Since there seems to be a high amount of genuine concern for the famine and diseases in Africa, I thought it would be a wise idea to give those concerned a place to discuss the afflictions affecting Africa, as well as a thread to possibly enlighten any unknowing TLers on the state of Africa as a continent.
I did do a search, and while there was a thread discussing the drought, and another discussing famine in Ethiopia, there was no thread that discussed the situation in Africa as a whole. If you have anything to contribute, or feel I skipped over something, please PM it to me and I'll add it to the OP.
Famine in Africa: The UN declared last week that famine conditions exist in two regions of southern Somalia, putting more than 3 million Somalis there at risk of starvation. The UN also declared an emergency humanitarian crisis throughout the Horn of Africa, as thousands of Somalis leave their homes every day in search of food either in the capital, Mogadishu, or across the border in Kenya and Ethiopia.
With East Africa facing its worst drought in 60 years, affecting more than 11 million people, the United Nations has declared a famine in the region for the first time in a generation. Overcrowded refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia are receiving some 3,000 new refugees every day, as families flee from famine-stricken and war-torn areas. The meager food and water that used to support millions in the Horn of Africa is disappearing rapidly, and families strong enough to flee for survival must travel up to a hundred miles, often on foot, hoping to make it to a refugee center, seeking food and aid. Many do not survive the trip. Officials warn that 800,000 children could die of malnutrition across the East African nations of Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Kenya. Aid agencies are frustrated by many crippling situations: the slow response of Western governments, local governments and terrorist groups blocking access, terrorist and bandit attacks, and anti-terrorism laws that restrict who the aid groups can deal with -- not to mention the massive scale of the current crisis.
Disease in Africa:
Children have lost their parents. Parents have lost their children and the poor grandparents have lost their sons and daughters to war, poverty and to the deadly HIV/AIDS. Grandparents love and protect their grandchildren but grandparents do not have the strength to clear thick bushes and make new farms so with the parents gone (dead), the grandparents with their grandchildren are left with nothing but extreme poverty and hunger.
The number of orphans and street children continue to rise in Africa. orphans In addition to war, HIV and famine, malaria continues to kill children in record numbers especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Meanwhile a mosquito net costs less than $1. The problem is worse in the villages and small towns where there are no hospitals nor clinics to help the sick. Malaria death toll rises extremely high especially in the rainy season which is the breeding period for mosquitoes.
"As a consequence of the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa," one report stated, "it is estimated that more than 18 million people have died to date, of which over 3 million were children. Additionally, more than 25 million adults are currently infected which will result in the continued increase in the number of orphaned children. To date, more than 15 million children have already been orphaned as a result of the epidemic. Another 1 million children are currently infected with the disease."
"As a consequence of the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa," one report stated, "it is estimated that more than 18 million people have died to date, of which over 3 million were children. Additionally, more than 25 million adults are currently infected which will result in the continued increase in the number of orphaned children. To date, more than 15 million children have already been orphaned as a result of the epidemic. Another 1 million children are currently infected with the disease."
Wars in Africa:
There are currently fifteen African countries involved in war, or are experiencing post-war conflict and tension. In West Africa, the countries include Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Togo. In East Africa, the countries include Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda. In Central Africa, the countries include Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda. In North Africa, the country is Algeria and in South Africa, the countries include Angola and Zimbabwe.
At the base of these wars is the rich natural resources each of these poor countries hold of timber, oil or diamonds, compounded in many cases by the foreign extractive industries presence, their opaque, unreported payments to the governments and the governments' opaque, unreported use of the money to create and fund wars. The wars serve the purpose of creating a distraction, as the countries and their fleeing, displaced citizens are robbed of their countries' natural resources, easily converted to cash, for the personal use and fortunes of ruling parties. Tribal conflict is deliberately antagonized, so it can be blamed for the conflict.
The abundant supply small arms, ammunition, light weapons and explosives circulating in some African states since the end of the cold war, has made easy the escalation of tensions between groups in disagreement. Bloody massacres and massive human displacement become quick problem solutions when black market gun running is rampant.
Please feel free to discuss the situation in Africa, but remember to keep it civil.
We shouldn't need to help, people should (re)produce according to their resources. This applies throughout the world not only in africa. “Beggars should be abolished entirely! Verily, it is annoying to give to them and it is annoying not to give to them” - Friedrich Nietzsche
On September 07 2011 06:03 AudionovA wrote: We shouldn't need to help, people should (re)produce according to their resources. This applies throughout the world not only in africa. “Beggars should be abolished entirely! Verily, it is annoying to give to them and it is annoying not to give to them” - Friedrich Nietzsche
You're either grossly misinformed, not thinking this through, or just a moron. The population in those countries has to grow so fast and people HAVE to try to have so many kids because there is an extremely high chance that their children will die due to disease or starvation.
Once they have resources, sanitation, and a 1st world country environment, they will realize that they do not need to have so many kids because the kids they have are living through childhood.
Just my personal observation but for over 30 years since I have been aware of whats going on in Africa they have had the same problems over and over and nothing has changed in that entire time frame. I still see all the same charities asking for money, sponsoring children, send food etc. and for all the trillions of dollars sent over there its no better off today then 30 years ago. This is exactly like the war on drugs. If the people you are trying to help don't/won't make the effort to change or better themselves, no amount of money or assistance you throw at it will change the situation. I wish them well in the recent famine and genocides.. but seen and heard it all before, tragic as it is... they will get through it just as they have in the past and will again in the future, just as their history has proven.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Distribution IS the problem. Supplies, relief and aid can't get where they need to go because of all of the ongoing wars and poor infrastructure.
Africa is in a terrible state mostly caused by Western involvement in one way or another. Yet I still feel worse when I see animal-abuse advertisements come on TV.
The "how can we help" section is when I stopped taking the OP seriously. This is always how things were in most of the uncivilised world there, with just a handful of notable exceptions like the former Ethiopian Empire or Songhai.
The first mistake white men made was intervening and bringing them inventions they couldn't handle -> population boom. The next mistake would be helping them sustain it lol. Our responsibility now lies in preserving the environment and biodiversity of Africa, not throwing money into that bottomless well called "aid".
On September 07 2011 06:03 AudionovA wrote: We shouldn't need to help, people should (re)produce according to their resources. This applies throughout the world not only in africa. “Beggars should be abolished entirely! Verily, it is annoying to give to them and it is annoying not to give to them” - Friedrich Nietzsche
You're either grossly misinformed, not thinking this through, or just a moron. The population in those countries has to grow so fast and people HAVE to try to have so many kids because there is an extremely high chance that their children will die due to disease or starvation.
Once they have resources, sanitation, and a 1st world country environment, they will realize that they do not need to have so many kids because the kids they have are living through childhood.
