9 ms·

You raise some important issues, but if anything I actually think that this aquifer is going to reduce the conflict in this area. The civil wars, rape, and pois

You raise some important issues, but if anything I actually think that this aquifer is going to reduce the conflict in this area. The civil wars, rape, and poisoning are all symptoms of a deeper illness: poverty. Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else, they're just poorer and therefore more desperate. Conflict minerals (diamonds, coltan, etc) fuel conflict because they are easy to control. It only takes a relatively few men to control a mine, and any diamonds mined can easily be exported. In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway. The water won't really be a target for militia, but it will be able to be used to develop the region. More water gives more crops, which gives higher living standards, which gives less war. (As a side note, another potential benefit is that this aquifer will promote regional integration, since it's on the border between South Sudan and Kenya. South Sudan is in the process of applying for membership in the East African Community, which has the stated goal of eventually transforming into a political federation. I expect that the EAC will be a very strong driver for regional security.)

eloff 13y ago
You can't explain away centuries (millenia in some cases) of tribalism, with hatred and fear and discrimination passed from parents to children for generations as mere poverty. Poverty plays a role to be sure, but the situation is more complex (it always is.)
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  Sorry, I did not mean to discount the impact of tribalism. It is certainly a significant issue in East Africa (I can't speak for other areas). The history of the USA shows that even affluent western countries suffer from the Us vs Them mindset. That said, I do believe that poverty is the more significant issue. Increased development generally correlates with stronger government [1], and with better access to government. When this happens, disputes are more likely to be resolved through the legal system. I'm not an expert on the interaction between tribalism and warfare in developing countries, so don't think I'm trying to claim infallibility. This is just what I believe to be true. [1] I say correlates, because I can't say that development causes stronger government. It could be the other way around EDIT: Okay, now it's my turn to ask: what did I say wrong? Would you like to discuss it, rather than just downvoting?.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - eloff 13y ago
    I didn't downvote. Even relatively rich countries outside of Africa like Mexico, Chile, and Panama have very high violent crime rates, but mostly among the poor (in Panama anyway, in Mexico I suspect there's a lot more drug related violence.) So poverty is definitely a big issue, but tribalism plays a big role too, e.g. bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing. A lot of violence in South Africa is either race related or tribal. So it's not that you're wrong, it's just that the picture is more complex than just poverty alone.
- Jare 13y ago
  First world countries have an equally long history of the same hatred, fear, discrimination and constant warfare. In general terms, it only lessened when a large proportion of the population could move out of poverty and feel reasonably secure about their future. You don't have to look far to see how easy it is to revert to barbaric and uncivilized behaviour and standards when that sense of safety and security is put at risk.
chrischen 13y ago
> Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else How do you know? My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war. Edit: this is an honest question. If I said anything wrong, please let me know as well.
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  Africans at the moment are, as a group, the most corrupt people on earth [1]. This is equivalent to saying that Prussians were better than the French at making war. However, this different from saying that Africans are inherently corrupt, or that every Frenchman is destined to make a terrible soldier. I intended to assert that Africans aren't inherently corrupt, and I think you were downvoted because people thought you were disputing this. [1] http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_barometer_2013 http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_b...
  - anotheraccount7 13y ago
    I guess it would matter what you mean by "inherently corrupt". physiologically? very unlikely - but it could definitely be a cultural issue
    - chrischen 13y ago
      Yes, you'd have to define inherently corrupt. Since it could be genetic, cultural, situational... etc. And even then, you can't really jump to the conclusion that we are all the same. Being corrupt or warlike are, in my opinions, just traits. They could be evolutionary adaptations to various environmental situations, for all anyone knows. Everyone on Earth is different, with different traits... Africans included. I'm not saying that's what Africans are, but I'm also saying you can't make the claim that those aren't inherent traits. It's a total possibility and nothing should be left out for scientific and reasonable analysis.
- smtddr 13y ago
  As a person from a Nigerian family, I'm already offended... but... let me try and answer you. 1) It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Take a look at Youtube's attempt at defining hate-speech in their guidelines: ""Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality. " (Note that I think Google should remove the "protected group" part and just say "any group of people") 2) How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+, on Reddit, on HN or any other site that always ends up derailing the main topic into oblivion.
PakG1 13y ago
In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway. My original question was what if these water supplies are found in areas of conflict. In such scenarios, transport is not an issue. And the question remains because although they wouldn't put prices on a liter of water, I'd say it's because the water is invaluable, not because the value is low. If it weren't so, it wouldn't be worth it to poison wells in the first place.

