Was Africa saved by AIDS?

[di Malebranche]

EDIT: So yeah, this topic has caught some grief, and will catch more, so I acknowledge that it was a mistake and apologise in advance to anyone who continues to read beyond this.

We hear alot about the incredibly high percentage of the African population currently afflicted with AIDS, and while I do feel sympathy for some of these people (namely the children born of HIV-infected parents), I offer the following point.

Lets say for the sake of arguement that the AIDS epidemic began around 1982 in Africa. We're talking full-swing of things and growing out of control. Since then it is safe assumption that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have died because of complications with AIDS. Now, consider if this population hadn't died. A majority of these people, within the last twenty-four years, would have most likely procreated at least once. Some may have had two, three, four, a dozen children even. The population would be much higher now, in a place where millions upon millions are already starving. There would be more fighters for civil and tribal wars. There would be more people squeezed into underdeveloped cities and population centers.

If not for the AIDS epidemic, I think Africa would be far worse off than it currently is.

Your take?

[Rasmus]

Your take?

My take would get me banned here until after the heat death of the universe.

[di Malebranche]

In ill response to my post, or because your response would be inacceptable?

[tkingdoll]

It boils down to a few questions:

If it were you, would you rather die of starvation, or of AIDS?
Is AIDS curable? Is starvation?

If you can answer those question, you might be close to finding your answer.

[di Malebranche]

Starvation is cureable, but not in the current state of affairs.

The state of affairs not being the assets available throughout the world, but rather, the assets that the rest of the world is willing to give to Africa to fix the problem.

I'm not trying to come off in such a way that you should think I support AIDS or anything. I'm just saying that if not for AIDS, Africa would could possibly be much worse off than it currently is.

Though in the process of writing this response, I've considered the fact that AIDS continues as an epidemic, and if the increase of cases continues to blossom, it will remain as it is: a horrible tragedy to the continent, and the world.

[Silly Green Monkey]

AIDS is a horrible tragedy everywhere in the world, why are you singling out Africa?

[di Malebranche]

Because Africa has the highest population effected by the syndrome, by far. The same as I can say Botswana has over 1/3 of the population currently diagnosed, or that Nigeria has over 3 million people with AIDS. Where it is a problem and epidemic all over the world, is a centralized threat to an entire continent in Africa.

[SteveGrenard]

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/cause.php

[di Malebranche]

Grr. Double post.

[di Malebranche]

That's a very informative website. Thanks, Steve, I'm reading through it now.

I should note that my preferred means of world population devestation is the removal of all warning labels.

[Soapy Sam]

Even from mattresses?

[di Malebranche]

Most -definately- from mattresses.

That'd amass at least a hundred thousand right off the bat.

[Dogdoctor]

People die one way or another so what? I don't think this topic is so bad. It is merely the way it is posted and explained that is a problem. If you are saying that people dying of aids saved them from dieing from starvation or some other disease, how is that saved?

[jj]

My take would get me banned here until after the heat death of the universe.


I'm afraid that I'm with you on this one. I don't think I'll reply, either.

I don't see the need for people to be dying for either reason, myself.

[jon]

I'm with Rasmus on this, but wouldn't want to get banned quite this quickly, so first a couple of problems with what you say ;)

There's a lot of Africans. Unsurprisingly, they do lots of things other than fight in civil/tribal wars (btw, you don't mention interstate wars/conflicts - are these more productive than civil wars?) Unless something drastic changes, AIDS is likely to kill off a large part of the younger generation at a time when they would normally be working productively - as well as obviously being bad for those who die and their friends/families, this is not good for the economies or the societies in the continent.

Africa's a big place. Don't you need to distinguish between different countries/different regions (the economy in South Africa, for example, is much stronger than in Zimbabwe)? Again, big parts of Africa are relatively peaceful.

As JJ notes, neither war nor starvation are inevitable.

Jon

[Elind]

If not for the AIDS epidemic, I think Africa would be far worse off than it currently is.