From an objective standpoint, what you say is completely true. Contrawise, subjectively its a greivence toward values concerning human life. What im saying is, humans care about other humans, now nobody will argue that alot of them die, but everyone will say that death via pestilence and starvation puts a human through much more suffering then justifiable. This thread wouldn't have been created if everyone was ok with mass reproduction leading to mass death as necessary in that country.
Its controlling population, people are going to fucking die, and people just need to accept the fact that people are going to die. not EVERYONE can fucking live, we would run out of f00d
It is really a shame what has happened to Africa. There was a time when it was the most advanced continent by far. Shaka Zulu basically invented the army and organized warfare. Mali would trade gold for salt. Timbuktu and Alexandria offered doctorate level education when the rest of the world was barely able to maintain apprenticeships (basically vocational training). Unfortunately the rest of the world was able to exploit these resources and manpower, mostly by turning African tribes against each other. Once these tribal grudges run their course, I think the African countries will retake their place in the first world. Until then I don't think there is much we can do to help. In fact, by broadcasting these pictures of poverty, we are helping to spread the idea that Africa is a worthless and destitute place. It may be better to focus on the bright side of Africa and build up places that are not being racked by tribal warfare.
I don't get why these threads keep popping up. Just because it's "worse" in africa than usual , i guess... I suppose i am a bit jaded to this kind of thing now tho. Swedish media keeps shoving it in your face, day after day after day. It's like this down there all the time people. Only difference this time is that someone bothered to look for it. Time and time again charitys are exposed, that they are stealing money and no actual help gets down there. If you genuinely want to help the people of Africa, don't send money, send clothes, food, school supplies or anything that you can spare for that matter.
On September 07 2011 06:33 Interloper wrote: If you genuinely want to help the people of Africa, don't send money, send clothes, food, school supplies or anything that you can spare for that matter.
IMO your donations are better placed if you send them to the honest but impoverished people in your own country then. Africa is no longer anyone's colony, as you have pointed out much of the charity marketing for Africa is just scam, it's not worth the effort helping them like that.
On September 07 2011 06:33 Interloper wrote: I don't get why these threads keep popping up. Just because it's "worse" in africa than usual , i guess... I suppose i am a bit jaded to this kind of thing now tho. Swedish media keeps shoving it in your face, day after day after day. It's like this down there all the time people. Only difference this time is that someone bothered to look for it. Time and time again charitys are exposed, that they are stealing money and and no actual help gets down there. If you genuinely want to help the people of Africa, don't send money, send clothes, food, school supplies or anything that you can spare for that matter.
The people who actually know about this constantly tell people exactly the opposite. Send money, not clothes and food. Transporting your can of food from you to Africa is expensive. It's usually cheaper to buy it there. And it's good for the local economy. And it's much more flexible for the charity. And they can store it and use it where it's best.
Yes, some charities are run badly, but there are plenty of big, global, respectable charities. They have their abuses and their overhead, but no organization is perfect and a lot of overhead is really necessary. Giving them money definitely results in substantial good being done.
On September 07 2011 06:33 Interloper wrote: I don't get why these threads keep popping up. Just because it's "worse" in africa than usual , i guess... I suppose i am a bit jaded to this kind of thing now tho. Swedish media keeps shoving it in your face, day after day after day. It's like this down there all the time people. Only difference this time is that someone bothered to look for it. Time and time again charitys are exposed, that they are stealing money and and no actual help gets down there. If you genuinely want to help the people of Africa, don't send money, send clothes, food, school supplies or anything that you can spare for that matter.
The people who actually know about this constantly tell people exactly the opposite. Send money, not clothes and food. Transporting your can of food from you to Africa is expensive. It's usually cheaper to buy it there. And it's good for the local economy. And it's much more flexible for the charity. And they can store it and use it where it's best.
Yes, some charities are run badly, but there are plenty of big, global, respectable charities. They have their abuses and their overhead, but no organization is perfect and a lot of overhead is really necessary. Giving them money definitely results in substantial good being done.
Well, when i was in school and we put together a care package once a year to send to our "Sister-school" (don't know if there is another word for it in english) in Tanzania we worked up the cash to pay for that package to get there. I see the issues with sending food because it's hard to keep fresh and so on, but sending school supplies can't go wrong. Money has the possibility to. I don't know, i'm not that educated in this subject, but i just don't trust any charity no matter how big.
Edit:
tl;dr
This man can explain my views on charitys in a more funny way i guess...
On September 07 2011 06:25 Hypertension wrote: It is really a shame what has happened to Africa. There was a time when it was the most advanced continent by far. Shaka Zulu basically invented the army and organized warfare. Mali would trade gold for salt. Timbuktu and Alexandria offered doctorate level education when the rest of the world was barely able to maintain apprenticeships (basically vocational training). Unfortunately the rest of the world was able to exploit these resources and manpower, mostly by turning African tribes against each other. Once these tribal grudges run their course, I think the African countries will retake their place in the first world. Until then I don't think there is much we can do to help. In fact, by broadcasting these pictures of poverty, we are helping to spread the idea that Africa is a worthless and destitute place. It may be better to focus on the bright side of Africa and build up places that are not being racked by tribal warfare.
Sumerians developed army and organized warfare more than 4000 years before Shaka was born. Timbuktu has seen better years, but it was never close to Chinese, Arabian, Italian, Byzantine, Spanish and many other cities. Alexandria and North Africa belongs more into Mediterranean area and is quite distinct from Subsaharan Africa.
As for OP, problems of Subsaharan Africa are extremely complex and I have no idea what can be done to solve them, but I am definitely for some help to be present as it is morally wrong not to help people in need when we can. Europeans, North Americans and Arabs are also partially responsible for the state of current Africa, so that should also motivate "us" to help.
I find this thread insulting. How can you talk down to us Africans as if you're better than us? Our local media has pointed out how we're better off than first world countries. Continue with your ignorance if you must I guess. We don't have 10 children because we expect them to die as infants. We bring these children into the world as our pension plans. You may have your fancy 401K's or "annuities", but we have our families to take care of us in our old age. While your children will one day abandon you at a nursing home with abusive staff, I will be taken care of by my loving family in my eldest son's guest room. Viva Africa!
On September 07 2011 07:09 Lucidity wrote: I find this thread insulting. How can you talk down to us Africans as if you're better than us? Our local media has pointed out how we're better off than first world countries. Continue with your ignorance if you must I guess. We don't have 10 children because we expect them to die as infants. We bring these children into the world as our pension plans. You may have your fancy 401K's or "annuities", but we have our families to take care of us in our old age. While your children will one day abandon you at a nursing home with abusive staff, I will be taken care of by my loving family in my eldest son's guest room. Viva Africa!
On September 07 2011 07:09 Lucidity wrote: I find this thread insulting. How can you talk down to us Africans as if you're better than us? Our local media has pointed out how we're better off than first world countries. Continue with your ignorance if you must I guess. We don't have 10 children because we expect them to die as infants. We bring these children into the world as our pension plans. You may have your fancy 401K's or "annuities", but we have our families to take care of us in our old age. While your children will one day abandon you at a nursing home with abusive staff, I will be taken care of by my loving family in my eldest son's guest room. Viva Africa!
