OP/ED: Time To Pull The Plug On Africa

Everyone knows Africa is in a lot of trouble these days. There's a huge aids epidemic, there is a big starvation problem, no money, civil war, corruption, large lack of resources, and now a lot of tsunami damage. Africa is in a lot of trouble. For years cruel nations like the United States of America and much of Europe have forced this cotenant to live in anguish by bringing food, water and medical supplies to Africa.

With the technology and resources available to the world community today, there is no hope for Africa. It will continue to be a drought-ridden, resource poor cotenant whose wretched existence depends solely on those cruel nations mentioned before forcing the people of the continent to eat, drink, and be healthy.

It is time for this torture to stop. We need to be humane to the continent of Africa by pulling this feeding tube that is called charity from the continent. Who are we to say Africa wants to live; it can’t communicate with us. All we know is that several million years ago it tried to blow its self up by having the longest sustained nuclear reaction right under its surface. Rather than run the risk of making it survive when it doesn’t want to, we need to stop all efforts to help.

Please, for the sake of Africa, don’t donate to any charity to help the continent, and write your congressman asking to put an end to the cruel US policy of sustaining a continent while it should be taking its final breath. If we wouldn't subject
one individual to life, why on earth would we subject an entire continent to it?

EDIT/DISCLAIMER: This would make a lot more sense if it was still in the Current Events forum or the slug fest. I didn't put it in Other Global Politics.

[edit on 3-24-2005 by junglejake]

junglejake,

I'm surprised at your callousness. I'd be far more humane to nuke them and put them out of their misery hastily.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
junglejake,

I'm surprised at your callousness. I'd be far more humane to nuke them and put them out of their misery hastily.

Unfortunately, the UN, in all its cruelty, will not allow this option. We have to starve the continent to death. However, if this gets enough publicity, hopefuly the UN will realize they're wrong and allow nations to nuke nations and continents that have no hope of recovery.

I agree.

They dont need our help. They have 1 billion people. Let them be.

Lets take care of our own with any "aid".

Let them starve. This fair and humane solution brought to you by idiots.

Africa needs our help, regardless of the corruption and the backwardness of the economy millions of innocent people whose only crimes are to be born poor are to be condemed to death.


Remarkable common sense. While your at it why not argue that US and European farmers are so uncompetative that the only sensible option is to cut their subsicidies and let them starve? But wait, what has this done, why its provided an economic opening for Africa! Aloowing some growth and maybe a hint of prosperity!

But no no, far better to let them starve.

Originally posted by Ritual
Lets take care of our own with any "aid".

Why would we subject our own citizens to such a horrible fate? Don't make them suffer. Life is filled with pain. If we just slowly kill everyone over the span of a month, there will be no more suffering in the world, no more war...

By golly, let's starve the world! There's not really much hope for it, it's time for earth to meet a humaine end!

We don't need help to get food. Why would Africa? Obviously they are incapable of taking care of themselves or enjoying a good quality of life. They should be exterminated and put out of their misery.

I think what would help America is forcing people into the Military that make less then 20,000 a year. That will straighten people out and bump the standard of living for everyone.

Get rid of the whole minimum wage idea. Who can live off minimum wage?
The cheapest apartment around my area in the city is about 700$ a month. If you work a mimum wage job at 40 hours a week (which is ALOT) you only make 700$ a month.

You wouldnt even be able to buy food, cable TV, cellphone, car payments, insurance, etc etc.

No person should live like that, nevermind be allowed to live like that.

Bump minimum wage up to 10$ an hour. Make State college's free if you can maintain a passing GPA on first attempt. If people cant find a job then they should join the Military and make 30,000$ a year as a private.

Would get rid off all the cheasy jobs and cheasy companies.

We after all a Capitalist country, lets start acting like it. We dont need to struggling little guys. We have mega corporations who can employ the whole country.

Africa isnt even respectable. Im sick of hearing about AIDS, millions of starving walking skeletons, wars and everything else.

Just take them out of their misery, for my sanity. Do they not know how to grow food in the year 2005? How to irrigate land? How to trade?

Bunch of crazy negros.

Yes, its time to let Africa die.

I would like to point out that my decision on what to do with Africa has nothing to do with the $3 trillion continent insurance plan America took out on Africa. After all, Japan offered us double that if we would allow them to deliver food to Africa, and we refused. So it's not about the money!

I'm obviously missing out on a big sarcastic joke right? You'd have to be a complete ignoramus to be serious, but I don't hold you in such low regard. What am I missing- what spawned this, and please say it's a joke of some kind.

Western nations (not only America) have sabotaged Africa politically and economically to keep the continent open to exploitation in the post-colonial world. We left them with arbitrarily drawn borders which do not represent national identities or the logical boundaries of a nation as determined by the viability of a nation. This was probably an accident, and the logical conclusion of the political situation between the colonizing powers, but it is what happened and it sabotaged Africa's future development.