Your take?
No one can say, but the flip side is that those dying fastest are the young; meaning those who might have been able to make it a better place.

Obviously there is something wrong with their cultures that prevents them from learning from known truths and changing their promiscuity (I'm not automatically opposed to that, just the lack of smarts, as in condoms).

The bottom line is that they reap what they sow. That applies to all humans. Wars are another method of limiting population and sometimes educating them. Africa has plenty of both and hopefully evolution will run its course and do what it does best, eventually.

:(

[Soapy Sam]

Ironically, much of the spread of AIDS in Africa is due to modernisation- better roads and the internal combustion engine. Viruses travel by truck these days - and of course, by plane.
Human genetic variation inside Africa is greater than in the rest of the world put together. If Africa can't evolve resistance to HIV, ultimately, it's unlikely the rest of mankind will.
Africa is chapter one.
The HIV story has a long way to go yet.

[SteveGrenard]

If you visit the website I posted above, on a worldwide basis among developing nations, there are 2.67 million mortalities due to AIDS (1.9 million in sub-Sahran Africa). A close second is lower respiratory diseases
(usually pneumonias) at 2.64 million, Ischemic Heart Disease at 2.48 million and Diarrheal diseases at 1.78 million. Malaria kills 1.1 million and TB finishes off another 1.02 million people in developing nations. Starvation isn't up there. AIDS just happens to be at the top of the list but if it weren't there, people who die of AIDS would clearly be dying of something next on the list. In the developed world (e.g. the US and Western Europe) Ischemic Heart Disease kills 3.5 million people (more than AIDS),
related cerebrovascular disease knocks off another 3.3 million people. Chronic lung disease kills 1.8 million. AIDS isn't even in the top ten, but if it were, it would just kill people who won't have a chance to die of heart or vascular disease. Neither starvation or war seems to be in the top ten in either world although unquestionnably they cause deaths.

My answer would be, if anything, is that AIDS has saved Africa and Africans so they don't die of other diseases, starvation not being one of them although the point about famine due to an exploding population is difficult to assess since other diseases may move in to do this. By the same token if people in the developed world don't die of heart and CV disease, even at a later age, and people live much longer, who's to say their continued existence wouldn't precipitate a famine crisis as well?

[Luciana]

I agree, you should never have started this topic, as its premise is worthy of Iamme. And that's not a compliment.

If Africa had developed economically, you'd have higher educational levels and, consequently, longer life expectancy, smaller fertility rate and less deaths by preventable diseases, including AIDS. By killing people in working age, and children, with all the medical costs it implies, along with the social problems of having too many orphans and disabled people, it is fair to say that Africa's economic development will be hindered. It is very much when doctors say that smoking will shorten your life in x years. In this case, AIDS will slow or stall Africa's development, and losing decades of growing, at this point, might mean they won't catch up with other nations any time soon.

[Wowbagger]

Under your logic, the Black Plague must be recognized as a boon to Europeans, right?


ETA: By "your", I mean Di Malebranche, not whoever posted right above me.

[Dylab]

I agree with Luciana that the OP's reasoning is too simplistic but I don't see why morality should be involved here. As rational people we should be able to seperate the discussion of what is and what should be.

I could be misinterperting something here, though.

[Wowbagger]

EDIT: So yeah, this topic has caught some grief, and will catch more, so I acknowledge that it was a mistake and apologise in advance to anyone who continues to read beyond this.


Apology accepted, by me, at least.

[El_Spectre]

I agree, you should never have started this topic, as its premise is worthy of Iamme. And that's not a compliment.

Hey, so the poster had a bad argument. Some folks decided to address it, some decided to immediately attack.

What's up with that? Seems to me that if someone joins the forums and starts a dicussion with a bad premise, that is an opportunity for education; Too often around here, people immediately go on the attack... I know this is the internet and we're all safely anonymous, but is some civility too much to ask? Or patience? Or tolerance?

