Submitted by filosoful t3_ygmcfa in Futurology
Comments
Fraun_Pollen t1_iu99c7b wrote
With the amount of untapped resources the continent has, I have no doubt that the African West Coast of the 22nd century will see a similar dramatic climb in power and wealth like China has experienced this century. Hopefully they’ll be able to implement some of our lessons learned with rapid industrialization and implement green fuels, building practices, and sustainable farming early in its growth.
Chinas extensive financial interest in many of these developing nations will also be interesting to follow as Africa grows its own influence.
can1exy t1_iu9b7xf wrote
You should doubt because those alone aren't enough. China also had political stability, competent administration, huge government investment in infrastructure and low crime rates.
FuturologyBot t1_iu9c1ey wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/filosoful:
By the end of the century, Africa will be home to 40% of the world’s population – and nowhere is this breakneck-pace development happening faster than this 600-mile stretch between Abidjan and Lagos.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/ygmcfa/megalopolis_how_coastal_west_africa_will_shape/iu97p0q/
[deleted] t1_iu9d6rh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu9eq2d wrote
[removed]
WillBigly t1_iu9erg0 wrote
The balance of power will eventually swing to Africa, notice how they can effectively skip certain steps in industrialization such as going straight to renewables and nuclear rather than fossil fuels. This will slowly stack up to an infrastructure advantage while old world powers struggle reforming their entrenched systems
Million2026 t1_iu9f1mg wrote
No. Africa will just keep being exploited.
Million2026 t1_iu9fcfy wrote
Population control through family planning encouragement needs to be funded for Africa.
The west needs more than a 0.8 fertility rate but we also can’t have a continent with a fertility rate of 4.5.
We need to get the world down to a 2 point something fertility rate plus or minus a small amount.
Fraun_Pollen t1_iu9gz10 wrote
All of those “strengths” of Chinas can be explained by centuries of oppressive authoritarianism. If African nations want to go/continue down that route, that’s fine, but it’s not the best foundation for a humanitarian society, which has to count for something
ChrysMYO t1_iu9hsd1 wrote
There is immense challenge with desertification. Its sort of what the Sahara does as a default part of its history. There is also a water challenge for agriculture.
A real key that could change them into a power is more trade within the continent as opposed to extraction and immediate trade off the continent.
tka11486 t1_iu9j8t2 wrote
This article is so patronizing. The author is so shocked to find swiss chocolates in Africa? There is a lot of wealth in these countries, and Ghana has been a global example of good governance for years. Somehow I doubt the population model adjusts for any complexities, ie changing behavior as incomes increase or climate change
spartan1008 t1_iu9ko78 wrote
changing behaviour is generational, and it takes several.
okcrumpet t1_iu9ky11 wrote
People keep acting like China or east asia is the default outcome. These places had unified political institutions going back thousands of years. The more likely model of what “success” will look like is South America or Indian. And that’s if states in west africa can form stronger institutions, which is no guarantee. There’s so much more subnational affiliation in West africa (tribes, ethnicity, religion) that politics becomes just a revolving door of interest groups and corruption. Not great for nation building. The countries doing well in africa are countries that have one dominant ethnicity or have gone through the difficult (sometimes violent) process of forming a nation state like Rwanda.
Everyone wants Africa to get their due. But it is hardly the default and prognosis (especially in West africa) is not China like at this moment
tka11486 t1_iu9l0d2 wrote
Agreed - but given that this is an 80 year forecast, feels like long term variables are important here.
wernermuende t1_iu9m6o4 wrote
The only thing you need for that is female education and workforce participation
Jahobes t1_iu9mhxx wrote
History says no region just keeps being exploited. We go through cycles.
CuttyAllgood t1_iu9n7mh wrote
You’re assuming that they will have stable enough governments to develop infrastructure such as this.
