What should we do about Africa in the next 50 years?

[Zcrab]

The african population is growing rapidly, in 1980 there were 477 million people in Africa, now there are 1.2 billion, and it is estimated that the population in 2050 will have doubled in size (2.4 billion people). It is inevitable that the immigration from Africa will grow bigger unless we somehow turn Africa around.

 

If we let the people migrate from Africa what do we do about them? Europe cannot take them all, and how will we educate these people?

 

If we don't let them migrate, should we leave them on their own or help them where they already are?

[Erik]

I prefer to help the problem at the source, rather than that they all migrate to western countries to be very honest.

The problem is that many people (including myself often) are not very confident about how the money is being invested. People on TV host an auction, a few million euro's is being send to some country there and then.. uh yeah nobody really know where it's going then. Given that half of the governments in Africa are very corrupt it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up in their own pockets.

In my opinion, the money should be invested in infrastructure, creating jobs and a solid government with a functioning law enforcement system. That's the best way to built up poverty stricken countries. The government should provide a fair distribution of wealth to the residents and provide jobs that pay a reasonable price so that people are encouraged to work and not commit crimes. People get jobs -> People make money -> The people invest -> the government makes money -> the government invests -> the wealth grows.

Not to forget children. If the countries have a good education system then people will share more knowledge which they can use to provide a better society. 

 

Also: I am personally more of a ' Invest in own country > invest in other country ' guy but if we contribute (The Netherlands contributes 0.4% of the government total budget each year to constructive aid) then other countries should contribute too. If we invest, we should only invest financially. I think it only gets worse when countries such as the USA send soldiers to countries that are technically no direct threat to the USA. I think it's better when they only support the country financially and actually get an insight on where the money is going and how it is being invested. 

 

As I said before, I think it's better to deal with the problem at the source rather than putting up thousands of refugee camps everywhere across Europe. 

[HyperToe™]

I just say we kill them, genocide never hurt anyone.

[The Waffler]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

[The Waffler]

I just say we kill them, genocide never hurt anyone.

Don't joke about that. It's not funny

[Adolf Storms]

i don't think he was joking.

 

so i wonder if nuclear 'testing' is still allowed and if the US could just do some there... b4 evacuating the people? would seem to eliminate the problem at the source.

 

1000's of veterans homeless in north america, 1000's with ptsd, and people are worried about some third world shit instead of their own back yard. typical

[pewpewAttack]

You can stop immigration but using non-lethals. Rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc. Also we are protected Geographically meaning there is an ocean between us. Should be easy to spot incoming unauthorized ships heading towards our land.

[silencedotmid]

The short answer is that with the recent rise of nationalism, most countries are turning inwards, denying refugees, and slashing foreign aid. So no matter what we hypothesize in this thread, it's probably not going to happen as long as the current isolationist trends continue.

 

 

The problem is that many people (including myself often) are not very confident about how the money is being invested. People on TV host an auction, a few million euro's is being send to some country there and then.. uh yeah nobody really know where it's going then. Given that half of the governments in Africa are very corrupt it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up in their own pockets.

In my opinion, the money should be invested in infrastructure, creating jobs and a solid government with a functioning law enforcement system. That's the best way to built up poverty stricken countries. The government should provide a fair distribution of wealth to the residents and provide jobs that pay a reasonable price so that people are encouraged to work and not commit crimes. People get jobs -> People make money -> The people invest -> the government makes money -> the government invests -> the wealth grows.

Not to forget children. If the countries have a good education system then people will share more knowledge which they can use to provide a better society.

Very good points. In the past, first world countries just kind of threw money at these nations, assuming that they would be able to solve their problems. Unfortunately, money on its own doesn't work, especially in the face of some highly corrupt governments. (Side tirade: fuck the World Bank and IMF. They say their goal is to aid developing countries, but all they do is create massive debt and further instability for the sake of exploiting the country's resources. Our current model of globalism is unethical at the core)

 

Improving education and access to it is the #1 way to solve the problems OP highlighted. In particular, sex ed and family planning are crucial and highly effective in lowering a country's average family size. More general education allows people to pursue more technical jobs, leading to industrial modernization.

 

As for fixing government corruption without direct intervention, I simply don't know. If anyone else wants to tackle this part, go right ahead!

 

Finally, pertaining to the refugee crisis - I understand the current desire to repel refugees. However, in the future there's going to be an increasing amount of climate refugees - people forced to leave their home because the land has become unsuitable to live because of rising seas, changing weather, droughts, famine, and desertification. If their land is simply unsuitable to survive in, at that point it's kind of cruel to turn them back (especially since developed countries are responsible for the most emissions and pollution).

 

Genocide jokes still aren't funny.

[Alberny]

i don't think he was joking.

 

so i wonder if nuclear 'testing' is still allowed and if the US could just do some there... b4 evacuating the people? would seem to eliminate the problem at the source.

 

1000's of veterans homeless in north america, 1000's with ptsd, and people are worried about some third world shit instead of their own back yard. typical

What the fuck?

