Starvation, Disease, and War in Africa - Page 5

sickle

New Zealand656 Posts

September 07 2011 13:39 GMT

#81

Why can't African countries solve their own problems themselves? Like every other proper civilization. Why should I care about someone living in Africa? There's already enough problems where I'm from. All this 'aid' is completely useless regardless, it always falls into the criminal hands of the few due to inevitable corruption.

Also, don't most third world countries want to be free from the oppressive influence of west? It doesn't look like there is any gratitude for the all the aid sent there anyway.

Spitfire

South Africa442 Posts

September 07 2011 13:44 GMT

#82

On September 07 2011 18:26 FuzzyJAM wrote:
I don't entirely understand the sentiment that outsiders "fucked up" Africa. As far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd genuinely be fascinated to know) there has never been a reasonably developed indigenous African civilization - there has never even been an indigenous writing system in all of Africa, which is the central invention required for development - it has all come from Europeans or Asians. Obviously outsiders have done terrible, terrible things in the continent, but the idea that our ancestors ruined Africa and took it from some great place to a terrible one just seems. . .silly.

There's a school of thought amongst many archeologists that the Egyptian Empire was African, rather then Asiatic, that the belief Egypt was Asiatic rather then African is a result of historical revisionism on the part of 19th century Americans and Europeans, who had to convince themselves Africans were an inferior race in order to justify the slave trade.

Other then that, there were powerful and rich empires in Africa long before the arrival of Europeans. The Ethiopian Empire had trade routes established with India long before Marco Polo. The city of Timbuktu was part of the Mali Empire and was a center of scholarship while Europeans were still stuck in the dark ages.

butchji

Germany1531 Posts

September 07 2011 17:02 GMT

#83

On September 07 2011 22:39 sickle wrote:
Why can't African countries solve their own problems themselves? Like every other proper civilization. Why should I care about someone living in Africa? There's already enough problems where I'm from. All this 'aid' is completely useless regardless, it always falls into the criminal hands of the few due to inevitable corruption.

Also, don't most third world countries want to be free from the oppressive influence of west? It doesn't look like there is any gratitude for the all the aid sent there anyway.

The world would be a better place with more people like you in it. I'm sure.

Bibdy

United States3481 Posts

September 07 2011 17:10 GMT

#84

On September 07 2011 14:53 Eatme wrote:
Actually the picture of Africa is not that awful. Countries like Angola, Rwanda and Ghana (Apparently the world's fastest growing economy in 2011) are booming and there are other countries not far behind. Malawi who had huge problems with famine is now exporting food due to making their farming more efficient.
Sure those countries have a long way to go still, but there are alot of african countries doing great and just a few parts that are shitholes like somalia and the kivu provinces.

Rwanda isn't exactly growing through entirely 'legitimate' means. The Tutsi-led government are actively hunting down Hutu refugees that fled to the Congo while taking all of the natural resources there by force. I imagine the other two nations are flourishing for similar reasons. It's a dog-eat-dog world in Africa, and the ones with the most manpower and firearms continue to win.

Either we

A) Intervene, get all sides to agree to armistices and wait a few generations for all of the nonsensical hatred and bitterness to fade away or

B) Don't intervene and watch the many African countries tear themselves apart until someone comes out the victor, provides stability and gives us something to work with.

C) Same as B, but make as much money out of the chaos as possible.

Given how the U.N. classified the Hutu extermination of Rwanda's ruling Tutsi's as genocide and continues to do nothing while we make tons of money in weapons to Africa, tells me we're still happily rolling along with option C.

Lucidity

South Africa603 Posts

September 07 2011 17:26 GMT

#85

I can't tell if half the people in this thread are trolling or not.

LlamaNamedOsama

United States1900 Posts

September 07 2011 19:10 GMT

#86

On September 07 2011 14:02 Thrasymachus725 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On September 07 2011 13:20 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:

On September 07 2011 08:56 Thrasymachus725 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Africa needs to be left alone. By charities, by governments, by aid, by almost everything. That is the only way things will end up working out. They must do it themselves... but... we can help (see the end).
Keep an eye on it. If you are able to look at it objectively, it is a very interesting and informative (albeit sad) social situation that can teach us a lot.

There is this little thing called nature. We, as humans, have managed to do a great job sustaining ourselves, and have even flourished all over the world. And while we have done a fantastic job of understanding, and even bending the laws of nature, we cannot break them entirely... This leads to the obvious: If conditions (this is a general term) are not right for survival, a population will die. This is inevitable, and may not be changed. Africa is a decent example of this, and observing it, and the effects we have had on it in our... attempts to help... can show us a lot.