YnotBbrave t1_iu9nxon wrote
Not likely
The value of the old world infrastructure may decline and instead of being worth 30 trillion it will be worth 10 trillion in 30 years with 30 trillion replacement cost
But the old world economies generate an excess of trillions over Africa, unless this changes, Europe and us economies will still dominate over Africa. Not sure about China
Rickard403 t1_iu9oqao wrote
Many things have to go right for this to happen though. It'll need the proper infrastructure to maintain itself and future growth, energy, roadways, etc. I imagine increasing their GDP will help as well, along with a developed military. Their government can make or break this. India blew up and no shift in "power" took place. High population doesn't always translate to a power shift.
NobleWombat t1_iu9oywb wrote
This is the problem with nationalism oriented state building; a far better model is federal state building.
Mackheath1 t1_iu9pu2c wrote
Sort of a technology skip. Much of subsaharan Africa went from no landlines to all mobile phones (hyperbole, obviously, but you know what I mean). I know there's a term for it, but can't think of it.
No electricity grid to all micro-systems: solar/hydro (again, hyperbole).
jacksontripper t1_iu9uvz0 wrote
ELI5 - How does that give them an advantage in a swing of the balance of power?
lughnasadh t1_iu9vblo wrote
>>But the old world economies generate an excess of trillions over Africa,
Actually it seems the opposite is true, at least according to this Australian research.
It says Africa's economy will be several multiples of what America's and Europe's are in 2100.
MunchingLemon t1_iu9yxpz wrote
So confidently incorrect, China did not have a unified political institution before the revolution it was famously an extremely fractured country run by different warlords
Edit: absolutely classic Reddit moment, I have studied Chinese History (not arm chair YouTube history) this is how misinformation spreads lol
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iu9zs7l wrote
Yes and no. The entire history of china is about unifying and breaking apart.
They have been unified 1 million times already.
MunchingLemon t1_iu9zyuy wrote
Yes I know that, but that is not what the original post I was responding to was saying
_Iro_ t1_iua10i1 wrote
Vast mineral wealth is not conducive to national wealth, peace, or development. It actually has the opposite effect. It’s a phenomenon called the Resource Curse and it’s extremely well-documented in the context of Africa.
Jahobes t1_iua15pz wrote
Because a new system is always more efficient than an upgraded system.
Going from no phones to easily accessable cell phones means no money was spent building then replacing the intermediate infrastructure.
Jahobes t1_iua1bkq wrote
Fuck population control. Instead just improve education and standards of living and human nature will handle the rest.
SvenDia t1_iua2l6q wrote
You could say the same thing about many European countries not that long ago. Germany in particular wasn’t a unified nation until 1871.
kavkava t1_iua2w0e wrote
The paper you are listed is terrible in its assumption and therefore conclusions. It’s basically boils down to gdp per capita will level worldwide, and since population growth in Africa go brrrrrr Africa will eclipse the rest of the world.
GaussianGhost t1_iua3fju wrote
I feel like Africa would gain a lot by unifying. Something close to the European Union or the United States, or even better: their own recipe. But something to secure the growth and redistribute the resources/wealth among the African states. At the moment they are getting ripped off of their resources by everybody: US, China, Russia. If they continue to grow but remain disorganized, it's gonna be chaos.
WouldntBPrudent t1_iua5qib wrote
I get your point. This is what happened with the Japanese Auto Industry, they leap frogged the US manufacturing process. Legacy systems can be a big deterrent, like the phone/catv systems in the US which are stifling the expansion of broadband. The advantage of leap frogging to new technologies tends to be short lived when talking about private enterprises. I hope Africa gains a leading role in world affairs but, leap frogging existing technologies will not do it alone. Wise investments and social/political change will be big factors.
GooseHandsClarence t1_iua5v1m wrote
I visited friends in the peace corps stationed in Cameroon and Uganda respectively. The Chinese are EVERYWHERE. Building roads and infrastructure all over the place and offering it "on loan" that they'll use to basically hamstring the countries to do as they please. China is going to own Africa.