I'm not sure if you're trolling or what.. but did you actually read that article.. it's like a troll article.
Ndebele explained that murder and rape were not considered violent crimes in South Africa.
“And rape, well, if you’re asking us to classify rape as violent crime then you’re also asking us to consider women to be people, and that’s a bit of a stretch.”
On September 07 2011 07:09 Lucidity wrote: I find this thread insulting. How can you talk down to us Africans as if you're better than us? Our local media has pointed out how we're better off than first world countries. Continue with your ignorance if you must I guess. We don't have 10 children because we expect them to die as infants. We bring these children into the world as our pension plans. You may have your fancy 401K's or "annuities", but we have our families to take care of us in our old age. While your children will one day abandon you at a nursing home with abusive staff, I will be taken care of by my loving family in my eldest son's guest room. Viva Africa!
“And rape, well, if you’re asking us to classify rape as violent crime then you’re also asking us to consider women to be people, and that’s a bit of a stretch.”
On September 07 2011 07:09 Lucidity wrote: I find this thread insulting. How can you talk down to us Africans as if you're better than us? Our local media has pointed out how we're better off than first world countries. Continue with your ignorance if you must I guess. We don't have 10 children because we expect them to die as infants. We bring these children into the world as our pension plans. You may have your fancy 401K's or "annuities", but we have our families to take care of us in our old age. While your children will one day abandon you at a nursing home with abusive staff, I will be taken care of by my loving family in my eldest son's guest room. Viva Africa!
I think there's a lot of bad information about Africa and most third world countries. People get the idea that they're locked into a never ending cycle of poverty and ill health when they're actually making quite a bit of progress. You don't jump out of poverty overnight. You need the education, infrastructure, and institutions to effectively combat these ills, and those take generations to build up. They're following the same path many modern countries did, albeit much later but also much faster.
Hans Rosling did a great bit at a TED conference a while back.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
On September 07 2011 06:03 AudionovA wrote: We shouldn't need to help, people should (re)produce according to their resources. This applies throughout the world not only in africa. “Beggars should be abolished entirely! Verily, it is annoying to give to them and it is annoying not to give to them” - Friedrich Nietzsche
You're either grossly misinformed, not thinking this through, or just a moron. The population in those countries has to grow so fast and people HAVE to try to have so many kids because there is an extremely high chance that their children will die due to disease or starvation.
Once they have resources, sanitation, and a 1st world country environment, they will realize that they do not need to have so many kids because the kids they have are living through childhood.
From an objective standpoint, what you say is completely true. Contrawise, subjectively its a greivence toward values concerning human life. What im saying is, humans care about other humans, now nobody will argue that alot of them die, but everyone will say that death via pestilence and starvation puts a human through much more suffering then justifiable. This thread wouldn't have been created if everyone was ok with mass reproduction leading to mass death as necessary in that country.
I won't argue that population growth + lack of resources to sustain it will not lead to a high mortality rate, and I won't argue that innocent lives dying is sad. But you are forgetting that to continue the ongoing survival of a population, the population needs to have a next generation equal to or greater than the size of the previous one. The cities in africa know this, though perhaps not in such fancy words.
You say that a population should reproduce at a sustainable rate, and if they can't do so some people will die and that is both sad and wasting the lives of people that could be very successful if they were given a chance. This is absolutely true, but if we limited population growth in africa and people reproduced as their resources allow, they would die out. Why? The people in africa don't have bounds and bounds of food like we do in America. If they had as many children as there are people in the existing population, they could still support it, but about 1/4 of those children would fall prey to disease and other causes of death besides starvation.
Tl;dr: A population needs to have more children than necessary to continue the population, because some of the children will die from disease, war, or other reasons that prevent them from reproducing. In africa the child mortality rate is still very high, even excluding the deaths linked with starvation. So they are forced to have more children in hopes that more of them will survive, and this means that there is less food to go around.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Distribution IS the problem. Supplies, relief and aid can't get where they need to go because of all of the ongoing wars and poor infrastructure.
Africa is in a terrible state mostly caused by Western involvement in one way or another. Yet I still feel worse when I see animal-abuse advertisements come on TV.
Sorry for the double post but most of Africas' problems are down to mans' greed and hunger for power, but mostly good old mother nature, she has been doing her best to destroy Africa for a long long time.
Africa is in a terrible state mostly caused by Western involvement in one way or another. Yet I still feel worse when I see animal-abuse advertisements come on TV.
On September 07 2011 07:09 Lucidity wrote: I find this thread insulting. How can you talk down to us Africans as if you're better than us? Our local media has pointed out how we're better off than first world countries. Continue with your ignorance if you must I guess. We don't have 10 children because we expect them to die as infants. We bring these children into the world as our pension plans. You may have your fancy 401K's or "annuities", but we have our families to take care of us in our old age. While your children will one day abandon you at a nursing home with abusive staff, I will be taken care of by my loving family in my eldest son's guest room. Viva Africa!
South africa isn't the entire continent. There are plenty of villages in places like Libya and Ethiopa where the situation is horrible, and what you call 'ignorance' holds true.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Distribution IS the problem. Supplies, relief and aid can't get where they need to go because of all of the ongoing wars and poor infrastructure.
Africa is in a terrible state mostly caused by Western involvement in one way or another. Yet I still feel worse when I see animal-abuse advertisements come on TV.
Poor infrastructure and wars are caused by Africa's backwards, corrupt, totalitarian states. Direct aid simply props up those states by making people reliant on them for (Western) food. In addition, the constant dumping of low-cost or zero-cost Western food simply drives African farmers out of business, since they can't compete with free food. This means that the bad parts of Africa have very little non-subsistence food production of their own, and the second anything hurts that supply (such as famine, war, or even a below-average year in terms of agricultural yield) all hell breaks loose. Africa needs to develop its own food production base and a robust market system for the efficient distribution of that food to areas that need it worst (price mechanisms apply in disasters too). The lack of such a market system means that the continent as a whole is unable to respond to shortages in certain areas, whereas in market equilibrium a regional shortage would cause a price spike in that region, and a corresponding increase in the supply to that region as sellers from other regions race to take advantage of the higher prices.
The powers in the West are fine with the current system because it results in loyal puppet dictatorships (who rely on Western food aid to keep their populations under control), because it plays into the US government's alliance with giant agricultural corporations (who want to sell extra grain to the government rather than lower prices) and because "charities" are able to make a shitload of money siphoning funds. The true consequences are horrific - genocide, famine, fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment, etc.
The only permanent solution for Africa is to leave it alone, and maybe send advisers to help them efficiently utilize their OWN resources, not charity resources (but be careful to do this in a way that does not empower corrupt governments).