Survival of the fittest is HUGE here... it is a terrible thing to witness, but it is clear here. Many of the african nations were taken over, enslaved and ruled by bigger, stronger people with better weapons and more money. They were forced out of their homes onto lands that could not sustain them, and the are still dying in large numbers because of this exploitation. But in the end, this really is an example of survival of the fittest. They lost the battle, and will end up dying, resulting in a stronger gene pool. This is HORRIBLE to say, and I may be flamed like crazy for it, but this is the way nature has operated for hundreds of millions of years. This does not change, simply because we have found ways to offset the issues of food and such.

Strong social and economic ties and assistance is a large part of what keeps a population "fit". Many people live in some very harsh landscapes, and unreal situations, because they can purchase food, via wealth generated, or economic co-operation. Hell, people have even lived in SPACE for decently long periods of times. Africa has not or cannot make those ties. Because of this, they are exploited, and are relying on handouts and aid, that are causing more harm than good. Random acts of charity are NOT reliable economic solutions that can sustain a healthy population.

Simply put, these people are, for whatever reason, in an environment that, for whatever reason, cannot support their population. They may only be there because they were forced there by stronger people... the environment may not be able to support them because they are being exploited by dictators or other stronger people, but in the end, it is the same thing.

If Africa is left on its own, there will be bloodshed, there will be starvation, and pain, and death, and things will get worse before they get better... but they will get better... Balance WILL be achieved. It always is, one way or another. If we could literally close all doors to Africa, and not even look at it... in 200 years when we re-open the door, we will see progress. Probably a substantially reduced population, a primitive form of government... the borders will be different, the culture will be different, the people will be different... but there will be balance... and that is the first step to progress.

As it is, the aid we are sending them is simply drawing out the suffering, and slowing down the progress. The environment or the people need to change. We are giving them the tools they need to survive without the training they need to use them.,. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day... Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".
Sadly, the people in power, simply want more power, and are relying on free aid to get richer and more powerful at the expense of their people. If aid stops, they lose people, they lose power, and a new power takes over that will either do better for the people or fail itself and the cycle keeps repeating until things improve. This is how we have evolved socially, into a society that works. Africa has a society that, for whatever reason, does not work. It needs to change, and that is one way we can help them. Not by giving them fish... but by teaching them to fish.

Education is the only aid that should be sent IMO... as sad as it is. That is the only way to assist them in fixing the problems that plague africa.

Flame away. I am a heartless bastard.

Literally facedpalmed at this post.

Too many fundamental flaws to even delve into in this post, and that's without picking at the particular points within...

A] "survival of the fittest" is fallacious bastardization of Darwinian principles (which are descriptive) as a prescriptive application. Is-ought fallacy.

B] Not only that, but the application of "survival of the fittest" to the complex social, economic, political, cultural, and so on events in Africa makes absolutely no sense. Quick update - humans have progressed over the past couple thousand years beyond a purely survivalistic existence. Those who may currently "survive" there happen to be those who already have pre-established infrastructures, those who are dependent upon illicit and generally disruptive global activities like trafficking and terrorism, and so on. In no capacity are these persons anyway categorizable as the "fittest" persons that should exist.

C] this post, like many others, are hugely oversimplifying AID. These massive international organizations aren't run by idiots who can't grasp this simple concept that many have about "dependence." It's not like your street corner's soup kitchen, you know. Everything from preventive disease measures, crop-growing programs, micro-financing, and so on are all developed to not only reduce dependence and create self-sufficiency, they're almost always equipped with conditional aid regarding corrupt governments, meaning corruption leads to a denial of aid. Of course, you might point to exceptions here and there, but it at the very least is trying to mitigate the issue.

D] Your solution is as simplistic and problematic as the rest of the post. Dozens, if not hundreds of education programs are already in effect. Furthermore, education is part of a complex web of political, social, and cultural issues going on right now.

A: Do you argue that when it comes to a survival situation, the strongest survive, and the weakest die? In simplest forms, it is true. However, when it comes to humanity, "strength" is measured through more than simply physical strength. Social ties, economic ties, influence, technology: all of these are considered strength. The population who ultimately is stronger (in a combination of all of these and more), will in the vast majority of cases, come out on top. How is that a fallacy?

B: Humanity as a whole is not operating on a purely survivalist existence, you are right. The starvation, the wars and the disease in those parts of the world are reducing life to the point where it is borderline survival for a HUGE amount of people. And as I mentioned previously, those who are operating based on illegal activities and pure corruption, ARE the fittest... maybe not physically... but if they have all the money, all the guns and all the power, they are the strongest in an abstract sense. That is why they are in charge.