Truth_is_Liberal t1_iua600r wrote
While Chinese culture has never been as monolithic as it is today, they did still have common cultural traditions stretching back thousands of years. Africa is much more disparate - there are usually dozens of major cultures in every single nation, and most spread across borders of neighboring nations. It's a mess, quite literally by design.
Fraun_Pollen t1_iua7eaw wrote
I guess they missed out on owning Africa when everyone else did < 200 years ago
Dantheking94 t1_iua7igo wrote
Yeh but those countries don’t care if they don’t pay those loans back. China had already started forgiving some of those loans. so it’s doubtful they’ll be allowed to use it to hamstring anyone.
Dantheking94 t1_iua7p72 wrote
If they can push the African Union into being more like the EU they’d accomplish so much more!
Dantheking94 t1_iua7y8c wrote
And the trend is leaning to The Arctic Regions being exploited next.
Dantheking94 t1_iua8k27 wrote
I completely agree. It’s said that Gaddafi championed a unified AU system like the EU or or the USA. Could be another reason why so many foreign governments were glad to take action against him during the Arab Spring, and to this day his legacy is still positive within the AU
trahyrc t1_iua9ac2 wrote
Very strongly doubt that. The levels of poverty, violence, political instability, ethnic diversity, corruption and ever growing population will make that very challenging.
Other countries in Africa could have becomed very developd if it wasn't for pretty much the same issues, countries such as Algeria or even Lybia.
YnotBbrave t1_iuac7q6 wrote
That’s my read too They predict in 2060 to 2100, up gdp will only double while Africa gdp will go 10x, because “reasons”
Maybe. If there is fails to maintain a high gdp growth, it will not be a leading power. But there is and eu are poised to best improve their gdp, so the prediction here is that the west would have stupid leadership in the next 80 years. Maybe, but hopefully not
Gitmfap t1_iuaem14 wrote
I came here to say this, you said it better
brendonmilligan t1_iuag1h8 wrote
Just because China is playing nice currently, doesn’t mean they’ll not expect a return on investment.
European traders were relatively peaceful when they started trading with African nations. That didn’t exactly last long
KmartQuality t1_iuag2qa wrote
A town called Swamp shouldn't have 40 million people.
It should have lots of birds and amphibians.
KmartQuality t1_iuag91l wrote
That brings the best mobile phone system, for a while. It doesn't bring modern requirements for technology innovation.
KmartQuality t1_iuagbam wrote
Africa is big and cycles break
KmartQuality t1_iuagh6a wrote
China and Korea can stop sex altogether but they'll never accept migration.
KmartQuality t1_iuagr5a wrote
I know next to nothing about Africa governance. You say Ghana is well governed? I would love to learn more.
I also heard Rwanda is the silicon valley of Africa. Rwanda went through some crazy shit not long ago.
I'm curious.
KmartQuality t1_iuaguok wrote
I would like to learn more.
Eleventy22 t1_iuahhid wrote
Wasn’t Rwanda subjected to a genocidal purge of 800k people in a 3 month window which then turned into a larger regional war that cost the lives of over 5 million?
GaussianGhost t1_iuaholy wrote
It's not in the US, or China, interest to have a strong African competitor.
Words_Are_Hrad t1_iuaiww0 wrote
>These places had unified political institutions going back thousands of years
That is, in fact, exactly what the person you responded to was saying. You just chose to take a knee jerk interpretation and assume that's what they meant.
MunchingLemon t1_iuaj3bq wrote
That is literally not what the original post said or means
MunchingLemon t1_iuajrg0 wrote
Traditions are not the same as political institutions, but other than that I agree
Catfulu t1_iuajv1f wrote
>China did not have a unified political institution before the revolution
>I have studied Chinese History
Tells me you didn't study Chinese history without telling me you didn't study Chinese history.
tka11486 t1_iuak6u7 wrote
This summary from the World Bank sums it up nicely:
- Multi-party democracy with independent judiciary
- Consistently ranks in the top 3 African countries for press and freedom of speech
- Rapid GDP growth of 7% in the years before the pandemic
SiCur t1_iuakxmi wrote
Would you expect any different? The worst thing you can do on Reddit is discuss the things you’ve studied. Its like going to a 7-11 and hearing some people arguing about politics by the slurpee machine. Let’s say you teach political science at Harvard … do you engage in the conversation or say hell no and walk away? Likely the latter.
