Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

CarlPierce · **#61** by **CarlPierce** » Apr 16, 2012 9:48 am

Dose the food aid with contraceptives......

Seriously though we should be attacking the religious/social attitudes behind this.
The pope should be called for the villian he is.

UndercoverElephant · **#62** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 9:49 am

Salinger wrote:
Acetone wrote:Instead just pull the plug, fuck them, they want to be stupid then they can be stupid without international aid. I'm sure within a year the population problem there will be fixed.

Very reasonably and eloquently stated.

It's pretty easy for you to dismiss an entire continent as "stupid". You should be dropped in the middle of a third-world country with no public education, and we'll see how brilliant you look.

"Third world" is a pointless term. It's out of date. So is is "rich countries", since most of the developed countries are currently bankrupt. The old "West" is in terminal decline, but what was previously known as "the third world" is now a varied mixture of places which are make great cultural and economic strides forwards and places which are in a worse state than they were 50 years ago. IMO, sub-saharan Africa ought to be in a category of its own. It is pretty obvious that certain sorts of solutions which worked elsewhere will not work there, for whatever reason...

I'm With Stupid · **#63** by **I'm With Stupid** » Apr 16, 2012 9:50 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:We have to accept basic fact #1: THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY HUMANS ON THIS PLANET.

It's a bit more subtle than that. There are already too many humans on this planet using too many resources. And the main offenders aren't sub-Saharan Africans. The number of people in that part of the world could double and still not be as big a problem as the urbanisation of China from a climate change perspective.

UndercoverElephant · **#64** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 9:54 am

MacIver wrote:On the issue of foreign aid being lost because of corruption and when it does get through it doing more harm than good... in many cases this is what happens.

But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we concentrated on the basics like education (teach a man to fish) and maybe got NGOs to distribute the funds instead of giving them directly to governments (which I admit, in itself may cause problems) we may see better results. For me, foreign aid isn't purely an altruistic ideal, as the more developed Africa is, the more stable it'll be... and that be good for all of us.

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

THWOTH · **#65** by **THWOTH** » Apr 16, 2012 9:55 am

Wiðercora wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:I would like to hear proposals on how to deal with this problem.

Reduce poverty, increase health, and educate women as equals.

No, we should invade and force women to have abortions.

Shame we can't turn them into oil eh?

rEvolutionist · **#66** by **rEvolutionist** » Apr 16, 2012 9:57 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
MacIver wrote:On the issue of foreign aid being lost because of corruption and when it does get through it doing more harm than good... in many cases this is what happens.

But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we concentrated on the basics like education (teach a man to fish) and maybe got NGOs to distribute the funds instead of giving them directly to governments (which I admit, in itself may cause problems) we may see better results. For me, foreign aid isn't purely an altruistic ideal, as the more developed Africa is, the more stable it'll be... and that be good for all of us.

And what, given the post-empire history of sub-saharan Africa, gives you reason to hope that Africa is going to become more developed? Africa is not progressing. At best, it is going sideways.

China's great interest in the continent (i.e. it's resources; and potential markets) will help in that regard.

rEvolutionist · **#67** by **rEvolutionist** » Apr 16, 2012 9:58 am

THWOTH wrote:
Wiðercora wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:I would like to hear proposals on how to deal with this problem.

Reduce poverty, increase health, and educate women as equals.

No, we should invade and force women to have abortions.

Shame we can't turn them into oil eh?

Bio-diesel? :ask:

Doubtdispelled · **#68** by **Doubtdispelled** » Apr 16, 2012 9:59 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:
campermon wrote:Educate women and girls.

Well yes. It doesn't matter how many condoms you litter the country with when you're dealing with attitudes like the man interviewed in the article who had four children and wanted another six. These are people who plan their big families, they don't just have them by accident.

Exactly, IWS. Did you notice his reason for wanting more children?

Abel Olanyi, 35, a laborer, said he has four children and wants two more. “The number you have depends on your strength and capacity,” he said, his wife sitting silently by his side.

In other words, the more times you can impregnate a woman, the more it goes to prove what a 'man' you are.

That's one of the attitudes which need to be changed, along with education of both men and women.

UM left this bit of the article out of his quotes...

Across sub-Saharan Africa, alarmed governments have begun to act, often reversing longstanding policies that encouraged or accepted large families. Nigeria made contraceptives free last year, and officials are promoting smaller families as a key to economic salvation, holding up the financial gains in nations like Thailand as inspiration.

UndercoverElephant · **#69** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 10:02 am

johnbrandt wrote:The trouble with educating women and girls is that you're thinking from a western perspective, where women generally actually have a say in their lives. No matter how educated a woman or girl is in a lot of those countries, if she's going to be living in the village or township she came from, nothing will change. She has no power.