[Luciana]

Hey, so the poster had a bad argument. Some folks decided to address it, some decided to immediately attack.

What's up with that? Seems to me that if someone joins the forums and starts a dicussion with a bad premise, that is an opportunity for education; Too often around here, people immediately go on the attack... I know this is the internet and we're all safely anonymous, but is some civility too much to ask? Or patience? Or tolerance?

Are you directing this question at me, or is it a more general argument?

Because I do not think I was in attack mode, uncivil, impatient and intolerant. He acknowledged he started a bad thread and I agreed with that. Then I went on to explain my point of view, something I would not have done if I found there was no merit at all to the question. Others did the same, that is, answered accordingly.

The guy was asking for opinions and we gave it. Simple.

[casebro]

"In what way do you think history would be different, If Abraham Lincoln, instead of a beard, had octopus tentacles"? Norm, on "Cheers"

[Dr Adequate]

Under your logic, the Black Plague must be recognized as a boon to Europeans, right? It was.

Though no-one pointed that out at the time.

[The Don]

My answer would be, if anything, is that AIDS has saved Africa and Africans so they don't die of other diseases, starvation not being one of them although the point about famine due to an exploding population is difficult to assess since other diseases may move in to do this. By the same token if people in the developed world don't die of heart and CV disease, even at a later age, and people live much longer, who's to say their continued existence wouldn't precipitate a famine crisis as well?
You're neglecting to consider the economic impact of a disease which kills you very slowly. In addition to the deaths, AIDS has a profound effect on the families of those people who are not yet dead.

[Darat]

Is there evidence that the AIDS epidemic has acted as a significant depressor on the overall rate of population increase?

[athon]

I second Darat's question. It more or less goes in line with what I was wondering; what makes you think the lower standards of living in Africa (including famine) are due to large populations? Politics play the large role in food distribution and aid relief, which is not exactly largely dependent on population sizes. I venture that regardless of how big the population is, the issues Africa faces would not be any different in magnitude.

Athon

[jon]

It's also quite feasible that large parts of Africa could become (more than) self-sufficient in terms of food. Zimbabwe, for example, used to be an exporter of grain; it's only political mismanagement on a stunning scale that means it now suffers grain shortages and depends on imports. If anything, the fact that AIDS is (slowly) killing lots of young people could make it harder to increase food production - makes it harder to find a workforce to grow the food and therefore makes self-sufficiency harder to achieve.

I don't think you can entirely separate what is and what should be here. For example, many people on the continent are poor/affected by food shortages in part because of issues of resource distribution and entitlement. This already brings in normative issues - starvation is not caused by absolute shortage, but by ethical and political decisions. A real blessing would be if better decisions could be (or have been) made.

Edited for grammar

[di Malebranche]

My logic is completely flawed, I now realize.

Any chance this thread can be locked? I've shoved my leg down my throat far enough for my first day here, now.

[TriangleMan]

Is there evidence that the AIDS epidemic has acted as a significant depressor on the overall rate of population increase?
I just finished reading AIDS in the Twenty-First Century and it noted that population growth in Botswana and South Africa is expected to be -0.3% and -0.1%, although I've read WHO reports that expect Botswana's population to decrease by about 2% next year (or was that in 2005, I can't recall).

The book highlighted that HIV/AIDS has a profound socioeconomic impact on countries with high prevalence rates. The disease is primarily killing people in their prime and the book looked at how it affects the extended family, communities and the countries as a whole in terms of earnings and quality of life.

People interested in the topic should read that book. It provides compelling evidence that AIDS is making things far worse in Africa than it would have been had AIDS not been around.

[Rolfe]

My logic is completely flawed, I now realize.

Any chance this thread can be locked? I've shoved my leg down my throat far enough for my first day here, now.Di, I don't think you should feel so bad. Objectively, the question wasn't wholly unreasonable. After all, we're used to blaming a lot of problems on overpopulation, so could something that gets rid of a sizeable chunk of the population actually be beneficial in the long term?

