I don't think Africa and its problems really need an introduction here; from the civil wars to the huge economical and political chaos: I think we can all agree Africa is one big mess with only very few stable countries. Most of the countries are torn by (civil) war, militia, coup d'états, dictators, and so on.


However, there is help on the way! From all over the world, more prosperous countries have been sending food, water supplies and also hard cash (mainly via the IMF) for decades now. And there lies the problem for me. I believe a big part of the help we give to Africa is a downright waste of resources, an opinion I will try to convince you of.



First off, let's look at what I already mentioned: the huge piles of money and resources that we give to Africa. It might sound like a bit of a cliche; but what on earth is the point on giving Africa one trillion dollar (source) if most of it is wasted? In comparison, the GDP of the UK for 2008 was 2.23 trillion (source). Money that could be used for medical purposes, for the R&D of a cure against cancer. For healthcare, for the education of your country. Ireland uses the money it gets from the EU, but we never see ANY improvement from Africa. Corrupt governments, dictators, and basically everybody in the chain the money passes steals a bit of it or squanders it. Not much of the money eventually gets to the people doing something useful with it. Your taxes are given to African warlords who rally a militia together and take over some bloody mines. I'll agree with you if you say I'm being populistic here, but still, some of your taxes are used to buy AK's.




Secondly, has anybody ever imagined what a global disaster it would be if all that money actually DID help them? Covering 20% of the total land area and around 15% of the world population (source), Africa is a huge continent. Now imagine that continent, those 53 countries all booming, a welfaring and enormous economy. Imagine all over Africa countries using their huge resources well, imagine Africa being one of the leading continents on the worlds. Imagine a prosperous and free Africa, with the poverty and unemployment ratio of Europe or the USA.
Sounds good? Not really. Already we have huge changes in the climate, and with a welfaring and gas guzzling Africa, our oil reserves would definitely not make it to 2050, and the World as we know it would be pretty much doomed. A welfaring, democratic and stable Africa would give our already precariously perched climat the final push it needs to become irreversibly damaged. We simply cannot afford another continent destroying the Earth.





My opinion has been made clear and you may now debate on whether or not we should give Africa the support we give it today. Don't forget to fill in the poll.

I agree completely. The Government of the UK is elected by the people to serve the people. Whilst poverty (albeit, not on the same scale, yet poverty nonetheless) still exists on this island, then not a single pence of our money should go to help African poverty (or should I say, African corruption) abroad. It’s not ‘morally wrong’ to put the British people above the people of Africa, it is just common sense, you put your own people first, because at the end of the day, it’s they who fund the government. How can one honestly justify the pouring of billions of pounds of taxpayer money into the quantum singularity that is Africa whilst British troops are dying in wars due to a shortage of helicopters, brought about by a defence budget cut?



Agreed, but the Western world also needs Africa weak in order to secure their future. Africa contains a lot of resources that whilst may be in relative abundance now, in the near future (say 30-40 years) they will become rarer and therefore more precious. A weak Africa would be in no position to hold the West to ransom, as their economies entirely depend on the economic powerhouses of the EU and America (whether or not that will be the case in 40 years remains to be seen), but, assuming so, an Africa that contains many strong (in the sense of economic strength) countries would be very dangerous, as they could essentially tell the West to pay more money or just refuse to sell. In the next decade, America will receive 25% of its oil imports from Africa and by 2020, the Middle East and North Africa will contain 83% of the world’s oil reserves. Allowing the countries in Africa to develop into strong nations will only amount to shooting the developed world in their collective feet.

When they sent me an email telling me they have my 50 million US dollars in THEIR bank, I stopped caring.

Aid should be given buy more control is needed. The aid is normally intended for the population of the country and often is the case where the (corrupt) government is given the duty. Giving aid to various aid organisations may be the way forward, especially if they're monitored.

I don't believe that the masses should suffer simply because those who are given the responsibility, by the population, to look after them are incompetent in achieving that goal.

That would only mean solving my first point. And since you are not a world leader/in charge of a considerable amount of that one trillion dollar, it will not happen, and we will continue giving it to corrupt leaders. And they will build a palace of it.

Also, try tackling the second problem. Your solution would destroy the Earth.

I do agree with you that most of the money doesn't acutally help Africa, I know this for a fact.
But I disagree that you think we should just leave Africa to wither and die...I find it disturbing you think that we need a week Africa to continue living the way we do. I mean who knows...they could discover the alternative recourse to petrol that we've been looking for.


