unbeliever

I often find myself in debate being told that one person's opinion on a particular matter is not subject to criticism because it comes from their faith. I'm unimpressed by this argument. If your god tells you to behave a certain way in return for the usual rewards that gods offer their worshippers for whatever tributes these modern gods are into nowadays, you go right ahead. I suspect that you'll be disappointed when the time comes and said gods do not come through on their rather lavish promises, but that's just my opinion. There remains a vanishingly small probability that one or more of the many gods from history is doing right by his/her flock but that's rather beside the point. An opinion derived from reading an X thousand year old book, or more likely a subjective interpretation of it, is far less likely to contain great wisdom than the calm considered judgement of educated people after open debate and dispassionate consideration. I will state my opinions on whatever I see fit and if anybody's god doesn't like it I don't see why he/she can't express it directly via thunderbolts or whatever the modern equivalent is.

Japan stands out. In the spirit of your reply to me, can you back that up with any examples? A big gap between rich and poor in a particular country is perhaps less of a problem in practical terms than whether or not the poor are better off in absolute terms. ---------- Post added 05-09-2013 at 22:20 ---------- I suspect never. We've been warned for centuries that the world population is unsustainable and that standards of living will fall dramatically, but such prophecies are yet to be realised. When it comes to real standards of living, the amount of ground per person is in practice far less important than their access to the resources they need in every day life. Right now living standards are being driven down by high energy and housing prices, but this has been created artificially by regulation and does not genuinely derive from the increase in population density.

Environmentalists are always saying that the world population is too high. I'm not clear on what they intend to do about it. Are we suggesting a mass cull, perhaps involving a scythe? Perhaps a reproduction limit which sounds plausible until you consider the inevitable demographic crisis it would create. Expand or die. I'm not too keen on importing freeloaders, but I'm forced to consider from what moral principle derives the idea that somebody who has the good fortune to be born into a first world country has a greater entitlement to sponge from it than anybody else. Work clearly needs to be more incentivised, but I'm not sure that immigrants are any better or worse than natives in terms of work ethics. Getting to the main point: There are examples of countries in the world with much higher population densities and comparable or higher standards of living. How many people are we prepared to condemn to sub-standard over-priced housing in order to protect the pretty grass? A big house-building program would provide a very nice long-term economic boost, pretty much solve the affordable housing problem and all we would have to do is give up a few fields. There is no great virtue in an industrialised country growing its own food when buying food from poorer countries is more efficient and provides a means for said poor countries to grow their own economies and thereby improve their own standards of living.