Myers on Africa...

Sesshoumaru

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why not?

the US invested in Europe and Ireland thru'out 20th century

now we have better living standards than them

The Americans didn't consider us to be chimpanzees or otherwise subhuman.

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why not?

the US invested in Europe and Ireland thru'out 20th century

now we have better living standards than them

China is a communist country.

ei.sdraob

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The Americans didn't consider us to be chimpanzees or otherwise subhuman.

you saying that people here actually think of Africans as subhuman? there is a word for the ones that do think in such a way

bill_ashmount wrote: »

China is a communist country.

only in name, they are more capitalist than us here in reality

if you want a comparison in China people dont get dole or public healthcare, does that make us uber communists!

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

only in name, they are more capitalist than us here in reality

if you want a comparison in China people dont get dole or public healthcare, does that make us uber communists!

Wow, just wow.

Sesshoumaru

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you saying that people here actually think of Africans as subhuman? there is a word for the ones that do think in such a way

I'm saying and have said before that Han Chinese are generally quite racist. When the Chinese invest in Africa and setup a new factory, they don't employ locals, they bring over their own workers from China! They don't trust Africans and pretty much look down on them as being inferior.

ei.sdraob

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I'm saying and have said before that Han Chinese are generally quite racist. When the Chinese invest in Africa and setup a new factory, they don't employ locals, they bring over their own workers from China! They don't trust Africans and pretty much look down on them as being inferior.

the we do one better and employ locals

same way as american companies setup here many decades ago lifting country out of third world

hence getting goodwill and building ties that leads to better opportunities for all involved

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Wow, just wow.

yes once again, the Chinese are communist only in name, especially in last decade

same way as we are capitalists only in name, when in fact were quite socialist here in Ireland

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes once again, the Chinese are communist only in name, especially in last decade

same way as we are capitalists only in name, when in fact were quite socialist here in Ireland

I take it you are either Chinese or a communist? We have democracy they don't. This isn't something minor and it definitely isn't only in name.

ei.sdraob

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I take it you are either Chinese or a communist? We have democracy they don't. This isn't something minor and it definitely isn't only in name.

me a communist :eek:


i was talking about their economic policies which make us look like socialists

capitalism and socialism are economic theories, communism and democracy are political theories, your mixing both up willy nilly


they are very much capitalist economically while politically yes the CCP are communists but there are democratic elections at local level if you need to know

as usual things are not black or white

walshb

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-africa-has-to-learn-lessons--the-hard-way-if-necessary-1929014.html

so Myers writes again


this time i sort of agree with him that rising population is a problem


but i can not help but see the obvious hypocrisy in his article, with Ireland having highest birth rates in Europe and people getting into fit even when one suggests that having a lot of sprogs is a large responsibility, and its unfair to to be dependant on state and child supplements to feed them

I agree with the man 100 percent. Jeez, first world countries are struggling.

People can point out that there is food available, but the point is, that if it's
not being used and eaten, then population needs to be controlled.

Anyway, it doesn't matter a damn to Tocaire or any other mercy mission.
Their job needs poverty. Without it, who the **** would Tom
Arnold be? Or Bono or Geldof or Robinson or O'Shea or any
other do gooder exploiting Africa to make a name for themselves

brianthebard

walshb wrote: »

I agree with the man 100 percent. Jeez, first world countries are struggling.

People can point out that there is food available, but the point is, that if it's
not being used and eaten, then population needs to be controlled.

Anyway, it doesn't matter a damn to Tocaire or any other mercy mission.
Their job needs poverty. Without it, who the **** would Tom
Arnold be? Or Bono or Geldof or Robinson or O'Shea or any
other do gooder exploiting Africa to make a name for themselves

You have that completely arseways, most famines are not caused by lack of food but restriction of the means of distributing it, and that has absolutely nothing to do with population. As for your rant about do gooders I don't even know what that's about, but I think you'll find Bono and Geldof made a name for themselves before getting involved in Africa.

cabinteelytom

To us Uganda appears to be a fairly small african country- it's 0.43 times the area of France. France is a useful unit when considering the size of african countries. Today the population of Uganda is 27.7 million, half are under the age of 15 and are about to enter their reproductive phase of life. Births per woman in Uganda are 7 ( the births per woman in the Rep of Ireland is 1.85). See cia.gov world factbook.

