Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Dear Mami on April 17, 2021, 06:54:52 AM
-
http://www.fahamu.org/ep_articles/mawuna-koutonin-on-the-myth-of-overpopulated-africa/
I'd like to hear your thoughts after reading this. For the ones too busy to go there or whatever, I'll reproduce it hapo chini.
-
Last month in Paris, a conference gathered a panel of white people to think about more effective ways to reduce black population in Africa.
One of the conference organizers, a historian and Associate Professor of African history, Bernard Lugan, said: “Population growth in Africa is a threat to European civilization … I’m not recommending to drop a nuclear bomb on Africa, but we can’t wait to see that population growth next to Europe. It’s a danger we have to take seriously.”
Their plan is to syndicate more closely private and public organizations in Western countries to provide money and logistics for faster and more effective actions to curb the ‘frightening’ African population growth.
This is just surreal, but let’s take a calmer road to answer the fundamental question behind such conferences and the numerous similar initiatives in Europe and the United States: is Africa overpopulated?
First, what is overpopulation?
Overpopulation is an array of negative social and ecological impacts caused by increasing competition between individuals or groups due to the increasing scarcity of resources. The scarcity could be caused either by decreasing resources of water, food and other life necessities because of a growing population, or by overconsumption of those resources due to unhealthy lifestyle or economical ideology.
Put simply, overpopulation is caused either by limited resources not enough to sustain the ever-growing population, or by overconsumption due to unhealthy lifestyle.
The debate on the world overpopulation has been ongoing for over 150 years. Many in position of power think the world has become overpopulated recently, and Africa takes the center of attention because of the constant increase in population.
Often, the people behind the Africa overpopulation debate would produce shiny graphics and complex MBA types of matrix that look very convincing, and indeed would trick people not familiar with the issues into agreeing with their points
-
Here is a flipped coin perspective you won’t see in the mainstream news outlets.
In the 15th century, Africans represented 17% of the world population. At the beginning of the 20th century, Africans accounted only for a little bit more than 7%. What has happened during these four centuries of depopulation of Africa? You already have the answer. Today, Africans represent only 16% of the world population, less than five centuries ago, while Asians represent more than 60%.
Keep in mind that India is more populated than Africa while Africa is nine times the size of India. Bangladesh with half the area of Gabon has 125 million inhabitants, whereas Gabon has barely two million.
Congo is 2,345,408 square kilometers, slightly greater than the combined areas of Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway. The population of Congo is only 68 million; yet, Germany’s is about 82 million; Spain, 47 million; France, 66 million; Sweden, ten million; Norway, five million. Now, think of the little island of Britain, three times smaller than Madagascar. If you take the population of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Lesotho, and probably throw in Namibia for good measure, that will bring us up to the population of the UK, if not just under.
Africa is inhabited by 87 people per square kilometre, against 57 in the Americas, 246 in Asia, and 188 in Europe. It means that Europe is the most overpopulated continent in the world. Indeed, the most overpopulated countries per square kilometre are mostly in Europe, regardless of the fact that Europe had shipped over half a billion of its population surplus to two continents: America and Australia.
Five centuries ago, there were no Europeans in America, Australia, or Africa.
European countries are nowadays giving incentives to their women to give birth to more babies. Yet, an already underpopulated continent, Africa is crowded with Western ‘experts’ giving money to NGOs and governments to stop the population growth. In the meantime, China is abandoning its one-child policy to boost its populace.
-
The USA consumes 25% of world resources while its population is under 5%. And the West as a bloc represents less than 15% of the overall world population while consuming over half of world resources and being responsible for 80% of the world climate change factors.
When it comes to carbon dioxide emission (‘carbon footprint’) per person on the global scale, one person in the US emits about 20 tons every year, one person in the European Union emits 11 tons, one person in China emit three tons, and one person in the sub-Saharan Africa emits a maximum of 300 kilograms. Which means the African carbon impact is 66 times less than American, and 36 times less than European.
Put simply, the impact of a single American on the environment and his role in furthering the global warming effect is equivalent to that of almost 7,000 Africans. A single European threatens the environment with the ‘force’ of 4,000 Africans.
The same goes for the consumption of vital resources like water, meat, etc. For example, the US, with a population around 300 million people, consume as much water per person as China or India which each have above one billion inhabitants. EU countries follow similar patterns.
The whole African continent’s population is less than China’s alone, and a total GDP the size of a small country like France (France’s 2013 GDP was 2.806 trillion USD vs Africa’s 2.6 trillion in 2013) which is five times smaller than Congo.
Looking from that perspective, you can now see why it is convenient for some people to throw dubious numbers out there: attacking poor Africans is such a harmless exercise.
The debate about the world overpopulation should not be about headcount, but about a single individual’s impact on the environment, and it is necessary to recalculate the ‘overpopulation factor’ based on those parameters.
The world is overpopulated, let’s have less rich people should be the real agenda.
There are too many Americans, too many Europeans, too many Australians, too many Japanese, too many Singaporeans, and so on, because they are the people impacting our common planet in the worst way. Only, concerning Africa, we are talking about population reduction strategies funded by Western NGOs and governments.
Is it because Africa does not have resources to feed two billion people? No. It is because other nations want those resources for their own people.
The links on the article quoting stats are:
https://www.geographyrealm.com/continents-population-density/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
https://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-consume/
-
PS: I'm NOT agreeing with him that "there should be less rich people." I'm saying, IF their concerns were truly what they claim, THAT would've been their agenda. No one would even waste their breath bothering even mentioning Africa, much less invest millions of dollars in NGOs and experts whose job is to convince Africans to make themselves fewer as everyone else on the planet is ensuring that their own population is maintained or grown. I'm just saying, look at some of that conventional wisdom about Africa through a more critical lens. Iyo tu.
The only reason Africans were not purged from their continent in the same rates as Native Americans and Australasians is that the continent came into focus as a viable target for Western Capital much later in time, and its only thanks to our lucky stars that this period coincided with the worst crises of Capital since its birth in 16th century Britain; i.e. the two World Wars. If this interest had happened just a century or two sooner, we'd be in the same place/position as American and Australasian natives. It's through this lens that I see Western interest/investments in the 'terrifying' prospect of African so-called "overpopulation."
