Not so crowded.
In some objective sense, that may be true. However, I defy you to find any poll showing that people would rather go to a beach on Lake Michigan than one down here.
I mean, really - when you’ve got frostbitten balls, are you going to enjoy the beach?
Besides, isn’t Lake Michigan full of oil and heavy metals and other industrial waste?
Those are features.
Actually, I find the Florida beaches to be better than those on Erie, Huron, and Superior, but not nearly as nice as the ones on Michigan. (And in Michigan, if you kiss your date in the water, you don’t get a mouth full of salt.) 
Not to derail the thread, so when it’s swimming season you go swimming, when it’s not, you don’t. During the summer, I’d take Michigan weather over Florida in a heartbeat. And no, the water is pretty good. Just don’t eat too much salmon.
Nah. That’s Erie.
Iceland for instance. Or pretty much the whole segment of bankrupt bankers. But generally, with exceptions I think any nation is primarily responsible for its own state of development except in cases with unavoidable and unpredictable natural disasters. But there are always degrees of difference. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is if it is reasonable that ones degree of sympathy to be proportional to the degree to which one consider the ills self-inflected.
If a person’s house and all his possessions is destroyed by flooding is it reasonable that one has less sympathy with that person if he had built his house at a location where flooding is to be expected, rather that if he had built it at a location where one could not reasonable expect flooding to occur?
Around here there is a problem with a certain segment of the population that during the last decade has been living fast and expensive and now find themselves with two expensive cars, a big house, expensive furniture, vacation cottage, etc. and despite a large income also in a large debt and unable to continue the lifestyle with which they had become accustomed. They are surely miserable, but I personally find it hard to muster much sympathy.
Just a thought. Who are we to be critical of these starving, dehydrated people in their desperation for life’s basics after mass calamity? If you had suffered so much and NEEDED to get water to save your dying child, what extremes would you resort to? For myself, I’m sure I’d steal/loot and if it came down to saving my family I’d beat someone up too.
I find it interesting that this message board recently had this thread: When civilization collapses: the first 72 hours
Read this thread and look at how many 1st world people are anxious to grab their guns, loot and hole up. If we were in a situation like Haiti’s with the aftershocks then holing up probably isn’t a good idea. So instead we’d have the crazies sitting in the middle of their street with guns. Yeah, we are so much better.
Haiti would pretty claerly be the exception, then. The moment it got its independence, Europe and North America, fearing freed slaves, shut off trade destroying income. Then France came back with a fleet and demanded reparations with “interest” at usury rates, so that for its first 110 years, Haiti was forced to make inflated external payments on an arbitrarily lowered income base. When the Haitians strove to overthrow the governments that supported such financial insanity, from time to time, multiple nations sent in troops to suppress the “rebellions” while providing support only to the oppressive military.
Thus is not to claim that there are no self-inflicted problems in Haiti, but the problems they have have always been initiated or supported by outsiders.
This Just In… you make a lot of sense. Unless you have gone through something like they are, you just don’t know what you’d do. If my children needed water, darn right I’d fight for it.