The US-based population reference bureau predicts with some confidence that Uganda's population will be 56 million by 2025, and 130 million in 2050 (not that far away). See .prb.org

These figures are not exceptional-they are typical of subsaharan africa.

Since the 1950's China has had a ruthless 'one-child' policy enforced by a disciplined controlling one-party State. This was estimated by someone to be the equivalent 10% GDP growth pa for the surviving population; so that today China has an income ranked 133 in the world out of 229 countries. Hasn't it done well!
But who, I wonder, is going to do badly?

The challenge to africa, to educate even a portion of these populations to run the machinery of State, staff public services (for little or no money), form a management or business class is almost insuperable. To those who do acquire education, an appreciated, professionally satisfying life in 'the west' can seem more attractive, than waiting for your country to catch up with you.
The problems of the uneducated are awesome, locked in the zero-sum game of traditional agriculture. As Gerard Prunier has observed, ' a gun is a more useful tool to earn a living than either a hoe or a shovel'. Recruitment to even the most ramshackle armies in Africa is rarely a problem.

What can be done? Little enough, I fear. Africa will have a history, and the UN and nobody else is going to stop it. Choices will be made that we wouldn't want. A Marshall Plan for Africa has probably the best chance, but we need to find a way to stop any excess being spent on weapons, and a way to stop the west, and the east, projecting our own conflicts onto Africa (example, the current preoccupation with 'Islamism', and recently encouraging Ethiopia to invade Somalia), and making things worse.

nacho libre

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, it doesn't matter a damn to Tocaire or any other mercy mission.
Their job needs poverty. Without it, who the **** would Tom
Arnold be? Or Bono or Geldof or Robinson or O'Shea or any
other do gooder exploiting Africa to make a name for themselves

you may have a point about some of them having a martyr complex( it is a valid criticism of some people on the left), however if you are going to talk about exploiting Africa then this should equally apply- if not more so - to western munition companies and high-class jewellery outlets who were only to happy to exploit that continent time again for their own greed. of course this is not to say some of their problems are not of their own making- like leaders who see their economies as a means to an end to prop up their foreign bank accounts.

As regards Myers, he should do proper analysis before writing his articles - instead of letting his prejudices get in the way of a proper assessment of the issues involved. Although, he'd draw let attention to himself that way, so he probably figures it's better to be sensationalist than an anonymous hack. His ego would never survive the latter!

AlekSmart

As regards Myers, he should do proper analysis before writing his articles - instead of letting his prejudices get in the way of a proper assessment of the issues involved. Although, he'd draw let attention to himself that way, so he probably figures it's better to be sensationalist than an anonymous hack. His ego would never survive the latter!

And yet,were it not for KM`s articles and views this thread would not be facilitating the exchanges currently ongoing.

It`s not pretty or nice or remotely caring and sharing but Kevin Myers`s points on the simple bare bones of Africa`s "Irish Property Bubble" style population explosion are still desperately in need of debate....?

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

This guy seriously needs to take out an atlas and observe the fact that Africa is about three times the size of Europe and making generalisations about the entire continent is about as meaningful as making comparisons between Ireland and Belarus. It’s also important to consider different aspects of aid, rather than dismissing it out of hand as ineffective simply because Ethiopia is still poor (from our perspective).

On the topic of Aid give this book a read it's fascinating: http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9780061479632/Wars-Guns-and-Votes

Seriously, I got to listen to Paul Collier at a conference earlier this year and the man both cares about the world's poorest and knows what he is on about. Throwing money through aid at countries doesn't seem to work, there are better ways to help people.

walshb

brianthebard wrote: »

You have that completely arseways, most famines are not caused by lack of food but restriction of the means of distributing it, and that has absolutely nothing to do with population. As for your rant about do gooders I don't even know what that's about, but I think you'll find Bono and Geldof made a name for themselves before getting involved in Africa.

Where did I say that famine was caused by a lack of food?

BTW, do you think a starving man or woman or child gives a flying
**** about policies and distribution and all that bollox?