-
"Its economics stupid"
-
Africa of course is underpopulated. If you look at Kenya nearly 80 percent of population live in small corridor to the south - while the entire north is empty - albeit arid or semi arid.
But I believe women (especially) - and families - should be empowered through education - to give optimal birth to the number of kids they can comfortably raise.
I find Robina 1 child policy rather stupid and dictatorial. I also find anybody encouraging women to have 15 kids because Africa is underpopulated stupid.
Policy wise - this works.
1) Empower people through education to make their choices on how many and when (spacing) of kids. More informed women have less kids.
2) Reduce mortalities so people don't have to compensate or overcompensate for prospect of their kids dying young. The more women knows their kids will survive the less kids give birth.
3) Provide the tools to make this happen - provide contraceptives and other family planning tools.
Whether Africa is underpopulated or not is moot. Families and Gov cannot afford a rapid increase in population like we have seen. We are not in hurry - earth has existed for billions of years - and it will exist.
Get the kids you can manage. For example we decided to have 3 kids - but they are spaced roughly six years apart. I can probably get more kids but I would have to lower our living standards.
-
Europe medicine and civilisation is responsible for Africa population boom of last century. Kenya when European came had 1M people. Britain had 30M in 1900. Kenya 1M.
By 1963 when kenya independent - our population had grown six times to 6m. Britain had grown to 50M.
50yrs later kenya population is nearly 50M. Britain population is 60M.
So you can see how in 100 yrs - Kenya that had 30 times less population than Britain - is now almost at par population wise.
Africa population has grown to 1B plus I think - almost equal to Europe.
PS: I'm NOT agreeing with him that "there should be less rich people." I'm saying, IF their concerns were truly what they claim, THAT would've been their agenda. No one would even waste their breath bothering even mentioning Africa, much less invest millions of dollars in NGOs and experts whose job is to convince Africans to make themselves fewer as everyone else on the planet is ensuring that their own population is maintained or grown. I'm just saying, look at some of that conventional wisdom about Africa through a more critical lens. Iyo tu.
The only reason Africans were not purged from their continent in the same rates as Native Americans and Australasians is that the continent came into focus as a viable target for Western Capital much later in time, and its only thanks to our lucky stars that this period coincided with the worst crises of Capital since its birth in 16th century Britain; i.e. the two World Wars. If this interest had happened just a century or two sooner, we'd be in the same place/position as American and Australasian natives. It's through this lens that I see Western interest/investments in the 'terrifying' prospect of African so-called "overpopulation."
-
2) Reduce mortalities so people don't have to compensate or overcompensate for prospect of their kids dying young. The more women knows their kids will survive the less kids give birth.
I agree for the most part. I have no problem with providing the conditions in which people will choose to have fewer kids, ala your policy recommendation no. 2. I'm not for either limiting people from having kids by economically or legally punishing them (the facts of modern life are well able to do that all by themselves without anybody helping to punish those who have many babies) or encouraging/discouraging them either way.
I think poor people, whether Africans or humans in general, are not as stupid as many of us tend to assume when we immediately start complaining about the population whenever problems of any kind in poor areas or countries are mentioned. Even those Somalis and Congolese churning out 7-8 kids by the time they're in their early 30s are not crazy. They're a product of their environment and circumstances. I think we should glean insights from wider trends to understand why people have more kids in the first place, and if we feel we cannot sustain this phenomenon, then target our solutions to those factors, and not just its end results (babies being born). People automatically choose to have fewer kids when they start factoring in the costs of raising a child in modern, post-agrarian society. One of my mother's house-helps, born in Gusii but working in Nai, has refused to add another child after her second despite people telling her to add, simply because of budgeting for her tiny income and her two boys' expenses. Why do people in shags make different choices? I've found very few people who need to be told what they can afford: No welfare in Africa to encourage anyone to have more kids. So why is it happening? We should seriously interrogate this and provide solutions accordingly, IMO.
-
Ultimately is about empowering women as the ones who really make the final decision - to be able to make informed decision - and then providing the tools to make that happen. For example without contraceptive that you catholics oppose - it would be impossible for women to have less kids.
But there is no disputing that having less kids and spacing them is one of the ticket out of poverty cycle - which can become inter-generational problem.
Of course it also gov interest to get right kind of population - more adults -working and paying taxes- than kids and elderly people who are mostly dependant and a burden. Europe faces the elderly problem. Kenya faces the problem of too many kids - more than 20m under 18 (kids) - in country of 50m. The Europe solution is to get more kids. Kenya solution is to get less kids.
2) Reduce mortalities so people don't have to compensate or overcompensate for prospect of their kids dying young. The more women knows their kids will survive the less kids give birth.
I agree for the most part. I have no problem with providing the conditions in which people will choose to have fewer kids, ala your policy recommendation no. 2. I'm not for either limiting people from having kids by economically or legally punishing them (the facts of modern life are well able to do that all by themselves without anybody helping to punish those who have many babies) or encouraging/discouraging them either way.
I think poor people, whether Africans or humans in general, are not as stupid as many of us tend to assume when we immediately start complaining about the population whenever problems of any kind in poor areas or countries are mentioned. Even those Somalis and Congolese churning out 7-8 kids by the time they're in their early 30s are not crazy. They're a product of their environment and circumstances. I think we should glean insights from wider trends to understand why people have more kids in the first place, and if we feel we cannot sustain this phenomenon, then target our solutions to those factors, and not just its end results (babies being born). People automatically choose to have fewer kids when they start factoring in the costs of raising a child in modern, post-agrarian society. One of my mother's house-helps, born in Gusii but working in Nai, has refused to add another child after her second despite people telling her to add, simply because of budgeting for her tiny income and her two boys' expenses. Why do people in shags make different choices? I've found very few people who need to be told what they can afford: No welfare in Africa to encourage anyone to have more kids. So why is it happening? We should seriously interrogate this and provide solutions accordingly, IMO.