 

Are you aware of the "side effects" of nuclear weapons? Are you "okay" with killing millions just for the sake of it?

[Zcrab]

I didn't realise people were so relaxed about killing refugees.

 

i don't think he was joking.

 

so i wonder if nuclear 'testing' is still allowed and if the US could just do some there... b4 evacuating the people? would seem to eliminate the problem at the source.

 

1000's of veterans homeless in north america, 1000's with ptsd, and people are worried about some third world shit instead of their own back yard. typical

 

I hope you're joking about nuking Africa.

 

I myself am a european, but even if I was american I would still say this is a problem. I'd rather be homeless or have PTSD than living in the midddle of nowhere with horrifying living conditions. The problems you describe are easier to fix than the problems in Africa.

 

You can stop immigration but using non-lethals. Rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc. Also we are protected Geographically meaning there is an ocean between us. Should be easy to spot incoming unauthorized ships heading towards our land.

 

So you would just shoot anybody who comes to your country for help, because it is impossible for them to get it at their home country? Even if you do not kill them, but use rubber bullets, what are you going to do with all the people coming? If they do not die you are just torturing them.  Why do they not deserve the chance to have a good life? They were not as lucky as you to be born in a first world country, and couldn't get the same education and medical care as you, and they have not done anything not to deserve it.

[pewpewAttack]

 

 

So you would just shoot anybody who comes to your country for help, because it is impossible for them to get it at their home country? Even if you do not kill them, but use rubber bullets, what are you going to do with all the people coming? If they do not die you are just torturing them.  Why do they not deserve the chance to have a good life? They were not as lucky as you to be born in a first world country, and couldn't get the same education and medical care as you, and they have not done anything not to deserve it.

The Bullets and pepper spray are to deter them from entering and turn around. Once word gets out that they are not welcome here, they simply would stop coming. You can look at what happened to Germany for reference, when they opened their doors refugees, they got swamped by refugee's where as other neighboring countries who made it somewhat difficult for them to enter did not get it as badly.

[Erik]

 

 

 

So you would just shoot anybody who comes to your country for help, because it is impossible for them to get it at their home country? Even if you do not kill them, but use rubber bullets, what are you going to do with all the people coming? If they do not die you are just torturing them.  Why do they not deserve the chance to have a good life? They were not as lucky as you to be born in a first world country, and couldn't get the same education and medical care as you, and they have not done anything not to deserve it.

The main problem is that 80% of the refugees that come to The Netherlands (taking the current situation in my country as an example) are not even from Syria. While many left wing politicians always claim that they are. Many of these so called 'refugees' are actually from poor East Europe countries such as Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece etc. Some come from North Africa as well. Most of these are actually young men and not women and children as displayed on TV. That's why many people in my country have an issue with the current amount of refugees coming into our country. The strange thing is that refugees actually get put infront of Dutch people on the list to rent a house. They also get a free basic income and free healthcare and don't have to pay for pretty much anything, paid by taxpayers.

 

I still stand behind my opinion on how to handle the currect situation in Africa but most of the refugees here are not actually from Africa or Syria, hence the overall dislike of the refugees pouring into the countries.

 

Edit: I also think that this is a rather important and serious issue that is currently being discussed about in this thread and I don't think it's appropriate that, so far, half of these posts is jokes about a possible genocide.

[Zcrab]

The main problem is that 80% of the refugees that come to The Netherlands (taking the current situation in my country as an example) are not even from Syria. While many left wing politicians always claim that they are. Many of these so called 'refugees' are actually from poor East Europe countries such as Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece etc. Some come from North Africa as well. Most of these are actually young men and not women and children as displayed on TV. That's why many people in my country have an issue with the current amount of refugees coming into our country. The strange thing is that refugees actually get put infront of Dutch people on the list to rent a house. They also get a free basic income and free healthcare and don't have to pay for pretty much anything, paid by taxpayers.

 

I still stand behind my opinion on how to handle the currect situation in Africa but most of the refugees here are not actually from Africa or Syria, hence the overall dislike of the refugees pouring into the countries.

 

Edit: I also think that this is a rather important and serious issue that is currently being discussed about in this thread and I don't think it's appropriate that, so far, half of these posts is jokes about a possible genocide.

 

I can agree that problems should be delt with in the source, it is just not possible in Syria. 

 

In Africa it may be possible, but in some nations where the military still rule (like in Somalia) it will probably end in a civil war, that the military will most likely win.

[Richard Lionheart Empire]

The main problem is that 80% of the refugees that come to The Netherlands (taking the current situation in my country as an example) are not even from Syria. While many left wing politicians always claim that they are. Many of these so called 'refugees' are actually from poor East Europe countries such as Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece etc. Some come from North Africa as well. Most of these are actually young men and not women and children as displayed on TV. That's why many people in my country have an issue with the current amount of refugees coming into our country. The strange thing is that refugees actually get put infront of Dutch people on the list to rent a house. They also get a free basic income and free healthcare and don't have to pay for pretty much anything, paid by taxpayers.