To them, there is a shortage of bloody food, because they are hungry.
They don't care what is the cause of said shortage, they just know the shortage exists.

brianthebard

walshb wrote: »

Where did I say that famine was caused by a lack of food?

BTW, do you think a starving man or woman or child gives a flying
**** about policies and distribution and all that bollox?

yes I do, because if some people are hoarding all the food then those who are starving would be very interested in these policies and 'bollox'.

bonkey

walshb wrote: »

I agree with the man 100 percent. Jeez, first world countries are struggling.

By "struggling" you mean "struggling to continue to race ahead of the rest as much as they used to", I assume?

Because lets be honest here....compare the current struggles of the first-world countries to the struggles of third-world countries, and, well, it should be pretty damned clear who has a tougher lot in life.

People can point out that there is food available, but the point is, that if it's not being used and eaten, then population needs to be controlled.

Starvation is a control of population.

For the people who argue in favour of population control of those nations who are (far) worse off...why not just suggest we let them starve?

Once you get past your outrage (and this isn't just aimed at the person I'm posting to...if you're reading this and outraged, I'm addressing you) ask yourself honestly....if you favour population control, what is wrong with starvation and deprivation as mechanisms to achieve this?

ascanbe

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The Americans didn't consider us to be chimpanzees or otherwise subhuman.

Actually, that's exactly how we were viewed by many Americans in the 19th and early 20th century; and by many English and others.
Reams of the type of bile now being written about Africans by Myers and his ilk was written about the Irish back then; along with depictions of us as monkeys in Punch magazine and many other mainstream publications.
That was pretty much the accepted view of the Irish back then.
Also,Chinese labourers who emigrated to the USA in the 19th century were regarded as being from a hopelessly backward country and also popularly depicted as subhuman/monkey type creatures.
Now, China is regarded as the coming superpower and some Irish people are writing the same type of de-humanising bull**** about others.
Not many would've predicted it, eh?

Sesshoumaru

ascanbe wrote: »

Actually, that's exactly how we were viewed by many Americans in the 19th and early 20th century; and by many English and others.
Reams of the type of bile now being written about Africans by Myers and his ilk was written about the Irish back then; along with depictions of us as monkeys in Punch magazine and many other mainstream publications.
That was pretty much the accepted view of the Irish back then.
Also,Chinese labourers who emigrated to the USA in the 19th century were regarded as being from a hopelessly backward country and also popularly depicted as subhuman/monkey type creatures.
Now, China is regarded as the coming superpower and some Irish people are writing the same type of de-humanising bull**** about others.
Not many would've predicted it, eh?

I meant us, as in us Europeans. The Americans never considered the entire continent of Europe to be populated by chimps.

Maybe though what they said about the Irish back then was at least partly true? The history of Ireland doesn't seem to me to be a shining example of good governance.

ei.sdraob

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I meant us, as in us Europeans. The Americans never considered the entire continent of Europe to be populated by chimps.

Maybe though what they said about the Irish back then was at least partly true? The history of Ireland doesn't seem to me to be a shining example of good governance.

neither is US history

Sesshoumaru

ei.sdraob wrote: »

neither is US history

um..... what?

walshb

bonkey wrote: »

By "struggling" you mean "struggling to continue to race ahead of the rest as much as they used to", I assume?

Because lets be honest here....compare the current struggles of the first-world countries to the struggles of third-world countries, and, well, it should be pretty damned clear who has a tougher lot in life.



Starvation is a control of population.

For the people who argue in favour of population control of those nations who are (far) worse off...why not just suggest we let them starve?

Once you get past your outrage (and this isn't just aimed at the person I'm posting to...if you're reading this and outraged, I'm addressing you) ask yourself honestly....if you favour population control, what is wrong with starvation and deprivation as mechanisms to achieve this?

By struggling I meant that we here in the "first" world are losing jobs, losing homes and in deep recession. Now, I won't apologise to anyone for having a car, a house and other materialistic things. That is how I live and how most here in the "first" world live, yet I am still being harassed to donate ****ing money to the bottomless and greedy pit, that is African aid. It's ludicrous.

Maybe if you and some others had your way, you'd bloody evict me and others and send over Africans to move into our homes?

"Hey Walsh, you have had it far too good for far too long, get out, we want these poor
people in your home."

ei.sdraob

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

um..... what?