Foreigners have been assraping Africa since the dawn of time, it is about time that we learn from history and let them solve their own problems instead of creating more for them. Let them build markets and begin to accumulate capital goods, let them specialize and export, let them trade with and then become a vital part of the world economy. The solution, as always, is freedom.
It must be noted that one of the biggest reasons of Africa's political inestability is the fact that borders where made by foreigners without regards to the actual population. Some country borders are fucking straight lines. It is just inevitable that borders will be reshaped according to local tribes and nationalities, which will be done with even more blood than in western's history given their access to firepower.
On September 07 2011 07:49 GoTuNk! wrote: It must be noted that one of the biggest reasons of Africa's political inestability is the fact that borders where made by foreigners without regards to the actual population. Some country borders are fucking straight lines. It is just inevitable that borders will be reshaped according to local tribes and nationalities, which will be done with even more blood than in western's history given their access to firepower.
Agreed, the shapes of Africa's countries are more a result of arbitrary colonial disputes than natural emergence. An Africa without foreign intervention would likely result in a completely different political map - for a recent example, look at Southern Sudan's separation from Northern Sudan.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
How does a birth control, actually stop aids????
Ever heard of condoms?
On September 07 2011 06:12 manawah wrote: Just my personal observation but for over 30 years since I have been aware of whats going on in Africa they have had the same problems over and over and nothing has changed in that entire time frame. I still see all the same charities asking for money, sponsoring children, send food etc. and for all the trillions of dollars sent over there its no better off today then 30 years ago. This is exactly like the war on drugs. If the people you are trying to help don't/won't make the effort to change or better themselves, no amount of money or assistance you throw at it will change the situation. I wish them well in the recent famine and genocides.. but seen and heard it all before, tragic as it is... they will get through it just as they have in the past and will again in the future, just as their history has proven.
Bull Shit. Africa has been colonized and subjugated for 300 years. Still their resources are being depleted, illegally or otherwise, by other countries. It's not like the people themselves are stupid or anything. Hell, look at Obama. There's a lot of unused potential, that's all. Also there are "help organizations" that actively destroy any attempt to build up an economy. For instance it's almost impossible to become a farmer and sell your harvest if there's food handed out for free. I wonder what the situation would be like if the African countries worst off would switch to democracies - or less corrupted dictatorships and got to keep their resources for themselves for a while. Your argument relies on Africans being some kind of inferior race, which almost forces me to godwin's law myself.
You're arguing that because they've been poor in the past, they will remain so. What kind of fucked up world view is that? Humans used to live in caves. They will always be living in caves. The pattern went on for thousands of years, so there's no hope that'll ever change... Right? But you've seen it all before though, so who am I to question.
On September 07 2011 07:49 GoTuNk! wrote: It must be noted that one of the biggest reasons of Africa's political inestability is the fact that borders where made by foreigners without regards to the actual population. Some country borders are fucking straight lines. It is just inevitable that borders will be reshaped according to local tribes and nationalities, which will be done with even more blood than in western's history given their access to firepower.
That's absolutely true. One of the many problems over there. Africa and it's problems is a very, very complex and difficult topic. I find it very hard to have faith in the future of Africa alone from reading of the problems which have been noted in this thread. And these are only a small fraction of the whole. Another example is the new 'economial colonialism' like it is practiced for example by the chinese. They acquire ressources, mining rights and produce some worthless stuff in these countries by bringing their own people instead of hiring local people. A nice way to amplify the gap between Africa and the industrialized nations.
They need to make a shot that will sterilize you until you're ready to have a family. Starvation and children being born in terrible conditions wouldn't be as much of a problem if they could mass produce the shot at/for a cheap cost. That or they need to get distributed condoms. It's the parents fault that they're having kids when they cant even afford to feed themselves.
On September 07 2011 07:36 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: Tl;dr: A population needs to have more children than necessary to continue the population, because some of the children will die from disease, war, or other reasons that prevent them from reproducing. In africa the child mortality rate is still very high, even excluding the deaths linked with starvation. So they are forced to have more children in hopes that more of them will survive, and this means that there is less food to go around.
WTF are you talking about? Population growth is not the same thing as continuation. If a population of 2 billion decreases to 1 billion before stabilizing, it's not going to go extinct. The death rate is clearly lower than the birth rate if the population is still growing, and that results in problems.
The key issue with Africa is that there are more people than the continent can actually support in its current state of development. They don't need more people. If anything, fewer people will result in a higher quality of life for the next generation.
Africa needs to break free of the Malthusian trap before it can do anything else. All the charity we give them to feel better about raping their continent does nothing except result in bigger famines for the next generation. What Africa needs is birth control and infrastructure aid, not more mouths to feed.
the dying millions is terrible but as several other posters have pointed out mass reproduction in the hope of some successful progeny is not an effective way to deal with disease and famine. what they need is lower population infrastructure and EDUCATION. Its hard for me to feel bad for villagers that derp there way through life eking out a meager existence that most likely will never accomplish anything in life other then perpetuate the cycle.
On September 07 2011 07:09 Lucidity wrote: I find this thread insulting. How can you talk down to us Africans as if you're better than us? Our local media has pointed out how we're better off than first world countries. Continue with your ignorance if you must I guess. We don't have 10 children because we expect them to die as infants. We bring these children into the world as our pension plans. You may have your fancy 401K's or "annuities", but we have our families to take care of us in our old age. While your children will one day abandon you at a nursing home with abusive staff, I will be taken care of by my loving family in my eldest son's guest room. Viva Africa!
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Just my personal observation but for over 30 years since I have been aware of whats going on in Africa they have had the same problems over and over and nothing has changed in that entire time frame. I still see all the same charities asking for money, sponsoring children, send food etc. and for all the trillions of dollars sent over there its no better off today then 30 years ago. This is exactly like the war on drugs. If the people you are trying to help don't/won't make the effort to change or better themselves, no amount of money or assistance you throw at it will change the situation. I wish them well in the recent famine and genocides.. but seen and heard it all before, tragic as it is... they will get through it just as they have in the past and will again in the future, just as their history has proven.
Hm pretty dark view on the subject. Mine is even darker :D ... if help organisation would actually do their job they all lose their job, because with no problems their is no money to ask for. So I believe they don't plan to help on a sustainable basis, but rather shorttime, so they can come back every year. Sadest part of this are actually the people working for said organisations, as they are often some of the moral purest and loving people on the planet, just not evil enough to realize they are all part of a big scam. I once even read some left wing bs about how they would swarm the african market with free food once africans try to become independent and grow theire own food so they can keep forcing them to make coffee and dig for jewels...pretty much the bottom slaves sanctioned by "help"-organisations.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Distribution IS the problem. Supplies, relief and aid can't get where they need to go because of all of the ongoing wars and poor infrastructure.
Africa is in a terrible state mostly caused by Western involvement in one way or another. Yet I still feel worse when I see animal-abuse advertisements come on TV.