-
Ultimately is about empowering women as the one who really make the final decision - to be able to make informed decision - and then providing the tools to make that happen. For example without contraceptive that you catholics oppose - it would be impossible for women to have less kids.
This is a red-herring, bwana Pundit.:D First, there's no shortage of contraceptives in the modern age, nor any push for an official law/policy to limit contraceptives. So no, Catholic beliefs have nothing to do with the "African overpopulation meme" pushed by NGOs/West. It's not like Catholics think only Africans should be good Catholics in this world while everyone else gets a pass in the way the West seems to give a special focus on Africa when it comes to population. In addition, populations reproducing "too much" have no correlation with any single religion whatsoever; it's a socio-economic phenomenon and should be discussed that way without sneaking in little jabs that miss the debate in qustion.
PS: This board hasn't a clue what the state of my current religious view/evolution is and should seriously avoid cheap shots in that direction (talking to Pundit and Robina 8)). If you haven't guessed yet, much of my critique re the Western posture towards Africa, China and the rest of the global south is much more left/socialist/anti-capitalist/anti-neoliberalist/anti-globalist than anything else 8) and that's where this discussion falls for me. So lets stick to the subject, respectfully. :D
-
The Europe solution is to get more kids. Kenya solution is to get less kids.
And it doesn't bother you at all that this nifftly little solution just conveniently ends up with not just a perpetually underpopulated Africa but a well-populated Europe in tandem? Immigration is a great solution to Europe's "elderly" problem, too. Developing Africa is the best one, as far as long-term solutions go :D So why do you think they prefer more European kids to letting young immigrants in or improving African development, IF it's really all just about managing things in a benign way? You are right though, that's it's about "govt interest" and that interest in the west is to have a nicely stocked Africa, full of resources, but not too many people. :)
Re this topic: Again, we need to look at the actual trends to figure where to target solutions.
Who in Kenya, for example, is having lots of kids and what are those factors that drive it? In our shags, I have cousins who churn out babies starting around 12/13/14 (upper primary). That doesn't seem to be a common trend in urban areas outside slums. The ones who come to the city to live with us are the only ones from my mom's shags lucky enough to escape that trend. (She's from a poor Gusii area, unlike my dad). Why? If we prefer one trend to the other, we don't just guess that what they need is "education" (Do you really think they don't know about contraceptives?) Why are our shags and slum teens becoming mothers. That's one of the things we need to target.
-
Of course immigration can be part of the solution - especially if done like Australia - with some point system to get the right kind of immigrants - but allowing ill educated somalis to jam your system is not a solution. Part of solution is also to encourage citizen of those countries to get kids.
Now coming back to kenya - we are overally on the right track. I think right now the 10-14 age set are the largest - that seem to point at inflection point about 12 yrs ago when Kenya starting having less kids every year.
On micro level - yes one problem to lots of kids problem - the age when people start having kids - Kenya should be 21/22 - which great - because we began with that 14. Developed world are in 28 or about before they starting getting kids - reducing their biological clock.
And how do we improve the age of first birth - Keep the girls in School LONGER.
And it doesn't bother you at all that this nifftly little solution just conveniently ends up with not just a perpetually underpopulated Africa but a well-populated Europe in tandem? Immigration is a great solution to Europe's "elderly" problem, too. Why do you think they prefer more European kids to letting young immigrants in, IF it's really all just about managing things in a benign way? You are right though, that's it's about "govt interest" and that interest in the west is to have a nicely stocked Africa, full of resources, but not too many people. :)
Re this topic: Again, we need to look at the actual trends to figure where to target solutions.
Who in Kenya, for example, is having lots of kids and what are those factors that drive it? In our shags, I have cousins who churn out babies starting around 12/13/14 (upper primary). That doesn't seem to be a common factor in urban areas outside slums. The ones who come to the city to live with us are the only ones from my mom's shags lucky enough to escape that trend. (She's from a poor Gusii area, unlike my dad). Why? If we prefer one trend to the other, we don't just guess that what they need is "education" (Do you really think they don't know about contraceptives?) Why are our shags teens becoming mothers. That's one of the things we need to target.
-
And how do we improve the age of first birth - Keep the girls in School LONGER.
Now you're speaking my language! :D These and other development-focussed solutions ARE the agenda for one genuinely worried about this for nothing other than egalitarian sustainability reasons. If this was the true bazungu interest in this issue, they'd have long started investing in genuine African development ala the Marshall plan, looooong before China started its infrastructure strategies.
-
Of course European/White are not genuine. They have enslaved and colonized Africans for ages. They continue to neo-colonize Africa. They believe they are superior race and want to keep things that way. The systems of privilege's built of centuries they are gonna dismantled them.
They will pretend with long talk about human rights - but will NOT EMPOWER UN or MULITATERIAL institution to fix it. It US or EU to fix stuff. It not UN or such.
China is Africa true friend. But people go to China and face little racism - and declare China bad.
You can see China engagement with Africa the last 20yrs and what it has done to the continent.
The only time Africa has grown for 20yrs - per capita/gdp wise - and we are turning the corner.
Now you're speaking my language! :D These and other development-focussed solutions ARE the agenda for one genuinely worried about this. If this was the true bazungu interest in this issue, they'd have long started investing in genuine African development ala the Marshall plan, looooong before China started its infrastructure strategies.
-
Of course European/White are not genuine. They have enslaved and colonized Africans for ages. They continue to neo-colonize Africa. They believe they are superior race and want to keep things that way. The systems of privilege's built of centuries they are gonna dismantled them.
They will pretend with long talk about human rights - but will NOT EMPOWER UN or MULITATERIAL institution to fix it. It US or EU to fix stuff. It not UN or such.
China is Africa true friend. But people go to China and face little racism - and declare China bad.
You can see China engagement with Africa the last 20yrs and what it has done to the continent.
