4 ms·

It's incorrect to blame the Africans. Aid failed not because people there are somewhat less civilized (hypersexual bullshit), but because foreign aid money is f

by iwr 16y ago

It's incorrect to blame the Africans. Aid failed not because people there are somewhat less civilized (hypersexual bullshit), but because foreign aid money is feeding the dictators that maintain the system. The big cash doesn't come from exports, but from naive westerners feeding them aid money. That way, whatever leader crops up, he would have a stake in maintaining a poor, half-starving people. Africans are no different human beings, they're just subjected to the same incentives everyone else is.

Devilboy 16y ago
What about South Africa?
- iwr 16y ago
  South Africa doesn't receive that much aid in relative terms.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    And is incidentally, pretty much the only African nation I would consider visiting...
sorbus 16y ago
While that's an argument which sounds good, I find myself wondering why the population is increasing so much if the populace is half-starved. Having children when you are unable to feed yourself is extremely counterproductive.
- alexgartrell 16y ago
  Not if your aim is to continue your bloodline. Having a child or two to carry on your genes is a luxury for the rich, who can expect at least one child to live on through sexual maturity. It's not rational, it's biological.
  - dawgr 16y ago
    For the rich? For the rich in Western countries where the costs are "prohibitive" and both parents usually "have to" work, or so do many people in reproductive age say. Immmigrants and many minorities however don't mind not having an HD TV or Playstation 3 and it's normal that one of the parents doesn't work, usually the mother. If you look closely at the birth rates in many European countries, they account for a high number of births. In Spain they account for more than half the number of births for this past decade. Which just goes to show that if people are not having children is not because they can't afford it, it's because they don't want.

by iwr 16y ago

Devilboy 16y ago

What about South Africa?

iwr 16y ago
South Africa doesn't receive that much aid in relative terms.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  And is incidentally, pretty much the only African nation I would consider visiting...

sorbus 16y ago

While that's an argument which sounds good, I find myself wondering why the population is increasing so much if the populace is half-starved. Having children when you are unable to feed yourself is extremely counterproductive.

alexgartrell 16y ago
Not if your aim is to continue your bloodline. Having a child or two to carry on your genes is a luxury for the rich, who can expect at least one child to live on through sexual maturity. It's not rational, it's biological.
- dawgr 16y ago
  For the rich? For the rich in Western countries where the costs are "prohibitive" and both parents usually "have to" work, or so do many people in reproductive age say. Immmigrants and many minorities however don't mind not having an HD TV or Playstation 3 and it's normal that one of the parents doesn't work, usually the mother. If you look closely at the birth rates in many European countries, they account for a high number of births. In Spain they account for more than half the number of births for this past decade. Which just goes to show that if people are not having children is not because they can't afford it, it's because they don't want.