Poor infrastructure and wars are caused by Africa's backwards, corrupt, totalitarian states. Direct aid simply props up those states by making people reliant on them for (Western) food. In addition, the constant dumping of low-cost or zero-cost Western food simply drives African farmers out of business, since they can't compete with free food. This means that the bad parts of Africa have very little non-subsistence food production of their own, and the second anything hurts that supply (such as famine, war, or even a below-average year in terms of agricultural yield) all hell breaks loose. Africa needs to develop its own food production base and a robust market system for the efficient distribution of that food to areas that need it worst (price mechanisms apply in disasters too). The lack of such a market system means that the continent as a whole is unable to respond to shortages in certain areas, whereas in market equilibrium a regional shortage would cause a price spike in that region, and a corresponding increase in the supply to that region as sellers from other regions race to take advantage of the higher prices.
The powers in the West are fine with the current system because it results in loyal puppet dictatorships (who rely on Western food aid to keep their populations under control), because it plays into the US government's alliance with giant agricultural corporations (who want to sell extra grain to the government rather than lower prices) and because "charities" are able to make a shitload of money siphoning funds. The true consequences are horrific - genocide, famine, fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment, etc.
The only permanent solution for Africa is to leave it alone, and maybe send advisers to help them efficiently utilize their OWN resources, not charity resources (but be careful to do this in a way that does not empower corrupt governments).
Foreigners have been assraping Africa since the dawn of time, it is about time that we learn from history and let them solve their own problems instead of creating more for them. Let them build markets and begin to accumulate capital goods, let them specialize and export, let them trade with and then become a vital part of the world economy. The solution, as always, is freedom.
I was going to post something similar, but Brain beat me too it. Effectively this. In short, continued mass aid to africa is doing more harm than good. Those arguing against this are frighteningly ill informed on the subject.
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.
On September 07 2011 10:48 sunprince wrote: Oh, and also, get the Church out of Africa. Not helping.
Can't convince them to do that. It's their biggest chance to get new converts now that people in developed nations are starting to turn against them en masse for the abuses that they've perpetrated or facilitated.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Distribution IS the problem. Supplies, relief and aid can't get where they need to go because of all of the ongoing wars and poor infrastructure.
Africa is in a terrible state mostly caused by Western involvement in one way or another. Yet I still feel worse when I see animal-abuse advertisements come on TV.
Poor infrastructure and wars are caused by Africa's backwards, corrupt, totalitarian states. Direct aid simply props up those states by making people reliant on them for (Western) food. In addition, the constant dumping of low-cost or zero-cost Western food simply drives African farmers out of business, since they can't compete with free food. This means that the bad parts of Africa have very little non-subsistence food production of their own, and the second anything hurts that supply (such as famine, war, or even a below-average year in terms of agricultural yield) all hell breaks loose. Africa needs to develop its own food production base and a robust market system for the efficient distribution of that food to areas that need it worst (price mechanisms apply in disasters too). The lack of such a market system means that the continent as a whole is unable to respond to shortages in certain areas, whereas in market equilibrium a regional shortage would cause a price spike in that region, and a corresponding increase in the supply to that region as sellers from other regions race to take advantage of the higher prices.
The powers in the West are fine with the current system because it results in loyal puppet dictatorships (who rely on Western food aid to keep their populations under control), because it plays into the US government's alliance with giant agricultural corporations (who want to sell extra grain to the government rather than lower prices) and because "charities" are able to make a shitload of money siphoning funds. The true consequences are horrific - genocide, famine, fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment, etc.
The only permanent solution for Africa is to leave it alone, and maybe send advisers to help them efficiently utilize their OWN resources, not charity resources (but be careful to do this in a way that does not empower corrupt governments).
Foreigners have been assraping Africa since the dawn of time, it is about time that we learn from history and let them solve their own problems instead of creating more for them. Let them build markets and begin to accumulate capital goods, let them specialize and export, let them trade with and then become a vital part of the world economy. The solution, as always, is freedom.
I was going to post something similar, but Brain beat me too it. Effectively this. In short, continued mass aid to africa is doing more harm than good. Those arguing against this are frighteningly ill informed on the subject.
Wow, that's a really good encapsulation of the situation.
Being educated by my father who is an Immigrant of Nigeria and has experience in many other parts of Africa I believe that;
African Nations will not see rapid growth and development until countries are redefined upon ethnic lines or the ethnic groups of countries begin to see themselves as one in the same. Unity has always been a prerequisite for a nation's success. The second is that the rampant disgusting corruption plaguing African nations needs to b e E-fucking-radicated. I believe Ghana did something like this a few decades ago and they are easily one of the stronger African Nations.
I don't know how people end up blaming the West for Africa when it was terrible and backwards long before Europeans got there.
I agree the African countries should be divided by ethnic lines. It is hilarious that multiculturalism for leftists is supposedly magical for our countries, but apparently it is the cause of most of Africa's problems!
On September 07 2011 12:29 Romantic wrote: I don't know how people end up blaming the West for Africa when it was terrible and backwards long before Europeans got there.
I agree the African countries should be divided by ethnic lines. It is hilarious that multiculturalism for leftists is supposedly magical for our countries, but apparently it is the cause of most of Africa's problems!
You realize that the reason they aren't divided by ethnic lines now is because of the europeans right? And no, africa was not backwards before the eurpoeans. It was most likely self sustaining and thriving... but just because the europeans beat them to the punch, technology-wise, does that really make them backwards?
well....africa is a big place. I mean you can go and dig up info on war/starvation/pestilence in USA or China, and the numbers would still be concerning. I think if you're looking for a productive discussion, we should nudge it towards a specific state/province of Africa.
also these are the times when I want to see one of those colorful mural size infographic on statistics. Because wall of text + many digit numbers dont really drive the point home for me.
I'm inclined to agree with Thrasymachus725 tho. Taking a macro view of things, africa seems to have been fucked over every time by foreign and domestic governments, especially USA/Europe. From what little i gather as a tourist there, china is viewed favorably because there are a lot of chinese "private" construction firms building up infrastructure in africa. @_@
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.
On September 07 2011 12:29 Romantic wrote: I don't know how people end up blaming the West for Africa when it was terrible and backwards long before Europeans got there.
I agree the African countries should be divided by ethnic lines. It is hilarious that multiculturalism for leftists is supposedly magical for our countries, but apparently it is the cause of most of Africa's problems!
You realize that the reason they aren't divided by ethnic lines now is because of the europeans right? And no, africa was not backwards before the eurpoeans. It was most likely self sustaining and thriving... but just because the europeans beat them to the punch, technology-wise, does that really make them backwards?
They were self sustaining but I wouldn't at all say they were thriving. Then Europe came in and gave them extra stuff (and you know, bad things too). This allowed them to obtain a population larger than they could sustain normally. Then Europe left, and Africa was left in a state where they could no sustain themselves, along with having lots of corruption.