The only time Africa has grown for 20yrs - per capita/gdp wise - and we are turning the corner.
Now you're speaking my language! :D These and other development-focussed solutions ARE the agenda for one genuinely worried about this. If this was the true bazungu interest in this issue, they'd have long started investing in genuine African development ala the Marshall plan, looooong before China started its infrastructure strategies.
Ok, I think we are on the same page. I have pretty much similar views. The West sells the religion of democracy and human rights to starving people but makes zero investment in actual development. I want to give China a shot because its investments are truly geared towards long-term development. Everyone else has refused to make those investments. But without those investments, Africa is guaranteed to stay at the bottom, perpetually needing aide and intervention.
-
I think there is real concern about the environment. Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate. The African wants some of that lifestyle. If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.
The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness. Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet? I think they are not.
-
I think there is real concern about the environment. Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate. The African wants some of that lifestyle. If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.
The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness. Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet? I think they are not.
You have symmarized what anyone can see. Allowing china go ape western civilzatuon has actually caused more pain than it is worthy and accellarated our own destruction. Climate change will be where rubber meets the road. Nigeria will be a developed nation in the next 40 years. It will have one of the biggest population in the world. East africa population and development will tripple in the next 50 years. Western civilization has to be destoryed for us to have a dtable earth.
-
Natural resources - some maybe finite - but human brain - is not. Europe went through environmental degradation but is now almost 40% a forest. Well not exactly the natural forest with animals - but well there are become more and more forested - as they transitioned from agrarian economy to industrial one.
The same will happen in Africa and Asia - we will go industrial level farming on small land - and plant trees.
What we know is wealth - provide us the resources - to fix problems including enviroment/climate.
So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.
There is no other way - what western nations are trying to do is to throw the LADDER down.
I think there is real concern about the environment. Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate. The African wants some of that lifestyle. If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.
The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness. Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet? I think they are not.
-
I think there is real concern about the environment. Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate. The African wants some of that lifestyle. If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.
The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness. Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet? I think they are not.
I see your point re: we can't sustain this for everyone everywhere. But isn't it sinister that the only solution they see is to maintain their populations and deliberately keep Africa poor and underpopulated perpetually? A fairer approach is to give developing countries more leeway while shifting the lifelystle/approaches of developed countries. We should aim for an eventual future where humans are more or less at par with only the amount of damage (to the earth) that we can sustain without destroying it. Because otherwise, what we have is the vision of a future of a permanent racial underclass.
-
To be fair, the West also prolly contributed to some of our stability that we've had (generally) on the continent starting in the 2,000s with their political interventions and their aid towards people (health, food aid etc); I shouldn't just focus on what they DIDN'T do. I just think if they truly lived up to their stated ideals, they would've invested their capital accordingly. They didn't even need to be saints to do that. An Africa that provides a huge market is great for them too, even if a totally poor Africa that gives away its resources for almost nothing is better for their pockets.
So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.
If the world was more invested in long-term sustainability without neglecting any segment of the human population, we wouldn't even need to go as far as Europe did. I'm thinking like the problem, for example, of land, conservation and human development in places like Kwinya. If we could reclaim the drier areas and conserve the forested areas, move our people out, we could both develop and protect our nature/wildlife at the same time. But we can't, because we lack capital (wealth, as you put it), and because the world still thinks in a selfish-individualist way, each country and region has to operate as if they cannot rely on anyone else, so here we are, with only one model that is rather destructive.
The problem we have had is laying the basis for development. I.e. Political stability, a population that can provide suitable labor (healthy, fed, and well-educated/trained), and infrastructure that connects resources, manufacturing, and markets both within countries and regions as well as globally i.e. NON-colonial infrastructure that serves the growth of the local economies and not simply extraction of resources FROM them. All that 'laying-the-foundation' work, unfortunately, is capital-intensive, and the ONE thing poor, ex-colonies have never had is capital.
But if those with capital (rich countries and their financial corporations) refuse to invest it for that foundational work, we don't get to the next layer of industrial investors and others. No one is using his money to invest in a place without stability, adequate infrastructure, or suitable labor, or that makes ANYTHING other than resource-extraction (through dubious means) too expensive/cumbersome.
Not only have we had to spend decades finding basic stability within the colonial experiments we call our modern states since independence, the West also saddled us with horrendous debts during that time that were utterly NOT geared in any way towards development but maximizing profits for Western financial institutions with the approval/aid of our local corrupt despots. They were basically loan-sharking us while saying we were too risky for those other more helpful capital-intensive investments (besides basic needs). So while the West has done some good for us, and it is good to be fair to them, it has kept us from developing due to selfishness and because the world will not co-operate, poor countries will follow the 'destroy-first/build-later' model which in the modern age is entirely unnecessary and so destructive. But what else do we do in this uncooperative world? I value both the earth and human development, and I don't see any other way and that makes me truly sad because I know it's not necessary.
Btw, Africa needs to force some kind of international action against Japan and the U.S. to save our elephants. (Edit! I need to check if Biden maintained Trump's policy re ivory before I add the U.S. to Japan on the dock as the second defendant :D)
-
Precisely. Poor nations and families have Labour and Land. The rich have capital. How do we grow without capital? We have to sell our labour, till our land and finally when we are rich enough; we can think about sustainable development; because it's expensive.
Poverty is not restricted to lack of food or shelter only; it include lack of good enviroment/climate . It way west of Nairobi has trees - East of Nairobi doesn't.
Nowadays in my place - the best marker to tell poor and rich family is to just look at the trees - rich families can afford to keep trees for long time - the poor are selling them before they are even 10yrs. Most of their land is barren - I mean any vegetation - they sell it as soon as possibe.
I say fight poverty first - then deal with these other issues.
Those rich enough should save the planet. But leave us alone to get out poverty without burdening us with sustainable development and climate change...those things are expensive for poor countries.
