Famine in Somalia

[Bonam]

I dunno. Our impact hasnt been all negative... and not all aid is direct food aid. We also share all kinds of technology for things like farming, water filtration, etc. Over the last hundred years or so life expectancy has gone way up, and infant mortality has gone way down. Its insane to argue that things havent improved.

40 years is "gone way up"? People were living that span tens of thousands of years ago, before any of them even left Africa.

As for "hundreds of billions of dollars". Thats a drop in the bucket. The western world has probably spent more than that on tampons or toilet paper over the same ammount of time. Weve given very little in relative terms.

A drop in the bucket that could have seen us having finished developing controlled fusion energy, having had a base on the Moon, having unlocked the secrets of the universe with giant telescopes or particle accelerators, or many other things. Those are just my examples as an engineer. Take your pick. How much more/better infrastructure could that money have bought, how many more schools, more hospitals? Far far better uses than sending it down a black hole in Africa.

[Remiel]

A drop in the bucket that could have seen us having finished developing controlled fusion energy, having had a base on the Moon, having unlocked the secrets of the universe with giant telescopes or particle accelerators, or many other things. Those are just my examples as an engineer. Take your pick. How much more/better infrastructure could that money have bought, how many more schools, more hospitals? Far far better uses than sending it down a black hole in Africa.

What makes you think that some billions not spent in Africa would have been spent well somewhere else?

[Bonam]

What makes you think that some billions not spent in Africa would have been spent well somewhere else?

Spent well or poorly, or not spent at all, almost anything would have been better. All they have done as is cause untold harm, as I explained above.

[Bob]

The west has a huge agricultural surplus though. Its easy to share food and basic medicine with these people, and as long as this kind of direct aid is accompanied by other programs that help them develop economically its actually quite effective.

"The west has a huge agricultural surplus"? What does that mean, exactly, that foods produced aren't being completely purchased by consumers? Are we supposed to be surprised by that? Go look at at grocery store and you'll see tons of food get wasted, that's normal and it's nothing to be embarrassed about. So let's send the Somalians the foods after they begin to decompose in the local Loblaws, how's that sound? Manufacturers produce what they can and try to sell the foods until they can no longer sell them (when the food spoils). You're trying to paint this picture of us overproducing, so we might as well send over "the surplus", even though there's no "we" involved in this at all - food manufacturing is privatised. It's not your food to give. So unless you want the taxpayer to food the bill and buy these foods as market price in order to ship them over to Somalia (I certainly don't, we shouldn't send them anything for free), and perpetuate the problem, stop whining about it. I certainly don't care about Somalia. Let them figure it out on their own. I'd rather ten cents go to give a Canadian child a lollipop than ten cents go to Somalia.

[Bob]

I dunno. Our impact hasnt been all negative... and not all aid is direct food aid. We also share all kinds of technology for things like farming, water filtration, etc. Over the last hundred years or so life expectancy has gone way up, and infant mortality has gone way down. Its insane to argue that things havent improved.

As for "hundreds of billions of dollars". Thats a drop in the bucket. The western world has probably spent more than that on tampons or toilet paper over the same ammount of time. Weve given very little in relative terms.

Things haven't improved. They've gotten worse. At least in the context of most impoverished African countries. Many diseases are WAY up. Life expectancy certainly hasn't risen in many countries. Poverty is up. Violence is up. You're making shit up. Good luck providing ANY evidence and meaningful context to your broad claims.

Trillions of dollars have been poured into Africa since the 60s. And for what? For virtually nothing. On balance, the effect has been negative. But of course you march like a good leftist soldiers parroting the claim of benefits, without having a shred of knowledge about any of these issues. Everything you say is an assumption based on "common knowledge".