It's only by thinking about it that one realises this is a fallacious argument. First, Africa is at the present moment quite demonstrably not "saved", so the basic premise is wrong right from the start, by virtue if its tense if nothing else. But even if we change the postulate to suggest that with hindsight, might it become clear that the AIDS-induced reduction in population was in fact a good thing for Africa, then again we can see that there are a lot of problems with this.

Africa's problems are not basically the result of overpopulation, but of political conflicts and corruption
AIDS tends to kill the productive members of society, leaving children and the elderly to look out for each other and do the work. Hardly a recipe for economic prosperity
AIDS kills slowly, and care for the victims is expensive in both money and manpower resourcesAnd I'm sure there are others. Nevertheless, this is the way to counter the suggestion, not attacking the poster for making the suggestion.

I don't think it's right to turn on Di for an apparently "immoral" opening premise, and castigate her from that standpoint. Certainly not in this forum. She has shown that she's perfectly open to argument and reason and the presentation of an alternative point of view. Exactly the sort of poster I would hope would be welcome on this forum.

I don't see any reason to lock the thread, because I don't see anything shameful in it. Di posted a rather naive and poorly thought-through suggestion, and promptly realised it was naive and poorly thought-through as soon as this was pointed out to her. Kudos. The thread might well serve a useful purpose in airing the issue for those who might also have taken the simplistic "population reduction is good" attitude, but were wary of broaching the subject.

The only thing I find objectionable about the thread is the personal attacks on a new poster just because she dared to "think the unthinkable". Come on, guys, we're better than that.

Rolfe.

[Jeff Wagg]

This is directed at no one in particular.

I have no problem with the OP, in that I think it was an honest question. What concerns me is the the idea that we shouldn't ask some questions. I'd like to encourage more questions, rather than fewer.

[di Malebranche]

Erm.. "He."

Y chromosome present and accounted for.

Thank you very much for your words, though.

[Rolfe]

Erm.. "He."

Y chromosome present and accounted for.

Thank you very much for your words, though.Sorry! Round here "Di" is commonly recognised as a short form of "Diana".

Rolfe.

[di Malebranche]

No problem, I can understand that.

In this context "di" is in the italian for "of", or "of the Malebranche". They were the demons of Dante's Inferno who punished the politically corrupt and defrauders.

[Rolfe]

Ah, I see. (Maybe lose the upper-case "D"? For those of us who are not so well-read....)

Rolfe.

[Jimbo07]

I thought the whole Malthusian population pressure thing had been debunked. Also, human populations are no longer expected to explode in the most dire ways that some predicted...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0311/p07s02-wogi.htm

Interestingly: "It really means that human beings are able to control their fertility before it reaches the carrying capacity of their environment."

http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2003/AF030288.html

Is this all true? I'm not a demographer...

[El_Spectre]

Are you directing this question at me, or is it a more general argument?

At the forum in general... I just responded to you because you actually told someone they should not have spoken. Look at the outcome: some of us have learned a thing or two, the original poster included. This is a good thing.

Hey, I have to make my monthly "can't we all get along" post somewhere...

[Luciana]

Of course anyone can start a thread about anything, as long as it doesn't break rules.

I'm also in my right to point out how ridiculous this thread can be. If some regard that as a personal attack, too bad. It was not meant as one, specially because the poster apologized right away.

If I was too blunt - "you should never have started this thread" - is because I found the OP not only poorly thought-out and in bad taste, but also quite dismissive of lives in Africa. Because if you think I went into attack mode... well, here goes what I could have posted in answer to that DUMB OP. See how it started:


We hear alot about the incredibly high percentage of the African population currently afflicted with AIDS, and while I do feel sympathy for some of these people (namely the children born of HIV-infected parents), I offer the following point.

And the poster does not feel sympathy for the elderly? And of those who are uneducated, malnourished, and simply cannot exercise any democratic rights, maybe because they are too heavily dependent on someone's "kindness" ot too uneducated to realize there's a path to progress?

