I've lived in a poor country and also in a few of the wealthiest nations on Earth.
IMHO first you become rich, then once you have time in your hands to actually think about improving things, you do just that.
Becoming rich in a corruption-ridden country, however, tends to be next to impossible for the few honest people living in such place... so it's really difficult for enough honest people to become wealthy enough to start pushing for change to improve not only their own lives, but also that of those who are less privileged.
If you do manage to push beyond such threshold, however, I believe most people will start benefitting from the generosity of their fellow citizens, and slowly start to behave accordingly, i.e. politely and honestly and just kindly. Once you get there, it seems this new level of kindness in society tends to self-sustain, and that's when you know a country has become part of the "first world".
It's rare, though... I believe the latest example is South Korea, which has become a very advanced nation in just a few decades... wish there were other examples, but I'm not aware of any others besides perhaps China - but China does not exactly have a population and government I would decribe as "kind" :/ but I think they will get there eventually.
"IMHO first you become rich, then once you have time in your hands to actually think about improving things, you do just that."
'rich' -> 'improving things' are the same thing.
Individuals can 'get rich' just by being corrupt.
But a nation generally cannot.
Yes, natural resources will help, but they are never the true basis for progress, because without civility, the wealth generated from the resources will be fleeting.
Domestic consumption is generally the only long-term 'stay rich' strategy and it depends to a high degree on civility.
Saudi Arabia can do as they please and remain rich for a while, but it's not sustainable.
Canada, Australia can get a 'jumpstart' and have a 'cushion' due to natural resources but even then it's not obvious.
Most of Africa is rich in natural resources and they are poor, it's mostly a systematic issue.
> 'rich' -> 'improving things' are the same thing.
I meant "improving things" not just for yourself, but for your community. Most rich people in poor country don't give a shit about their community, to the contrary, they exploit them as much as they can without giving anything back.
IMO, it is the population and resource density that makes the difference in human behavior. I have seen densely populated, resource stretched cities in the west that will put an Indian city to shame in bad road traffic behavior.
And from the other side, there are remote mountain towns in the Himalayas full of some of the kindest, most hospitable people ever. So perhaps being packed like sardines isn't an optimal human state.
I have to agree with the assertion. The political will to change anything decreases with the number of people in the area. It's hard to break compatibility between versions when you have a language used by almost everyone (javascript) vs when you are a new hippie lang.
China seems to be the only exception here with PRC having draconian control over everything.
'Population Density' is a civic function, not some random variable.
Like many things, it's a random variable when there is no civic function, but once it exists, then it's part of 'planning' aka 'generating wealth' in whatever terms that means for a group of people.
How does a township with 50% unemployment also have garbage lying about everywhere? The marginal cost of employing people to at least collect is minimal. A town with 50% unemployment is extremely rich in excess labour capacity, they should be able to hire people cheaply.'
Why not? Because social organization is probably abysmal.