Furthermore, our obsession with enforcing "civilized" conduct on everybody else (when we can't seem to manage it ourselves) has deprived Africa of the necessary adjustments that a developing continent must make. They need a couple hundred years of unchecked economic warfare. Landgrabs have to be made, cultures need to be subjected to a national identity, and unfortunately, it may take a genocide or two as well. These processes went unhindered in the development of Europe and America, and it lead to the formation of stable nations which are defined by possession of sufficient wealth, defensible borders, and a unified national identity. Not every tribe made it through the formative years of Europe intact. That's the price of nationalism. But now, it's too late- if you haven't been through the process and formed a stable nation already, we're never going to let you, which means that many African nations will never have a fitting balance of resources, defensible borders, or a strong national identity.

We aren't helping- we're in their way. At least that part is an accident. The economic problem we pose for Africa is no accident.

Nations in Africa, such as Sudan, are growing tea and coffee- cash crops- instead of food. We tollerate, even support corrupt governments which sell their people out to Western corporations. Our companies pay the few wealthy land owners to grow cash crops to export to us instead of growing food, our governments make sure that their governments dont cry foul over this. Now the wealthy in Africa have a bunch of Western currency, but there's not much food, or much of anything else, to buy in Africa, because everyone is starving- we've pulled their economy out from under them by having their land owners not grow food. So what do these land owners do? They give that Western currency right back to us, because they have to import many of the things they desire!
In the end we get a hell of a bargain on our tea and coffee because we are paying governments and the wealthy elite to sell out the populations in these countries. Its just that simple.

I've got a really insane idea- but I assure you it's brilliant and could work. Let's take our balls and our bank accounts over there and try to build something mutually beneficial. They've a great big huge market for all manner of construction and development, and we've got a great big huge supply of capital, as well as the firepower to protect it from any two-bit warlord who thinks he can make trouble for nation-building efforts. It's so simple it makes me want to throw up on everyone who doesn't want to do it. We invest the cash, they build the infrastructure, and they use all that to develop new supplies of natural resources as well as new industries, which we can turn around and share in the benefits of then.
The US provides a nice little push to get a couple of things built in a couple of different countries, and gets a share in these emerging businesses. All of these countries with their newly stimulated industries start to trade, people start making money, investments start generating returns, African countries gain wealth and are able to repay their debts, etc etc.

What's holding Africa down? 3 things.
1. The arbitrary enforcement of order by outsiders on terms suitable only to outsiders. If we're going to butt into the military affairs of Africa we need to pick a side- we need to be pragmatic and let the war be won- not just defend the status quo. If anything we should be shaking stuff up so that it can settle into its natural place.
2. Lack of long-term investment in African economies, owing to the instability created by outsiders propping up a flawed status quo.
3. Short-sighted and predatory economic practices by outsiders. We're skinning them when we ought to be shearing them.

Africa has its problems obviously enough- they've got groups that want to wipe eachother out, they've got drought and famine, they've got AIDS, etc etc etc. But we're part of the problem, not part of the sollution. Two guys go into a place, the first one cuts somebody's throat, the second one gives them a bandaid, then the one who gave the bandaid looks to his friend and says "lucky we came along when we did, this guy really needed a bandaid- there's our good deed for the day.". That's Western business and Western charity in Africa.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
We don't need help to get food. Why would Africa? Obviously they are incapable of taking care of themselves or enjoying a good quality of life. They should be exterminated and put out of their misery.

I agree. Africa is in a vegitative state, unable to care for it's own self. We should simply remove the feeding aparatus that is charity, and let nature take it's course.

Vagabond: Oh yes, definately a satiracal idea. I simply applied the mentality for Terry Schaivo to an entire continent. Sure does sound sick and wrong, though, doesn't it. Vagabond, I think you may have just realized the mentality of those who don't want Terry Schaivo to die. With adult stem cell research (the one which has had positive scientific results), it is possible that in several years we will be able to repair brain damage. With agricultural technologies which are still developing, Africa could be self sustaining so far as food and water goes in a couple of decades. My policy: keep sustaining and keep looking for a solution. Don't just give up.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I agree. Africa is in a vegitative state, unable to care for it's own self. We should simply remove the feeding aparatus that is charity, and let nature take it's course.

Even though this thread is designed at making comparisons with Terri Schiavo, I agree with the principle.

Food aid is being sent to Africa with the best of intentions but I think it is actually interfering with the natural course of life. Drought and famine are not new to this world, it has happened in many countries around the world and when a land was no longer able to sustain it's population, the people who lived there moved on to another area.

When outside aid comes in, it makes it no longer necessary to relocate and people stay in that land which can not naturally sustain them.

Instead of the population of that area going down to a sustainable level due to emigration, the population actually increases which makes the problem even worse and there becomes no way they can survive without outside help.

In Ethiopia, there was a population of less than 50 million during the 80's there are now about 70 million living there. There may be 115 million by the year 2015. That will be even more people who are reliant on outside aid because the situation was not allowed to resolve itself the way it had done many times before.



[edit on 24-3-2005 by AceOfBase]

Ace of Base, if you were to label yourself in one of the nine major American political parties, what would you consider yourself?

Are we seriosly considering stoping the aid we send to these people?
Africa is climbing slowly but it is climbing....

Originally posted by junglejake
Ace of Base, if you were to label yourself in one of the nine major American political parties, what would you consider yourself?

