Sir David Attenborough: sending food aid to countries enduring famine is “barmy”

The money is often squandered or appropriated by corrupt government officials. The work has to take place on the ground - many charities now operate that way.

£150m doesn't come close to repairing centuries of underdevelopment and deep-rooted societal problems. It doesn't mean we should pull the plug. And you're right, money alone won't solve it. It'll take decades, centuries, maybe.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diuv3XZQXyc"]Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism - YouTube[/ame]

 

Go read about the super rich king of Mali Mansa Musa. He was so rich that while on the Hajj he spent so much money that it caused runaway inflation that took years for cities like Alexandria to recover from. He also took an army of thousands to support himself as he traveled to Mecca.

His story undermines a few nasty stereotypes about Africa. For this thread, it undermines that Africa has alway been poor, can never be anything but poor, things don't grow there, or that it can't support large numbers of people, or that everyone lives in little tribes until Mr White Man showed up and then made live better with his Whitey ways.

The fact he was on Hajj shows that he was a Muslim and that West Africa was connected to the rest of the World, and not a dark spot on the World map. It also shows that he knew about the places he visited before he got there, hence connected world not a new thing etc.

The fact the humans have lived in these areas for thousands of years and flourished shows that life was 'meant' to go there as much as it was 'meant' to go anywhere else. Otherwise we wouldn't have Timbuktu, or the Pyramids, or Agadez, or Aït Benhaddou, or the Tadrart Acacus, or Tomb of Askia, or, you get the point (and yes, Google is definitely my friend ).

 

Excellent video, mate.

 

You can't eat oil, bauxite, cobalt, diamond, phosphorite, platinum, vermiculite, gold or zirconium.

You also can't eat dirt or survive without water.

The land is inhospitable. Nature made it so... and is therefore at the root of their problem!

 

All well and good saying that, but when you have lunatic like Jacob Zuma saying a shower can minimize the risk of AIDS, how can African nations that are less developed than South Africa progress?

I do agree with your points, but it seems too idealistic. These things are deep rooted in their culture, there is so much work to be done in all fields that in reality it has very little chance to become more than a good idea. Sending doctors and teachers can only get you so far, all things that need to be done require serious financial investment and effort, I have strong doubts whether it is feasable or not.

If we're talking about Africa, that is. From broad aspect like corruption to widespread belief in magic and numerous other social quirks that have stood the test of time are very hard to change.

 

Ancient Egypt says hi.

As do the cities states of Zanzibar, Mogadishu and Mombasa.

 

Another thoroughly depressing TC thread.

 

You can trade those minerals. We don't have an agrarian society in the UK and most of us manage to put food on our tables.

I won't bother with the "nature made it so" remark. :smiley-laughing002:

 

Las Vegas had no water, nature made it so. Yet there are inhabitants in it and also major casinos even water features! It is not the environment being the problem it is what has happened to the continent of Africa at the hands of Imperialists.

 

Thank you.

 

Higher geography coming back to me. Spot on with that post.

Developed countries like Italy and Japan in particular have the opposite problem. Longer life expectancy has meant more old people and people aren't having enough children to provide for the old ones which means increasing the retirement age.

Most countries have some kind of population problem.

 

The UK has extremely fertile land with great arable capabilities.

 

Ancient Egyptian societies were mainly concentrated around the arable lands on the banks of the Nile. Pretty much where the bulk of the population live today.

 

Las Vegas is a man-made monstrosity that bloated artificially because of greed.

 

But, yes... I get the point!

You can support life on the moon if you were to throw enough money at it... but why would you want to?

The planet simply cannot sustain the current human population, so why the * would anyone want to encourage an increase in it... and particularly in areas where life was never intended to flourish?

It's a crazy way of thinking.

 

I said we don't have an agrarian society.

 

No one wants to encourage or increase it. Africa is the cradle of humanity, by the way, so if ever there was a place where life was intended to - and did - flourish, it's there.

 

But that does not change the fact that if man has the right resources they can overcome the environment. The reason there are little or no resources in the African continent is due to the plundering of its resources by Imperialists. If the African continent had kept its resources it would be a different story I believe.

 

And the River Niger say hi to.

Every major civilization of the past that wasn't on the coast was on a river(s). The Congo, the Zambezi, the Orange, the Limpopo, the Nile and the Senegal. The vast bulk of Africa's population still life along the very same rivers and their tributaries, as well major lakes like The Chad or Victoria or the coast. The bulk of the population from the countries often associated with famines live on the same river banks - major cities like Bamako, Timbuktu, Niamey and Onitsha.

A little history and geographic knowledge of Africa would go a long way when you're arguing that the place is unsuitable for living in. People don't just stay out in the middle of the Sahara.