To be fair, the West also prolly contributed to some of our stability that we've had (generally) on the continent starting in the 2,000s with their political interventions and their aid towards people (health, food aid etc); I shouldn't just focus on what they DIDN'T do. I just think if they truly lived up to their stated ideals, they would've invested their capital accordingly. They didn't even need to be saints to do that. An Africa that provides a huge market is great for them too, even if a totally poor Africa that gives away its resources for almost nothing is better for their pockets.
So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.
If the world was more invested in long-term sustainability without neglecting any segment of the human population, we wouldn't even need to go as far as Europe did. I'm thinking like the problem, for example, of land, conservation and human development in places like Kwinya. If we could reclaim the drier areas and conserve the forested areas, move our people out, we could both develop and protect our nature/wildlife at the same time. But we can't, because we lack capital (wealth, as you put it), and because the world still thinks in a selfish-individualist way, each country and region has to operate as if they cannot rely on anyone else, so here we are, with only one model that is rather destructive.
The problem we have had is laying the basis for development. I.e. Political stability, a population that can provide suitable labor (healthy, fed, and well-educated/trained), and infrastructure that connects resources, manufacturing, and markets both within countries and regions as well as globally i.e. NON-colonial infrastructure that serves the growth of the local economies and not simply extraction of resources FROM them. All that 'laying-the-foundation' work, unfortunately, is capital-intensive, and the ONE thing poor, ex-colonies have never had is capital.
But if those with capital (rich countries and their financial corporations) refuse to invest it for that foundational work, we don't get to the next layer of industrial investors and others. No one is using his money to invest in a place without stability, adequate infrastructure, or suitable labor, or that makes ANYTHING other than resource-extraction (through dubious means) too expensive/cumbersome.
Not only have we had to spend decades finding basic stability within the colonial experiments we call our modern states since independence, the West also saddled us with horrendous debts during that time that were utterly NOT geared in any way towards development but maximizing profits for Western financial institutions with the approval/aid of our local corrupt despots. They were basically loan-sharking us while saying we were too risky for those other more helpful capital-intensive investments (besides basic needs). So while the West has done some good for us, and it is good to be fair to them, it has kept us from developing due to selfishness and because the world will not co-operate, poor countries will follow the 'destroy-first/build-later' model which in the modern age is entirely unnecessary and so destructive. But what else do we do in this uncooperative world? I value both the earth and human development, and I don't see any other way and that makes me truly sad because I know it's not necessary.
Btw, Africa needs to force some kind of international action against Japan and the U.S. to save our elephants. (Edit! I need to check if Biden maintained Trump's policy re ivory before I add the U.S. to Japan on the dock as the second defendant :D)
-
Natural resources - some maybe finite - but human brain - is not. Europe went through environmental degradation but is now almost 40% a forest. Well not exactly the natural forest with animals - but well there are become more and more forested - as they transitioned from agrarian economy to industrial one.
The same will happen in Africa and Asia - we will go industrial level farming on small land - and plant trees.
What we know is wealth - provide us the resources - to fix problems including enviroment/climate.
So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.
There is no other way - what western nations are trying to do is to throw the LADDER down.
Monoculture planted forests are not the same as the real thing - forests that are self willed, full of plant and animal diversity, wonder, that provide so many ecosystem services for humanity are impossible to replicate. You are playing politics with the cut trees develop later nonsense. It is chilling how your immoral prescriptions for nature mirror early 19th century Westerners responsible for much of the decline in the natural world.
Humanity's current foolishness is subsidized by cheap oil which yields cheap synthetic fertilizers, powers heavy machinery etc. Once it runs out, things will level out. You can't outsmart nature, you can't out-tech it as you naively believe. Synthetic fertilizers are acidifying soils all across the Africa, soils lose organic carbon and life, leading to falling yields and more application of fertilizers - vicious loop. The much touted green revolution has been a failure, GMO's won't feed us. The only solution is regenerative agriculture, slow food, appropriate technology and local economies - forget about exporting to Europe and China. The air miles make it worthless.
-
Monoculture planted forests are not the same as the real thing - forests that are self willed, full of plant and animal diversity, wonder, that provide so many ecosystem services for humanity are impossible to replicate. You are playing politics with the cut trees develop later nonsense. It is chilling how your immoral prescriptions for nature mirror early 19th century Westerners responsible for much of the decline in the natural world.
Humanity's current foolishness is subsidized by cheap oil which yields cheap synthetic fertilizers, powers heavy machinery etc. Once it runs out, things will level out. You can't outsmart nature, you can't out-tech it as you naively believe. Synthetic fertilizers are acidifying soils all across the Africa, soils lose organic carbon and life, leading to falling yields and more application of fertilizers - vicious loop. The much touted green revolution has been a failure, GMO's won't feed us. The only solution is regenerative agriculture, slow food, appropriate technology and local economies - forget about exporting to Europe and China. The air miles make it worthless.
I agree with your caution. I don't know what the balance is re sustainable development. I'm so torn. We can't just say that if you're still poor now, too bad. You just have to stay there for the rest of history. So what do we do? I personally want to protect elephants and their habitats almost as much as I want to protect development. But what is the answer?
-
Natural resources - some maybe finite - but human brain - is not. Europe went through environmental degradation but is now almost 40% a forest. Well not exactly the natural forest with animals - but well there are become more and more forested - as they transitioned from agrarian economy to industrial one.
The same will happen in Africa and Asia - we will go industrial level farming on small land - and plant trees.
What we know is wealth - provide us the resources - to fix problems including enviroment/climate.
So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.
There is no other way - what western nations are trying to do is to throw the LADDER down.
I think there is real concern about the environment. Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate. The African wants some of that lifestyle. If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.
The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness. Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet? I think they are not.
Mine is just what I think the bazungu perspective is. Yes we can innovate, but with enough time and resources. If you have too many dependents in the society, it seems likely that long term plans are put on hold to fix immediate needs and it becomes a cycle. That's why poor kids are likely to put their brains to crime for lack of alternatives. Africans jumping on rickety boats to Europe - this might be even more important to the mzungu than anything else.