US being a shinning example of good governance

one just has to look at their previous president (and the current one not doing to good either)

O'Morris

bonkey wrote:

For the people who argue in favour of population control of those nations who are (far) worse off...why not just suggest we let them starve?

I'd be surprised if there were many people who didn't favour population control in the developing world. Speaking for myself, I would never support anything as inhumane as letting people starve. The way to control population is to educate people and to give them the incentives to cut down on the size of their families, not to stand back and either let people starve or to hope that maybe Malthus's predictions can be proved wrong again.

ei.sdraob

O'Morris wrote: »

I'd be surprised if there were many people who didn't favour population control in the developing world. Speaking for myself, I would never support anything as inhumane as letting people starve. The way to control population is to educate people and to give them the incentives to cut down on the size of their families, not to stand back and either let people starve or to hope that maybe Malthus's predictions can be proved wrong again.

I never taught i would agree with you on anything

Sesshoumaru

ei.sdraob wrote: »

US being a shinning example of good governance

one just has to look at their previous president (and the current one not doing to good either)

That doesn't change the fact that we in Ireland have been useless at governing ourselves 99% of the time since independence. At least the Americans have had their moments. Oh and since we are on the subject of Africa and American presidents.... You do know George Bush was very popular in Africa?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

bonkey

O'Morris wrote: »

I'd be surprised if there were many people who didn't favour population control in the developing world. Speaking for myself, I would never support anything as inhumane as letting people starve. The way to control population is to educate people and to give them the incentives to cut down on the size of their families, not to stand back and either let people starve or to hope that maybe Malthus's predictions can be proved wrong again.

Why limit "education and incentives" to the developing world?

If the problem is population, then its a global problem from a global population. We can look at it and argue that European population is stagnating, so it doesn't need to be dealt with, but if we want a fair solution to a global problem, why not approach it globally.

Same incentives for everyone. If people in the develop world are offended at how cheaply you are trying to convince them not to have children...its really a comment on the inequality that lies at the root of the problem, isn't it? Do we value developed world children more then we do those in the developed world?

AS for the notion of never supporting something as inhumane as starvation...the reality is that there are millions of people starving today and the vast majority of the world aren't really too worried about it. If we ask for additional sacrifices, we hear complaints about how much we're giving already, and how money alone won't solve the problem (which is true, but it can alleviate it somewhat), and all sorts of excuses....but the reality is that we are not significantly moved enough to do anything significant to save the millions who are starving right now.

Someone is bound to point out that its not our fault they're starving...that there's (currently) food to feed them, but its political problems and the like which cause the problem. Fine...lets accept that, and ask ourselves how having population control (incentivised, not forced) is going to change that. Indeed, lets ask ourselves how we'll implement a policy like incentivised population control, when we can't even manage to implement a policy like feeding the very same people.

We sit here, content in our developed-world lives, insisting that we'll apologise to no-one for being who we are, refusing to pay more money to help alleviate conditions on a continent where millions are starving and talking about how we could go about fixing things...but really only in sutuations where the conditions which lead to the current starvation are no longer present.

But we'd never be so inhumane as to suggest that starvation is an acceptable policy. Its just whats happening, and its causes are not the problems we're concentrated on fixing.

nacho libre

AlekSmart wrote: »

And yet,were it not for KM`s articles and views this thread would not be facilitating the exchanges currently ongoing.

It`s not pretty or nice or remotely caring and sharing but Kevin Myers`s points on the simple bare bones of Africa`s "Irish Property Bubble" style population explosion are still desperately in need of debate....?

is this debate motivated by malthusian rationale or is it motivated by insidious racism. i have my doubts it's the former.

the narrative seems to be in a world of diminishing resources we must maintain our standards of living at the expense of others. if Myers really wants a more equitable world for all of us then fair enough. However, i really doubt that was the motivation behind his article. since i suspect some of the more utilitarian solutions he'd advocate for Africa would not apply to a population explosion in other parts of the world.

O'Morris

bonkey wrote:

Why limit "education and incentives" to the developing world?

Everyone in the world should be educated about the links between poverty and family size as well as about the importance of living within your means and about planning for the future.

