It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Africa alone could feed the world

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Africa alone could feed the world


www.newscientist.com

DOOM-MONGERS have got it wrong - there is enough space in the world to produce the extra food needed to feed a growing population. And contrary to expectation, most of it can be grown in Africa, say two international reports published this week.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I think it is important to remind people that Africa is an extremely rich continent. Especially the people who claim there is overpopulation and not enough resources to feed everyone. Actually Africa alone can feed us!
The tragedy is that the africans are the one suffering most from hunger and misery. And this is done by design, so we can plunder their natural wealth and slow down their progress.

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
South Africa is the highest producer of food in Africa I believe, and that's only a tiny slab of land compared to the rest of that gigantic continent. You are right, Africa is filled with natural resources.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
And this is done by design, so we can plunder their natural wealth and slow down their progress.


It seems this has been done by design for the last 200 or 300 years, at least. Colonization held the people down and the post-colonization period left these new, inexperienced countries vulnerable to all the geopolitical BS involved during the Cold War. Then, as western and communist interests pulled back, the nations of Africa were back to their post-colonial, chaotic state. War, disease, poverity and famine look to continue to keep Africa in its backward, downtrodden status for the next quarter century at least.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Most of these paranoids crying "overpopulation!!" or "we'll all starve!!" are living in excessively densely populated places stacked on top of each other in little cages like corporate farm chickens. Their perspective on the world has been perverted drastically by their lifestyles.

What sucks for the rest of us is these chicken farms have most of the power due to the dense population all voting in sync with their perverted outlook and get to rule tyrannically over the rural areas. NYC over the rest of the state and LA, SF over the rest of CA.

I wouldnt mind seeing a few of these cities leveled. Then we'll all be happy. They can stop worrying about starving and over population and the rural folks can stop jumping through assinine legislative hoops these suits make year after year and force them to foot the bill for their totalitarian splendor.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
It's not just about simple feeding and shelter. Everyone would want cars. Everyone would want to travel by plane. Everyone would then feel entitled. Then become fat. Then become dumb. Kinda like Americans are now, actually.


I still stand by my conviction that population growth should be diminished. Global meltdown rules!!!



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by larphillips
... Colonization held the people down and the post-colonization period left these new, inexperienced countries vulnerable to all the geopolitical BS involved during the Cold War. Then, as western and communist interests pulled back, the nations of Africa were back to their post-colonial, chaotic state. War, disease, poverity and famine look to continue to keep Africa in its backward, downtrodden status for the next quarter century at least.


It is convenient to blame everyone else for Africa's woes. Most areas of the world have experienced colonialism and the swings and roundabouts of the Cold War, slavery, conflicts and the economic yo-yo. Most areas of the world have got over the past.

The fact is that Africa tolerates and nurtures its own problems. Look at Zimbabwe as a good high-profile example of how not to run a country and how neighbours do buggerall to apply pressure and find a solution.

We need to encourage Africa to get sorted out – God knows they get enough aid. Trouble is, the governments who run the show are so corrupt that help tends to go astray.

Please stop blaming the past - it is the coverall excuse and helps perpetuate the problems.

Regards



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
What was Rhodesia was a breadbasket. Mugabe's kleptocracy ruined that. Much of Africa suffers from this form of government, as well as abject cronyism. The post-colonial governments can only blame themselves. They weren't forced by any vestige of the colonial period to steal from their countrymen.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
And if my Granny had wheels she'd be a steam engine......

I think we all know that Africa can grow things, Rhodesia proved that to us.

And then the Africans proved to us how they react to that success. They kill the farmers through racial hatred, "redistribute" the land, and let it go to waste, and then starve to death.

You may be able to grow wheat fields there in a few thousand years, but a small tick of the social evolutionary clock is required first.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I think it is important to remind people that Africa is an extremely rich continent. Especially the people who claim there is overpopulation and not enough resources to feed everyone. Actually Africa alone can feed us!
(visit the link for the full news article)


Yes, having spent a year in Africa I find these misconceptions extremely irritating and uninformed. The continent has about the same amount of population as Europe, less than India or China, and it is huge mass of land!

Then all kinds of Malthusian fascists are making an issue about the "overpopulation" while their hatred and greed are the cause of our problems. Population reduction should probably be started in Europe, but oops, we weren't actually worried about too many white men?

Unfortunately, I also gotta say that another big source of African problems is the local politicians, who are extremely corrupt in most of the countries.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viking04
What was Rhodesia was a breadbasket. Mugabe's kleptocracy ruined that. Much of Africa suffers from this form of government, as well as abject cronyism. The post-colonial governments can only blame themselves. They weren't forced by any vestige of the colonial period to steal from their countrymen.


Hello "Viking", I betcha if a remnant of imperialism, such as a bunch of Russian landlords, owned most of your Scandinavian Viking country and had farms about 1000 times bigger than native farmers, you probably would kick out the colonialists too? I mean, that would be the most "Viking" thing to do? I know my country would do it, oops, actually we did it already.