[Jack Weber]

No, it's not "easy" or "inexpensive". Hundreds of billions have been spent over the decades trying to "share". The opportunity cost of that must be considered. Is maintaining a vast, diseased, suffering population at a level far far above what can be sustained in that part of the world really the best use of those resources? How much less suffering would there have been if we had never helped, the population returned to normal levels, and the people were able to sustain themselves off the land? What could we have built with those hundreds of billions that could have made a real difference, here at home?

Instead, we have crowded festering slums, infested with AIDS and countless other horrific diseases, jungles burned and trampled to mud by people looking for the last gorilla to eat or elephant's tusk to sell, and a dehumanized population pridelessly surviving off of foreign handouts, fighting neigboring tribes, raping and killing each other by the millions. How much better off would Africa be if a hundred million people lived there instead of a billion? The "aid" that we have provided has created the present situation by allowing the population to balloon out of control.

Centuries from now, this "aid" will be remembered with as much regret as the colonization and enslavement of Africa is today. Then, too, Western intellectuals thought they were doing the right thing, "civilizing" the "savages". Today, we think we are "helping" them. Nothing has changed, nothing will ever change, so long as we continue to meddle with primitive cultures. We must leave them alone and let them chart their own course and develop naturally.

You are completely clueless about Africa...

The overcrowded cities on the continent are a result of Western subsidies making farming impossible...The former farmers have nowhere else to go to make a living...

The forest has'nt been chopped down in search of the last elephant tusk,(By the way topographical whiz kid,the elephant is a grass eating animal that lives in those grassy areas in the Sotueastern part of the continen, NOT the forest!!!) or the last gorilla to eat,it's been cut down to satisfy international logging concerns!!!I've seen the logs coming out the bush with my own eyes and seen them piled up in Douala to be loaded onto ships for international export...

The rest of your indirect eugenics laden diatribe is better left with the likes Dr. Shockley...

Edited July 26, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

Things haven't improved. They've gotten worse. At least in the context of most impoverished African countries. Many diseases are WAY up. Life expectancy certainly hasn't risen in many countries. Poverty is up. Violence is up. You're making shit up. Good luck providing ANY evidence and meaningful context to your broad claims.

Fish, meet barrel:

Africa's impressive growth - The Economist, Jan.6, 2011

Trillions of dollars have been poured into Africa since the 60s. And for what? For virtually nothing. On balance, the effect has been negative. But of course you march like a good leftist soldiers parroting the claim of benefits, without having a shred of knowledge about any of these issues. Everything you say is an assumption based on "common knowledge".

How do you tell the difference between a social conservative and a real conservative?

Real conservatives risk investment in future markets to expand the client base for their goods and services in order to build their business. Social conservatives are more concerned with culture, language and skin colour. They take no risks because they are a trembling lot of cowards.

So Bob, after a 30 second Google search I have basically proved that you have no idea what you are talking about broadly, let alone with details.

It would seem you are pulling the wrong things out of yer arse. You might want to first start with your head next time.

[Jack Weber]

Fish, meet barrel:

Africa's impressive growth - The Economist, Jan.6, 2011

How do you tell the difference between a social conservative and a real conservative?

Real conservatives risk investment in future markets to expand the client base for their goods and services in order to build their business. Social conservatives are more concerned with culture, language and skin colour. They take no risks because they are a trembling lot of cowards.

So Bob, after a 30 second Google search I have basically proved that you have no idea what you are talking about broadly, let alone with details.

It would seem you are pulling the wrong things out of yer arse. You might want to first start with your head next time.

Bobby needs to go worry about his pile of meaningless Mediterranean rocks and leave the global geopolitic discussion to those with the intellectual capacity to do so...

Edited July 26, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Bob]

Fish, meet barrel:

Africa's impressive growth - The Economist, Jan.6, 2011

How do you tell the difference between a social conservative and a real conservative?

Real conservatives risk investment in future markets to expand the client base for their goods and services in order to build their business. Social conservatives are more concerned with culture, language and skin colour. They take no risks because they are a trembling lot of cowards.