Who knows, it might help. And by the way did you ever think of how long it would take for them to even recover if they benefited from the aid? You mentioned they're in a chaotic condition and if they benefit from the aid they won't become a world power overnight, It'll take a couple of years.

As disturbing as you may find it, we need a weak Africa to continue living the way we do, as I explained in my second argument. Plant also elaborated on this in the second post with an excellent theory. We indeed do not want a new OPEC-cartel or another "oil crisis" (by which I mean another crisis in which several countries refuse to trade their natural resources).



With all my respect, I don't think a Third World country would discover an alternative energy source. Even if they crawl back on their feet via Western help, they would first take care of all the basic stuff : education, healthcare, clean water. Researching new energy soures and research in general is usually done in post-industrial countries.



And I don't see how a welfaring Africa using all our resources could possibly benefit the world.






I never said that. But if you look at the African continent, they have a huge potential. And your "couple of years" guess is fairly accurate but doesn't really HELP you. Even if it would take some time, it would still mean trouble. Imagine Africa being how I described it in let's say 5 years, using up our reserves. By then, China will probaby be at it's peak, which would mean two economically booming countries. That would have a huge impact on our climate.

I pretty much agree with you Smoby, but shouldn't we fix the AIDS/HIV problem there, since it's good to fix a problem at the source?

Thanks for agreeing with me, but no. If anything, we should hope that the swine flu mutates into a radical form. We are with almost 7 billion atm, and that is way too much. Two billion people is IMO the maximum. We should be thankful there is AIDS.

We can't help the population. Blame it mostly on India and China. Maybe China's 1 child rule could help overpopulated countries, but we shouldn't resort to an untreated disease or anything truly unethical.

I don't see why we should cure AIDS if they are too stupid to protect themselves/we are just helping people who will work on a farm their whole life.


Ethics are useless. Get rid of them.

They were just recently starting to introduce condoms in about the 90's. You can't really blame them for something they have barely any knowledge for.

The presidents of African countries literally said that taking a shower protects you. I do not see why we should invest in even MORE overpopulation.

I'm sure you'll sleep soundly knowing people like you are living happily because others are dying. That's not an excuse. I think the number 1 reason AIDS is so common in Africa is because of the mosquitoes, they can't do anything about that. I used to think like you, "why can't they just help themselves" they don't have the resources most of them live in harsh barren conditions, and or held back by their government.

Wait, what?

Err..
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/aids.htm

And as for my opinion in the matter, I think someone should literally 'take over' Africa. The fact that all their leaders are 'war-lords' and like to kill enemy 'war-lords' is pathetic, we aren't cave men any more. Someone should stop the civil war, organize the people, slowly address the infrastructure porblems. And with what money? Well, the fact that Africa is very resource rich is very nice, the fact that they get shit-all out of that is not nice.
Problem with that is, well, its a dictatorship, and nobody likes how they work!

This could indeed be a good solution, if said "leader" gets the population under control. The 1-child-rule used in China (and mentioned by Kevin) could really help here.



Also, Sonic is lulzy.

I think Sonic mixed malaria and aids up.

I honestly don't give a crap about Africa, they ruin everything for themselfs. Getting 10 children whilst you can even take care of a single child. I know they want alot of children so there is a higher chance of one of them being succesful, but the parents should do something themselfs to make their life better.
Crazy amount of civil wars too. And every time there actually is an election the group that loses says the the group that wins has cheated.

If we're going to give Africa money/supplies, atleast send it to the right people and places.

chyeah I'm lulzy, sorry I made a mistake...wow.


That's what I thought, sorry.

I'm going to assume you were mixing up with malaria. Transmitted by parasites and such.

all im going to say is we have enough problems to sort out at home before any help is offered to other countries.

OH THE IRONY?

I am not in favor of financial support of Africa. The country I live in has to financially support itself before we should think of financially supporting a failing continent. America is in a recession, in two wars, and we have unemployment rates and poverty rates of our own to think of.


This is what we did from the 1650's to the 1860's, same exact circumstances pretty much, but it was for slaves.

Let us think back to how Africa started in this mess.

Colonisation. In simple terms, European country stealing all of African countrys resources and stuff.

World powers got Africa in this mess to enrich their own land. They should darn well help solve Africa's problems!

