What's wrong with [your part of] the world? Is the future bright? 2050?

[miguel]

You have a very romantic view of things tamatic. We failed and keep failing on how to solve 3rd world country problems. What some people say is that there's no way for those countries to skip the crucial stages that led developed countries where they are. And the differences are simply huge. Political because we've came from monarchies to democratic republics and this path was bloody and ideologically insane with all the notions of socialism taken to extremes and finally discarded. Socially because we reinvented ourselves in just a century and at supersonic pace, imagine placing someone from the 20's with another from the 60's? And technologically because we are indeed far beyond water pumps and steam engines.
Now, all this can't be exported to another country and expect it to work just like that. It takes generations if all goes well.
I'm not even considering populations with extreme poverty, they may be doomed.
Stats saying that global poverty are lower are fine, but there are still 1 Billion people starving.


Should we let them starve and die of disease? No. But can we save them from a already written fate? I'm afraid the answer is No as well.

[Snarky]

Thinking that something is inevitable can easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, while at the same time clearing our conscience for not doing anything about it. But the Asian Miracle demonstrates that present misery is not doomed to perpetuate itself forever. Of course, Africa is not China, and we can't magically turn all of sub-Saharan Africa into somewhere like Switzerland overnight, but we can help influence the direction of the trends.

Africa has in fact been getting better in the last decade or so, after a low point in the 1980s-90s, and we can see that much of the misery it became infamous for has had specific historical causes, including misrule under colonialism and the dictatorial regimes that replaced it (and which were often propped up by Western powers or the Soviets under the Cold War), war (as a consequence of the last point), and badly designed aid and loan programs that ended up wrecking many economies. And then AIDS on top of that.

But now most of the dictators are gone or at least tamed (with about two thirds of African countries holding elections, though not always free and fair ones); there are fewer wars; debt relief, sounder economic policies (both by the countries themselves and the IMF/World Bank) and foreign investment mean that economic growth is solid; the AIDS epidemic appears more or less under control; foreign aid is more results-focused (and, for the US' part, greatly increased under President Bush); and modern technology (cell phones in particular) is bringing life-changing benefits to many millions.

That's not to say all the problems are overcome, or that life isn't still pretty grim for many Africans. There will no doubt be ups and downs in the road ahead, and there are no guarantees of a better tomorrow. If things are to get better, it will be because people worked to make it happen, and pushed leaders to make the right choices. That goes for Africa, but just as much for the rest of the world.

[tamatic]

You have a very romantic view of things tamatic.

   
Counting virtues isn't romantic. Neither is sticking to the numbers. All I tried is  pointing out that physical lack of food is just a lazy myth. And how we seemingly already are moving in the right direction when it comes to reducing proverty and population growth.
I don't deny this comes with problems but I also refuse to bagatalize those with buzz words like overpopulation.  Myths like that seem to have rose from old cultural naratives that embrase the idea of the human being sinful -and more such romantic notions. I refuse to join that side of things and yet then someone calls my views romantic? Seems a bit weird to me.

If you meant my hopes for technology, you just have to look at history to see it's not some romantic utopian dream. Ever since civilisation started with the plough tools have liberated us. Made us reach further, freeing our hands and minds.
And it sure cuts both ways but should that make us deny our legacy one way or the other? What stops us from projecting it into the future? Just how easy is it to be a pessimist? Just stop thinking and doing, blame the others/world, everything doomed to failure anyway.

We failed and keep failing on how to solve 3rd world country problems. What some people say is that there's no way for those countries to skip the crucial stages that led developed countries where they are. And the differences are simply huge. Political because we've came from monarchies to democratic republics and this path was bloody and ideologically insane with all the notions of socialism taken to extremes and finally discarded. Socially because we reinvented ourselves in just a century and at supersonic pace, imagine placing someone from the 20's with another from the 60's? And technologically because we are indeed far beyond water pumps and steam engines.
Now, all this can't be exported to another country and expect it to work just like that. It takes generations if all goes well.
I'm not even considering populations with extreme poverty, they may be doomed.

The thing is that this is already happening. And indeed it's problematic but happening none the less. Failure is just part of it. If you stick to the numbers things are getting better. You can ignore that but at least know apparently there is more going on than just damage control.

Stats saying that global poverty are lower are fine, but there are still 1 Billion people starving.

Should we let them starve and die of disease? No. But can we save them from a already written fate? I'm afraid the answer is No as well.

It is deeply tragic but simply not the result of overpopulation or lack of food. Poor distribution, artificial scarcity, proverty, war, naturel disasters, wastefull farming and poor infrastructure however are very real factors. And most if not all those things relate to technology.

[miguel]

Snarky & Tamatic, yes things are better and in some places much better in a way we would not think of a few decades ago.
Still, I think that the localized regions of the world where extreme hunger persists are beyond our help. It's actually easier to send 1Billion meals every day than to fix all the deep structural problems those populations have.
Because that's what we do, we organize them in camps, set up medical tents, and feed them. The people doing it (Red Cross, etc...) are heroes and the only ones with a conscience here, although a quick google search will bring money laundering to the scene.

The gigantic gap between what developed countries have already achieved and the hungry populations is such that saving them became almost impossible, although we'll never admit it.

Just more stats:
2012 World Hunger...

[Snarky]

my opinion on 3rd world countries not having a chance becoming prosperous. Ever.

nobody can save Ethiopia and the likes. It is very sad, but it can't be done.

I think that the localized regions of the world where extreme hunger persists are beyond our help.

You might be interested in the map at the top of this article, which shows that from 2007-2011, Ethiopia had the highest percent-wise growth in GDP/person in all of Africa. It's still miserably poor (and ruled by an oppressive regime), but that means it added more than 50% in GDP per person over that period. And no, of course it wasn't fairly distributed across the population, but adding that sort of money to the economy makes a real difference to people's lives regardless:

"Ethiopia will grow by 7.5% this year, without a drop of oil to export. Once a byword for famine, it is now the world's tenth-largest producer of livestock. Nor is its wealth monopolised by a well-connected clique. Embezzlement is still common but income distribution has improved in the past decade."

Which just goes to show that things are not as hopeless as you make out, even in some of the worst-off places in the world. Heck, if Somalia got itself a semblance of a working government (and that might just happen), it too might get itself out of the worst of it.

[miguel]

I hope so Snarky. I just don't have any faith on those new-democracies and the "ways" people get elected. I even have doubts that clan based societies can fully understand what the democratic right is. And worse, if they really want it. Like I said before, it took Europe centuries to implement what was thought by the ancient Greek. Millions died for democracy, a political ideal for the benefit of all people. While on some parts of the world the simple idea that a woman can have a opinion on something may lead to persecution.
Many new-democracies are show-off for the rest of the world, the "old" powers still rule masked by institutional nomenclature, and the same people keep abusing population rights.

[Stupot]

Somewhat related to this topic.  The BBC is holding an art contest and asking for your visions of the not-too-distant future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21163117

There are two categories (still and moving) and the winner of each catgory gets a laptop of their choice worth up to £2500