 

I totally agree with you !

(I live in The Netherlands)

[Twins_Mercury]

Give everybody condoms!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL9TBKSdHXU

[Keroro1454]

Finally! A R&P topic that doesn't have 12 pages of replies! I hate responding to those, it's much easier to enter the argument earlier on. Saves frustration and time!

 

First and foremostly is ensuring that the African Union becomes an actually important force in the area. Right now the AU serves more a figurehead than an actual force for good, which is a serious shame because in the few cases it was capable of mobilizing to any degree it made serious gains with improving conditions. This actually goes hand-in-hand with your point Erik, the AU emphasizes the importance of infrastructure and thus having a efficient, not bloated multi-national coalition would be highly beneficial to your proposals.

 

It's also wise to note that the rise of a powerful AU would in theory allow for greater modernization and peacekeeping, which is crucial because a large part of Western countries still regard Africa as this "uncivilized" mess. It needs to make clear it has the structure and stability to warrant the funds it desires. Unfortunately, this is a vicious cycle- funds are needed to prop up to AU, but the AU needs to be present to ensure those funds can be acquired, etc. Why do we see this issue arising? Let's note the parts I italicized one at a time.

 

Efficient and not bloated. This is crucial because as we see with the EU, people get sick of bureaucracy. And something like the EU is a prime example of a fantastic idea that has lost it's purpose and path and thus devolved into painful schematics. The AU already is experiencing the drag this creates on support, and it needs to cut away this bloat before it becomes excessive.

 

And the other issue with the AU is it must be multi-national. We complain about refugees and whatnot, but one of the prime issues is that the governments many of these peoples are coming from simply don't want to deal with it either. Many of the countries abstaining from the AU complain about things that may sound very familiar to European (And especially British) ears- too much taxation that is being used to deal with other countries problems. The idea of nationalism, however surprising this revelation may come to some, is not one restricted to the first world. 

 

Unfortunately, this means the task appears much more convoluted than we first examined it after acknowledging these factors. Not only must we deal with countries suffering from rampant corruption, sectarian strife that frequently ignites into war, and weak infrastructure systems, but now we have nationalism throwing its hat in. And my my, is it not the Towering Pillar of Hats of all hats. Especially when you consider that while nationalism holds common themes across regions, it isn't as cut and dry as comparing the US to Africa. We must account for Africa's own cultural and historical identity to determine the root of this nationalism.

 

Obviously this is quite the task! So what can be done? Thankfully, the answer can be broken down somewhat, although of course I will not be proposing any sweeping or detailed policy plans- especially given it's unclear what country would be involved in this solution (And convincing them is an entire other topic!). The AU must be strengthened and streamlined, in order to quell some nationalistic sentiments and ideally create a more appealing organization for the important countries that are withholding from joining. Nationalistic sentiments must be traced to their roots and dealt with in a manner that is not aggressive or even "frontal"- the idea should not be a war with nationalism but rather presenting alternatives that simply outshine the poor ideology. In doing so, issues of sectarian infighting will have new light shed on them that will ideally help quell them.

 

Of course, I renew my emphasis on the AU. It has the ability to eliminate corruption and thus civil warfare, improve infrastructure, and generally modernize the African continent. But the issues of nationalism must be addressed- they are both what weaken the AU, and point out the issues present in the AU that on their own detract from it's abilities.

 

In short, Africa must be seen as a coalition like the EU that is post-nationalism. It suffers from weakness and violence brought on by this division, and it serves as a potent warning for what is potentially to come should nationalism prove to be a force that is left unchecked. We must address this inherent issue and, in doing so will modernize the African continent.

 

(Also China is a big issue here as well, but frankly this plays more into the issue of corruption in governments. Will post about it as requested)

[Keroro1454]

(Side tirade: fuck the World Bank and IMF. They say their goal is to aid developing countries, but all they do is create massive debt and further instability for the sake of exploiting the country's resources. Our current model of globalism is unethical at the core)

 

This is quite a provocative statement, can you please back this up a bit? I'm not attemtping to attack, I'm just seriously curious to your reasoning here.

 

Beyond that, if you're referring to the policies of quantitative easing that the WB and IMF espouse, these are not flawed policies. Unfortunately, they are policies that are widely unpopular with the average citizen, and arguably with good reason. The QE policies that these organizations push are painful on a nation's economy and people, this is extremely true. However, one has to question why they are being implemented to begin with- these policies are painful because the pleasures previously sustained by the populace and thus making QE policies barbaric in comparison were, well, unsustainable. Of course I am by no means a global financial expert, if you believe I'm fundamentally wrong I'd greatly value a rebuttal.

[Knurr]

Either help or no intervention at all. Helping - by directly helping Africa. Not "importing" these people to Europe or US. Those people just tend to exploit European hospitality and it's social system.

 

But I am afraid Africa just can't help itself. The democracy is weak, corruption is common. Any money given any government will result in these money, in large part, being just splitted between people who hold the power.

 

So what to do? Nothing. Defend our asses insetad.