Wow! That's funny! For some reason I remember that Europe colonized all of Africa and then was forced to leave due to democratic uprisings, but they still had a strangle hold on the economy. (
Neo-Colonialism, Subversion in Africa and Global Conflict | nsnbc ìnternational) (
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Neo-Colonialism in Africa.pdf)
You act like those investments are coming from a place of love and compassion, but it isn't. European nations are grabbing up land in Africa and using it to produce biofuels and GMOS, which prevent food production. (
Land acquired over past decade could have produced food for a billion people | Global development | The Guardian) (
GRAIN — Land grabbing for biofuels must stop)
This also hurts employment, something that would give people the ability to, you know, take care of the kids they already have.
"When not displaced, the conversion of local farmers into laborers holds numerous negative consequences for local populations. Most deals are based on the eventual formation of plantation-style farming, whereupon the investing company will own the land and employ locals as laborers in large-scale agricultural plots. The number of jobs created varies greatly dependent on commodity type and style of farming planned.In spite of this volatility, guarantees of job creation are rarely, if ever, addressed in contracts. This fact, combined with the intrinsic incentives towards mechanization in plantation-style production, can lead to much lower employment than originally planned for." (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grabbing#Employment)
EDIT: Actually it
is about whether or not people have the right to have children, seeing as how that's what the thread is about.
The colonization of Africa lasted for less than a century. In most cases, only around 70 years since the scramble for Africa has only stated in the 1880s. The only colony at that time was South Africa, colonized by the British. Occupations between Europeans lasted longer. During that time, they had railworks, hospitals and cities built, as well research done to cure malaria and other diseases to which, until that time, there was no cure. And yes, the voodoo, medicine man BS is not real medicine. It was a joke.
Say what you will, but it was the colonization of africa that allowed real progress to be made there, skipping centuries of development in a few decades. This of course, is not necessarily a good thing, but make of it as you will.
Of course the interest of the companies, which again, are not just European, but from all corners of the world, is self-interest. It is not charity. But it is self-interest that allows for progress and the economy to exist. Again, each government of each country has more power in their pen than the companies that exist there. If they choose so, they can nationalize all assets. It will be interesting to see what will happen then. I assume it will happen something similar to shooting yourself in your legs. Like it or not, the foreign investments in those countries are all that keeps those countries afloat.
Next off, automatization is desirable. It should be done everywhere as fast as possible, in Europe, the US and in Africa where industrialization occurs. New generations of kids should not be taught that their future lies on the production line, but managing an automatized line.
And about the children, again, the fact that they have outrageously high fertility rates contributes to the state of their nations. If they stopped having so many children, and instead, focused on taking care of 1-2 kids/family, there could be less, better schools to prepare those kids for life and in the span of 2 generations, the face of Africa could change dramatically, from an impoverished continent to one of the fastest and smartest growing economic regions of the world. And in doing so, we will be addressing a part of the overpopulation business. I am not saying that I have any power to dictate how many kids they have. I am just saying that it would be wise of those governments to address the issue of population growth in their nations as a threat to the welfare of the nation. And I mean welfare as it the well doing of the nation, not welfare programs.