Dapaaads t1_iuansd6 wrote
There’s a reason Africa is mostly a 3rd world country. Mass corruption across the board, you have some fantasy island view of Africa, it’s not That chief
lughnasadh t1_iuaolp3 wrote
>>because “reasons”
Africa's population will go from 1.3 billion today to 4.3 billion in 2100, while the US's will only increase by 100 million.
MetalBawx t1_iuapzfn wrote
Yeah well good luck seeing that change without a mountain of blood.
beceladon t1_iuaxz1l wrote
Interesting, Italy was also not unified until 1871.
Jahobes t1_iub2kkj wrote
This is human nature tho. It's like saying we can create a government that rules for eternity.
SvenDia t1_iub4ne8 wrote
That’s true. I didn’t mention Italy, but it is kind of interesting that both countries became fascist in the 1930s. And you could probably point to the communist governments in China and the Soviet Union as examples of authoritarian responses to unification in the recent past.
Zandrick t1_iub77qs wrote
That first comment is saying that China had a unified political institution for thousands of years, the other guy corrected by saying it was fractured, then the other other guy says it fractured and unified a number of times.
None of you agree on any of it.
theoncomingnoob t1_iubl9lr wrote
the term is leapfrogging
darrylthedudeWayne t1_iublcp5 wrote
What about the animals? The Enviroment? What will happen of them? Why does nobody care about are enviroment?!
passiverevolutionary t1_iubowu3 wrote
Narrator: They did not rise to the occasion
NoRedThat t1_iubv7js wrote
laughing as I weep for the world. Thanks.
NobleWombat t1_iubym85 wrote
That doesn't make any sense. Nationalism requires bloodshed, federalism does not.
asarualim t1_iubyrwa wrote
Good to hear something positive happening in Africa. I wish the rest of the continent does as well.
GeneralSecura t1_iuc5gix wrote
Obviously it's going to be Europe's problem.
Smokybare94 t1_iuc6mma wrote
The idea that the western world will allow Africa to develop beyond its current point (in relation to them) is laughable.
GreatArchitect t1_iuc93u9 wrote
Europe's problem was everyone's problem for a long time. Funny how that works.
GreatArchitect t1_iuc9b3p wrote
Lol, imagine being ignorant to the historically socio-cultural diversity of China.
GreatArchitect t1_iuc9jwu wrote
Actually, not really. The resource curse has been well documenred elsewhere, like the Middle East and Southeast Asia but Africa has been to disunified and plagued by conflict anyway for the curse to take place. The resources in these nations are squandered through corruption but most are still untapped by their fledgling economies.
GreatArchitect t1_iuc9n5n wrote
That's... that's just sad.
casualsubversive t1_iucb9qg wrote
That is part of the "difficult (sometimes violent) process of forming a nation state" they referenced. And that was almost 30 years ago. Post genocide, Rwanda is very successful, by certain metrics. But it's no Western European liberal democracy.
username98812 t1_iucbawz wrote
To be fair Europe brought its problems to everyone in the form of colonialism and made it everyone’s problem as well
Emu1981 t1_iucbdh0 wrote
>Africa's population will go from 1.3 billion today to 4.3 billion in 2100, while the US's will only increase by 100 million.
This assumes that current population trends will continue for the next 80 years though. COVID-19 has already changed the projected population growth to peak at 10.4 billion in 2080 before dropping off. It is going to be a bit hard for Africa alone to increase it's population by 3 billion when it is projected that the entire world population is only going to increase by 2 billion.
Best_Illustrator_137 t1_iucgzr8 wrote
Western and Eastern nations and mega corporations: Colonialism 2.0..let’s hope Africa keeps these people out of their countries and continue to do their own thing..not saying they can’t help but I’m pretty sure they don’t just want to “help.”