So Bob, after a 30 second Google search I have basically proved that you have no idea what you are talking about broadly, let alone with details.

It would seem you are pulling the wrong things out of yer arse. You might want to first start with your head next time.

So an article from The Economist citing a handful of African countries with a higher rate of GDP growth than most other countries disproves my assertion that foreign aid has done little good, and much more harm, for the most impoverished African countries? Case closed, eh? In your world of high-school education, GDP figures from a handful of are all we need to know. Pathetic.

Let's forget about looking at disease statistics, literacy rates, infant mortality, essential infrastructure, security, life expectancy, and on and on and on. All we need are GDP figures from a handful of African countries to demonstrate that foreign aid to Africa is doing more good than harm! Only on MLW can complex issues be dumbed down to the nth degree. complete with cheerleading.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Bob

[Oleg Bach]

Bobby needs to go worry about his pile of meaningless Mediterranean rocks and leave the global geopolitic discussion to those with the intellectual capacity to do so...

Hummm - so Bod is from Zorgon also? So much for that...on a real note - Personally I know a man that has spent the last 16 years on and off living in the Congo - He writes for the Economist...a down to earth and very proper guy - Educated at Cambridge and the London School of Economics. His name is Douglas Mason...He is a very dedicated person and knows the workings of Africa better than most. Doug believes in the people but knows that things take time and he is doing just that - putting in the time to gain full understanding...Just wish he would come home so I can visit his cottage....I always have ulterior motives...lol.

[M.Dancer]

There shouldn't be people starving in this world. WE have the means to feed all the people around the world ....

That is incorrect. We may have enough food to feed the world, but the means is not within our grasp.

The one thing that africa lacks in this regard is infrastructure. If they spent less time trying to rob, steal and kill each other and more time for building roads and warehouses...

Or we could recolonize the place, which of course, would do the job.

[Oleg Bach]

That is incorrect. We may have enough food to feed the world, but the means is not within our grasp.

The one thing that africa lacks in this regard is infrastructure. If they spent less time trying to rob, steal and kill each other and more time for building roads and warehouses...

Or we could recolonize the place, which of course, would do the job.

They do not have money for infrastructure - for the last fifty years any western company that has operated in Africa - has one rule of thumb - get what you can for free and never pay the inhabitiants anything if you can.

[Bonam]

You are completely clueless about Africa...

The overcrowded cities on the continent are a result of Western subsidies making farming impossible...The former farmers have nowhere else to go to make a living...

The forest has'nt been chopped down in search of the last elephant tusk,(By the way topographical whiz kid,the elephant is a grass eating animal that lives in those grassy areas in the Sotueastern part of the continen, NOT the forest!!!) or the last gorilla to eat,it's been cut down to satisfy international logging concerns!!!I've seen the logs coming out the bush with my own eyes and seen them piled up in Douala to be loaded onto ships for international export...

"Elephants don't live in the forest"... that's the best you've got? That sentence was plainly metaphor.

And how exactly do Western subsidies make farming "impossible"? If you want to farm, you go to a piece of land that's suitable for farming, and you farm. Western subsidies make farming not profitable. Big freaking deal if you're in the middle of a famine. I'd rather have food than profit.

[charter.rights]

And how exactly do Western subsidies make farming "impossible"?

You make people dependent on process foods at cheaper than grow at home prices.

That is exactly the goal of Canada exporting Canadian wheat into China as a replacement for rice. They do the same kinds of things by shipping wheat to poor countries who can't grow it or mill it themselves. Next thing you know they are buying tons of the stuff because the people are starving, again.

[bush_cheney2004]

That is incorrect. We may have enough food to feed the world, but the means is not within our grasp.

Yup...the challenge has long been one of distribution, not production. The world loses or wastes more than enough foodstuffs to prevent famine in Africa.

When I was a kid, parents would tell children to eat all their supper as children in China had none. Knowing my true calling even as a child, I would quip, "OK...ship it to them instead".