-
Natural resources - some maybe finite - but human brain - is not. Europe went through environmental degradation but is now almost 40% a forest. Well not exactly the natural forest with animals - but well there are become more and more forested - as they transitioned from agrarian economy to industrial one.
The same will happen in Africa and Asia - we will go industrial level farming on small land - and plant trees.
What we know is wealth - provide us the resources - to fix problems including enviroment/climate.
So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.
There is no other way - what western nations are trying to do is to throw the LADDER down.
Monoculture planted forests are not the same as the real thing - forests that are self willed, full of plant and animal diversity, wonder, that provide so many ecosystem services for humanity are impossible to replicate. You are playing politics with the cut trees develop later nonsense. It is chilling how your immoral prescriptions for nature mirror early 19th century Westerners responsible for much of the decline in the natural world.
Humanity's current foolishness is subsidized by cheap oil which yields cheap synthetic fertilizers, powers heavy machinery etc. Once it runs out, things will level out. You can't outsmart nature, you can't out-tech it as you naively believe. Synthetic fertilizers are acidifying soils all across the Africa, soils lose organic carbon and life, leading to falling yields and more application of fertilizers - vicious loop. The much touted green revolution has been a failure, GMO's won't feed us. The only solution is regenerative agriculture, slow food, appropriate technology and local economies - forget about exporting to Europe and China. The air miles make it worthless.
Is there a real difference with a planted forest, if I include everything you can find in the wild one?
-
I think there is real concern about the environment. Bazungu know their standards of life come with a steep price on the environment and even climate. The African wants some of that lifestyle. If Africa develops to their level, even with its current population, it’s harder to mitigate the impact on the climate.
The concern could be genuine even if motivated by selfishness. Are western standards of living sustainable globally without ultimately destroying the planet? I think they are not.
You have symmarized what anyone can see. Allowing china go ape western civilzatuon has actually caused more pain than it is worthy and accellarated our own destruction. Climate change will be where rubber meets the road. Nigeria will be a developed nation in the next 40 years. It will have one of the biggest population in the world. East africa population and development will tripple in the next 50 years. Western civilization has to be destoryed for us to have a dtable earth.
If Africa starts to consume half as much the Eastern seaboard of the US, I think we can kiss sustainable climate goodbye. I think the US is the bigger culprit than even other western countries when it comes to profligate consumption. Europe at least has standards for energy efficiency in their home construction, a lot of public infrastructure, fewer unsightly freeways and interchanges connecting people who refuse to live next to one another.
-
Is there a real difference with a planted forest, if I include everything you can find in the wild one?
You can't. Human beings can't recreate complex systems of nature that have evolved organically over many centuries. We can't even get tree spacing right. There so many things we don't fully comprehend. Our current reductionist technological worldview always comes up short. We need to develop the humility and reverence for natural things they deserve because we can't reproduce them.
-
Monoculture planted forests are not the same as the real thing - forests that are self willed, full of plant and animal diversity, wonder, that provide so many ecosystem services for humanity are impossible to replicate. You are playing politics with the cut trees develop later nonsense. It is chilling how your immoral prescriptions for nature mirror early 19th century Westerners responsible for much of the decline in the natural world.
Humanity's current foolishness is subsidized by cheap oil which yields cheap synthetic fertilizers, powers heavy machinery etc. Once it runs out, things will level out. You can't outsmart nature, you can't out-tech it as you naively believe. Synthetic fertilizers are acidifying soils all across the Africa, soils lose organic carbon and life, leading to falling yields and more application of fertilizers - vicious loop. The much touted green revolution has been a failure, GMO's won't feed us. The only solution is regenerative agriculture, slow food, appropriate technology and local economies - forget about exporting to Europe and China. The air miles make it worthless.
I agree with your caution. I don't know what the balance is re sustainable development. I'm so torn. We can't just say that if you're still poor now, too bad. You just have to stay there for the rest of history. So what do we do? I personally want to protect elephants and their habitats almost as much as I want to protect development. But what is the answer?
If you care about nature as you claim then why are you screaming bloody murder at modest attempts at controlling our population?
How will the elephants survive if you insist on exploiting their habitats?
Punguza siasa mingi, ati Western don't want to see blacks. ..
-
If you care about nature as you claim then why are you screaming bloody murder at modest attempts at controlling our population?
How will the elephants survive if you insist on exploiting their habitats?
Punguza siasa mingi, ati Western don't want to see blacks. ..
So you have no solution. It would've been better to just say, "Mimi sijui, we should just sacrifice ourselves so bazungu can keep going as they are; there's no other way." Yako ndio siasa.:D The bazungu are right there in conferences saying they are terrified of the African bomb next door and you are here as usual fully swallowing every last piece of propaganda they dish out like a good, uncritical little bot. :D Keep going.
And I didn't resist modest attempts at controlling our population, btw: I criticized Western motives for yapping about our population 247 while they work to convince their people to give birth and lock African immigrants out. I also praised Chinese investments in Africa which WILL lead to sustainable population in the long-term as our populations organically modernize/urbanize. Far more effective than fighting their biological instincts to ensure their lineage in insecure circumstances.
-
The only thing I find immoral is extreme poverty. I cannot engage in academic debate about culling human beings like they were chicken or forcing them to have 1 or 2 kids. People will get kids. There is absolutely nothing we can do about - beyond educating them - and waiting for effects to show up in 20-40yrs - unless you subscribe crazy stuff. All we can do is fix the poverty. We cannot fix that poverty in Africa - without destroying the enviroment. It just not possible.
Sustainable development is a luxury that western developed world can engage in.
What Africa need to do as priority is to fix poverty. If it means cutting down the Congo to grow food. Let's do it. We cannot have families sleeping hungry as we engage in tree hugging debates.
These poor people are HERE. They are no statistics. These people NEED FOOD now. If you don't want us to cut trees - give them free food. Brazil are cutting Amazons. Kipsigis are cutting Mau forest. The Congolese are cutting trees. Nigerians the same. They are selling the trees - and growing food!
Once we have eliminate global poverty - we can go into these luxuries. But for now we have poor people sleeping hungry.