And then, after pointing out the specificity of his sympathy, the poster came up with an extremely obnoxious and offensive proposition, that is, that Africans are better off with AIDS!!?!! This is just fundamentally cynical. It is as if they are so at the bottom - and considering only their natural resources, it is obvious they have potential - that AIDS could be good.

Surely new posters are welcome blah blah and think for themselves blah blah blah and make questions blah blah but surely they could make more of an effort to think critically before making a question with such potential for offense.

Having said that ... welcome to the forum, di Malebranche. I can see you took criticism well and that's always positive. No one, including those who jumped to defend you, need to bother with doing that again, because I'm sure you can do it yourself.

[El_Spectre]

Having said that ... welcome to the forum, di Malebranche. I can see you took criticism well and that's always positive. No one, including those who jumped to defend you, need to bother with doing that again, because I'm sure you can do it yourself.

Heh, and if we do so, will we be told we shouldn't have made THAT post? :)

[Luciana]

[LIST]
Africa's problems are not basically the result of overpopulation, but of political conflicts and corruption

Africa's basic problem is underdevelopment. And all it implies - low educational levels, insufficient infrastructure, few investments in industrial development, poor health, unstable or unexistant democratic institutions, concentration of income and those two you mentioned, political conflicts and corruption. But I believe those two factors are consequences of underdevelopment, and they are symptoms as much as causes for their backwardedness.

Low educational levels make accountability, one of the tenets of democracy, entirely fictitious. Political conflicts and corruption are rampant without a strong middle-class demanding the rule of law, equality, putting pressure for better quality of life. Investments flee without a skilled workforce, minimally adequate infrastructure and stable macroeconomic environment (always a weakness of underdeveloped country). Add a sick workforce, diminished consumer market and corruption and political conflicts, and competition from what other peripheric countries like China and India, and Africa will keep being underdeveloped for a long while.

eta: to add a comma.

[Luciana]

Heh, and if we do so, will we be told we shouldn't have made THAT post? :)

If you ever say "I shouldn't have made this post", I might agree with you entirely. Watch out. :p

[Soapy Sam]

In science fiction, we discuss grand, collaborative scientific programmes to terraform Mars and settle the Moon. Yet in reality we can't sustain basic health among our population on our native world.
How many children die of diarrhoea in Africa every year? No need for pricy antivirals- just some salt, sugar, bicarbonate and a clean water supply. 19th century stuff for most of us.

Africa's problems are too complex for a single thread, I think.

[epepke]

Africa's basic problem is underdevelopment. And all it implies - low educational levels, insufficient infrastructure, few investments in industrial development, poor health, unstable or unexistant democratic institutions, concentration of income and those two you mentioned, political conflicts and corruption. But I believe those two factors are consequences of underdevelopment, and they are symptoms as much as causes for their backwardedness.

Yeah, this is probably true, but as we are reminded every time this comes up, humans have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else on the planet.

So "underdevelopment" isn't "oh, wait, this is a new continent, and people have only been on it for a couple of hundred years." If Africa be underdeveloped, there has to be another reason for it.

[SteveGrenard]

Yeah, this is probably true, but as we are reminded every time this comes up, humans have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else on the planet.

Yeah, but they had the misfortune of not inventing gun powder.

So "underdevelopment" isn't "oh, wait, this is a new continent, and people have only been on it for a couple of hundred years." If Africa be underdeveloped, there has to be another reason for it.

In Africa it has always been who has the most and biggest guns. When Europeans discovered Africa and its mineral (originally diamonds & gold, later, bauxite, oil and others) wealth they used their armies to grab it and the best land for themselves, subjugating the natives, even selling them into slavery. When the colonial govenrments of Europe finally conceded independance to their former colonies, they were replaced with corrupt black men also with more of the biggest guns so nothing really changed in Africa except for the color of its leaders (sic: subjugators). Constitutional democracies like that of the U.S. including the constitutional right for the "people" to bear arms has probably saved us from a similar fate during our formative years.