Read a few chilling articles about child brides in various parts of the world, and how mothers and grandmothers see nothing wrong with virtually selling off their little girls to some old letch (in fact in a lot of places the older women are the ones actively pushing the deals through) because "if they wait until she's a teenager she mightn't be a virgin and no one will want her!"

It's a whole weird mindset going on, from cradle to grave, that the powerful rule (and make the rules), that men get the last say in everything, and women are just a possession. Educating women that it isn't like that in other countries, and all you will probably do is create an environment where women will stand up to the menfolk, with obvious consequences.

Not saying it isn't worth trying to educate women more, but not sure that unless you educate everyone, anything will change much...

These problems CANNOT be fixed from the outside. They are cultural changes which will only stick if they are "owned" by the people themselves.

Look at our own history (north-west Europe). Would we be who are, culturally, if the Magna Carta, parliamentary democracy, votes for women, the scientific and protestestant revolutions had happened somewhere else and outsiders had tried to impose the new system on us?

Loren Michael · **#70** by **Loren Michael** » Apr 16, 2012 10:04 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:"Third world" is a pointless term. It's out of date. So is is "rich countries", since most of the developed countries are currently bankrupt.

Rich countries have ridiculous amounts of capital, regardless of debt. Unless creditors come in and take capital (assuming the creditors aren't from the same nation of the debtors), the insolvency of individuals doesn't mean much for the material wealth of countries.

UndercoverElephant · **#71** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 10:06 am

Loren Michael wrote:

Low hanging fruit = fixing the toilet problem

This is going to happen anyway, almost certainly in Africa and definately in the western world. This will have nothing to do with the problem of getting rid of sewage using water, and everything to do with the world running out of minable phosphate rock.

Loren Michael · **#72** by **Loren Michael** » Apr 16, 2012 10:08 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:

Low hanging fruit = fixing the toilet problem

This is going to happen anyway, almost certainly in Africa and definately in the western world. This will have nothing to do with the problem of getting rid of sewage using water, and everything to do with the world running out of minable phosphate rock.

So, onto step two, enable migration, and step three, local institutional reform.

UndercoverElephant · **#73** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 10:11 am

Loren Michael wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Emmeline wrote:According to stats I've seen (mainly from Hans Rosling) a key factor in reducing family numbers is increasing child survival rates. Other key factors are of course better education and availability of contraception.

Right. So we solve an IMMEDIATE overpopulation problem by trying to reduce infant mortality?

I'm struggling with the logic here.

Is your issue that not enough babies are dying, or that people are having too many babies?

My issue is that there are already far too many people on this planet and sub-Saharan Africa is where the population is growing fastest (except occupied Palestine which is a special case). It is not only the babies being born now, but the existing population and their demands/desires. The resource crisis is starting NOW.

I think we need some perspective here:

It is a measure of just how serious the problem is everywhere else that even after a quarter of a century of the One Child Policy in China, and more than 350 million fewer people existing in 2012 than would otherwise have been the case, the population of that country is still rising and not expected to peak until about 2035. Were that pattern to be repeated in the rest of the world, then even if we were to implement a global one-child policy right now, we would still have four decades of population growth ahead of us.

Because assuming fixing the former fixes the latter, the logic seems obvious. While it might take a toll on the mother and the family, the death of a baby at a young age doesn't mean that a mother won't have another baby.

It is not up to us to decide the fate of sub-saharan Africa. It is time to get out of there, and let nature run its course.

UndercoverElephant · **#74** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 10:14 am

Loren Michael wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:We have to accept basic fact #1: THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY HUMANS ON THIS PLANET.

The basic fact is that there is inefficient organization and utilization of the humans that are here, not that there are too many.

Both are problems. It's not an either/or. Also, your argument here runs into Jevon's paradox: if we organised Africa more efficiently, but there was no accompanying cultural change, we would only succeed in making the problems even worse.

Loren Michael · **#75** by **Loren Michael** » Apr 16, 2012 10:14 am

johnbrandt wrote:The trouble with educating women and girls is that you're thinking from a western perspective, where women generally actually have a say in their lives. No matter how educated a woman or girl is in a lot of those countries, if she's going to be living in the village or township she came from, nothing will change. She has no power.

Read a few chilling articles about child brides in various parts of the world, and how mothers and grandmothers see nothing wrong with virtually selling off their little girls to some old letch (in fact in a lot of places the older women are the ones actively pushing the deals through) because "if they wait until she's a teenager she mightn't be a virgin and no one will want her!"

