number of children born to each woman has dropped from 3.7 to 2.5 (as of 2009). That's tremendous progress. It's still pretty well ahead of the necessary replacement rate (which is 2.1), and there are certain countries that are much too high while others are much too low (the EU, for example, stood at 1.5 in 2009). Some countries need to pick it up at some point, and others need to settle down quite a bit- but in the last 3 decades, things have gotten more manageable and real progress is generally looking more realistic. Italy is kind of hard to figure out, though- the pope lives on that peninsula and encourages his people to be fruitful and multiply, but Italian women still have less babies (1.41 in '09, dropped to 1.32 in '10) on average than Chinese women where childbirth is curtailed by a strict legal mandate (1.77 in '09, 1.54 in '10). We shouldn't blame the Italian women, though. Or any lack of sex among Italians- that's certainly not a problem. Nor should we blame widespread use of contraception among Italian married couples that are otherwise steeped in Catholicism- that's definitely happening, but it's just a symptom of the problem. Based on the info available to me, it's mostly due to the shortcoming of Italian men as parents. But that's a different topic.

[cooterhein]

Editing fail by me: In post 53, I got my 1 out of 3 and 2 out of 3 backwards in the paragraph beginning with "Consider the following." Out of all the times when conception happens, odds are only 1 in 3 that the zygote will implant and go on to become a blastocyst, a fetus, and so forth. In two out of every three examples where conception happens, however, the zygote does not implant and it is expelled from the body just like an unfertilized egg. Apologies for the bad editing. While I'm typing, though, let me reiterate the point: A flushed zygote is not remotely close to being the same thing as a dead baby.

This is largely directed at Mlkolbe.

Edited October 21, 2011 by cooterhein

[sixpence]

As a wildlife conservation minor I struggled with these issues as well.

I need more time to make a good response.... but I am also not going to be so quick to dismiss the idea of overpopulation. I do not think we are at the point of overpopulation On A Global Scale; nor am I 100% convinced we Will reach it/ not reach it (I have trust issues with any type of long term models ). However, if it were to be reached I do not know what the "Catholic answer" might possibly be (other than hoping and praying that God calls more people to celibacy)....

Overpopulation On A Local scale has Obviously occurred in a number of places, and anyone who says otherwise is not familiar with the definition of overpopulation. Clear signs of overpopulation (population size over K -carrying capacity-) are the degradation of the environment such that even Less people can be supported in that space. There are many examples of this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1319055395' post='2323862']
I assume you're a white person? Assuming you are....I don't know if you're familiar with southeast Asia at all, but Asian people already outnumber everyone. A rapidly growing population is the kind of problem that needs to get solved, but the clamor for a solution does not come from outside such a country. It comes from within.
[/quote]
What relevance does her race have to any of this?

Quite frankly, your spiel about how "Asian people already outnumber everyone" sounds more than a little racist. Much of the "population control" propaganda looks to be little more than thinly disguised demographic warfare - especially as how today the great bulk of global population growth is occurring in formerly sparsely-populated African and southern Asian countries.Can't have all those black or yellow people taking us over!

As for Asia, Japan actually currently faces one of the world's biggest population aging/decline problems, with not enough young people to take care of the nation's rapidly aging population due to many Japanese women having few or no babies. China - the world's largest Asian country - is now also facing a similar aging population crisis due to its government-forced one-child policy, which includes forced abortions.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319173456' post='2324530']
With regards to overpopulation, there are many countries that are well overpopulated, have been for decades, Countires like Ethiopia quite frequently have people dying of starvation. Simply giving money to temporarily feed some of these people does not alleviate this problem.
[/quote]
Ethiopia's problems are due to natural disaster in the form of droughts/famines, and a massively corrupt and ineffective government/economic structure. The government often does not allow food aid from other country's to actually feed the people. Ethiopia has a population density (74/sqr. km.) far lower than that of France (116/sq. km.) and other European countries.

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1319234455' post='2324867']
Overpopulation On A Local scale has Obviously occurred in a number of places, and anyone who says otherwise is not familiar with the definition of overpopulation. Clear signs of overpopulation (population size over K -carrying capacity-) are the degradation of the environment such that even Less people can be supported in that space. There are many examples of this.
[/quote]
Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated places on Earth, and has few natural resources, yet enjoys one of the world's highest living standards. (See the John Stossel video I linked to earlier). Economic freedom, rather than low population, is the primary determining factor in standard of living.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Socrates