[DanishDynamite]

Yeah, this is probably true, but as we are reminded every time this comes up, humans have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else on the planet.

So "underdevelopment" isn't "oh, wait, this is a new continent, and people have only been on it for a couple of hundred years." If Africa be underdeveloped, there has to be another reason for it.
It's the same reason that the area now called the United States was a primitive, backwards part of the globe before the Europeans arrived.

May I suggest you read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" for an intro.

[Tez]

I'm too lazy to look up the figures, but when I left Malawi in '84 its population was about 7 million - on my most recent trip back I was told the population is around 11 million. This is a country with a very high HIV incidence. Has any african country reduced in population due to HIV? If not then all we have is suppostional blather about what the population may have been without HIV (such predictions are notoriously trite, as Ehrlich will tell you...)

[SteveGrenard]

I'm too lazy to look up the figures, but when I left Malawi in '84 its population was about 7 million - on my most recent trip back I was told the population is around 11 million. This is a country with a very high HIV incidence. Has any african country reduced in population due to HIV? If not then all we have is suppostional blather about what the population may have been without HIV (such predictions are notoriously trite, as Ehrlich will tell you...)

AIDS stats from Africa are here:

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

Malawi Population by Year including future predictions (courtesy of Sylvia Browne) are here:

http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Africa/malawic.htm

Additional Info here:

http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Africa/malawig.htm

According to these records the population for Malawi has a doubling rate , that is it doubles, every 23 years. Annual population growth is now +2% per annum.

The est.population of Malawi seems to be 12.7 million in 2005.

Net changes in a country's population, globally, are the result of births versus deaths regardless of cause.

Confounding death rate predictions from HIV in Africa is the widespread presence of HIV-2, strains of which are less virulent according to
researchers at the University of Alabama. Alabama researchers also determined that the practice of butchering and eating bush meat from non-human primates is the source from which HIV jumped from NHPs to man. This politically incorrect finding pissess off African nationalists no end.

[epepke]

It's the same reason that the area now called the United States was a primitive, backwards part of the globe before the Europeans arrived.

May I suggest you read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" for an intro.

Um, I've read it.

But the United States was sparsely populated, and only for a few tens of thousands of years. No wonder it was primitive.

Africa, on the other hand, had huge civilizations milliennia before some of my ancestors were running down from the hills with nothing but blue paint on.

[jj]

My logic is completely flawed, I now realize.

Any chance this thread can be locked? I've shoved my leg down my throat far enough for my first day here, now.


Well, I give you quite a bit of credit for recognizing this, at least.

[TriangleMan]

Has any african country reduced in population due to HIV?
This 2000 paper (http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2000/censusfinal.doc) noted that there was negative population growth in Guyana in 2000, and that Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe should have negative population growth by 2003, but only around -0.1 to -0.3% so that could be hard to track. Even having a few thousand people migrate to Botswana looking for work would erase any negative growth. I'm not sure if South Africa's population actually declined from 2001-2005.

The CIA World Factbook currently lists Botswana's population growth rate at 0%.

[Luciana]

Yeah, this is probably true, but as we are reminded every time this comes up, humans have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else on the planet.

So "underdevelopment" isn't "oh, wait, this is a new continent, and people have only been on it for a couple of hundred years." If Africa be underdeveloped, there has to be another reason for it.

And this would be...?

One reason I prefer the term "underdevelopment", even though it's too encompassing and, therefore, prone to being meaningless, is that, after all, it is the most accurate. Because problems like "corruption", "inequality" , and even "violence" (to the extent that people fight more when there's less to compete for) have their roots in underdevelopment. And what is that? Lack of capital, that's what underdevelopment is. Wealth is neither generated nor injected in those countries. As Soapy pointed out, some of the population live in 19th century conditions, aggravated by 20th problems like environmental damage and "overpopulation", that is, more people being born than their economies is able to accommodate.