That is why I thought, and I see Benjy agrees here, that the countries responsible for Africa's initial well...'downfall'....should take it over. Rid the land of the 'warlords' who steal all the resources sent in by other countries, prosper the land and built settlements and make the country as good as the people want it (we should westernise countries that don't want to, its good to keep other cultures around). Lastly theyll set up a Government, hang around to make sure its all ok and then leaves.

If you screw up a country, you should darn well fix it. To add to that, whichever country 'fixes' and helps an African country will be their 'best friend' for all eternity. Look at Australia and Papua New Guinea.

First problem: Major Operation!

Second problem: Nelson Mandela just turned 91. Somebody told me he heard a rumour (completely indefinite and without evidence) that the blacks are planning a massacre of the whites in Africa, and are just waiting until Mandela dies. If a western country takes over, the blacks will uprise.

This is without reading the other posts in the thread because of lazyness and whatever, here's what I think. Also, yeah, yeah, yeah, this is heavily influenced by other works that you probably haven't read, but it gives a good showing of what I believe in.

Africa is a horrible, horrible place. Just, terrible with genocide and child prostitution/soldires and all that crap going on, it's horrid.

And no amount of money will ever fix these problems.

Think about it like this. A few decades ago, Hong Kong and Africa were equally in poor condition. (Edit: Recall that Hong Kong is a small island with no natrual resources and Africa has oil and freaking diamonds. Seriously.) Thanks to japanese occupation, HOng Kong experianced a period of poverty and inflation and food shortages and all that crap. However, it's doing great today. Migrant workers went there to escape the COmmunist Party of China and thanks to relaxed goverment control, it has changed into what it is today. All over the world, countries are suffering thanks to poor policies. From drug wars in Mexico to Urumqi riots that took not so long ago, (P.S. take it from somebody in Chian, you CANNOT find bad news about the Urumqi riots on television. All you hear is a bunch of crap about "National Unity".) poor goverment policy kills and destroys countries.

This is why AFrica is in such poor condition. It is for one, obscenely difficult to start a business of any sort, with the goverment tearing down establishments, in contrast to Hong Kong, a country known for high economic freedom, of which allows people to establish a legal business in about a day. Goverment there takes all the aid money and barely allows the citizens to survive and supplies sent in don't do much better, as aid rice was shown taken by the goverment and then on sale at the market to the citizens it was supposed to be given to.

Many problems also exist, such as bigotry of all sorts such as the Catholic Church denoucning the use of condoms in Africa, which leads of obvious effects, to accusations by Christian ministers of some children being witches. Also, sweatshops, a fine producer of jobs in Africa, are often protested by American college students and the like who contrast their happy confortable lives to those in the sweatshops.

Also, don't ask for sources because you won't get them. Everything's true, but whatever.

Doubleedit after skiming over other posts: Okay, don't bring your overpopulation bullcrap into this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ulation_density

Some of the countries at the bottom: Chad, Niger, Gabon, SOmalia, blah blahblah

Some of the countries at the top: Hong Kong, Taiwan, France, South Korea, Japan, blahblahblah.

MORE EDITING: 7 Billion people is not too many. More people are more potential researchers, musicitions, teachers, workers, leaders and all that.


tl;dr: Until goverment in Africa rights itself in some way, no amount of money will solve its problems.

I am glad you are partially supporting my ideas, but I disagree with your statement that Western countries screwed up Africa. If anything, we helped them. Alot of those countries still use the roads we build for them around 1900, and although Western countries indeed stole alot of resources, they undoubtebly lived better lives in the British Empire for example than in their current, independent states. We gave them their independence, and they Phoronidaed up almost instantly.



Well first off, sorry for not quoting your rant, but it is sometimes irrelevant, and I cannot debate it for I do not know anything about it. Where do you live btw?

Secondly, thanks for agreeing with me to stop the financial support (which was the initial debate, but meh).

But then there seems to be a misunderstanding. When I brought the whole overpopulation into this, I was not only thinking of Africa, but also of Chindia. Also, the link you provided is per square km, and Africa is rather big. Overpopulation is a serious problem, hence the 1-child-rule.

7 billion people is way too much. Around 2-3 billion people would be ideal, the Earth can take that amount. With let's say 10 billion, the Earth cannot "heal" itself anymore, and then you will see the shit going on right now : global warming. Going way off-topic here, but we should use the concept of terra-forming somewhere in the future and not make the same mistake of having way too much people on a small land mass.