I guess the Green party or Democratic party.

Originally posted by junglejake
Vagabond: Oh yes, definately a satiracal idea. I simply applied the mentality for Terry Schaivo to an entire continent. Sure does sound sick and wrong, though, doesn't it.

Glad to hear it. I thought I was going to end up being very annoyed with this thread . I have to say, it's a very clever analogy and it does prompt thought.

Vagabond, I think you may have just realized the mentality of those who don't want Terry Schaivo to die. With adult stem cell research (the one which has had positive scientific results), it is possible that in several years we will be able to repair brain damage.

Every once in a while, somebody manages to change my mind on something around here. You're right on the verge of doing it. So of course the next step is to talk about practicality- how can we make this as practical as possible.
I think the people who want to protect Terry Schaivo need to look beyond simply stopping this one death and push a bigger sollution. For example, if congress is going to step in to save her, why can't they step in with a bill designed to stimulate the growth of a low-cost long-term care industry for the severely disabled? I believe it's called "economies of scale" when production goes up, unit price goes down, right? So shouldn't there be discussion of how the government can get the relevant products into higher production (requiring federal funds at first) eventually reaching the point where people who need these items can be sure to obtain them at a non-prohibitive price?

With agricultural technologies which are still developing, Africa could be self sustaining so far as food and water goes in a couple of decades. My policy: keep sustaining and keep looking for a solution. Don't just give up.

Very smart my friend. I feel sort of silly for havin missed the analogy at first, but that made it all the more effective.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Food aid is being sent to Africa with the best of intentions but I think it is actually interfering with the natural course of life. Drought and famine are not new to this world, it has happened in many countries around the world and when a land was no longer able to sustain it's population, the people who lived there moved on to another area.

Woah now, let's not forget the points I made in my first post. Yes, even I agree that the West is interfering with natural processes but that's a double-edged sword. You're all to happy to say stop giving them aid, but what about cutting off the interference that we get something out of? It's not only drought and famine that plagues these people. Whatever crop production they can get is going into tea and the like.

I'm also not saying we should just abandon them. You know the old saying- if you build a man a fire, it keeps him warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, it keeps him warm for the rest of his life. (kidding- i'm talking about the real saying)
You can't carry somebody- but you can give them a push start. If anybody was willing to invest over there by helping broker political arrangements that would resolve conflicts and create political and military stability, then put some capital into their economy to get business ventures running, those nations could upgrade their infrastructure enough, produce enough food, or produce enough to trade for food, and they'd be OK.

If this develops into a long discussion maybe we should create our own thread for it- I'd invite you to start one and link to it here if you want to make a very detailed reply

I don't really follow, Vagabond. What do you mean by making it practical? If you mean how would we put it into practice, we're limited by technology. There is, of course, a large movement in adult stem cell research to repair spinal injuries. Shortly after that technology is developed, they'll move from just working with the spinal column to that big ol' cluster of nerves we like to call the brain. Unfortunately this whole political issue over fetal stem cell research is detracting funds from the stem cell research which has actually yeilded positive results, but that's a whole other thread.

As for the political solution, I'm not so sure what an end all be all solution would be. As of today in this country, my wishes will not be honored if I say, even in a living will, kill me if I become homeless. If I become a quadrapolegic, I am not allowed to take my own life according to the government, and no one else is allowed to kill me at my request, either. So why is it ok for someone's husband, 7 years after the fact, to come out and say she wanted to be killed if she were ever in a vegitative state (which is also in question). There are also 3 signed statements from about 6 years ago when this case was just beginning stating that Michael Shaivo didn't know what her wishes were.

Whatever solution is developed to this case, it will need to be worked on. If you read the bill of rights, the version we have in school is about 943,329,543 pages short of the actual thing since there are so many different situations where laws can apply. I believe we should, like we should with the Shaivo case, proceed carefully with the laws, and err on the side of caution rather than the side of irreperable mistakes.

Originally posted by junglejake
I don't really follow, Vagabond. What do you mean by making it practical? If you mean how would we put it into practice, we're limited by technology.

By making it practical I mean that we would need to implement a system that made it economically possible to preserve the lives of the severely disabled until such time as they can be cured. I don't know about you, but I can't afford to go get stitches at the hospital, much less have a loved one sit in a hospice for several years (and god forbid they need life support and not just a feeding tube).
Then of course there's the matter of actually making the most efficient possible progress towards realizing the treatment methods that would restore these people's lives. So really keeping this person from being allowed to die is the tip of the iceburg, because congress can't step in to save somebody every time their family says pull the plug. What congress can step in to do is to coordinate and fund stem cell research to the greatest extent possible, and to educate people who are under-informed and have ended up thinking that all stem-cell research is catagorically immoral and tantamount to state-sponsored abortion. They also have to investigate how to make the necessary care for the disabled affordable to all who require it.

So what I'm saying is that the moral discussion really has to be accompanied by a discussion of exactly what steps should be taken to make it possible to save preserve people's lives when they need it, even if their family can't afford it, and also of how we are going to speed up efforts to help restore these people's lives with new techniques.