In meantime while Africa is doing it's damage - let western world pay the price and FIX their mess. For every acre of forest in africa we cut - they should plant 2 acres. For every carbon we produce - they should sink it.
Natural resources - some maybe finite - but human brain - is not. Europe went through environmental degradation but is now almost 40% a forest. Well not exactly the natural forest with animals - but well there are become more and more forested - as they transitioned from agrarian economy to industrial one.
The same will happen in Africa and Asia - we will go industrial level farming on small land - and plant trees.
What we know is wealth - provide us the resources - to fix problems including enviroment/climate.
So for me - it simple cut trees first - grow your food - transition into factory jobs - and then re-plant trees.
There is no other way - what western nations are trying to do is to throw the LADDER down.
Monoculture planted forests are not the same as the real thing - forests that are self willed, full of plant and animal diversity, wonder, that provide so many ecosystem services for humanity are impossible to replicate. You are playing politics with the cut trees develop later nonsense. It is chilling how your immoral prescriptions for nature mirror early 19th century Westerners responsible for much of the decline in the natural world.
Humanity's current foolishness is subsidized by cheap oil which yields cheap synthetic fertilizers, powers heavy machinery etc. Once it runs out, things will level out. You can't outsmart nature, you can't out-tech it as you naively believe. Synthetic fertilizers are acidifying soils all across the Africa, soils lose organic carbon and life, leading to falling yields and more application of fertilizers - vicious loop. The much touted green revolution has been a failure, GMO's won't feed us. The only solution is regenerative agriculture, slow food, appropriate technology and local economies - forget about exporting to Europe and China. The air miles make it worthless.
-
My only question to the woke Kadame and RV Pundit is why you appreciate the Chinese altruism and not their resoundingly effective one-child policy?
-
Nice but cannot be done in a democray; Therefore we have to be a little patient - like wait for 50yrs - to get the same results.
My only question to the woke Kadame and RV Pundit is why you appreciate the Chinese altruism and not their resoundingly effective one-child policy?
-
My only question to the woke Kadame and RV Pundit is why you appreciate the Chinese altruism and not their resoundingly effective one-child policy?
I said I have no problem with Africans acting to manage their own population. I just don't buy Western "concern" over this matter.
I don't think China is "altrustic." I think China is pragmatic and business oriented without the baggage of colonialism and its effects to blind their decision-making. Increasing development investments in Africa and other third world countries gives them a future market, but be4 the market, a future labor force, incase those robots don't come soon enough to take all the human jobs. China is fast transitioning into a country that can no longer depend on selling "cheap labour" as an economic model but only provide a thriving middle-class/market and mostly high-end service/managerial/professional-class jobs ala Europe. If they are the biggest development partner to the countries that will be providing this cheap labour, with deep economic ties/entanglements, they will benefit ahead of anyone. Iyo tu. Hapana anything "saintly" about any of this. Of course I'm happy about this, as an African, because the West would prefer to let Africa provide nothing but raw resources at throw-away prices. It's good that not everybody with some capital to spend sees the continent in that one, narrow, one-dimensional way. Africans should be glad about this.
As to that particular policy: 1 child policy in an underpopulated continent? China was never as scarcely populated as Africa. At least replacement level (2.5 or 2 to 3) would be better. My biggest objection, though, would be how you would effect this? The High Court will quash this the very moment anyone passes anything close to this in Kenya. You would be talking about fighting the political system just so you can force people to do this. We don't have the Chinese system so it will never work. The modest efforts will work but development will work long-term. All you need is to have majority of girls going through the entire length of education and this "problem" is kaput.
-
Kadame: it is projected China will be the global superpower with 2X or 3X the US economy in the mid 21st century. Do you see this as a possible salvation for Africa from penury? This I pick from your disdain for the West. Do you expect the Chinese will be better masters of the world?
-
Kadame: it is projected China will be the global superpower with 2X or 3X the US economy in the mid 21st century. Do you see this as a possible salvation for Africa from penury? This I pick from your disdain for the West. Do you expect the Chinese will be better masters of the world?
I expect China will pursue its economic interests and not try to colonize any worse than the West, in any case. Even IF they become another British/American empire, at least we'll have some good, much-needed infrastructure that's not purely designed to take out stuff and not facilitate intra-African trade. 8)
How do you see Western policies towards Africa, given your characterization of critique directed towards it as "disdain"? :D Do you consider their motives "altruistic", the term you used to characterize my praise of Chinese investments?
-
I expect China will pursue its economic interests and not try to colonize any worse than the West, in any case. Even IF they become another British/American empire, at least we'll have some good, much-needed infrastructure that's not purely designed to take out stuff and not facilitate intra-African trade. 8)
How do you see Western policies towards Africa, given your characterization of critique directed towards it as "disdain"? :D Do you consider their motives "altruistic", the term you used to characterize my praise of Chinese investments?
I am suspicious of Chinese altruism. They attitude and actions in the present sphere of influence is not encouraging. The South China Sea "9-dash line" is a seagrab. I would prefer more a multipolar world but I am realistic: China is likely to be an exacting, overbearing superpower.
The West? The recent historical atrocities such as slavery and colonialism tell it all. I still read litlle-known reports of CIA death squads in the CAR or Chad and they are chilling. The wild is a jungle and Africans are the bottom feeders. But I do not view it as the West's duty to develop Africa. Life is Darwinian and I wish Africans had the fortitude (or industrious disposition) to self-emancipate, self-improve, self-develop. Herein lies my admiration of the Chinese, their systems and their methods, including the one-child policy, eminent domain, meritocratic governance, etc. I see it as a more viable path than the West.
