World hunger

[Ziggurat]

" # Restrictions on the free flow of information.
# The subjugation of women.
# Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
# The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
# Domination by a restrictive religion.
# A low valuation of education.
# Low prestige assigned to work "

or

" - War
- Corruption
- Poor governance "

or similar answers.

However, this was the case of Eurpean countries in the XVII century.
In the 1600s, Eurpean countries were ruled by kings, there was no democracy, and:
- epidemics of mortal diseases were comparable ( if not even worse ) to what is happening in Africe today: the epidemics of " peste bubbonica " ( sorry, I can not translate this in English, however, it is a kind of cholera-disease ) killed one third or more of the total European population of the time, people died of " flu " in those ages

Bubonic plague (the Black Plague) did indeed devastate Europe. And Europe didn't really advance while it was at its worst.

- There was no free information in Europe at that time, Galileo was convicted for saying that Earth was spinning around the sun and you could go to jail for critizising the " status quo " of power even in the late 1800s ( many socialists went to jail for this )

Flow of information is always by degrees. And the parts of Europe with better flow of information did better (England outpaced Spain, for example). Yes, Europe was hardly a bastion of free speach. But I think what you're not seeing (because it's hard to see from the outside if you don't look closely) is just how oppressive so much of Africa really is. Criticism won't only land you in jail, it'll get you tortured and killed. There's a pervasiveness to it that just didn't exist in Europe in the 19th century.

- " The subjugation of women ", exaclty the same thing which happened in Europe until the early 1900s, women has few rights, could not even vote.

I think you're missing the point on this one. Voting is only one aspect. There's a reason that the word "subjugation" is used, and not just "disenfranchisement".

- " Domination by a restrictive religion " ?? Let' s talk about the role of Catholic Church in France, Spain and Italy, in the XVII, XVIII and XIX centuries ?? State and Religion were connected and the king got his role directly from God.

The Catholic church indeed dominated, but by the 19th century it really wasn't very restrictive of most people's daily lives. You cannot compare Catholicism in the 19th century to Sharia law.

- " Low prestige assigned to work ", in France people were paid salaries barely enough not to die of starving til the beginning of this century; during the industrial revolution ( the first one ) in England they put kinds of 9 or 10 year-old to work 12 or more hours per day.

I think you're missing what this point means. It doesn't mean a progressive attitude towards workers rights. It means that people of power and prominence are still expected to work (not necessarily manual labor), and that *competence* in that work is valued. And England, for example, had quite a bit of that. Prominent sons went off to work in the colonies as administrators, or military officers, etc. and such service was valued. Sitting on your rear end raking in money wasn't valued so much.

This is to prove that epidemic diseases, hunger, restictive role of religion, corruption, no free flow of information, subjugation of women, etc. were commonly found here in Europe in the 1600s.

That these things existed is true. But they did not exist to the same degree in Europe in the 19th century as they do in Africa now. Furthermore, the world as a whole is different now. Unfortunately, these handicaps are more detrimental in the modern world than they were back then, because they are not just absolute disadvantages, they are now also monumentally huge relative disadvantages. And relative disadvantages matter, quite a bit. For example, a number of third-world countries find that they can prop their regimes up by selling a valuable natural resource (oil, diamonds) for weapons to protect itself even while the majority of their civilian populations spiral downward. This was simply not possible before. Any 19th century European country which let its civilian population decline badly would find itself at the mercy of its neighbors (who tended not to be so merciful). Relative disadvantage also leads to things like capital and brain drain from a country, trends which are VERY hard to reverse, and which were much less significant in a much-less global 19th century.

You are correct that the seven signs I pointed out won't tell you why nations came to their current status in the first place, but they are among the best indicators (and causes) for continued failure in the 21st century. Find a country with all seven, and it's guaranteed to remain a failing state.

 

[AWPrime]

Yes. (if ending world hunger is a good thing)

I would say it isn't possible or that it is a bad thing.


Overpopulation people would be the result.

 

[CBL4]

Overpopulation people would be the result.