This is a debate and pictures are irrelevant, unless they aid you in your argument. So Phoronida off, post in the "Picture of the Day" thread. Can a mod delete this please, it has no purpose at all in this thread.

Austin, Texas. Currently i'm in Qingdao, China.

Yeah, I was kinda going into why financial support should be stopped.



Now, overpopulation. I'm not sure why you're complaining about per square km, because Africa is comprised of square kilometers? What I was showing was that economicaly, it dosen't matter if a country's population density is 50 or 3,000, it can still do very well.

7 billion people is not too many. There, however is a tipping point, estimated around 10 billion like you said at which point the population will cap and begin rapidly dropping.

The one-child rule is not a solution. In China, said rule as produced effects such as a rapidly aging population due to a small number of newer generational births. This dosen't include the enforcement of the law, which usualy results in unwanted abortions and the negetive effects of said abortions. It also usually goes unenforced in the countryside. Furthermore, it causes many unintended concequences such as the abandonment of female children who cannot pass on the family name or are consitered generaly inferior in Chinese culture.

Again, more people are not a burden, they are a blessing.

I fail to see how more people can possibly benefit the world. More people equals to less natural resources, more pollution, more crime.

Also, due to the fact that what is frequent becomes more frequent, more and more people will live lives in bad situations, since Chindia is a very populous region. What is the point in having more people if they live their lives being a farmer for 60 years?





Also, way off-topic, how did the media cover the Tiananmen Square over there? Not?

All of those things are countered. More people means more researchers for alternatives to our basic resources or ways to expand the current supply, more employees of water treatment plants or people working to find more efficent cars and factories, more police and judges and people starting businesses and creating commerce and consuming, raising the standard of living, and therefore preventing crime.

The point is that even a humble farmer first contributes in a small way, though day to day buying and selling, produces children and is a person themselves, not locked into the job of farming, and most importantly has a right to live. I'm not saying that abortion should be banned, but there's certainly a problem when a law says, "These people must never be born. [be systemically killed]"


Tiananmen Square was years ago, before I was born. However, in the case of the Urumqi riots, there is little doubt what is going on. There is no bad news on television. The people responsable for the riots have no reason, they're just "Looters, criminals, ect." according to the television. As I type, there's a news program playing right behind me about how the Chianese goverment is being praised by taking "Nessesary measures to ensure stability in the area."

Also, many sites are censored. Youtube has been blocked since the day I got here. After Urumqi, Facebook and Twitter have been unaccessable. Also, Wikipedia pages about 2008 Summer Olympic controversy, Chianese internet censorship, and a few other things are censored.

The overpopulation will mostly be in the regios that are populous right now : China, India, parts of Africa. And they don't always get the best education. So if a genius is born somewhere in India, he could very well not be "discovered". More employees for more people, more police and judges for more people, more people starting business but they have to make up for more people not starting business. Also, a higher standard of living does not prevent crime. It usually even attracts eh, scum.





It may be cruel, but a person struggling his way through live, in a poor or semi-poor country, doesn't really have much of a life, and I don't see why investments should be made into making his life possible.






Regarding our off-topic China discussion, that is actually rather sad. Naive communists, sigh. I was talking about the 20 year anniversary of Tiananmen Square btw, where CNN was censored I believe.

Also, I looked into those riots. Both the situation and the government reaction look typically Chinese (= JUST IGNORE IT). Sad that you live there now, when and WHY did you start living there?

But oh, what of all the great people that will be born? Sure, this or that or whatever or whatever, but the more people, the more chance that those "greats" will arise from the population. Also, each person is precious in their own little way, as cheesy as that sounds. Everyone has a niche.

ALso, if goverment is good and relaxed, people will natrualy work hard to get what they want through basic incentive. Worldwide, employment levels make up several times for unemployment levels. Most, if not all the issues present that might deter a person from being discovered are simply problems of poor rule, rather than overpopulation of any sort.

Okay, you're doing this little thing that I found myself doing. I mostly live in America, and comming here, things bothered me. It is not as clean, it is not as pretty, people are not as rich, some of them struggle to make ends meet. However, these people still find joy in the everyday things we all do. They still manage to be happy, even if their life hails in comparison to your probably middle-upper middle, suburban life. It really is a small price to pay.


I'm not permenantly living in Chian, i'm here on vacation. 16 more days, goddammit.

Yes, but those people will be born in poor countries. Where they will be educated under a tree, with a pencil. And yes, that does sound very cheesy.



Although I do seem to have the "people are idiots" attitude, don't try and classify me as an elitist.