And the reason I dislike a term like "corruption" being freely used whenever the subject of Africa comes up is that it's too simplistic and, sometimes, depending on the speaker, can very well be racism under a rational disguise. It is obvious that a country with no democratic institutions, with a rich elite and vastly uneducated population will be corrupt. The reason corruption is so commonplace is that governments feel entitled to it and there is no middle-class to stop that, of if there is, is too small to be politically important. Illiteracy rates in Africa are staggering, even if, in some cases, they seem to be diminishing. After the 1960s, when most of the African states became independent, their cry of freedom was to build a university and an airline company. This goes to show how backwards they were regarding education, and the effort they will have to make to catch up with the other nations in terms of development.

[Luciana]

Yeah, but they had the misfortune of not inventing gun powder.



In Africa it has always been who has the most and biggest guns.

Hasn't this been always true, anywhere in the world?

When Europeans discovered Africa and its mineral (originally diamonds & gold, later, bauxite, oil and others) wealth they used their armies to grab it and the best land for themselves, subjugating the natives, even selling them into slavery.

I know the Portuguese bought the support of African leaders by giving guns that they would later use to crush other tribes and enslave people. I suspect other European settlers did the same. To say that "In Africa it has always been who has the most and biggest guns." is quite misleading, at the very least because they were not alone.

[Luciana]

The CIA World Factbook currently lists Botswana's population growth rate at 0%.

Even though I use the CIA World Factbook once in a while for a quick check, I don't trust it much, as too often I see info about my country that is either outdated or simply wrong.

Botswana is such a small country, and I do not think it would make a dent in Africa's general population growth, still, it's a disgrace indeed, as 1 out 3 adults have AIDS. The country is collapsing. That's another subject entirely but... if that does not warrant international intervention, then what does? 1 out of 3!!! And people simply do not hear about it often enough. It is a shame for our planet. :(

[TriangleMan]

I found a UN Report (http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indicators.cfm?x=40&y=1&z=1) that gives projections for 2003-2015 of population growth rates for various countries. In Africa they project that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland will have slight negative population growth over the period.

[Morrigan]

The state of affairs not being the assets available throughout the world, but rather, the assets that the rest of the world is willing to give to Africa to fix the problem.
So you're saying that the current African crisis ("state of affairs") is due to the rest of the world not helping Africa enough? Because if so, I have a big problem with that.
African nations need to grow up and deal with their own problems like adults, instead of constantly relying on foreign aid. They are dependent on it, and it does little to help them except make them more dependent.
I'm not saying "screw 'em, let 'em all rot" or anything, but I don't think Africa (mainly, sub-saharan Africa) will ever get out of its mess if we simply keep "giving them assets".


In Africa it has always been who has the most and biggest guns.

Been said before, but that's no different than the rest of the world.

When Europeans discovered Africa [snip] subjugating the natives, even selling them into slavery.

Yes, but let us not forget that many Africans enslaved Africans themselves, and sold them to Europeans as well.

[SteveGrenard]

So you're saying that the current African crisis ("state of affairs") is due to the rest of the world not helping Africa enough? Because if so, I have a big problem with that.
African nations need to grow up and deal with their own problems like adults, instead of constantly relying on foreign aid. They are dependent on it, and it does little to help them except make them more dependent.
I'm not saying "screw 'em, let 'em all rot" or anything, but I don't think Africa (mainly, sub-saharan Africa) will ever get out of its mess if we simply keep "giving them assets".

Agreed. In addition, since there since is no sure fire cure for AIDS and Africa is not the only continent with the disease, there is nothing much that the world can offer them other than what is already on tap. Prevention requires safe sex and abstinence and banning of other risky behaviors such as mass ritual scarification using unsterilized instruments between recipients.

Africa is getting AIDS drugs at cheaper prices but corruption locally results in a lot of that diverted to richer markets .....


Been said before, but that's no different than the rest of the world.

Of course.

Yes, but let us not forget that many Africans enslaved Africans themselves, and sold them to Europeans as well.