_Iro_ t1_iucjgu5 wrote
What are you mean? The DRC is one of the primary sources of resource curse scholarship in regards to the role of conflict resources (blood diamonds) in sustaining intrastate conflict. I think you might be thinking of a very narrow definition of the resource curse in the context of rentierism
fitblubber t1_iucm8la wrote
". . . Africa will be home to 40% of the world’s population . . . "
High population doesn't mean success. The world needs Africa to get it's act together, & hopefully it'll happen sooner rather than later - but it's a long way from guaranteed.
Realistic_Turn2374 t1_iucmcdb wrote
Yes, you are not wrong. But current Europeans are not the same ones who brought those problems centuries ago.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iucn4hh wrote
Not nessarily, if everyone forgets their ethnicity in favor of a nationality then what bloodshed would there be. Though this would require a very effective movement to avoid resistance.
livesarah t1_iucn9zh wrote
European countries made off with vast amounts of wealth. European and American and Chinese countries are currently making off with vast amounts of wealth from African countries, taking advantage of the lack of stability that arguably stems from problems created by colonialism in the first place.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iucnbyq wrote
How does it account for the colonization and exploitation of Africa? It seems like a confounding variables if you want to propose resources as the reason for their poor development.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iucnfk4 wrote
Investing in infestructure is authoritarianism? Lol peak reddit. China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty if that isn't humanitarian then nothing is.
NobleWombat t1_iucnga2 wrote
That's just genocide.
[deleted] t1_iucngbo wrote
[removed]
Realistic_Turn2374 t1_iucnh6f wrote
Ok, fair enough. But which countries? France, Belgium, Portugal, and the British Empire.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iucnlpg wrote
The return on investment is having those African nations allied with itself. Simply having them as allies and aiding them to become even more valuable trading partners is the return. Overall china has no incentive to exploit Africa simply because they are not beholden to profit driven corps.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iucnsal wrote
We don't go through cycles.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iucnxxu wrote
Ya no, the enviroment is only important for its value to us humans.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iucnzy7 wrote
Yes but their grip on Africa is weakening, as seen by some more aligning with china.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iuco4lk wrote
How so? Humans have had their cultures changed, replaced, transformed for our entire history. Whether my group has a red or blue flag doesn't actually have any real value.
Bionic_Ferir t1_iucqrlw wrote
I often think as an Australian the Australian government should try to lay the ground work down for deep routed long lasting relationship with the east African costal countries and try and get india onboard.
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iucuwbg wrote
Actually there have been investors going through the costal areas. In Ghana for instance there's a "project green" going on in a place called Cape Coast in a region they call it central although it's in the south. It will be named "new wakanda" . It will be futuristic and eco combined. $10m have been released so far and development has started; When you go to the cape Coast castle now...
The power systems will be restructured and having 0 waste in mind. The contractor is called mamdev.
Halbaras t1_iucv28v wrote
Is it? The author is clearly well traveled in West Africa, they're surprised because things have seemingly changed so fast.
While I think that population growth will probably decline more than predicted as Africa gets rich, it's worth noting that certain African countries (particularly Nigeria and Uganda) have already hit insanely high population densities before they've become developed, and will see ridiculously fast urbanisation.
NoRedThat t1_iucv3mf wrote
Send them to Texas.
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iucv8hu wrote
It's actually happening with less blood though 😅😹 especially in west Africa. The desert has gotten a project in which it will be turned into a solar farm (African power hub) and part of it an actual agricultural farm. There's has been some interaction with some Arabs (Qatar and Dubai) for this kind of transformations
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iucvdsa wrote
Lol. Lead me
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iucvnga wrote
Look it up development of the African coastal lines
Halbaras t1_iucvrj5 wrote
If Bangladesh can drop it's fertility rate from almost 7 to less than 2 through a well-organised -to-door family planning campaign, any country can.
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iucvx6c wrote
You are absolutely Right. There's swiss chocolate in Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire and Nigeria. If there will ever be change in social, or even climate change, there must be a revolution.
