Here's the story:

Link



From another source, here is the actual ranking of the top dozen and the bottom dozen.

Link



To be debated:

1. What are the most important factors that go into determining the quality of life in a nation? Can the United States learn anything from its fellow nations in the top dozen?

2. What are the most important factors that make the quality of life in sub-Saharan Africa lower than in other parts of the globe? What can be done to improve this situation?

1. What are the most important factors that go into determining the quality of life in a nation? Can the United States learn anything from its fellow nations in the top dozen?

Thats a bit difficult to answer because I just don't know what the full critieria for these things are. How do they determine the differences between Denmark, Sweden and Norway? These countries are culturally almost one and the same and yet Denmark has not even made the top ten list (this time). Why not? We've been on the list previously, right at the top. What changed?

I suspect Denmarks tightened immigration laws are what changed, for in all other aspects I can think of, Denmark is the equal to or out performs Norway. Norway also has a larger income of ready cash from North Sea oil and it is not a member state of the EU, but I cannot rghtly say as to whether these make any difference to actual quality of life in Norway over Denmark. I certainly don't believe they do, and I certainly don't believe the Swedes have a better quality of life than the Danes, not if the crime and rape statistics for these two countries, where a woman is seven times more likely to be raped in Sweden than in Denmark, have anything to show.

I have to conclude, on the basis of my own direct observations regarding the three Scandinavian countries (though Denmark is not geographically a part of Scandinavia, it is culturally a Scandinavian country) that this list is a political tool designed to promote some UN issue or other.


2. What are the most important factors that make the quality of life in sub-Saharan Africa lower than in other parts of the globe? What can be done to improve this situation?

Nothing can be done by any one on the outside to improve the quality of life in sub-Saharan Africa. Decade upon decade of aid to Africa has not made the slightest difference and I think its about time we, Europeans, stopped assuming that we can make a difference to the lives of people who just don't think the way we do. The moral crusading has to stop. Essentially when it comes to the crunch there is no difference between the Catholic church sending colonial missionaries to Africa and the UN lording it over the continent by virtue of aid programmes and the like.

For people in Africa, as a whole, they need the space to grow on their own terms and that means free trade. The current situation where by the rich nations subsidize their own farmers to the point where Africa cannot hope to compete can only prolong the misery.

The UN with its own internal logic and accepted wisdoms is a political tool. I don't believe the UN, an organisation of well fed beaurocrats and diplomats has anything to say about what 'quality of life' is.


edited for spelling

The way to increase the richness of our way of life is to raise the standard of living for all - not a divided class society between the “haves and have-nots.” Never before in our country has there been a greater disparity between the income levels of wage-earners and the salaried executives of “Corporate America.” True freedom does not exist behind barred windows of gated communities, but in the fresh air of the public institutions established to provide for the general welfare of our citizens. These last have suffered from neglect.

Likewise, the way to improve life in third-world countries is by encouraging the empowerment of their peoples and not supporting oppressive regimes. The progress of a nation is not measured by its wealth or power, but in the way it provides for its people.

I'd love for an organization other than the UN to put something out like this. Notice other nations not on this list? Germany? the UK?

Topping the list? Iceland, Norway, Canada, & Australia. Notice something? A trend? All 4 of these nations have very socialized policies. I'd be very interested in seeing what their "quality of life" standards are.

In the US, I think our values are slightly different. Unfortunately, we have a quest for material wealth. Our poor people have cars, microwaves, and cable tv. Maybe they're not interested in the arts or higher education. That might have something to do with the difference in ranking. I don't know...The article you linked doesn't even discuss the rankings and why/how they were generated.

Sub-Saharan Africa needs to be left alone, and the hand-out based policies that we've employed for the better part of 4 decades need to cease. What needs to happen is a military stabilization of nations, and industrialization of the same areas. I believe that Africa could be a production mecca, similar to Indonesia, if there wasn't a threat of armed destruction.

Money is the key, well, at least subsistence and something valuable to live for.

As for our nation vs the others listed... I have no idea. I'll say that Ireland is a wonderful place, seemingly slower paced and open and warm at heart. Canada? Heck no. It's a pillar of cynicism and apathy. I met more smokers, more aggravated and aggravating people, and more visibly cynical people than I have ever met. This is precisely why I wonder what the UN uses to rank nations.

From Nemo


If you're going to make these kinds of claims, Nemo, you have to back them with facts.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/040207LA.shtml


Ok... so since before 1928. Let's attempt to be accurate.

Why is there an income gap? That's another thread, but it's cultural and somewhat societal.

Right, but anywho... how meaningful is it?


Ok. So there was a drop of overall income in the bottom 90% of $172. Big deal.

I think what happens with UN studies and the US is that they never compare countries of our size and cultural diversity and make apples to apples comparisons. Nations with near cultural homogeny and sizes smaller than Louisiana find it far easier to manage problems.

Furthermore, what's good in Tiperrary is good in Dublin when the government's concerned. Is that true for San Antonio and San Francisco? Of course not. The UN doesn't care to make meaningful change, as it really doesn't. It picks inane battles and presents flawed information, and charges the world millions... of course when it's not allowing it's leaders and their children to embezzle the money.

I think I have to agree with that as it certainly fits the pattern of Denmarks drop from the top ten country's after the Danes voted in a right wing government.

Since that day, in (pre 9/11) 2001, the Danish government has been under a relentless criticism from the UN, as well as our Swedish neighbours on the assumption that Denmark has become a racist country because the right wing Danish government rests on a majority mandate provided by the nationalist Danish Peoples party. In the Swedish media, Danes are now regularly portrayed as racists. Usually covertly, but sometimes openly and with great animosity by left wing Swedish 'intellectuals' many of whom have in the past (such as for example Jan Guillou) openly supported left wing tyrants.