Africans in power, armed with guns (obtained from Europeans) and other weaponry were complicit in the slave trade but the trade itself existed because Europeans including Americans (even after Europe ended the trade) provided the money and the work for slaves. Trafficking in humans continues until today, not a subject people like to talk about.

[pipelineaudio]

Are we arguing from fact or emotion?

Fact: if a large number of humans just up and died, nearly every problem we now face would be lowered to a possibly very large degree if not eliminated completely

Emotion:This might not sit so well with those targeted for destruction

[pipelineaudio]

Africans in power, armed with guns (obtained from Europeans) and other weaponry were complicit in the slave trade but the trade itself existed because Europeans including Americans (even after Europe ended the trade) provided the money and the work for slaves. Trafficking in humans continues until today, not a subject people like to talk about.

I heard at LC or some other factual site that arabian slave traders had nothing to do with it

[dogbite666]

Africa's problems are not basically the result of overpopulation, but of political conflicts and corruption

If anything Africa's problems are mainly due to cronic under population, or at least a low population of middle aged adults. As Bob Geldof said there are many reasons why Afrian countries are so poor, they are:

1. Under population.
2. Desertification/Faminie.
3. AIDS.
4. war.

All of these lead to an unstable social system and lack of wealth. Non of the above can be blamed directly for the problems of a whole continent or country, take the Arabian Peninsula for example, it's one big desert yet one of the richest regions in the world.

[Starthinker]

I've always thought that something should be done about the world's population. In natural systems there are checks and balances that help keep populations in check but humans have found ways to overcome them all. Not that I want anyone to die, but 7 billion people are just too many. Not a cheery thought, but something will happen sooner or later to bring the population down. I think it's inevitable.

[Jimbo07]

7 billion people are just too many.

What?

Why?

:confused:

[CFLarsen]

Africans in power, armed with guns (obtained from Europeans) and other weaponry were complicit in the slave trade but the trade itself existed because Europeans including Americans (even after Europe ended the trade) provided the money and the work for slaves. Trafficking in humans continues until today, not a subject people like to talk about.

Let's talk about it, Steve.

[CFLarsen]

Malawi Population by Year including future predictions (courtesy of Sylvia Browne) are here:

What does Sylvia Browne have to do with this?

[Hellbound]

What?

Why?

:confused:

Actually, I recall reading somewhere that there has been work done to determine the "maximum supportable population" the Earth can sustain. Last time I looked, the limit (considering food production using all current and all future predictable technolgies for farming and production) is somewhere between 1 billion and 10 billion.

Can't recall my source, and not sure how accurate that calculation was, but I'll see if I can find any more info on it.

[Hellbound]

Found some sources:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/sixa1.html
"The maximum human population that earth ecosystems can sustain is estimated to be about 12 billion people."

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/envsci/pop.html
"Despite these many variables, scientists and others have made numerous predictions; 65 factually based calculations have a low median of 8 billion people and a high median of 16 billion, with a mean of about 12 billion. These values are of immediate concern because many demographers have calculated that the population will plateau around 12 billion sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century."

There are other sites, but I just picked the ones where I could easily find relevant quotes :) I used a google search for maximum sustanable population earth limited to .edu sites and .gov sites.

[Starthinker]

Found some sources:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/sixa1.html
"The maximum human population that earth ecosystems can sustain is estimated to be about 12 billion people."

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/envsci/pop.html
"Despite these many variables, scientists and others have made numerous predictions; 65 factually based calculations have a low median of 8 billion people and a high median of 16 billion, with a mean of about 12 billion. These values are of immediate concern because many demographers have calculated that the population will plateau around 12 billion sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century."

There are other sites, but I just picked the ones where I could easily find relevant quotes :) I used a google search for maximum sustanable population earth limited to .edu sites and .gov sites.

In my previous life I don't even think we broke a billion yet, and I gotta tell ya, there was a lot more land available.

[AWPrime]

I think that afrika needs a severe culture-change, and I'm not sure if they are able to do this.