While I loathe the West, am only suspicious of Chinese motives not actions. I am not suspicious nor critical of Kadame. :)
-
I don't expect China to be a good little "law-abiding" citizen of current international law, for sure; they've long expressed their view of it as a biased tool designed without the input of much of the international community that work under it, include itself. The Law of the Sea has been shaped first by Europeans disputing among themselves between coastal states that wanted to claim as much of the sea adjacent to themselves as possible and great sea-farer states who wanted to maximize "international waters" as much as possible. Later it was shaped a lot by American interests as the dominant sea-faring state. What I expect is the international regime will change according to domestic Chinese views of international relations, much as has happened under the West and lately, American dominance. Especially rules of trade, this area too (LOS), and its view of sovereignty in international law, and emphasis on "socioeconomic rights" well above/in place of "political rights".
But I don't expect China to become a colonizer, ala the West at least until I see genuine moves in that direction; so mine is a "wait and see" attitude. That's not because I think they're altruist. I think their civilization as it appears in their long history, when coupled with the CPC's apparent commitments to socialist ideology so far (they retain control over capital and have undeniable redirected their capital gains towards investments very aligned with that ideology), warrants I wait and see and simply not assume they'll just ape the West. In addition, at least during their rise, (and outside the S. China Sea issue), they've not used fire power to quell border disputes and have not even simply taken over their historical claims but preferred a much slower process throughout.
In addition, Europe is gonna be developing its own military and integrating deeper after Brexit. The EU is a super power already, with a combined gdp near America's. They just haven't had to assert themselves because of NATO and the slow integration business but that will change. Between them and the U.S., it's not like China will be alone in the world throwing its weight around as it wishes. China's belt and road shows its far more interested in integrating into and trading with both Europe and the U.S. The only beligerance I see is coming from Anglo-saxxon countries, with the EU led by the Germans being very reluctantly roped into the whole thing.
I don't think the West has the grounds to be preaching high ideals/white saviour bs while it happily deliberately puts its boot on Africa's neck re development. That's my thesis/critique here. I also know that because of how the modern economy works it's impossible, whatever Africa does, to get out of poverty without capital investments and fairer trading arrangements. Even China wouldn't have hacked it if they hadn't convinced the U.S. to remove tarrifs and level the playing field between them. Virtually ALL of their economic growth came from that agreement.
The only difference between them and the U.S. during that time of mutual prosperity, is that the Chinese extra trillions made were re-invested back into their people/population (which is where that famed "lifted 800 million out of poverty" comes from) while America, after letting China take all of its manufacturing and jobs from its own people in exchange for those mega trillions, simply used it to make its billionaires even richer and the Middle East a neo-medieval region with its nice bombs, while stagnating its own bottom 50% in the process. So yes, I like the Chinese govt much better than the American one, ALL of its flaws notwithstanding. They have shown far greater responsibility over their people's welfare and more civility towards poorer countries than the current no. 1. (I won't accuse Europe of neglecting its peoples' welfare, though: it hasn't). Even the way China has chosen to deal with its terrorist problem is FAR more civil than the American 'solutions' (all their fake 'genocide' cries notwithstanding, I think forced re-education and efforts to integrate a group is much better than Guantanamo bay and the craziness the U.S. has been doing in the MEast with drones and its military). And China doesn't present itself as an evangelist of super-morality, so it's modest good actions become much easier to praise whereas the West sets itself up for severe criticism with its moral posturing. :D
-
There was a time we had talk in Kenya about reclaiming the arid areas for farming. The idea was to provide land to everyone. Wonder what happened to that? I'm not in support of farming in the Mau or privatising the land around the Mara. There are arrangements in place where pastoralists communities get a share of revenue from tourism. In turn, they don't turn their land into farms and fence it off, thereby killing the natural habitat of ellies and other wildlife. We should do that: Ban farming in that big area but create a revenue sharing system. Find a partner for reclaiming the arid areas and carry out responsible farming and settlements/housing for once. Take our tourism as seriously as South Africa does so we can make money on that land in ways other than farming.
-
If Africa is expecting its salvation to come from China, then Africa is doomed.
Nobody has ever been helped to salvation on this earth. It is your own initiative that counts. Believing the Chinese will be better colonial masters than the West was is a dilusion. Colonial masters are always masters and a master has to have a servant. So if the Chinese are the masters guess who will be the servant?
Africa has to look for its own solutions away from the Wet vs China circus.We are on our own if we want to develop our countries.
Kadame: it is projected China will be the global superpower with 2X or 3X the US economy in the mid 21st century. Do you see this as a possible salvation for Africa from penury? This I pick from your disdain for the West. Do you expect the Chinese will be better masters of the world?
-
More like partners. Africa need capital - infrastructure, etc. Africa has abundance of land and natural resource. china want it. Europe and developed world no longer really need that much of it. China are coming in partners - they get raw materials to their citizens to transitioned into developed world - and they fix the railways and roads.
Just like European colonial power fixed African infrastructure 120yrs ago...maybe built 30,000kms of railways in Africa...or more..not for us..but for themselves.
The same with China now...they are building our rails and roads as WIN-WIN - we use it domestically - they also use it to ship raw materials.
US/Europe has nothing to offer us except LONG LECTURES INCLUDING ABOUT LGBT. Obama lost Africa when the idiot pushed for it - that least of our problem...talk extreme povery.
China will give us the same huge push European did (for their own interest) during colonial period..
And hopefully this time round we can take full advantage of ....
Good thing China don't have that history of using force to get what they want....so they probably won't sponsor wars and coups...to get what they want.
Great thing...we are just poor but not longer ignorant. We have gone to schools. We maybe corrupt but we generally know what we want..so Chinese are not going to overrrun Africa.
If Africa is expecting its salvation to come from China, then Africa is doomed.
Nobody has ever been helped to salvation on this earth. It is your own initiative that counts. Believing the Chinese will be better colonial masters than the West was is a dilusion. Colonial masters are always masters and a master has to have a servant. So if the Chinese are the masters guess who will be the servant?
Africa has to look for its own solutions away from the Wet vs China circus.We are on our own if we want to develop our countries.
Kadame: it is projected China will be the global superpower with 2X or 3X the US economy in the mid 21st century. Do you see this as a possible salvation for Africa from penury? This I pick from your disdain for the West. Do you expect the Chinese will be better masters of the world?