Having lived in Georgia and Armenia here are my pros and cons of living there. I think it's easy to only think on a shallow level about places, especially when travelling and try to make sense of a place with only a little knowledge. However, there is something to be said for viewing a place with fresh eyes. The pros and cons are of course subjective, hence the third 'both' category.
- Diverse culturally and geographically. It exists on a unique line between Europe and Asia and takes bits from both.
- Life seems to often take precedence over work.
- Life seems more community orientated - family, home, feasting, celebration.
- Resourcefulness is common like tinkering about to try improve things and getting your friends to come and help out.
- Proactively organising or doing things you enjoy.
- Easy going.
- Poverty caused by lack of jobs.
- Infrastructure schools and hospitals, crumbled buildings, potholed roads.
- Pollution caused by not enough regulation on vehicles and emissions.
- Well defined seasons; cold winters, hot summers.
- Less rules.
- Strong traditions make a significant contribution to the national and personal identity.
- The supra philosophy celebrating and drinking.
This article is a note on my own experience, but is probably a snapshot of many places similar in size and situation to Georgia. What interests me is also what is gained and lost between the kind of society in England and Georgia. This could be translated as Western European country and small Eastern European (or Caucasus) country.
How does the legacy left by previous systems of society and current systems translate to quality of life? What is more valuable in the long run for example: having a secure job or low cost of living? What other metrics would be used? If some places offer the best quality of living then how are they measured and against which values? It would be interesting to create a range of metrics that cover quantitative ways of calculating and qualitative, more emotional and subjective.