What led to the current African poverty?

#11
Lets be straight forward about this, they didn't advance the way other nations did and its that simple.

Neither did the South Americans, or the Pacific Islanders or the South East Asians.

Tbh only certain nations did and what drives technology is civilization propelled forward by Imperial designs.

Rome, Ming China, Imperial Japan, the Caliphate, Europe in the 18th & 19th century, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial Spain ......... these eras in their respective nations were real drivers in technology and civilization.

Civilization reach's peak competitiveness due to war unfortunately.

Look at WWII and the aggressive expansion of German technology and American etc.

Africa among the other nations I mention never had this.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,842
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#12
What led to the current African poverty?
It would be more accurate to ask what led to the current prosperity of the more prosperous regions countries of the world?

Being poor is the natural condition of life. Being poor is natural, being rich is desirable.

Look at the level of wealth of the closest relatives of humans, chimps and gorillas and orangutans. Clearly almost all of even the poorest of humans living today, even in the poorest regions of Africa, are many times as rich as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

And the pre human ancestors of humans who began living on the ground and using the first stone tools a few million years ago were just as poor as gorillas, orangutans, or chimps. And the level of wealth of humans has risen over millions of years, and even more in the few thousand of years since the beginning of civilization, and even more in the last couple of centuries since the beginning of industrialization.

Today, even the poorest people among those who are not literally starving to death at this moment are probably much richer than orangutans, gorillas, or chimpanzees. Most of the people in devoloping third world nations in Africa may be much poorer than people in the developed nations, but they are still much richer than their ancestors millions of years ago who were as poor as gorillas, chimpanzees, or orangutans.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,584
Benin City, Nigeria
#13
It would be more accurate to ask what led to the current prosperity of the more prosperous regions countries of the world?

Being poor is the natural condition of life. Being poor is natural, being rich is desirable.

Look at the level of wealth of the closest relatives of humans, chimps and gorillas and orangutans. Clearly almost all of even the poorest of humans living today, even in the poorest regions of Africa, are many times as rich as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

And the pre human ancestors of humans who began living on the ground and using the first stone tools a few million years ago were just as poor as gorillas, orangutans, or chimps. And the level of wealth of humans has risen over millions of years, and even more in the few thousand of years since the beginning of civilization, and even more in the last couple of centuries since the beginning of industrialization.

Today, even the poorest people among those who are not literally starving to death at this moment are probably much richer than orangutans, gorillas, or chimpanzees. Most of the people in devoloping third world nations in Africa may be much poorer than people in the developed nations, but they are still much richer than their ancestors millions of years ago who were as poor as gorillas, chimpanzees, or orangutans.
If this is the best sort of "analysis" that you can offer it would probably be better to simply refrain from speaking on this kind of topic for a while. Or maybe refrain from speaking specifically about Africa? There is free speech and all, but in the interest of basic decency maybe take a break and reflect on what is really going on in this post.

I wish I could say that I'm surprised at the content of the post, but not really. The forum continues to be very reflective and representative of how humanity is. I don't mean that in a good way of course.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,584
Benin City, Nigeria
#14
Lets be straight forward about this, they didn't advance the way other nations did and its that simple.

Neither did the South Americans, or the Pacific Islanders or the South East Asians.

Tbh only certain nations did and what drives technology is civilization propelled forward by Imperial designs.

Rome, Ming China, Imperial Japan, the Caliphate, Europe in the 18th & 19th century, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial Spain ......... these eras in their respective nations were real drivers in technology and civilization.

Civilization reach's peak competitiveness due to war unfortunately.

Look at WWII and the aggressive expansion of German technology and American etc.

Africa among the other nations I mention never had this.
Not being the technological leader of the world does not mean you are automatically impoverished. That is a misconception.

As I mentioned already, in the 18th century, living standards in the coastal area of the Republic of Ghana were basically comparable to that of most other places around the world that were not impoverished, while in the immediate hinterland of Ghana, where there existed a much greater and more commercially important state, living standards would most likely have been substantially higher.

Visitors from one of the most advanced European countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain, viewed the state that occupied the hinterland of Ghana, Asante, as a great state, a thriving empire. They put it in writing that they thought so. A description by a British official in 1815 of the king of Asante as "the Sovereign of a great and powerful nation" was nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary. That quote, and some similar ones can be found in this article.

There does seem to have been a sort of modern amnesia about that on the part of some more recent writers (though not really on the part of historians), maybe because relations with that state were handled so clumsily by Britain. Because of this "amnesia" and the statements of some other people who have not read about it or do not know about that state, there has developed a strange perception by some people that what exists now is necessarily representative of what always existed in the past. But the records from outside observers are clear that things were not always like this.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
707
Lemuria
#15
Lets be straight forward about this, they didn't advance the way other nations did and its that simple.

Neither did the South Americans, or the Pacific Islanders or the South East Asians.

Tbh only certain nations did and what drives technology is civilization propelled forward by Imperial designs.

Rome, Ming China, Imperial Japan, the Caliphate, Europe in the 18th & 19th century, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial Spain ......... these eras in their respective nations were real drivers in technology and civilization.

Civilization reach's peak competitiveness due to war unfortunately.

Look at WWII and the aggressive expansion of German technology and American etc.

Africa among the other nations I mention never had this.

The only reason these civilizations developed to great heights is because they were interconnected and hence ideas and technology could be exchanged. Germanic and Nordic tribal civilizations were extremely primitive before contact with Rome. Africans and Native American civilizations were well off the major trade routes and hence isolated. Isolation allows for some unusual unique practices though. For example the Norse had some unique style of woodworking and ship building.
 
Apr 2017
707
Lemuria
#16
It would be more accurate to ask what led to the current prosperity of the more prosperous regions countries of the world?