[Moonlight Graham]

If the Dutch can take over flooded countryside (Bradford) and make it into one of the most lush growing areas in Canada,it tells me who wants to work and who doesn't.

lol. What?

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't think I really care about this Somalian famine. It's certainly not our responsibility to feed them money to address their own failures.

If somebody smashes your car up with a sledge-hammer, then you drive it really roughly for 20,000km, then your car breaks down...is it all your failure?

[Bob]

If somebody smashes your car up with a sledge-hammer, then you drive it really roughly for 20,000km, then your car breaks down...is it all your failure?

Oh, be serious. Colonialism, while an important event to understand when considering contemporary African history and challenges/issues, is not an excuse for ongoing failures. If anything, much of the blame for ongoing failures rests on the current system of foreign aid. Most foreign aid perpetuates the problems it claims to address. Moreover, many former colonies with more intimate experiences with colonialism are faring far better than many failed African states. If anything is to be used as an excuse for ongoing failures, it should be geographical curses.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm kinda apathetic as well. Those TV ads about starving kids in Africa have been there since before I was born. Nothing's changed.

Nothing? I'd check the stats again.

Also, i think people need to ask the question: why hasn't there been more progress? Then find the answers to that question (the ones known), because they're out there and some aren't pretty.

Besides that, I certainly don't think shipping food over there is gonna solve anything. And people who try to go help there put themselves in great personal danger. Better to stay out of it and not interfere.

Staying out of it is certainly a legit viewpoint. The problem is we don't. We will exploit them for their resources and through trade, and sell the developing world more money in arms than we give them in aid, among a great many other things. I would say if we stop interfering with them, we do it on both sides of the coin.

Also, Somalia is a dangerous place, but there are refugees camps looking for help in neighbouring countries like Kenya and elsewhere.

[M.Dancer]

Oh, be serious. Colonialism, while an important event to understand when considering contemporary African history and challenges/issues, is not an excuse for ongoing failures. If anything, much of the blame for ongoing failures rests on the current system of foreign aid. Most foreign aid perpetuates the problems it claims to address. Moreover, many former colonies with more intimate experiences with colonialism are faring far better than many failed African states. If anything is to be used as an excuse for ongoing failures, it should be geographical curses.

Colonialism, at least British colonialism was a positive experiance compared to post or pre colonialism. Gone were the slave traders, the tribal warfare, the hunger...

It is post colonialism that really buggered up the place, that and the soviets...

[Bob]

Colonialism, at least British colonialism was a positive experiance compared to post or pre colonialism. Gone were the slave traders, the tribal warfare, the hunger...

It is post colonialism that really buggered up the place, that and the soviets...

When I mention colonialism, I am including the after-effects of its conclusion and withdrawal. I don't think anyone is advocating for colonialism 2.0, because such a thing should be a voluntary endeavour for relevant stakeholders, but I am not fiercely opposed to colonialism, either. I think there are possibilities to practise colonialism in "softer" manner that is no oppressive. Anyways, I'm taking the thread off-topic - I reject Moonlight Graham's simplistic excuse-making for ongoing failures in many impoverished African states.

[Moonlight Graham]

No, it's not "easy" or "inexpensive". Hundreds of billions have been spent over the decades trying to "share". The opportunity cost of that must be considered. Is maintaining a vast, diseased, suffering population at a level far far above what can be sustained in that part of the world really the best use of those resources? How much less suffering would there have been if we had never helped, the population returned to normal levels, and the people were able to sustain themselves off the land? What could we have built with those hundreds of billions that could have made a real difference, here at home?

Instead, we have crowded festering slums, infested with AIDS and countless other horrific diseases, jungles burned and trampled to mud by people looking for the last gorilla to eat or elephant's tusk to sell, and a dehumanized population pridelessly surviving off of foreign handouts, fighting neigboring tribes, raping and killing each other by the millions. How much better off would Africa be if a hundred million people lived there instead of a billion? The "aid" that we have provided has created the present situation by allowing the population to balloon out of control.

