I'm not convinced. If we took a Star Trek "Prime Directive" approach and didn't interfere with Africa, why wouldn't their population be at a naturally lower car

I'm not convinced. If we took a Star Trek "Prime Directive" approach and didn't interfere with Africa, why wouldn't their population be at a naturally lower carrying capacity? Is it really wise to use all of that money in a part of the world where their carbon footprint is small, versus spending it on reducing the carbon footprint in the first world? Why are we exacerbating the problem by making Africa more developed and therefore worse for climate change? In the short term, we could be left with a greater number of Africans who leave Africa because of climate change issues way before 2100 when their population will supposedly level off.