Oh! Oh! I have an example. Okay, if you haven't told yet, i'm Asian American. My father was born under the standard poor Chianese conditions of the time, barely getting any meat to eat, being lucky to get 2 small loaves of bread, all that jazz. However, he tested 3rd best in his grade through elementary school and came out best in middle and high. He taught himself most of this stuff himself. Eventualy, he met my mother, who was slightly more fortunate, and came to Arlington, Texas to study at the local college while living with my mother's parents and working as a delivery person, with little knowledge of English. Today, he works at the power supply company of Texas, usualy being in charge or second in charge of projects. We own a standard 2 cars and a nice house in an upper-middle class neighborhood. These things do happen. People create wealth.

People are idiots. They're dumb, stumlbing shells of people. However, they still have to buy and sell, make a living, contribute to society. So many more times than not, these dumb people help us slightly less dumb people do better. While it is the smart that should lead, the less intelligent should not be denyed life or whatever or whatever.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? "These things do happen" ? That's admitting it does not happen always, and that your father (touching story, btw) is an exception?

Of course it dosen't always happen. However, sometimes, somebody will prevail and make it into the wealth we're accustomed to and even if they don't become huge successes, they still contribute to their society.

I'm not sure how i'm contradicting myself because my point has always been "More people means more this and that which is good for the world?"

Also, neat thing, most current fathers in this generation who were born and raised in China share pretty much the same story.

You are contradicting yourself because you are admitting it only happens sometimes. So basically, more people in let's say Africa, get bad education, but some of them manage to break free of their situation. Some of them. That still is not enough to justify more people.

The people who don't break free and remain poor still have the right to live, though. Again, remember that these people still serve a purpose in the society that they're in. Even if they're just farmers, they still produce food and such. You cannot kill somebody just because they will be poor. That's like giving debtors the death sentence.

I do not see the problem with say, abortion or any technique related to active prevention of overpopulation if the people who are not getting permission to live will most likely not live a good life nor add anything to the global society.

I thought this discussion was about the support Africa gets.

This.

Also, what the hell are you two debating about? It might just be that I'm tired, but having read the whole discussion, I haven't got the slightest clue.

Tim, sum it up.

But they're people. Maybe the mothers don't want an abortion. You cannot trample one's rights and justify it by saying, "They won't do anything." Life is a universal right. You can't deny it to anybody regardless. If a goverment can prevent these births because it might benefit society, what is wrong with it executing every homeless person, criminal, debtor, or anybody else who does not live a good life or assist society to your extent. The thing is that you're looking at this from your happy life. A life living on a farm all your life, working, or whatever, is not completely void from happiness.




Africa dosen't need support. It needs:

Edit: Oh, ninjaed by Plant.

Basicaly, we already got over support for Africa and we've decited that it's bullcrap, and now we're talking about wheter overpopulation control will benefit the World, Africa included or not. And stuff like tat.

Thanks. I was lost.

A foetus, until it can survive outside of the mother, is a parasite. It shouldn't get a right to life, as it cannot survive on its own. Consider a tapeworm, it is a parasite, yet if you had one, you'd get it removed, thus killing it. Where is its 'right to life?' Also, tell me of the countless spiders, ants, etc... that you have killed in your lifetime. What about their 'right to life?' A human life is worth no more than that of any other creature, as we are no better than any other creature.

Yes, it terms, it technically is a parasite. But in 9 months, would you still consider it a parasite?

When it can survive without its mother then it is no longer a parasite.

First, yayabortion. I'm pro-choice, but... I'm going to CHANGE THINGS UP.

The goverment has no right to impose an abortion on the mother.

With our current ethics and morals, that seems wrong yes. A lion kills his children if they get in the way of him and his food. You just need to start thinking differently.

Goverment dosen't have the right to impose the abortion not because of "Our current ethics and morals" at all. They can't because it's always been unjust and a trampling of unalienable rights, namely the one where somebody preferably chooses if other people can cut into them or have them swallow womb-killing medicine or not.

The lion thing is kinda diffrent because the lion is like, "Dude, you're my children. Stop being douches and move or something?" I mean, is the lion supposed to be the goverment and the children an endless sea of fetuses and the food a nirvana where there's 2 billion people in the world? Because if so, that's a really weird way of putting it.

Eh, lmao. Nice analogy there, but what I meant : we people have developed ethics that animals don't. We can get rid of them again.