Being poor is the natural condition of life. Being poor is natural, being rich is desirable.

Look at the level of wealth of the closest relatives of humans, chimps and gorillas and orangutans. Clearly almost all of even the poorest of humans living today, even in the poorest regions of Africa, are many times as rich as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

And the pre human ancestors of humans who began living on the ground and using the first stone tools a few million years ago were just as poor as gorillas, orangutans, or chimps. And the level of wealth of humans has risen over millions of years, and even more in the few thousand of years since the beginning of civilization, and even more in the last couple of centuries since the beginning of industrialization.

Today, even the poorest people among those who are not literally starving to death at this moment are probably much richer than orangutans, gorillas, or chimpanzees. Most of the people in devoloping third world nations in Africa may be much poorer than people in the developed nations, but they are still much richer than their ancestors millions of years ago who were as poor as gorillas, chimpanzees, or orangutans.

Poverty is not a natural state. It is conditional and dependent on the species needs and environment. Those apes you mentioned hardly ever want for anything as long as their natural habitat remains intact.
The poorest human on Earth is hardly in a desirable position and hardly as healthy as say the average gorilla. Wealth generally speaking is about EXPLOITABLE resources. Plants is not an exploitable resources for an obligate carnivore.


Basically what you are saying is Africans are as inferior to Europeans as the apes are to the former? Just be honest.

I completely disagree. When I was talking about human potential, I was talking about the average. For example Japan average is one the highest in the world but Japan hardly has as many Nobel prize winners as Sweden. They are not a breakthrough nation but a maintenance one. That's because the average doesn't deviate much from the extremes.

I still believe Africans have higher genetic diversity and hence they will have more uniquely talented individuals 3 standard deviations from the mean than a more inbred population. I never suggested once that they can't rule themselves. I suggested they need to readjust their current model to fit their needs. Rwanda is a good example. It's ridiculous to assume every population will have the exact normal curve for every attribute. The higher intellectual caste must control the lower caste through rituals and taboos especially if the gap is enormous. The lower caste can never be open minded. A weak mind that cannot control every shade of thought will go every which way unless ritualized (this is why Western media is toxic). By caste I'm not talking about the Indian caste system. This is just wrong. It has to be a meritocracy not a rigid system. The higher caste must be eager to accept new talents.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2011
7,654
MARE PACIFICVM
#17
Eryl Enki, I'm fascinated by your ideas about human potential vis-a-vis genetic diversity. Have any studies been done along this line of thought?

It would be relatively simple I should think. Following your logic, Africa, with the greatest genetic diverstiy on planet Earth, should theoretically produce both the most outstanding geniuses, and the most moronic dolts.

And from what I can gather from your posts, you are arguing that Africa could thrive if it could take advantage of this genetic diversity by ensuring that somehow the outstanding geniuses remain in charge while the dolts are boxed into socio-cultural conformity.
 
Last edited:

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,584
Benin City, Nigeria
#18
For example Japan average is one the highest in the world but Japan hardly has as many Nobel prize winners as Sweden.
This is wrong though. The number of Nobel prize winners from both countries are fairly similar. If you wanted to make an argument about Nobel prizes per capita you might have a point. Japan has a much larger population than Sweden but only has a similar number of prizewinners.

Not that I think there is some great relevance of all that to this thread though. When talking about more recent history (the last 200 years), a major difference between a country like Japan and some countries in Africa (apart from the most obvious differences) is that many Europeans deliberately took significant steps to assist Japan in modernizing their country, without significant hindrance from their governments (from European governments) in their efforts to help the Japanese, whereas there was more or less an effort to completely destroy certain states in Africa because of bias and greed. And it did not matter whether an African state was actually trying to modernize or not either, once the "scramble for Africa" mentality set in.

Japan got a light tap on the shoulder when an aggressive, but ultimately rational, American commodore cruised into the region around 1853 and started making demands.

What did a state like Asante get? What sort of people did they have to deal with? Well you've already read that chapter by Freeman. But pretty much any scholar that is even slightly knowledgeable about that area and what took place in the 19th century will say essentially the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
707
Lemuria
#19
Eryl Enki, I'm fascinated by your ideas about human potential vis-a-vis genetic diversity. Have any studies been done along this line of thought?

It would be relatively simple I should think. Following your logic, Africa, with the greatest genetic diverstiy on planet Earth, should theoretically produce both the most outstanding geniuses, and the most moronic dolts.

And from what I can gather from your posts, you are arguing that Africa could thrive if it could take advantage of this genetic diversity by ensuring that somehow the outstanding geniuses remain in charge while the dolts are boxed into socio-cultural conformity.

Yes, there have been plenty of studies. It is known for example that good education raises IQ but not so much that a developing individual would gain more than one standard deviation. Your potential is genetically determined. This is only your potential. Many factors will either negatively or positively impact on your intelligence. For example an individual could have a potential of 150 but yet end with an IQ of 75 after lead poisoning or some illness.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
707
Lemuria
#20
This is wrong though. The number of Nobel prize winners from both countries are fairly similar. If you wanted to make an argument about Nobel prizes per capita you might have a point. Japan has a much larger population than Sweden but only has a similar number of prizewinners.
Who said it is not a per capita argument? It's obviously a per capita argument. Sweden has 31 winners as opposed to Japan's 27. Although this is more or less similar, Japan is vastly more populous than Sweden. Japan is the best case scenario as well for this region (South Korea has as many winners as the Island of Saint Lucia!). While Japan has many patents (which are not major breakthroughs but minor changes to major breakthroughs), it does not have many Nobel prizes.
Japan is at the forefront of the economy and education so this small number of Nobel prizes is way short of what you would expect especially considering Japan has one of the highest human potential.
 
Last edited: