8 ms·

At which point we admit that current approaches to helping these countries does nothing and we reach out for other, radical, approaches and ideas?

tetris11 2y ago
what are you suggesting
- throwaway3521 2y ago
  Bring back colonization for limited amount of time ie 50years. During that time establish government, educational, civil structures and start the economy. Re-educate the society, instill the values of high-trust society. Pull out of the country gradually replacing foreigners with local population. The name 'colonization' might evoke some sentiments, but we can call this some other name.
  - newsclues 2y ago
    If the west keeps allowing the best people from third world countries to immigrate, it’s removing the business, political and social leaders who have the potential to improve their country. Come to the west, get trained and return home and build something better. Doctors and engineers driving a cab in New York is so broken.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Doctors and engineers drive a cab in New York because, for them, it's better than home. It's broken, all right, but what's broken is "home", not the west. (All right, the west is broken too, but in this situation the brokenness of the west is not the primary issue.) And they didn't that they could fix "home", so they left, and for the most part they aren't interested in going back and trying to fix it. They probably have a better perception of how hard it would be to fix than we do.
      - newsclues 2y ago
        I understand why they do it, but I also understand it’s short sighted for both nations. Best to ensure developing nations have their best talent to DEVELOP the nation rather to deprive them of the best people and hinder development and improvement. You take out the best people and what’s left, poverty, corruption and conflict that forces more people to leave and requires more outside aid.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    What's the strategy for when the locals violently resist colonization, with the aid of various countries which are hostile to the colonizing power?
  - carlob 2y ago
    Democracy export? That has worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan...
    - crop_rotation 2y ago
      While I don't agree with the parent comment, 20 years is just nowhere enough for his strategy. Mullah Omar himself was alive for almost half of those. Something like 50 years where the old regime leaders completely vanish can only work. Again I am not saying whether it is practical or whether it is even a good idea at all.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      We didn't do what throwaway3521 said, though. We tried to do it "on the cheap", just occupying, not actually transforming the society, and not staying for 50 years. For context: We occupied Japan for, what, 12 years? We technically occupied Germany longer, but practically it was about the same (I think - from memory and not researched). In that time, we transformed them from violent, racially superior, conquer-the-world militarists to more-or-less western-values democracies. But we put a lot of people in there, and we controlled every aspect of their society. Iraq and Afghanistan, we tried to do it with half-measures rather than a complete rebuild. And it failed.
      - hobs 2y ago
        For context, one of those events started in 1945, and one in 2003. One started because we won a decisive war against the nation, in the other we invaded the country on a flimsy excuse. We have entirely different cultures, times, mores, media landscapes, and different series of occupations, modern weaponry, 4th generation warefare (post vietnam) tactics, the list goes on. Why would "oh we didn't waste enough money occupying a country that we gained little from" be the right choice? How do we magically know that?
      - distances 2y ago
        I would assume a more important factor was that Germany and Japan were both very organized, successful industrialized societies long before facing their respective downfalls in the wars. Iraq and Afghanistan both had a very, very different starting position and it would be unreasonable to expect a similar outcome.
  - abenga 2y ago
    Yeah, because this worked so great last time.
  - throwaway3521 2y ago
    Just for a context here: I actually live in almost-third-world country. Thankfully no famine and loss of live but extremely dysfunctional state and society and with educational system collapsing - probably no future. My countrymen, we, could not govern ourselves. I wish this country was occupied and someone built better society!
    - 185504a9 2y ago
      Not even pretending to make a rational reply here, but I've seen a lot of despicable stuff on the internet and this comment may be the one that made me the angriest. I really hope this is some sort of satire because my blood is about to evaporate. Jesus fucking Christ
      - blackhawkC17 2y ago
        I'm from a dysfunctional third-world country, too (Nigeria), and I agree with the GP. Our population lacks the ability to cooperate for the greater good. Politics here is insanely tribal and corrupt. We're heading for the tatters, except something miraculous happens. If you've never lived in a poor, corrupt, dysfunctional place, you'll not understand how bad life is that'll make someone wish to be occupied.
      - throwaway3521 2y ago
        It's actually not. I had no running water yesterday. Also two days ago as well. I'm sorry my comment made you angry. I hope you're doing well...
      - tazu 2y ago
        You should spend a few years in a third world country. Your righteous liberal rage will evaporate as quickly as your feeling of safety (which you take for granted).
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - infrawhispers 2y ago
      I am from a third-world country that has its own set of problems. To believe that an outside party will come in a build a "better society" for the inhabitants papers over recent history and is almost comical. "we could not govern ourselves" really belies how young many countries are and the unique challenges they face w.r.t. interference from developed nations. Nation building takes _time_ and I would implore you to think about the historical events that have shaped your nation.
  - christkv 2y ago
    Won't work. Loyalties are family, village, tribe, city, etc. There is no "State loyalty" in these countries to build democratic institutions on. One group will take power and then use that power to benefit their group. Sudan is a tribal war in everything but name. I think the best you can hope for is a beneficent dictator. In short term if you want to stop this particular war make UAE and Egypt hurt as they are funding the groups.
  - Qem 2y ago
    Because colonists are totally expected to do a good job this time, not just pillaging resources, setting new apartheid systems, generating even greater famines like what UK did in India and doubling down on the lazy job of drawing straight line borders not taking in consideration the human gropings in the land, what generated a lot of the current conflicts, by splitting affine people in different countries and bunching together rival groups under the same borders. As example of colonist promoted famine, if the one currently unfolding in Gaza not enough, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
    - christkv 2y ago
      Let's not pretend India was some sort of well run paradise before the British showed up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_famine_of_1630–1632 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_famine_of_1630–1632. The previous colonial/imperial regime of the Mughal Empire was just as much a burden on the population. The main reason India is able to feed its population today is the green revolution post WW2, especially the work of Dr. Swaminathan in India. Without it I think we would still see massive famines in India.
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    Wasn't that basically what Ian Smith suggested for Rhodesia? His argument was that the native Africans didn't have the education level or the experience required to run a "civil" society. So the white Rhodesians should do it for a number of years. I believe his target was the late 1980s, after which everyone would have the same rights. Hard to say if it would have worked, Ian Smiths comments was mostly made after Mugabe took over, so it was never tested if it would work, or if Smith was even sincere in his statements.
    - Earw0rm 2y ago
      That is, to some extent, what happened in South Africa. Of course, the whites didn't give power over easily, and the road since has not been smooth. There's no reason to think the Rhodesians would have handed it over any easier, when the time came. South Africa today is simultaneously a troubled place and yet doing well compared to many of its peers. Violent crime is very high, for example, but similar to 19th/early 20th century USA.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    I find this idea perplexing. Even if you were to put emotions and politics aside, colonization doesn’t have a very good track record for the colonized people.
    - crop_rotation 2y ago
      I am not advocating for colonisation, but most of human history has no good track record for the ruled people. Colonisation was able to uproot some very bad social evils by fiat which would be just very hard to remove in a democratic society (for good or bad). Colonisation might be a very bad idea maybe even the worst, but when no solution is working and none in sight, people might want to throw anything they can on the table and restart debating all approaches. I think the parent comment has shared their experience which makes them think this idea might be better than status quo in their country.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Colonization was negative ROI. No one would sign up for that.
alephnerd 2y ago
Sudan is in a civil war that is being used as a proxy war by Iran, UAE, Egypt, Saudi, Ethiopia, and other regional states is NOT caused by issues with donors
- Eumenes 2y ago
  Can't forget Russia and the US/NATO in that group of swell nation-states
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Nowhere near as significant of a presence. There are Russian/Wagner troops present and most likely a USSOF detachment as well, but the actual enablement, training, and impetus is driven by regional states now. The era of "superpower" is over, and there are multiple proxy wars now like this (Syrian Civil War, Yemeni Civil War, Ethiopian Civil War, Myanmar Civil War, Libyan Civil War, etc)
anovikov 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Ummm, western led economic and technological development efforts have massively lowered poverty rates the last century. See China, India, etc.
- crop_rotation 2y ago
  China was doing pretty poorly though before they lucked out on good leadership in Deng. But gambling on that luck doesn't work for most countries.
eej71 2y ago
You suggestion below is getting downvoted which isn't that surprising given the general tilt of HN. But I think there is a related question that's a bit better to ask. What are the social, political, cultural and intellectual preconditions of a free society? What ideals and values does the culture need to hold before you can have a stable government that in a general way - values liberty for its citizens? While I'd love to see many parts of Africa and the mideast embrace the enlightenment values that have created our modern governments built around such ideals as individual rights, rule of law, checks and balances, multiple political parties, free speech, independent court systems, a secular state, etc. I don't think those cultural values are in place. And yes, you can shake a finger at your choice of western country and point out the many ways they fall short of those ideals and you'd be right, but I think you're missing the forest for a diseased tree. So what to do? Provide free resources until they figure it out? Not sure that's worked out. Ignore them? Lecture them? How do you change a culture that in some ways doesn't want to change?
- octopoc 2y ago
  My take is that we should leave them alone and try to keep others from meddling. They have to figure this out on their own. The idea that European enlightenment values are the only path to success is part of the problem though: they have a different culture and success will look different for them than it does for us. Look at China, Japan and other successful Asian countries: they are each different and it’s hard for people of European cultures to judge them without judging them for not being European enough. They have to evolve out of the aftermath of imperialism just like Europe did after the Roman Empire collapsed. We were able to do it on our own and thinking they need us to help them is pretty demeaning IMO.
  - crop_rotation 2y ago
    Your take sounds reasonable and might be the best idea, but it means change will be very very slow (if at all) and millions of lives will be lost to famine and civil wars. > China, Japan and other successful Asian countries: Japan was kinda occupied by the Americans post WW2 and had an American dictated constitution, with a very American influenced society and everything. The Chinese after years of socialism copied western capitalism (and lots of other things) with a very strong government being the only difference. And before that change they too kept having their share of extreme poverty and famines. > just like Europe did after the Roman Empire collapsed. Sadly this might mean waiting for a millennia which might have an unacceptable cost. > We were able to do it on our own and thinking they need us to help them is pretty demeaning IMO. Yes but in a millennia in which rest of the world made much less industrial progress than happens in less than a century now. I have no solutions in mind here. Just highlighting some points to think about.
jksflkjl3jk3 2y ago
How about going in the other direction? Completely stay out of their business and let whatever emerges from the chaos develop on its own? Central planning of societies doesn't have a good track record, especially when there are competing external interests. Look at the horrific consequences of the American meddling in geopolitics of the third world over the last 100 years. The CIA and war industry is responsible for the destruction of countless traditional cultures and the lives of hundreds of millions worldwide.
- crop_rotation 2y ago
  Central planning has a very good record in countries like China/South Korea. Non central social changes are just very very slow.
  - jajko 2y ago
    Maybe but its doesn't work in democracies well. Main reason why EU won't ever compete with US economically, while being also very rich and actually more populous. You should also compare it to situation where those countries wouldn't be centrally planned. Not so possible without time machine, so let's leave out measuring of efficiency of such systems. Ie when in Eastern Europe communism and central planning failed and fell down overnight, literally all those economies experienced massive boosts. I know I've lived through such transition there, hard to describe with words.
    - crop_rotation 2y ago
      > Ie when in Eastern Europe communism and central planning failed I am not saying central planning is a cure all. Trying a bad economic system with any kind of planning will fail. > Maybe but its doesn't work in democracies well. Correct, in the absence of strong top down rule (whether democracy or not), social changes are just going to be very slow (this doesn't mean strong top down rule will result in good changes, just that otherwise it is slow). The US needed a civil war to abolish slavery and two world wars for many other social changes (similar to most of western Europe). I am not saying A or B is better. But without central planning the chances of any big cultural changes in Sudan type countries happening in the next 50 or even 100 years is very remote.
bawolff 2y ago
Most of the time the current approach does work (for famines at least). Famines used to be much more common than they are today.
giantg2 2y ago
Would the other approaches be any better, or just a trade off of evils. Sounds like white savior complex to think we can go in and just fix everything.
VoodooJuJu 2y ago
>radical, approaches and ideas? Like colonialism? Can't get much more radical than that, and some implementations actually worked pretty well to build up some countries, to the point where those countries are now major players in the world, like India. In others, it failed, either due to the brutality of the colonists or the pride of the colonized. Could just leave these people alone though. Many of these peoples have deeply-embedded cultural traits that prohibit them from establishing the standard of living that many of us take for granted. These debilitating cultural traits are likely a product of the harsh climates these people reside in, but only in part. Much more effective cultural traits could be introduced to and imposed on them (colonialism), and in exchange they'd receive the opportunity to participate in and contribute to the regional and even global economy, as well as benefit from mitigations against things like famine. But maybe we should just leave them alone. Tikkun olam is noble indeed, but many peoples are just completely unreceptive to it, and many adherents of this ideal have no business worrying about other people's trash when their own backyards are a mess. So, maybe just leave these people alone.

tetris11 2y ago

what are you suggesting

throwaway3521 2y ago
Bring back colonization for limited amount of time ie 50years. During that time establish government, educational, civil structures and start the economy. Re-educate the society, instill the values of high-trust society. Pull out of the country gradually replacing foreigners with local population. The name 'colonization' might evoke some sentiments, but we can call this some other name.
- newsclues 2y ago
  If the west keeps allowing the best people from third world countries to immigrate, it’s removing the business, political and social leaders who have the potential to improve their country. Come to the west, get trained and return home and build something better. Doctors and engineers driving a cab in New York is so broken.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Doctors and engineers drive a cab in New York because, for them, it's better than home. It's broken, all right, but what's broken is "home", not the west. (All right, the west is broken too, but in this situation the brokenness of the west is not the primary issue.) And they didn't that they could fix "home", so they left, and for the most part they aren't interested in going back and trying to fix it. They probably have a better perception of how hard it would be to fix than we do.
    - newsclues 2y ago
      I understand why they do it, but I also understand it’s short sighted for both nations. Best to ensure developing nations have their best talent to DEVELOP the nation rather to deprive them of the best people and hinder development and improvement. You take out the best people and what’s left, poverty, corruption and conflict that forces more people to leave and requires more outside aid.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  What's the strategy for when the locals violently resist colonization, with the aid of various countries which are hostile to the colonizing power?
- carlob 2y ago
  Democracy export? That has worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan...
  - crop_rotation 2y ago
    While I don't agree with the parent comment, 20 years is just nowhere enough for his strategy. Mullah Omar himself was alive for almost half of those. Something like 50 years where the old regime leaders completely vanish can only work. Again I am not saying whether it is practical or whether it is even a good idea at all.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    We didn't do what throwaway3521 said, though. We tried to do it "on the cheap", just occupying, not actually transforming the society, and not staying for 50 years. For context: We occupied Japan for, what, 12 years? We technically occupied Germany longer, but practically it was about the same (I think - from memory and not researched). In that time, we transformed them from violent, racially superior, conquer-the-world militarists to more-or-less western-values democracies. But we put a lot of people in there, and we controlled every aspect of their society. Iraq and Afghanistan, we tried to do it with half-measures rather than a complete rebuild. And it failed.
    - hobs 2y ago
      For context, one of those events started in 1945, and one in 2003. One started because we won a decisive war against the nation, in the other we invaded the country on a flimsy excuse. We have entirely different cultures, times, mores, media landscapes, and different series of occupations, modern weaponry, 4th generation warefare (post vietnam) tactics, the list goes on. Why would "oh we didn't waste enough money occupying a country that we gained little from" be the right choice? How do we magically know that?
    - distances 2y ago
      I would assume a more important factor was that Germany and Japan were both very organized, successful industrialized societies long before facing their respective downfalls in the wars. Iraq and Afghanistan both had a very, very different starting position and it would be unreasonable to expect a similar outcome.
- abenga 2y ago
  Yeah, because this worked so great last time.
- throwaway3521 2y ago
  Just for a context here: I actually live in almost-third-world country. Thankfully no famine and loss of live but extremely dysfunctional state and society and with educational system collapsing - probably no future. My countrymen, we, could not govern ourselves. I wish this country was occupied and someone built better society!
  - 185504a9 2y ago
    Not even pretending to make a rational reply here, but I've seen a lot of despicable stuff on the internet and this comment may be the one that made me the angriest. I really hope this is some sort of satire because my blood is about to evaporate. Jesus fucking Christ
    - blackhawkC17 2y ago
      I'm from a dysfunctional third-world country, too (Nigeria), and I agree with the GP. Our population lacks the ability to cooperate for the greater good. Politics here is insanely tribal and corrupt. We're heading for the tatters, except something miraculous happens. If you've never lived in a poor, corrupt, dysfunctional place, you'll not understand how bad life is that'll make someone wish to be occupied.
    - throwaway3521 2y ago
      It's actually not. I had no running water yesterday. Also two days ago as well. I'm sorry my comment made you angry. I hope you're doing well...
    - tazu 2y ago
      You should spend a few years in a third world country. Your righteous liberal rage will evaporate as quickly as your feeling of safety (which you take for granted).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - infrawhispers 2y ago
    I am from a third-world country that has its own set of problems. To believe that an outside party will come in a build a "better society" for the inhabitants papers over recent history and is almost comical. "we could not govern ourselves" really belies how young many countries are and the unique challenges they face w.r.t. interference from developed nations. Nation building takes _time_ and I would implore you to think about the historical events that have shaped your nation.
- christkv 2y ago
  Won't work. Loyalties are family, village, tribe, city, etc. There is no "State loyalty" in these countries to build democratic institutions on. One group will take power and then use that power to benefit their group. Sudan is a tribal war in everything but name. I think the best you can hope for is a beneficent dictator. In short term if you want to stop this particular war make UAE and Egypt hurt as they are funding the groups.
- Qem 2y ago
  Because colonists are totally expected to do a good job this time, not just pillaging resources, setting new apartheid systems, generating even greater famines like what UK did in India and doubling down on the lazy job of drawing straight line borders not taking in consideration the human gropings in the land, what generated a lot of the current conflicts, by splitting affine people in different countries and bunching together rival groups under the same borders. As example of colonist promoted famine, if the one currently unfolding in Gaza not enough, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
  - christkv 2y ago
    Let's not pretend India was some sort of well run paradise before the British showed up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_famine_of_1630–1632 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_famine_of_1630–1632. The previous colonial/imperial regime of the Mughal Empire was just as much a burden on the population. The main reason India is able to feed its population today is the green revolution post WW2, especially the work of Dr. Swaminathan in India. Without it I think we would still see massive famines in India.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  Wasn't that basically what Ian Smith suggested for Rhodesia? His argument was that the native Africans didn't have the education level or the experience required to run a "civil" society. So the white Rhodesians should do it for a number of years. I believe his target was the late 1980s, after which everyone would have the same rights. Hard to say if it would have worked, Ian Smiths comments was mostly made after Mugabe took over, so it was never tested if it would work, or if Smith was even sincere in his statements.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    That is, to some extent, what happened in South Africa. Of course, the whites didn't give power over easily, and the road since has not been smooth. There's no reason to think the Rhodesians would have handed it over any easier, when the time came. South Africa today is simultaneously a troubled place and yet doing well compared to many of its peers. Violent crime is very high, for example, but similar to 19th/early 20th century USA.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  I find this idea perplexing. Even if you were to put emotions and politics aside, colonization doesn’t have a very good track record for the colonized people.
  - crop_rotation 2y ago
    I am not advocating for colonisation, but most of human history has no good track record for the ruled people. Colonisation was able to uproot some very bad social evils by fiat which would be just very hard to remove in a democratic society (for good or bad). Colonisation might be a very bad idea maybe even the worst, but when no solution is working and none in sight, people might want to throw anything they can on the table and restart debating all approaches. I think the parent comment has shared their experience which makes them think this idea might be better than status quo in their country.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Colonization was negative ROI. No one would sign up for that.

alephnerd 2y ago

Sudan is in a civil war that is being used as a proxy war by Iran, UAE, Egypt, Saudi, Ethiopia, and other regional states is NOT caused by issues with donors

Eumenes 2y ago
Can't forget Russia and the US/NATO in that group of swell nation-states
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Nowhere near as significant of a presence. There are Russian/Wagner troops present and most likely a USSOF detachment as well, but the actual enablement, training, and impetus is driven by regional states now. The era of "superpower" is over, and there are multiple proxy wars now like this (Syrian Civil War, Yemeni Civil War, Ethiopian Civil War, Myanmar Civil War, Libyan Civil War, etc)

anovikov 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Ummm, western led economic and technological development efforts have massively lowered poverty rates the last century. See China, India, etc.

crop_rotation 2y ago
China was doing pretty poorly though before they lucked out on good leadership in Deng. But gambling on that luck doesn't work for most countries.

eej71 2y ago

You suggestion below is getting downvoted which isn't that surprising given the general tilt of HN. But I think there is a related question that's a bit better to ask. What are the social, political, cultural and intellectual preconditions of a free society? What ideals and values does the culture need to hold before you can have a stable government that in a general way - values liberty for its citizens? While I'd love to see many parts of Africa and the mideast embrace the enlightenment values that have created our modern governments built around such ideals as individual rights, rule of law, checks and balances, multiple political parties, free speech, independent court systems, a secular state, etc. I don't think those cultural values are in place. And yes, you can shake a finger at your choice of western country and point out the many ways they fall short of those ideals and you'd be right, but I think you're missing the forest for a diseased tree. So what to do? Provide free resources until they figure it out? Not sure that's worked out. Ignore them? Lecture them? How do you change a culture that in some ways doesn't want to change?

octopoc 2y ago
My take is that we should leave them alone and try to keep others from meddling. They have to figure this out on their own. The idea that European enlightenment values are the only path to success is part of the problem though: they have a different culture and success will look different for them than it does for us. Look at China, Japan and other successful Asian countries: they are each different and it’s hard for people of European cultures to judge them without judging them for not being European enough. They have to evolve out of the aftermath of imperialism just like Europe did after the Roman Empire collapsed. We were able to do it on our own and thinking they need us to help them is pretty demeaning IMO.
- crop_rotation 2y ago
  Your take sounds reasonable and might be the best idea, but it means change will be very very slow (if at all) and millions of lives will be lost to famine and civil wars. > China, Japan and other successful Asian countries: Japan was kinda occupied by the Americans post WW2 and had an American dictated constitution, with a very American influenced society and everything. The Chinese after years of socialism copied western capitalism (and lots of other things) with a very strong government being the only difference. And before that change they too kept having their share of extreme poverty and famines. > just like Europe did after the Roman Empire collapsed. Sadly this might mean waiting for a millennia which might have an unacceptable cost. > We were able to do it on our own and thinking they need us to help them is pretty demeaning IMO. Yes but in a millennia in which rest of the world made much less industrial progress than happens in less than a century now. I have no solutions in mind here. Just highlighting some points to think about.

jksflkjl3jk3 2y ago

How about going in the other direction? Completely stay out of their business and let whatever emerges from the chaos develop on its own? Central planning of societies doesn't have a good track record, especially when there are competing external interests. Look at the horrific consequences of the American meddling in geopolitics of the third world over the last 100 years. The CIA and war industry is responsible for the destruction of countless traditional cultures and the lives of hundreds of millions worldwide.

crop_rotation 2y ago
Central planning has a very good record in countries like China/South Korea. Non central social changes are just very very slow.
- jajko 2y ago
  Maybe but its doesn't work in democracies well. Main reason why EU won't ever compete with US economically, while being also very rich and actually more populous. You should also compare it to situation where those countries wouldn't be centrally planned. Not so possible without time machine, so let's leave out measuring of efficiency of such systems. Ie when in Eastern Europe communism and central planning failed and fell down overnight, literally all those economies experienced massive boosts. I know I've lived through such transition there, hard to describe with words.
  - crop_rotation 2y ago
    > Ie when in Eastern Europe communism and central planning failed I am not saying central planning is a cure all. Trying a bad economic system with any kind of planning will fail. > Maybe but its doesn't work in democracies well. Correct, in the absence of strong top down rule (whether democracy or not), social changes are just going to be very slow (this doesn't mean strong top down rule will result in good changes, just that otherwise it is slow). The US needed a civil war to abolish slavery and two world wars for many other social changes (similar to most of western Europe). I am not saying A or B is better. But without central planning the chances of any big cultural changes in Sudan type countries happening in the next 50 or even 100 years is very remote.

bawolff 2y ago

Most of the time the current approach does work (for famines at least). Famines used to be much more common than they are today.

giantg2 2y ago

Would the other approaches be any better, or just a trade off of evils. Sounds like white savior complex to think we can go in and just fix everything.

VoodooJuJu 2y ago

>radical, approaches and ideas? Like colonialism? Can't get much more radical than that, and some implementations actually worked pretty well to build up some countries, to the point where those countries are now major players in the world, like India. In others, it failed, either due to the brutality of the colonists or the pride of the colonized. Could just leave these people alone though. Many of these peoples have deeply-embedded cultural traits that prohibit them from establishing the standard of living that many of us take for granted. These debilitating cultural traits are likely a product of the harsh climates these people reside in, but only in part. Much more effective cultural traits could be introduced to and imposed on them (colonialism), and in exchange they'd receive the opportunity to participate in and contribute to the regional and even global economy, as well as benefit from mitigations against things like famine. But maybe we should just leave them alone. Tikkun olam is noble indeed, but many peoples are just completely unreceptive to it, and many adherents of this ideal have no business worrying about other people's trash when their own backyards are a mess. So, maybe just leave these people alone.