Giving them enough to sustain themselves won't help them, they will just keep growing in numbers and eventually become too much of a burden (which in all honestly they already are).
So like it's been said, they need to stop receiving temporary aid and become self sustaining again.
Looking at the replies in this thread gave me a shock at the ignorance and absolute ignorance of these TL members. wtf. :S These endless wars have been and are continually engineered for the sole purpose of monetary gain (and sadistic pleasure perhaps). You guys are ignorant.
On September 07 2011 12:29 Romantic wrote: I don't know how people end up blaming the West for Africa when it was terrible and backwards long before Europeans got there.
I agree the African countries should be divided by ethnic lines. It is hilarious that multiculturalism for leftists is supposedly magical for our countries, but apparently it is the cause of most of Africa's problems!
You realize that the reason they aren't divided by ethnic lines now is because of the europeans right? And no, africa was not backwards before the eurpoeans. It was most likely self sustaining and thriving... but just because the europeans beat them to the punch, technology-wise, does that really make them backwards?
They were self sustaining but I wouldn't at all say they were thriving. Then Europe came in and gave them extra stuff (and you know, bad things too). This allowed them to obtain a population larger than they could sustain normally. Then Europe left, and Africa was left in a state where they could no sustain themselves, along with having lots of corruption.
Giving them enough to sustain themselves won't help them, they will just keep growing in numbers and eventually become too much of a burden (which in all honestly they already are).
So like it's been said, they need to stop receiving temporary aid and become self sustaining again.
Your thinking in terms of a faulty capitalistic notion of "thriving" as excess growth - why does there have to be excess when simple enough growth and general wellbeing is present?
Also, it's a bit more than "Europe came in and gave them extra stuff." They didn't just make Africa "grow beyond sustainability." Through the Berlin Conference, they created artificial borders that today are still the root of conflict. Through the slave-trade, they introduced chattel slavery and induced a geopolitical sphere of violence due to the gunpowder-slave relationship and its influence on African states' relative parity amongst each other. They pillaged the land of its natural resources, and continued even after they "left" to encourage further pillaging for natural resources. All of these, and more, produced corruption and other problems.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Many Africans believe in having lots of children so the kids can support the parents in their old age. Throwing condoms at the problem won't address underlying isssues like that. You need to understand and patch the causes of problems, not treat the symptoms.
As to Africa as a whole, I despair. In theory it is fertile enough to feed its population. Corruption combined with lack of education just leave it ripe for dictators etc to exploit.
Having said this, there are many bright lights on the continent, its just all the negative stuff that garners attention.
On September 07 2011 12:29 Romantic wrote: I don't know how people end up blaming the West for Africa when it was terrible and backwards long before Europeans got there.
I agree the African countries should be divided by ethnic lines. It is hilarious that multiculturalism for leftists is supposedly magical for our countries, but apparently it is the cause of most of Africa's problems!
You realize that the reason they aren't divided by ethnic lines now is because of the europeans right? And no, africa was not backwards before the eurpoeans. It was most likely self sustaining and thriving... but just because the europeans beat them to the punch, technology-wise, does that really make them backwards?
Yes. If you have a better word then feel free to use that.
On September 07 2011 13:30 alexpnd wrote: Looking at the replies in this thread gave me a shock at the ignorance and absolute ignorance of these TL members. wtf. :S These endless wars have been and are continually engineered for the sole purpose of monetary gain (and sadistic pleasure perhaps). You guys are ignorant.
Such a simplistic view of a myriad of different conflicts speaks more about your knowledge of the continent than anything.
On September 07 2011 06:07 Voltaire wrote: Distribution of birth control is one way to combat these problems. It's already been done to combat AIDS in certain countries.
Many Africans believe in having lots of children so the kids can support the parents in their old age. Throwing condoms at the problem won't address underlying isssues like that. You need to understand and patch the causes of problems, not treat the symptoms.
As to Africa as a whole, I despair. In theory it is fertile enough to feed its population. Corruption combined with lack of education just leave it ripe for dictators etc to exploit.
Having said this, there are many bright lights on the continent, its just all the negative stuff that garners attention.
This is very good post.
The fact is that Africa is very resourceful. The success of micro-finance programs can attest the igenuity that is inherent in African culture. Look at Uganda succesfull aids prevention program. They actually specifically speak out about "Throwing condoms at the problem"
""We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS"
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.
Quite a few instances of Western "help" have been poison pills. They often come in the form of loans for certain ridiculously poorly thought out infrastructure projects that have no immediate investment value. The IMF and World Bank are malicious organizations. Other forms of aid are double edge swords such as food aid propping up corrupt regimes while depressing food prices in neighboring countries. Some kinds of aid are just stupid like trying to stop aids before stopping malaria or bringing solar energy and only solar energy to rural towns or educating kids of sustenance farmers past primary school.
While not all forms of aid to Africa are bad, most the aid is poorly thought out. The help has to be some what inline with what Africans priorities. Hence much of the progress in Africa is driven by limited resources of Africans themselves.
On September 07 2011 12:29 Romantic wrote: I don't know how people end up blaming the West for Africa when it was terrible and backwards long before Europeans got there.
I agree the African countries should be divided by ethnic lines. It is hilarious that multiculturalism for leftists is supposedly magical for our countries, but apparently it is the cause of most of Africa's problems!
You realize that the reason they aren't divided by ethnic lines now is because of the europeans right? And no, africa was not backwards before the eurpoeans. It was most likely self sustaining and thriving... but just because the europeans beat them to the punch, technology-wise, does that really make them backwards?
They were self sustaining but I wouldn't at all say they were thriving. Then Europe came in and gave them extra stuff (and you know, bad things too). This allowed them to obtain a population larger than they could sustain normally. Then Europe left, and Africa was left in a state where they could no sustain themselves, along with having lots of corruption.
Giving them enough to sustain themselves won't help them, they will just keep growing in numbers and eventually become too much of a burden (which in all honestly they already are).
So like it's been said, they need to stop receiving temporary aid and become self sustaining again.
Your thinking in terms of a faulty capitalistic notion of "thriving" as excess growth - why does there have to be excess when simple enough growth and general wellbeing is present?
Also, it's a bit more than "Europe came in and gave them extra stuff." They didn't just make Africa "grow beyond sustainability." Through the Berlin Conference, they created artificial borders that today are still the root of conflict. Through the slave-trade, they introduced chattel slavery and induced a geopolitical sphere of violence due to the gunpowder-slave relationship and its influence on African states' relative parity amongst each other. They pillaged the land of its natural resources, and continued even after they "left" to encourage further pillaging for natural resources. All of these, and more, produced corruption and other problems.
That's not a faulty capitalistic notion, that's the definition of thriving. You wouldn't say that Africa was developing well, or that they were flourishing. They may have been slowly growing, but they hadn't changed much at all in thousands of years. Hence they were simply sustaining themselves.