While the education should be universal, the incentives should be aimed at addressing regional problems. In the developed world the incentives should be aimed at reducing consumption and waste. In the developing world the incentives should be aimed at reducing the birth-rate.

bonkey wrote:

If the problem is population, then its a global problem from a global population.

There are two separate population problems, one of them is global and the other is continental. There is the problem of the overall increase in the world's population placing pressure on the world's finite resources, but is there also the more immediate continental problem of the developing world's population increasing at a rate that is holding them back economically and that is putting serious pressure on subsistence environments and economies that are already severely overpopulated.

This is the population problem that Kevin Myers was writing about in the article about Ethipia and it's the problem that we should be most concerned about in the short-term. The good thing about it is that by helping to address the runaway population growth in the developing world, we'll also be helping to deal with the global population problem. We'll kill two birds with the one stone.

bonkey wrote:

We can look at it and argue that European population is stagnating, so it doesn't need to be dealt with, but if we want a fair solution to a global problem, why not approach it globally. Same incentives for everyone.

The goal should be an effective solution rather than a fair solution. It would be insulting to the intelligence of the Africans to try to pretend to them that population growth is as big a problem in the developed world as it is in the developing world.

bonkey wrote:

If people in the develop world are offended at how cheaply you are trying to convince them not to have children.

It's not about convincing them not to have children, it's about convincing them to have no more children than they adequately support.

bonkey wrote:

We sit here, content in our developed-world lives, insisting that we'll apologise to no-one for being who we are, refusing to pay more money to help alleviate conditions on a continent where millions are starving and talking about how we could go about fixing things...but really only in sutuations where the conditions which lead to the current starvation are no longer present.

I would have no problem with seeing a massive increase in the amount of money we spend on aid to the developing world but only on the condition that the money is put to good use and that it helps to address the real causes of Africa's underdevelopment. The two main reasons for Africa's underdevelopment are bad government and non-existent family-planning. Until we find some way of linking aid with solving those two problems I think we're just wasting our money.

Cannibal Ox

It isn't just population increases. Most farming in Ethiopia doesn't involve irrigation, and is heavily dependent on the seasonal rains. The rains are coming later and later each year, and are shorter and shorter.

Which has two main effects. One, Ethiopian electricity is supplied by hydro electricity. Less rain = less electricity. Two, farmers who don't irrigate their crops, and don't get rain, don't produce food.

Not being able to produce enough food to feed their own people, the Ethiopian government has to turn to aid agencies (because it's virtually bankrupt, and has almost no foreign currency, it can't buy food). In the past, aid agencies have been able to supply enough food, because Ethiopians were able to produce more food then they are now.

Now they can't, because Ethiopians can't produce enough food to feed themselves. Which means that aid agencies have had to pump more and more food in to the country. Aid agencies have a nominal limit on how much food they can give to one country, and once they pass that limit, they have to source it from somewhere else.

This year, they sourced it from the Ethiopian governments reserve supplies somewhere back before the summer. Those reserves ran out pretty quickly. Now, not only do they not have enough food to feed people this year, but (as far as I know) they've exhausted most of the reserve supplies in the country.

All of which is compounded by the fact that getting food in to the country from outside is difficult. Ethiopia is land locked, and the closest ports are becoming more and more effected by pirates, while the closet land routes are through south sudan, and north kenya. Neither of which are particularly safe.

The Ethiopian government, and the NGOs that work there, have known this was coming for some time. They delayed announcing it because the government contains, by and large, a group of authoritarians prats who have delusions of grandeur and couldn't give a damn about most of the population. The NGOs couldn't say anything because they have to work with the government, not against it.

The Ethiopian government has a lot to answer for this famine. But. The Ethiopian people don't, and they are reliant on aid to survive. This is not a situation anyone wants to continue by any means but cut aid, and you cut their only source of food. That isn't a long term solution, and NGOs and governments know that, which is why Oxfam just published a report on investing in agriculture to promote long term, sustainable development. More and more funding will/should be put in to developing agriculture, but that's going to take time.

So, in Ethiopia's case, if investment was made in modernising farming methods and introducing irrigation in to traditional farming, it would go a long way to solving the food crisis that could become an annual event. Cutting aid isn't, and saying it's all down to population is lazy.