C: And yet all these fantastic programs with wonderful intentions are doing very little for the bigger picture. Many are corrupt, and broken. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But sometimes you need to cut the finger off to save the hand. These "solutions" are all in vain unless the governments are cleansed of the corruption. What are these organisations doing to clean this corruption? Probably nothing, or at least very very little. The only thing that is going to get these governments out of power and reestablished, is if they are reworked from the ground up, and the only way that will happen is if they people themselves decide to do that themselves. When they keep praying that the west will send aid, and the west will overthrow their corrupt leaders, and the west will help them... well...

D. I didn't say education is not going on right now. But you seem to think that I want us to press a magic button labeled "Educate Them", and have it be done. Education is a long, ongoing process that will take years and generations before we see the true effects. We are doing it, and it is good. but if you ask me, it is just about the ONLY positive effect we are having on the people, from a long-term perspective.

I realize this is a complex issue. But time cures all wounds one way or another, and I think the FASTEST way for such horrible poverty to achieve a balance is the way mankind has done it for hundreds of thousands of years... leave it to nature. Where there is surplus, there will be prosperity and growth. Where there is a lack, there will be decline and shrinkage.
If you think that humanity has outgrown this basic law of nature, then you need to think twice.

A: You're not understanding the A-point, all of this is covered under B. The fact that this is supposedly "how things are" does not indicate that that's how things should be, look up the is-ought fallacy, I already explicitly pointed out which fallacy this was in my last post.

B: First, regarding your message addressed to point A. "Social ties, economic ties, influence, technology: all of these are considered strength." The massive error here is that all of these are significant in different ways according to each context, there is no universal "stronger" person or thing to prescribe here as something that ought to survive.

Second, "And as I mentioned previously, those who are operating based on illegal activities and pure corruption, ARE the fittest... maybe not physically... but if they have all the money, all the guns and all the power, they are the strongest in an abstract sense. That is why they are in charge." You just proved my point.

Remember what this discussion is about: what SHOULD be done. IE, a discussion prescribing action, which depends on a concept of "good" to pursue as an evaluative guide for better/worse behavior. In the quoted (and italicized) statement from you, you yourself are saying that we should encourage the development of corruption, dictatorships, and illegal activity, which is the exact opposite of a desirable end. In fact, your prescription is to "maintain a status quo" of corruption and problems, which will only re-entrench itself as you yourself concede that 'we let the fittest survive, and the fittest will be the most corrupt.'

C:

On September 07 2011 14:02 Thrasymachus725 wrote:And yet all these fantastic programs with wonderful intentions are doing very little for the bigger picture. Many are corrupt, and broken. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But sometimes you need to cut the finger off to save the hand. These "solutions" are all in vain unless the governments are cleansed of the corruption. What are these organisations doing to clean this corruption? Probably nothing, or at least very very little. The only thing that is going to get these governments out of power and reestablished, is if they are reworked from the ground up, and the only way that will happen is if they people themselves decide to do that themselves. When they keep praying that the west will send aid, and the west will overthrow their corrupt leaders, and the west will help them... well...

100% of this is you resting on a pure assumption without presenting any fact. I don't have the time to present you with the plethora of various anti-corruption efforts that have empirical success, but here's a sample or two off the very first page of searching in google:

http://www.one.org/c/us/pressrelease/148/
+ Show Spoiler +

"The latest data shows major improvements in good governance among a host of African nations. The improvements can be attributed to a variety of factors, including democratically elected leaders heeding the call of their citizens and good governance incentives from aid agencies like USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation," Kimberly Cadena, ONE Campaign spokesperson, said. "Not all African nations are on the right track, and we must do all that we can to put pressure on those nations' governments to be responsive to their citizenry. Stable, transparent governments are most able to effectively and efficiently distribute aid, and the latest World Bank reports reflects what ONE's partners are seeing on the ground: when citizens and donor countries unite to demand accountability from African leaders and reward those who do right by their people, leaders respond and implement reform."