Actually the percent of hungry people has decreased while the population growth rate has slowed. I predict both trends will continue.

I realize that correlation does not prove correlation but in this case there are lots of correlated factors most importantly education of girls decreasing hunger and fertility rate.

CBL

 

[geni]

Overpopulation people would be the result.

Devil's Advocate: "No because wars would just get bloodier"

 

[geni]

In the 1600s, Eurpean countries were ruled by kings, there was no democracy, and:

Not really. Sure there was democracy but there wer other powerful people in the country besides the ruler (the magna carta was signed in 1215)

- epidemics of mortal diseases were comparable ( if not even worse ) to what is happening in Africe today: the epidemics of " peste bubbonica " ( sorry, I can not translate this in English, however, it is a kind of cholera-disease ) killed one third or more of the total European population of the time, people died of " flu " in those ages

Yes and this caused problems in the short term (say 1 generation)

- There was no free information in Europe at that time, Galileo was convicted for saying that Earth was spinning around the sun and you could go to jail for critizising the " status quo " of power even in the late 1800s ( many socialists went to jail for this )

In fact there was lots of freedom of information. Sure saying X might be illegal but know about it tended not to be. Sure the majority of the population didn't have acess to that much information but the power brokers did

- " The subjugation of women ", exaclty the same thing which happened in Europe until the early 1900s, women has few rights, could not even vote.

Voting isn't the important right. The important right is to be able to get involved economicaly

- " Domination by a restrictive religion " ?? Let' s talk about the role of Catholic Church in France, Spain and Italy, in the XVII, XVIII and XIX centuries ?? State and Religion were connected and the king got his role directly from God.

Martin Luther nailed his bit of papaer to the door in 1517

- " Low prestige assigned to work ", in France people were paid salaries barely enough not to die of starving til the beginning of this century; during the industrial revolution ( the first one ) in England they put kinds of 9 or 10 year-old to work 12 or more hours per day.

But there was work and the pay was just about enough to get by

- " War ", this is not a prerogative of the African countries, unfortunately, during the XVII, XVIII centuries there were wars that wounded Europe and lasted decades;

Very different wars.The countries that stayed out of it did better and the perpose of the wars was to win by striaghtforward militry power not by say killing all of your oponents cattle.

But Europe and America evolved while Africa did not.
Consider that economic and technological development in Africa today should be easier than what it took to European countries to become " developed ", African countries do not have to discover how to build a car or a plane, just copy.

So, why is not it happening ??

Because we make cars and planes already and we do it well.

 

[The idea]

Our highly subsidized farmers not only prevent African nations from exporting in the industry where they can most use the cheap labor to advantage but we also flood their countries with cheap agricultural product, preventing them from creating domestic competitors. Ditto the textile industries.

If the net effect of trade with Western nations is bad for African nations, then why do all African nations trade with Western nations? If the net effect of trade with Western nations is not bad for African nations, then how can trade with Western nations be the explanation for African poverty?

 

[Matteo Martini]

would say it isn't possible or that it is a bad thing.
Overpopulation people would be the result

So you are proposing to combat overpopulation by starving people in the third world ??

Moreover, if overpopulation = earth can not cope with all these men who consume its resources, overpopulation is in Italy, U.S. and England ( among others ) and not in Namibia and Mali because people from Namibia and Mali do not consume much.

Ziggurat, geni
Yes, I admit that current problems in Africa regarding:
# Restrictions on the free flow of information.
# The subjugation of women.
# Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
# The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
# Domination by a restrictive religion.
# A low valuation of education.
# Low prestige assigned to work
are not Exactly like the problems Europe had in the XVII century about these topics.

However, both Africa now and Europe then had let' s say similar problems on similar topics, Europe managed to come out from them while Africa is not.
Why ?

Matteo

Other answers ( not in order ):

The Catholic church indeed dominated, but by the 19th century it really wasn't very restrictive of most people's daily lives. You cannot compare Catholicism in the 19th century to Sharia law

But I can compare Catholicism in XVII century with Sharia Law

Martin Luther nailed his bit of papaer to the door in 1517

They still burned witches at that time ..