I said they brought in bad things too....Did you just pick and choose what portions of my post to actually pay attention to or something?
You also didn't say anything at all related to the topic at hand, you just attempted to point out I was wrong. So, since you know so much, what should be done to solve the issues in Africa?
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.
On September 07 2011 06:12 manawah wrote: Just my personal observation but for over 30 years since I have been aware of whats going on in Africa they have had the same problems over and over and nothing has changed in that entire time frame. I still see all the same charities asking for money, sponsoring children, send food etc. and for all the trillions of dollars sent over there its no better off today then 30 years ago. This is exactly like the war on drugs. If the people you are trying to help don't/won't make the effort to change or better themselves, no amount of money or assistance you throw at it will change the situation. I wish them well in the recent famine and genocides.. but seen and heard it all before, tragic as it is... they will get through it just as they have in the past and will again in the future, just as their history has proven.
This is NOT like the war on drugs......
Millions are starving due to drought and other factors entirely outside of their control.
"With East Africa facing its worst drought in 60 years, affecting more than 11 million people, the United Nations has declared a famine in the region for the first time in a generation. Overcrowded refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia are receiving some 3,000 new refugees every day, as families flee from famine-stricken and war-torn areas. The meager food and water that used to support millions in the Horn of Africa is disappearing rapidly, and families strong enough to flee for survival must travel up to a hundred miles, often on foot, hoping to make it to a refugee center, seeking food and aid."
This is like the second paragraph from the OP. "From your personal observation over 30 years" you have clearly never visited east africa and have learned nothing about the situation. Furthermore the United Nations has declared a famine in the region for the first time IN A GENERATION. PLEASE .... PLEASE read the OP before posting something as offensive as this. I'd go so far as to ask for your post to be removed, with the comparison to the war on drugs and all.
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.
Survival of the fittest is HUGE here... it is a terrible thing to witness, but it is clear here.
Probably one of the only philosophies that will make a long term difference. The policies being carried out now are only sustaining the current problems Africa is currently experiencing. Unfortunately, the outside world will never let this happen because "they aren't animals, they're people!". Because of this, I don't see a solution to this problem in my lifetime.
On September 07 2011 14:28 TanGeng wrote: Quite a few instances of Western "help" have been poison pills. They often come in the form of loans for certain ridiculously poorly thought out infrastructure projects that have no immediate investment value. The IMF and World Bank are malicious organizations. Other forms of aid are double edge swords such as food aid propping up corrupt regimes while depressing food prices in neighboring countries. Some kinds of aid are just stupid like trying to stop aids before stopping malaria or bringing solar energy and only solar energy to rural towns or educating kids of sustenance farmers past primary school.
While not all forms of aid to Africa are bad, most the aid is poorly thought out. The help has to be some what inline with what Africans priorities. Hence much of the progress in Africa is driven by limited resources of Africans themselves.
Usury is a great weapon of the west. They would put them in debt to encourage privatization of natural resources and give Western corporations contracts ( money that they lent out never goes to the country, but to these corporations ). If they do not agree, they would send out assassinate whoever was the head of government. If that did not work, they would invade them under something along the lines of bringing democracy to them.
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.
I'm pretty sure that Angola is still a shithole for the overwhelming majority of people living there.
I don't think "aid" in the idea of it is a problem. The problem is how aid is being "given" out. I remember reading in my economics class that huge, huge proportions of aid is not "real" aid (it is money given out with the hope of some return, like trade or debt cancelation). The US, for example, was noted to be the biggest aid giver, but hardly any of this was "real" aid.
"Eighty-six cents in every dollar of American aid is phantom aid, largely because it is so heavily tied to the purchase of US goods and services, and because it is so badly targeted at poor countries."
This gives this horrible notion that "aid doesn't help" because a lot of the governmental aid and aid from organisations like the IMF are really poorly applied and given out.
I understand that it's bad for African nations to be dependent on aid but this doesn't need to be the case. Western nations raped Africa for what it was and big corporations continue to do so. This fosters corruption and denies the continent of its resources. The aid needs to be aimed at providing that first, crucial stepping stone that will break the "cyle of poverty".
Governments are of course a problem as well. Zambia is quite a successful nation in Africa and I've heard that one of the main reasons is that it's government is successful. But this doesn't mean that we should just "give up" on Africa because that certainly won't do anything.
If something doesn't work, you either give up on it or you fix it and I can't believe that so many people just want to give it up. The key is to start targetting the right people and the right areas. Medical help and help for small businesses and it is even more important to stop funding these corrupt governments.
I don't know how accurate it was, but the movie "Lord of War" shed some light on the arms trade and it is appauling that people can say "the US should stop aid" while it funds these warlords with weapons day in day out. If indeed the film is true (and I'm sure there is some truth to it) then using current affairs as evidence against aid is completely void because the west is just as interested in profiteering and making money as it is helping (probably even more so).
Of course the movie is not my evidence, but there is no doubt that the extensive production and distribution of arms across the globe has extremely adverse effects on the situation.
I recently watche a documentary called "enjoy poverty", which was probably the most cynical thing I have ever seen in my life. That was quite an eye opener...
On September 07 2011 17:11 achristes wrote: When I read stuff like this about Africa being raped by Europeans and Americans etc, I feel like such an asshole...
Don't fall for White Guilt, lol (If you are being serious).
To begin with, crimes committed by some are not transmitted to their offspring.
I never thought I'd find someone who legitimately felt guilty for being white. It obviously can't be guilt for subjugation, since Africans were doing that to each other long before white people ever got there. Who do you think the New World bought the slaves from?
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.
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
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. You can maybe argue that we hurt the possibility for natural development by giving technology beyond the social level needed (though Europe had WW2, etc., so it's not like we were at the right level yet either), but you can't possibly argue that we ruined what was there.
But never mind. If people view it as the fault of outsiders then hopefully that will encourage us to help more, and that is the key. I was born and lived in a very poor area of Pakistan for much of my childhood. My dad worked as a doctor there. I know that these people are worth just as much as me or anyone else. I know it is not their fault. I think those are ideas that need to be removed, and yet they seem to form a backdrop to a lot of discussion. I suppose it's a good way to justify not caring, which is far easier than caring and feeling the natural sadness that comes with the realisation of just how bad the world is for billions of people.
For all those saying "It never changes!!", well, in some ways you're right. However, I will always hold on to what my dad said when people said that to him: "When I arrived in Pakistan, people suffered poverty, starvation and illness. When I left Pakistan, people suffered poverty, starvation and illness. But while I was there, I helped some people, and that's worth it." People saying that there's no point in helping individuals are just looking for another rationalisation for not caring. Firefighters don't say "Well, I've been stopping fires for years and saving people, but still fires happen and people die. I don't see how I will ever stop fires from happening. I may as well give up." No. Every individual life and livelihood that a firefighter saves is worthwhile, even if the problem isn't solved by that.