This is the situation in Zimbabwe. Imperialist remnant farmers own huge farms while locals own tiny farms. Still, Mugabe is a corrupt dictator. And probably fairly stupid too.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I've been saying this for a long time. Imagine if Africa could stop all their wars upgrade to the agricultural technology we have (like irrigation, farming & ranching techniques, & machinery) they could easily be the worlds #1 food producing continent in the world. Outdoing North America & Asia. The reason Africa is so great is because most of their land if fairly flat, lots of grasslands, they don't have much of a cold season, they have plenty of water in some areas (and the parts that don't usually have extreme rainy seasons).

[edit on 2-7-2009 by asmall89]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
It's not done by design for most of the time. It's the echoing affects of colonization. Europeans payed them to fight each other for extortion, and they still fight today, unaware their grievances are made up.

Europe does contribute a lot to the African Union, so that indicates guilt, but they should help out more.


2003 the African Union was founded. It's only 6 years later. I say wait 15 years and see.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Also Farmers here in the US rarely produce the most food they could. The reason being is they want to keep food [rices up so they can make a profit. If too much food hits the market as it did in the late 1800's then the food prices fall. I think it was the Farmers Almanac that came out so farmers could read about how much food they should plant/grow in order to make the best profits while keeping prices steady. Now that most Farms & Ranches are corporations now days the corporations only care about making profits instead of feeding people. There is plenty of land and food in the world, but greedy politicians/governments and corporations make it seem like there isn't.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91


Europe does contribute a lot to the African Union, so that indicates guilt, but they should help out more.


2003 the African Union was founded. It's only 6 years later. I say wait 15 years and see.


I do not see how aid automatically equates to guilt. I suppose that all of the aid sent to the people impacted by the tsunami was because the donors were somehow guilty of causing the earthquake? Granted, the counter example is a bit extreme, but it makes the point.

Decades and Billions (thousand millions to some folks) of aid to Africa have been largely for naught (leaders' largess is naught, IMO). To give us a relative yardstick of aid, the Marshall Plan spent something under $15,000,000,000, to assist with the rebuilding of Europe, a Europe that was largely flattened after nearly six years of warfare. More money to the head thieves is not an answer.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Viking04
 


Well individual donors is different.

When a nation gives money to another, it's usually for either guilt, economic interests, or future military endeavorer.

Looking to 1984, Oceania and Eurasia enjoyed owning Africa for its resources and military position.

who knows.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Etsivä Romppainen


Hello "Viking", I betcha if a remnant of imperialism, such as a bunch of Russian landlords, owned most of your Scandinavian Viking country and had farms about 1000 times bigger than native farmers, you probably would kick out the colonialists too? I mean, that would be the most "Viking" thing to do? I know my country would do it, oops, actually we did it already.

This is the situation in Zimbabwe. Imperialist remnant farmers own huge farms while locals own tiny farms. Still, Mugabe is a corrupt dictator. And probably fairly stupid too.


American, the Viking name is a long story, but your point is taken. Those remnant farmers were asked to stay, as their operations drove the economy (and they did). Mugabe's thugs then decided to rape/murder and drive many of them out. However, when the rapine and pillage was finished, the thugs seemed to have a hard time getting down to the business of operating these farms, recently 'liberated. Your forefathers went to work and made the land work, instead of waiting for the next aid shipment to (figuaratively) fall out of the sky.

Mugabe is many things, but he is far from stupid. He has 'acquired' a substantial personal fortune, while demanding/begging for more. Mugabe may be a butcher. He may be a warlord in the classic sense. He may be corrupt, which is pretty much a given. He may even be guilty of crimes against humanity, but he is not stupid.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The only way for Africa to be free to be able to pull this off is, they become like a United States. But I fear that their own tribal hatred for one another and the raping of the land by other nations will not allow them to be able to do this. Because the land is so rich, greed and lets face it, macho maleism, Africa will not be able to be a world power until they can get their stuff together. They could be world power, bigger than any other nation. They could surpass china and India combined in 5-8 decades, with food, education, health care, Africa could kick some serious ass to our great great grandchildren.

I dont think this world has that long anyways so we will never see Afrcia become a world power.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by Le Colonel]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Viking04
 


Well individual donors is different.

When a nation gives money to another, it's usually for either guilt, economic interests, or future military endeavorer.

Looking to 1984, Oceania and Eurasia enjoyed owning Africa for its resources and military position.

who knows.


Most of the money (and in kind) for tsunami relief was from governments. So, the US, Australia, members of the EC were expressing their collective guilt?

Africa does have resources, and it does have some strategic position, but that has little to do with the sorry state of agriculture there.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Viking04
 


Well look at it this way. They didn't donate a lot until they were called out on it.

It took the UN to call them "stingy' and other insults.

They did it only because they were told to. They did not do it on their will. They saw an insult, didn't like it, and gave money.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join