Very different wars.The countries that stayed out of it did better and the perpose of the wars was to win by striaghtforward militry power not by say killing all of your oponents cattle.

I do not now if in Africa they do wars to kill their opponents' cattle. Hoewever, I would like more if my opponents kill my cattle than myself or my wife !!

Criticism won't only land you in jail, it'll get you tortured and killed. There's a pervasiveness to it that just didn't exist in Europe in the 19th century.

Speaking about freedom of speech in XVII century, you could be tortured and killed ( in many different ways ) if you spoke against religion ( Giordano Bruno among the others ).

Because we make cars and planes already and we do it well

Why do not Africans copy our fabs ??

Not really. Sure there was democracy but there wer other powerful people in the country besides the ruler (the magna carta was signed in 1215)

Also in Africa there are other powerful people beside a dictator.
Magna Charta was signed in 1215, but the French Revolution took place in 1789 and the Russian Revolution in 1917.

Voting isn't the important right. The important right is to be able to get involved economicaly

Women were not subjugated because of voting, this as just an example

 

[AWPrime]

So you are proposing to combat overpopulation by starving people in the third world ??

Not really, just that it maybe impossible and/or not desireable.

Moreover, if overpopulation = earth can not cope with all these men who consume its resources, overpopulation is in Italy, U.S. and England ( among others ) and not in Namibia and Mali because people from Namibia and Mali do not consume much.

Clearify

 

[Matteo Martini]

Not really, just that it maybe impossible and/or not desireable

So you are saying that it may be not desireable to combat world hunger ??

Clearify

If overpopulation = very high number of people starving then the problem is in Africa and in other underdeveloped countries.
If overpopulation = waste ( or high usage ) of natural and non-renewable resources, then the impact of the population of Mali and Nigeria on earth pollution and on non-renewable resources usage is close to sero if compared to Western developed countries

 

[Ziggurat]

However, both Africa now and Europe then had let' s say similar problems on similar topics, Europe managed to come out from them while Africa is not.

As I mentioned, these disadvantages are not only absolute disadvantages, they are also relative disadvantages. The world today is much more connected, much more competitive, and that makes relative disadvantages much more damaging to a society. Europe could afford to slowly shed itself of its pathologies, Africa no longer has that luxury.

Why do not Africans copy our fabs ??

Because they would still fail without government subsidy. Their work force is much less skilled, their infrastructure is poor so that shipping raw materials in or products out is more difficult and unreliable, endemic corruption adds overhead to everything you do (pay off a mayor here to not arrest your workers, a customs officer there to not hold up your shipments, your local supervisor skims off the top of the payroll account, etc). It's cheaper to import goods then to try to run a factory locally under such conditions. Saudi Arabia, for example, tried to start up a plastics manufacturing industry using government subsidies, but it's just been a money loser for them because they can't run it efficiently. Because of the relative disadvantage Africa has compared to China (where infrastructure is much more developed and corruption not as rampant), nobody with the capital to spend on starting up a manufacturing plant is going to do it in Africa when the prospects are so much better for doing it in China. African dictators don't invest their money locally, they export it to Europe or America, because those are places they can safely invest (and where they can access the money should they ever need to flee). Again, this means that their relative disadvantage guarantees that the money they do make (mostly from natural resources) is largely funneled out of the country instead of reinvested.

 

[AWPrime]

So you are saying that it may be not desireable to combat world hunger ??

If it will lead to overpopulation.


No hunger -> Overpopulation -> damage to envioment.

Would be closer what I am arguing.


But I think that eliminating world hunger is impossible, considering that even in socialist countries there are still 'hungry' people.

 

[BobK]

Didn't read all the posts thoroughly. But I believe the answer to your bonus question about medical costs is related to ...

the country's medical liability laws, how much the consumer of medical services has to pay out of their own pocket, and the differences in the way medical costs are calculated in the various countries. (what exactly is included those costs)

 

[Ziggurat]

But I think that eliminating world hunger is impossible, considering that even in socialist countries there are still 'hungry' people.