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iucwb5i wrote
If the investors are foreigners. That will be a problem. France for instance has aquired a large land and currently a huge banana plantation is on going in Ghana. Forgive me I will get u the source
Halbaras t1_iucwb6t wrote
Even in a best-case scenario we'll have to sacrifice substantial areas of land to build dense, sustainable cities. Most of the wildlife and wilderness in that part of West Africa is already gone, most land is deforested and densely populated farmland with some protected areas here and there. The west African mangroves are mostly gone already, for example.
Hopefully Africa does a better job preserving some areas of land for animals while developing others than the West did. Some countries like Tanzania and Namibia are doing OK, others like Nigeria are environmental disasters already with a population density which can only increase.
ajabardar1 t1_iucx9m6 wrote
we accept the challenge. we need people to take care of us in our retirement.
cyrathil t1_iucy3of wrote
They are the profit driven corp masquerading as a state.
moolah_dollar_cash t1_iucz3nh wrote
God that burden of Africa! Definitely not a resource rich land exploided by the global North.
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iuczy4o wrote
Africans will reach the point where they will realize the western is doing more harm than good. It will take years but with each generation, there will be a new mindset.
RVAforthewin t1_iud00bm wrote
I didn’t get the impression the author was shocked to find Swiss chocolates in Africa. I think the author was shocked to find Swiss chocolates in a place he previously knew to be rural, or at least not as developed as it is now. It’s no different than returning to my hometown and being shocked at the mounds of development that’s occurred since I moved away.
flourishingvoid t1_iud077e wrote
And?
Work is done, so why should they pay for it?
-
work is not done, Europe is still exploiting the global south intentionally and unintentionally.
-
It's not just Europe's problem nor anyone says it needs to be, but assistance in the transition process is absolutely their responsibility. It's their responsibility to protect the future of not only the global south but also their population from the consequences of the current exploitative regimes of input-output when it comes to the global economy.
nightstalker8900 t1_iud0ydh wrote
The AU already exists. They are moving in that direction.
guareber t1_iud2ffv wrote
South America success? Please explain.
JessTheKitsune t1_iud319a wrote
In fact France still controls the governments of the places they colonized before by the means of coups, always having France-friendly people in power. That way they can keep exploiting those places, or at least the ones that are worth it.
[deleted] t1_iud33oj wrote
[removed]
Galactus54 t1_iud7d4w wrote
I have read of a plan for millions of tree plantings at the southern edge of the Sahara could the fight to calm the climate be a unifying force? After all, if parts of that continent become unlivable they will be dealing with much worse problems.
Playful-Bicycle-4805 t1_iud8toq wrote
Business, and thus progress in Africa is hindered immensely by outdated rules and regulations. The laws spur on the corruption in a never ending cycle of ass-backwards bureaucracy. Maggate Wade on the Lex Friedman show talked at length about this issue. Really interesting if you want to check it out.
GaussianGhost t1_iudc524 wrote
Yes but they don't have the same power. They would highly profit and increase their autonomy if they had standardized military, economical free market between the AU members, and living standards for the population just like the European Union.
MetalBawx t1_iuddmd6 wrote
Trying to force a change of government especially from the outside tends to result in violence and if a country is badly split in terms of culture or ethnicity then it's even more likely a civil war will break out.
Whaty0urname t1_iudhsya wrote
Okay but how do you propose we move the moon, Gru?
proxyproxyomega t1_iudnc64 wrote
the key difference between Asia/India's growth and participation in the global market was their emphasis on education and hard labour being part of the culture for centuries. African countries and cultures are known for chill and easy going vibe. not saying Africans are not hard working or education focused, not at all. but China and India had been centre of global commerce and education for thousands of years. how Africa will participate in the global market will be interesting. Africa is natural resource heavy, so that will be a large focus. agriculture and manufacturing is already dominated by other continents that have favourable context. global climate change will have a large say. if it's favourable to African continent, they can have a huge agricultural boom. if not, and costal cities are inundated, we might be looking at a massive shitshow.
goodsam2 t1_iudph52 wrote
I mean Germany kinda was and in the 1870s they made fun of Germany as little Germany because they weren't united with the Austrians.