Going back to my first paragraph, we need to stop looking at problems from the past and look at them from the present. The arms trade, unfair trade agreements, support of corrupt and evil regimes - these are the problems we should be thinking of. Looking at history is yet another way to ignore these present concerns. The fact that our economies are helped out by wars in Africa is just sickening. The fact that in the developed world we not only develop trade links (which are essential I think) but also actively support dictators who will serve our interests is just as bad. The way in which we manipulate the markets to fuck over everyone else is horrific.
I don't have any overall solution for Africa as a continent. I suspect there isn't one. But I can see lots of individual problems that need fixed, and I believe that it is the responsibility of everyone to try to at least stop causing problems even if you refuse to try to help.
On September 07 2011 18:19 Uncultured wrote: Every time I turn on GSL lately it's moletrap and doa and wolf. I miss Tastosis.
Wrong thread buddy.
Or perhaps not. What is the point of this thread? So far it's filled with generalisations and ignorance. You really can't discuss "Africa's" problems, because "Africa" as a whole doesn't have problems... Individual regions within Africa does. Each region has its own problems, and even if two regions have the same problem it often has a different cause. "Discussing" the "Africa issue" doesn't make sense to me. Closing Africa off from the rest of the world doesn't make sense. Many countries in Africa don't need to slaughter their people to attain prosperity, that is absolutely ludicrous. "Stop the aid lul", is grossly oversimplifying actual issues, and it's not as big of an issue in all of Africa as this thread makes it out to be. The common consensus in the thread that Africa doesn't seem to have natural resources to sustain its people is also a fallacy.
I really think the OP should go discuss Somali issues in the Somalia thread, or famine in the East in its thread if he wants real discussion. "Africa's problems" is simply too general to generate any meaningful discussion, as this thread has shown us.
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. You can maybe argue that we hurt the possibility for natural development by giving technology beyond the social level needed (though Europe had WW2, etc., so it's not like we were at the right level yet either), but you can't possibly argue that we ruined what was there.
The book "Things Fall Apart" (Chinua Achebe) is quite an interesting read on this, and it's actually fairly balanced. I think it aims to say that there was "value" in tribal Nigerean culture (this can probably be extended to most of Africa and indeed other former colonies).
You could argue that colonials helped by introducing a more regimented society (government, economics, infrastructure etc.) but on the same line of thinking there was horrible discrimination in some former colonies (like Belgian Congo).
Of course whether these were indeed developments is not wholly clear cut because it was a case of foreigners "invading" and changing a society that wasn't exactly "not working". A good example from the book was how the tribe in question dealt with war and how you can compare this to WW2.
The fact of the matter is that Europeans (by and large) imposed their values and society on locals. This can be thought of good in the sense that there were benefits and the societies became more "civilised" (in the Western sense of the word), but at the same time there were huge flaws in how some colonials acted which really screwed over the future generation (I think in Belgian Congo there were under 200 high school graduates at independence, because of discrimination. Also look to Rwanda and the genocide).
And at the same time you can argue that the very notion of coming in and "changing" culture is intrinsically wrong. You can compare this to the modern issue of Sharia Law in the west. Maybe to hardline, fundamentalist Muslims this would be an improvement, but some argue that it is just not "part of western culture" and so should be rejected.
I don't think the second point is a strong argument as the notion of "culture" is fairly weak and meaningless: bad things shouldn't be justified by "that's just how we do things". I do think some of the changes were good (a sort of accelerated development of culture), but the fact still remains that the means in which they were carried out (huge discrimination, ignorance of local values and customs, ignorance of tribalism) were appalingly bad and these are the things that are still part of the "Africa problem" today.
I don't really think it's our place to judge whether or not these tribes were "civilised" becaues of course it worked to some extent and in some ways it worked better than our society does today. One can of course argue that by the "process of history" they would have developed in a similar way that European and Asian society has done and that it was only a matter of time. Although I think the problems I listed above show that the process of this happening as a result of colonialists was extremely artificial. Tribalism and nationality I think are good examples of this. Instead of the natural process of forming nations as with Europe, nations were artificially forged from almost nothing.
you guys do realize that at least some of the issues of starvation and poverty happens to come from oil companies building their pipelines and wells and then contaminating the waters of specific people making it impossible for them to grow crops or hunt fish and other wildlife that rely on bodies of water which have been super polluted.
It was on NPR (National Public radio).
Also, if you're so inclined Google coca-cola or pepsi companies building their manufacturing plants in third world countries to cut costs, since part of the byproducts of the manufacturing process are heavy metals, and that would be expensive to keep environmentally clean in any first world country with strict anti-pollution laws.
"The most important part of capitalism and the gain of capital, is to avoid paying your bills, or shift that responsibility onto others".
In other words, to exploit people who will work cheapest and countries with least expensive (or none) regulations. This is nothing new.
On September 07 2011 06:12 manawah wrote: Just my personal observation but for over 30 years since I have been aware of whats going on in Africa they have had the same problems over and over and nothing has changed in that entire time frame. I still see all the same charities asking for money, sponsoring children, send food etc. and for all the trillions of dollars sent over there its no better off today then 30 years ago. This is exactly like the war on drugs. If the people you are trying to help don't/won't make the effort to change or better themselves, no amount of money or assistance you throw at it will change the situation. I wish them well in the recent famine and genocides.. but seen and heard it all before, tragic as it is... they will get through it just as they have in the past and will again in the future, just as their history has proven.
This is how I feel. Regardless of what we try to do nothing actually ends up fixing their issues.
On September 07 2011 18:27 Lucidity wrote: The common consensus in the thread that Africa doesn't seem to have natural resources to sustain its people is also a fallacy.
I've heard people cite 'lack of resources' and overpopulation as reasons for Africa's problems, it always comes across as a bit ridiculous to say that. Its well known Africa is extremely rich in natural resources, problem is a lot of it doesnt go to the people, and although it has one of the highest population growth rates it actually has one of the lowest population density rates.
On September 07 2011 06:03 AudionovA wrote: We shouldn't need to help, people should (re)produce according to their resources. This applies throughout the world not only in africa. “Beggars should be abolished entirely! Verily, it is annoying to give to them and it is annoying not to give to them” - Friedrich Nietzsche
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.
for 40 years we donated money food medicine and our tries to rebuild entire villiges, yet honger deceases are as much the same as they were back then, so little has changed.
if we want to help these people we will need to do it differnt. how ... i do not know either.
Also the average female in afrika has 5 childeren, that is a very high birthrate and groth to help hunger you need to be able to control child birth.
Mentality is another, you pay an afrikan money for a job and he will not return untill it is all spend. They are not lazy, but they have very different views of the world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.countdown.org/end/pix/famine_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb66/POPACACA/pov11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ySCIT3KO9Zc/STxfZzw4r0I/AAAAAAAAONM/huHPk-Iir_4/s400/congo_war_12.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.marcgunther.com/wp-content/uploads/0314-01.jpg)