This is a stunning statement. What do mean, "even in socialist countries"? Socialism is a better recipe for hunger than capitalism, because it dampens the kind of economic development that provides the best insurance against hunger. While there are indeed "hungry" people in the US, starvation is essentially unheard-of outside of the mentally ill. That is what capitalism can produce: a country so rich enough that even the poor are often overweight.

 

[AWPrime]

No, that is just caused by the overuse of resources.

 

[geni]

But I can compare Catholicism in XVII century with Sharia Law

Not remotely. Sharia law stoppes people from being invoilved econimcaly and is inforced Catholic law does not and was not inforced to anything like the same degree.

They still burned witches at that time ..

Which was objectively quite an effective way of getting rid of an unproductive section of the population

I do not now if in Africa they do wars to kill their opponents' cattle. Hoewever, I would like more if my opponents kill my cattle than myself or my wife !!

The result is likely to be the same in the end and since it destorys you econmical while you still take up resources it is worse for your country

Speaking about freedom of speech in XVII century, you could be tortured and killed ( in many different ways ) if you spoke against religion ( Giordano Bruno among the others ).

Only if you were stupid about how and where you did it.

Why do not Africans copy our fabs ??

Who would they sell them to? Copying is not easy. Look at the difference between the T-55 and Type 59 tanks for example

Also in Africa there are other powerful people beside a dictator.

Only because the dictator gives them power and lets them have it.

Magna Charta was signed in 1215, but the French Revolution took place in 1789 and the Russian Revolution in 1917.

So? In both countries the royalty had already lost a lot of power

Women were not subjugated because of voting, this as just an example

Women in europe were not prevented from making economic contributions. that is all that matters

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by The idea
If the net effect of trade with Western nations is bad for African nations, then why do all African nations trade with Western nations? If the net effect of trade with Western nations is not bad for African nations, then how can trade with Western nations be the explanation for African poverty?

Sorry it took me so long to respond.

It is an interesting proposition. Self sufficency could provide a slow path to growth and prevented some of the kleptocracy in Africa. India tried this path with middling result. With the current devastating poverty and the AIDS crisis, I think the empoverished countries need western aid.

In any case, countries such as South Korea and Taiwan have shown that it is possible to go from poverty to riches in a generation. They are the models that poor countries should emulate. This means lots of exports and intelligently restricted imports. Unfortunately, the Asian tigers had several advantages that the African countries lack - more homogenous population, better infrastructure, better education and lack of natural resources in particular.

Yes, I do mean that a lack of natural resources aids growth. Great mineral riches provide too much opportunity for corruption and false riches. A lack of natural resources forces a real development of human potential which is the only path to sustainable riches.

CBL

 

[Matteo Martini]

Seems that the situation in India ( at least before the tsunami ) and in China is getting better ..
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5650e/y5650e00.htm
The real problem is Subsaharian Africa

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Matteo MartiniSeems that the situation in India ( at least before the tsunami ) and in China is getting better.

I should have given a timeframe. Until about 10 years ago, India attempted to practice self sufficiency. The result was slow growth which prevented starvation and was clearly much better than Africa. However, compared to Asian dragons (and now China), it was very slow growth and did not reduce poverty very much.

In the last decade, India has opened up their economy and is growing much faster. Their IT industry is tremendously successful but they are still lagging behind China. I think it is the fear of China that helped make opening their economy palatable.

CBL

 

[Matteo Martini]

I think it is the fear of China that helped make opening their economy palatable.

What do you mean, exactly ??

This is an interesting article: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/10638976.htm?1c

If China keeps to grow, it will outshine the U.S. sooner or later ( 1,3 billion people vs 300 million people )
The problem is where politics are getting to in China.
Will China become a democracy or will it remain a communist dictatorship ?

 

[AWPrime]

What kind of democracy did you have in mind?