This constant criticism based on left wing prejudisms from Sweden and other Northern European bastions of socialism has been echoed repeatedly by the UN high commssioner for human rights Louise Arbour. Usually on the most spurious assumptions for which is there is no basis for the criticism. Under its right wing government (re-elected now three times in six years) Denmark has retained its internal laws, retained its quality of life (see here) and its international commitments. See here. According to this Swedish article, Denmark is just as democratic as Sweden, and yet Denmark does not have the severity of problems Sweden has.

The only things that have changed in Denmark in the last six years is how the money is administered within the country, the economy has grown (despite the so called Mohammed cartoons embargo) the standard of living has continued to rise (even though we also have a greater than ever disparity between the richest and poorest citizens), immigration has come under much tighter rules and the Danes, unlike Swedes remain the happiest people on planet Earth.

Sweden by comparison has seen an economic slow down, is faced with massive social problems and a fleeing native population, all due to its continued status as the most welcoming nation in Europe. Sweden has a population of 9,031,088 and in 2006 alone Sweden imported 98,600 immigrants. At the current level of immigration the Swedes will lose the majority vote in their own country within the next twenty five years. Successive Swedish governments have done nothing to counter this trend, indeed thay've done everything to encourage it. Whilst Denmark retains a viable military with ongoing operations in support of its US ally, Sweden (one of the worlds leading manufacturers and peddlers of weaponry to third world tyrants) has cut back its own military to a symbolic force, led by a conscientious objector whilst socialist minister Jens Orback, openly admits that Sweden must be good to Muslims because then, when they take over Sweden, the Muslims will be good to the Swedes. Video (in Swedish)

So how according to the UN does Sweden score as being a better place to live than Denmark? I suspect because sixty years of successive socialist governments means it is still 'the most welcoming nation in Europe'. In other words, this UN study is based on whats good for immigrants and not whats good for native populations.

Big deal?! Hmmm... well, that might be someone's telephone bill for the year. While you might think an extra $14/month is nothing, there are those out there - and I think this might include the bottom 90% - who need every cent.

That would be my answer to the first topic question. The overall contentment rating. Are the people generally happy? If so, things are probably going well. There might be exceptions to that (like an unforeseen major catastrophy), but overall happiness would be a good measure for success....what else would better qualify?

What speaks to me more about this develpment index than the top ten, are those who didn't make the bottom ten. Where on earth is the DPRK? And, um, Sudan (as in Darfur)? Ethiopia is in the bottom ten, but Somalia, it's war-torn nation next door, with unbelievably nasty war-lord/radical Islamic leadership isn't?

If you check the link you will find that Denmark ties with the US for life expectancy. They both are at the bottom of the top 26 nations. That no doubt contributed to their standing.

2. What are the most important factors that make the quality of life in sub-Saharan Africa lower than in other parts of the globe? What can be done to improve this situation?

First off I'm not going to take either a despairing or dismissive attitude toward Africa. The country with the lowest life expectancy is Zambia- 40.5. That is higher than probably any country in the world say 150 years ago. Folks from the West who are part of a legacy that exploited that area brutally and divided the place up unnaturally have really no right to get all self-righteous about its present disability.

Definitely the place needs better management in and more foreign exploiters out so these countries can control their own resources and take control of their own destiny. We have in our own politics something called the City Manager system, where a skilled manager is brought in from the outside who can make decisions relatively uninfluenced by local political fun and games. That would be the one original idea I would contribute to improving things. We need some sort of an international school for training in government management so if a situation in one country or province appears politically intractable, professional management from the outside can be brought in with obviously local consent and they wouldn't have the baggage of local partisan loyalties and corrupt practices and would have a lot of useful contacts from the outside along with considerable management expertise. There would have to be clear independence so they were not some kind of stalking horse for an outside government or business interest. Presumably an international body like the UN would be the source of such coordination.

No doubt this is due to the Danes love of tobacco and alcohol, it certainly seems so according to this article. I don't know about you, but the way I see it, if people want to drink and smoke themselves into an early grave, then thats their right. Of course, having just lost my mother to throat and lung cancer after she lived with my father, who smokes, for forty years I am placed in a dark corner in this aspect for my mother did not smoke. I have no doubt there are important social and environmental concerns regarding health in Denmark, but the way I understand the idea behind the quality of life in a nation, has nothing to do with how long you live, but how well you live. My mother lived very well indeed, certainly as well as any Swede or Norwegian.

I am convinced that UN surveys regarding 'quality of life' and other such vague terms are nothing but political tools for extending the influence of the UN. The way Denmark bounces up and down on these lists in time with the political colour of our government only serves to enforce that impression. In other words, these lists have less to do with the quality of life in Denmark and more to do with what the UN regards as the right and proper way to live. Stats and facts that fit that perspective, such as life expectancy become important. Facts and findings that don't (as those I quoted in my previous post) get ignored.

My disregard for the UN and its findings is further compounded by the way the socialist parties in Denmark pounce on these feeble comparisons and use them as a stick with which to beat the government. Time and again, the UN elite and Denmarks socialists (and as often as not the EU elite also) take up a position accusing Denmark of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, corruption and generally being a US muppet all on the basis of UN (or EU) reports that time and again are filled with dubious, and often down right misleading data and as often as not promote a clearly international-socialist agenda.

I agree. The UN is certainly not famous for being unbiased and is driven by political considerations. The closer any country appears to be to the US the lower their standing. The US drop imo can be tied directly to the war and the unpopularity of Bush and the US government at UN.

The best way to deal with the UN is to ignore them just as they, as an organization, ignore the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Africa.