eloff 13y ago

You can't explain away centuries (millenia in some cases) of tribalism, with hatred and fear and discrimination passed from parents to children for generations as mere poverty. Poverty plays a role to be sure, but the situation is more complex (it always is.)

chad_oliver 13y ago
Sorry, I did not mean to discount the impact of tribalism. It is certainly a significant issue in East Africa (I can't speak for other areas). The history of the USA shows that even affluent western countries suffer from the Us vs Them mindset. That said, I do believe that poverty is the more significant issue. Increased development generally correlates with stronger government [1], and with better access to government. When this happens, disputes are more likely to be resolved through the legal system. I'm not an expert on the interaction between tribalism and warfare in developing countries, so don't think I'm trying to claim infallibility. This is just what I believe to be true. [1] I say correlates, because I can't say that development causes stronger government. It could be the other way around EDIT: Okay, now it's my turn to ask: what did I say wrong? Would you like to discuss it, rather than just downvoting?.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- eloff 13y ago
  I didn't downvote. Even relatively rich countries outside of Africa like Mexico, Chile, and Panama have very high violent crime rates, but mostly among the poor (in Panama anyway, in Mexico I suspect there's a lot more drug related violence.) So poverty is definitely a big issue, but tribalism plays a big role too, e.g. bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing. A lot of violence in South Africa is either race related or tribal. So it's not that you're wrong, it's just that the picture is more complex than just poverty alone.
Jare 13y ago
First world countries have an equally long history of the same hatred, fear, discrimination and constant warfare. In general terms, it only lessened when a large proportion of the population could move out of poverty and feel reasonably secure about their future. You don't have to look far to see how easy it is to revert to barbaric and uncivilized behaviour and standards when that sense of safety and security is put at risk.

chrischen 13y ago

> Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else How do you know? My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war. Edit: this is an honest question. If I said anything wrong, please let me know as well.

chad_oliver 13y ago
Africans at the moment are, as a group, the most corrupt people on earth [1]. This is equivalent to saying that Prussians were better than the French at making war. However, this different from saying that Africans are inherently corrupt, or that every Frenchman is destined to make a terrible soldier. I intended to assert that Africans aren't inherently corrupt, and I think you were downvoted because people thought you were disputing this. [1] http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_barometer_2013 http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_b...
- anotheraccount7 13y ago
  I guess it would matter what you mean by "inherently corrupt". physiologically? very unlikely - but it could definitely be a cultural issue
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Yes, you'd have to define inherently corrupt. Since it could be genetic, cultural, situational... etc. And even then, you can't really jump to the conclusion that we are all the same. Being corrupt or warlike are, in my opinions, just traits. They could be evolutionary adaptations to various environmental situations, for all anyone knows. Everyone on Earth is different, with different traits... Africans included. I'm not saying that's what Africans are, but I'm also saying you can't make the claim that those aren't inherent traits. It's a total possibility and nothing should be left out for scientific and reasonable analysis.
smtddr 13y ago
As a person from a Nigerian family, I'm already offended... but... let me try and answer you. 1) It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Take a look at Youtube's attempt at defining hate-speech in their guidelines: ""Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality. " (Note that I think Google should remove the "protected group" part and just say "any group of people") 2) How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+, on Reddit, on HN or any other site that always ends up derailing the main topic into oblivion.

PakG1 13y ago

In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway. My original question was what if these water supplies are found in areas of conflict. In such scenarios, transport is not an issue. And the question remains because although they wouldn't put prices on a liter of water, I'd say it's because the water is invaluable, not because the value is low. If it weren't so, it wouldn't be worth it to poison wells in the first place.