I think we need to look at language and cultural barriers falling over decades. Getting Africans on the internet probably kills a lot of the tribalism at least in the current system.
goodsam2 t1_iudpsm7 wrote
I mean having a massive desert how far away to put up some solar panels and transmission lines for basically free electricity 12 hours a day.
goodsam2 t1_iudq5w7 wrote
Population projections for most of the world are rising too high. They keep projecting the natural amount of kids people will have is replacement level which is ~2 but from what I've seen the answer seems to be quite a bit lower. I don't think the world population crosses 9 billion but basically all the growth is in Africa.
141_1337 t1_iudrk5j wrote
Why South America?
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iudthv0 wrote
I'd love to watch that show.
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iudtrf2 wrote
We contact Stephen Hawking if it's viable
No_Breadfruit_2639 t1_iudvcgm wrote
This is true. And the rich ones don't like to have more than 2 babies in their actual marriage but will act sugar daddy for many young adult females which also gives him the options to keep or abort babies.
Jahobes t1_iudwo5d wrote
We definitely do. Italy once ruled the entire Mediterranean and parts of Britain.
Back then the Celtics tribes of Britain were barely cavemen. A thousand years later and the roles have reversed.
This has basically happened to China a dozen times.
_Iro_ t1_iue4bz3 wrote
I’m not “proposing” anything as a single explanation for Africa’s underdevelopment because it’s obviously not that simple. I’m just saying that resources exacerbate Africa’s existing problems instead of solving them. That’s how the resource curse works, it only entrenches intrastate conflict and corruption but it doesn’t create it out of nowhere.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iue4pro wrote
How so? Numerous of their economic policies point opposite to them being profit driven, such as poverty alleviation, hsr, protectionist trade policies, etc.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iue4w3j wrote
The Roman empire and britan and no where near similar enough to be some cycle. For a cycle to 3xist there has to be some driving mechanism which there js not.
okcrumpet t1_iueb3kw wrote
South america per capita income is much higher than africa and even india and I believe china. And we don’t consider most of these states very successful in the modern economy
Shows just how far west africa has to climb
Smokybare94 t1_iueehno wrote
I don't see China uplifting anyone they could instead exploit either
Smokybare94 t1_iueeq9l wrote
You think they haven't known that for at least half a century already? Probably much longer than that to be honeat.
guareber t1_iueg1sc wrote
They aren't, really. África is way worse, but SA isn't successful at all.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iueqg52 wrote
They have an incentive to uplift since their interest is in a cheaper goods/an export market, not profit. The profit motive doesn't care if goods are expensive only that profits are high, meaning that profit driven foreign relations would want Africa to stay underdeveloped since less developed industry equals a larger porportion of value that can be extracted from labor. If the industry is very well developed then you will bearily make a profit since you can't exploit machines. You don't see this in capitlaist nations in themselves because competition forces the development of Industry but this in general one of the contradictions of capitlaism.
Smokybare94 t1_iug6c3v wrote
Tell that to colonialism
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iug7u4q wrote
That's what just described, colonialism happens because of what I described.
Smokybare94 t1_iugad75 wrote
I'm aware of their party's name, but I see modern day China (and russia) as capitalistic.
They exploit their own people and their neighbors and I don't see them uplifting anyone else. But at the end of the day my opinion doesn't matter, time will tell.
Africa is certainly due another golden age, and they have the resources for it to be sure, but global capitalism/colonialism has decimated the reigon and I don't know that it will ever stop, and even if it does the lasting affects will be beyond calculation.
filosoful OP t1_iu97p0q wrote
By the end of the century, Africa will be home to 40% of the world’s population – and nowhere is this breakneck-pace development happening faster than this 600-mile stretch between Abidjan and Lagos.