It's a whole weird mindset going on, from cradle to grave, that the powerful rule (and make the rules), that men get the last say in everything, and women are just a possession. Educating women that it isn't like that in other countries, and all you will probably do is create an environment where women will stand up to the menfolk, with obvious consequences.

Not saying it isn't worth trying to educate women more, but not sure that unless you educate everyone, anything will change much...

Assuming that education tends to lead to wealth and wealth tends to lead to urbanization and urbanization tends to lead to cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitanism tends to lead to liberalization - a lot of assumptions, to be sure! - I don't think you're correct. Education doesn't make it a sure thing that individuals (and societies) will become wealthier, but it certainly helps, even if you're not educating everyone.

UndercoverElephant · **#76** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 10:15 am

rEvolutionist wrote:It's not the number of humans that is the problem necessarily, it is the level of consumption of a small part of them (and the potential level of consumption of the others going into the future)

It's both. Too many people, nearly all of whom want to improve their living standards.

Does. Not. Add. Up.

UndercoverElephant · **#77** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 10:17 am

CarlPierce wrote:Dose the food aid with contraceptives......

Seriously though we should be attacking the religious/social attitudes behind this.
The pope should be called for the villian he is.

Yes, he should, but that's not going to make all that much difference in Africa. We should call out the catholic church and its contraception and abortion policies because they are unethical. But we can't hope to change the culture in Africa, and the very fact that we think we can is part of the problem. If Africa's problems are to be solved then they will have to be solved by Africans.

rEvolutionist · **#78** by **rEvolutionist** » Apr 16, 2012 10:21 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
It is not up to us to decide the fate of sub-saharan Africa. It is time to get out of there, and let nature run its course.

I just don't get this line of argumentation. What is the basis for it? It seems horribly inhuman and cruel to me. In fact it objectively is. It's also defeatest and frankly repulsive.

UndercoverElephant · **#79** by **UndercoverElephant** » Apr 16, 2012 10:22 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:We have to accept basic fact #1: THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY HUMANS ON THIS PLANET.

It's a bit more subtle than that. There are already too many humans on this planet using too many resources. And the main offenders aren't sub-Saharan Africans. The number of people in that part of the world could double and still not be as big a problem as the urbanisation of China from a climate change perspective.

I'm not saying there isn't an over-consumption problem too. And it's not Africans who have screwed up the climate.

But there really are already too many humans on this planet. We are well into overshoot territory. There is a great deal of debate about the long-term carrying capacity of the Earth. My experience of that debate leads me to believe there are two sorts of people. One lot has not properly understood the scope of the problem, and believe a serious dieoff can still be avoided. They estimate the carrying capacity at 6 billion or more. The others - the ones who know what is coming - provide estimates for the number of survivors at anywhere between 50 million and 3.5 billion, with the majority falling between 1 and 2 billion.

There is a notable lack of people who estimate between 4 and 7 billion as the carrying capacity, and almost nobody guesses we'll wipe ourselves out completely.

Loren Michael · **#80** by **Loren Michael** » Apr 16, 2012 10:25 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Right. So we solve an IMMEDIATE overpopulation problem by trying to reduce infant mortality?

I'm struggling with the logic here.

Is your issue that not enough babies are dying, or that people are having too many babies?

My issue is that there are already far too many people on this planet and sub-Saharan Africa is where the population is growing fastest (except occupied Palestine which is a special case). It is not only the babies being born now, but the existing population and their demands/desires. The resource crisis is starting NOW.

I think we need some perspective here:

It is a measure of just how serious the problem is everywhere else that even after a quarter of a century of the One Child Policy in China, and more than 350 million fewer people existing in 2012 than would otherwise have been the case, the population of that country is still rising and not expected to peak until about 2035. Were that pattern to be repeated in the rest of the world, then even if we were to implement a global one-child policy right now, we would still have four decades of population growth ahead of us.

That doesn't inform the "fewer babies dying = fewer babies being had" issue. Assuming there's a problem of too many people, reducing infant mortality to reduce the total number of babies is logically sound. It may not be sufficient, given culture (as has been cited), but the logic is sound.

Because assuming fixing the former fixes the latter, the logic seems obvious. While it might take a toll on the mother and the family, the death of a baby at a young age doesn't mean that a mother won't have another baby.

It is not up to us to decide the fate of sub-saharan Africa. It is time to get out of there, and let nature run its course.

"Letting nature run its course" is "us" deciding the fate of Sub-Saharan Africa as much as anything. If you see a child drowning in a shallow pond, your inaction decides his fate as much as your action. "Letting nature run its course" on that child is your decision. You decide the fate of that child. The decision to do nothing as opposed to something is still a decision.

Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Re: Africans Will Not Stop Popping Out Babies

Who is online