Centuries from now, this "aid" will be remembered with as much regret as the colonization and enslavement of Africa is today. Then, too, Western intellectuals thought they were doing the right thing, "civilizing" the "savages". Today, we think we are "helping" them. Nothing has changed, nothing will ever change, so long as we continue to meddle with primitive cultures. We must leave them alone and let them chart their own course and develop naturally.

It's a puzzle without a solution anyone has really figured out definitely yet. It is an extremely complex puzzle, like a Rubik's cube.

I prefer the "trade not aid" approach. Let developing countries in on the global capitalist economy on equal trade terms as OECD countries, and let their economies develop. This will cost western economies some lost money, but doing this while reducing aid can help balance the money gains/losses.

You hit on a huge problem, which is the population growth. A fully developed Africa could probably be sweet economically for the West, vast new markets to sell goods, but I wouldn't want to breathe the air in a world where most African households own a car (running on oil that doesn't exist). With current technology, it doesn't seem possible for humans to live long if at all in a world where the current 7 billion people lived in fully developed countries.

[Moonlight Graham]

Moreover, many former colonies with more intimate experiences with colonialism are faring far better than many failed African states. If anything is to be used as an excuse for ongoing failures, it should be geographical curses.

Colonialism isn't an excuse, it's a major part of the explanation of the economic/social failure of African states vis-a-vis other states. But not the only part, as I eluded to in my analogy.

You can compare former colonies against each other, but you can also compare how native peoples of former colonies compare. Some, like in India, are doing better than those in most African states. Other former colonies who had the most 'intimate experiences' with colonialism, like the Americas, Australia, New Zealand etc., had their natives decimated because of European contact and colonialism.

As an explanation, not an excuse, how would you argue "geography" as a reason for the underdevelopment of African states? (besides obviously some of the states located largely on desert)

[Bob]

Colonialism isn't an excuse, it's a major part of the explanation of the economic/social failure of African states vis-a-vis other states. But not the only part, as I eluded to in my analogy.

You can compare former colonies against each other, but you can also compare how native peoples of former colonies compare. Some, like in India, are doing better than those in most African states. Other former colonies who had the most 'intimate experiences' with colonialism, like the Americas, Australia, New Zealand etc., had their natives decimated because of European contact and colonialism.

As an explanation, not an excuse, how would you argue "geography" as a reason for the underdevelopment of African states? (besides obviously some of the states located largely on desert)

As a general rule of thumb with history, the further in the past a phenomenon. the less relevant it is today. And as time goes on, the colonial experience of Arab countries becomes less and less relevant to today's situation. Also, the colonial experience varies between nations/states.

As far as geography, it is hugely relevant, if not the most important factor. Geography determines resources and climatic conditions for agriculture and harvesting of domesticable animals, and it includes topography which affects potential for development.

From my humble research into the current failures in Africa's poorest states, colonialism plays little role in the perpetuation of poverty and its associated problems. A much bigger problem is the failed current implementation of foreign aid.

[Moonlight Graham]

As far as geography, it is hugely relevant, if not the most important factor. Geography determines resources and climatic conditions for agriculture and harvesting of domesticable animals, and it includes topography which affects potential for development.

Yes of course geography is huge in any countries' development. I was asking the reason why you think geography has been a negative to poor African states in particular?

From my humble research into the current failures in Africa's poorest states, colonialism plays little role in the perpetuation of poverty and its associated problems. A much bigger problem is the failed current implementation of foreign aid.

Well i'll just disgaree with you on the impact of colonialism on the current underdevelopment of most African states. That's like saying colonialism has little to due with the current economic/social problems of North American aboriginals.

But ya i'll agree that foreign aid and the entire 'development' project has caused major problems too. As i've stated in other posts, the causes are extremely complex and certainly multi-causal.