http://www.spidercenter.org/files/ICT4D_corruption.pdf
+ Show Spoiler +

Macro level studies (nations)
Andersen (2009) estimated the impact of eGovernment on
corruption using the changes in the CCI index from 1996
to 2006 and found that different countries’ eGovernment
maturity development (as measured by the index of West et
al. (2006) was reflected in positive change of CCI, and quite
strongly so. When a country implements more eGovernment
there follows a considerable reduction in corruption. Andersen also tested the effect of the variables of GDP per capita and the degree of “free press”. The study found that the growth rate
of GDP per capita is always significant, whereas a free press
did not seem to influence changes in corruption.
Shim and Eom (2009) examined how the two factors social
capital (the strength of positive social relations) and ICT affected corruption and found that both factors individually
had positive effects on corruption. Shim and Eom measured
corruption by the TI Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
ICT was measured by three factors, (i) the UN eGovernment
readiness index, (ii) the UN e-participation index, and (iii)
internet penetration. The measure used for social capital was
the World Value Survey (WVS), an international research
project that measures the values held by people from around
the world. ICT had positive effects on corruption, and social
capital had anticorruption effects independently of ICT. The
authors conclude that “policies designed to foster trust networks in a society can contribute to the reduction of corruption”. As for the impact of ICT on corruption, e-readiness and
e-participation were significant. Controlling for bureaucratic
quality, rule of law, anti-favouritism, and competence of
government officials, the ICT variables were still statistically
significant. They found that the three ICT variables accounted
for 77 % of the total variation of corruption, which means that
ICT variables had a substantial effect. In fact, ICT variables
were more influential in terms of reducing corruption than
traditional anti-corruption factors. The authors conclude that
“in addition to the traditional anti-corruption approaches, i.e.
administrative reform and law enforcement, ICT could be an
effective tool in reducing corruption”. These studies combined
suggest that the often stated assertion that administrative
reform must come first and ICT only later does not hold true.
ICT reform also drives administrative reform. ICT can hence
be a good place to start.

And other posts have already mentioned instances of micro-finance and countries with success.

These efforts obviously have not eradicated all of the problems/corruption in Africa, nor even all of them, but it's purely fallacious and incorrect to believe that they aren't working.

And when it comes to dealing with massive human rights deprivation, efforts that can improve things a little is a far preferable alternative than sticking to the status quo.

On September 07 2011 14:02 Thrasymachus725 wrote:But time cures all wounds one way or another, and I think the FASTEST way for such horrible poverty to achieve a balance is the way mankind has done it for hundreds of thousands of years... leave it to nature.

"Mankind has done it for hunderds of thousands of years" - nope. The Marshall Plan and other efforts have demonstrated that mankind does not simply "sit around" when it comes to developing other regions economically. The idea that things will magically fix themselves over time is also laughable, given your previous points that contradict this, with the idea that "survival of the fittest" just means that the most corrupt and warmongering groups will rise to power and keep that power.

sunprince

United States2258 Posts

September 07 2011 19:35 GMT

#87

On September 07 2011 22:10 DreamChaser wrote:
Seriously? Like no seriously? you have gotta be the most heartless person i have ever met. Millions of children are dieing and you say just fuck, they can figure it out them self? This isn't the stone age any more its not like we don't know whats going on on the other side of the world. As humans i believe we have an obligation to help others, being humans isn't about looking out for yourself its about helping one another. I would like to see how you felt if you got put in africa for a month by yourself and you had to make it out alive given nothing but the clothes on your back. Its easy for you to say "We shouldn't need to help, people should (re)produce according to their resources" you have grown in at LEAST a minimum wage home which a lot of these people could only HOPE they could live in if they are lucky.

The truly heartless thing is to "save" (and by "save" I mean guaranteeing only an impoverished life of suffering barely worth living) millions of children so that you have twice as many suffering children in 20 years. If you really cared about doing the right thing, you would look after Africa's long-term interests, but clearly you just want to assuage your own guilt.

It's your simplistic "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1" BS mindset that's perpetuated Africa's problems in the first place.

Eatme

Switzerland3919 Posts

September 07 2011 20:51 GMT

#88

On September 07 2011 16:23 Mindcrime wrote:

Show nested quote +

I'm pretty sure that Angola is still a shithole for the overwhelming majority of people living there.

Well Angola is pretty corrupt but they are building public housing for the people currently living in musseques and it takes time to fix a country that was recently so fucked up by war.

On September 07 2011 18:09 butchji wrote:

Show nested quote +

And the western countries buy it for ethanol fuel. We are driving our cars with their food while they are starving. Cynical world we live in. ;o

While I'm looking down on the whole ethanol fuel thing. I have only heard that the Malawi food surplus is mostly bought by India and they were only selling their surplus and have not had any famine since the reform.

Mohdoo

United States15725 Posts

September 07 2011 21:11 GMT

#89

Why do Africans keep having children? I don't believe that anyone is entitled to have children. Their problems could be fixed a lot more easily of we didn't have to dedicate so much time and money into trying to save all the babies they keep having.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 All

Please or register to reply.

Starvation, Disease, and War in Africa - Page 5

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming