Friday, 21 November 2008

Bono and Africa

Great comment on the Bono post. I reproduce in full here. It ties in closely with a lot of what I've been saying especially in the post 'Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em'.

"He never ceases to call on others, governments, corporations and citizens, to contribute generously to the alleviation of African poverty"

In Africa's case, because the destitute there simply keep breeding at way Way WAY!!!! too high a rate, we really are throwing money into the ocean by helping them. Until they get their birthrate down to 2.0, we should not give them anything. They are only breeding more poverty. We should only give them some seeds, and show them some farming techniques, and teach them about replacement birthrates and contraception, and then leave.....................and whatever happens from that point forward be damned.

Or better yet, let the Chinese and Indians worry about it, since they are more-or-less recolonializing the continent. The pygmy black-Asians (they are Asian according to their DNA) living in stone-age conditions on the Adamintine islands were not confronted with colonialism, and they still saunter about bare-assed naked like savages. Since we have heretofore have had no contact with them whatsoever, this is NOT OUR FAULT in the least. In truth, and we all know it, Sub-Saharan Africa would be a stone-age place if it were not for colonialism and modern communications that have availed it to the modern world.

If it were left alone, it would find a stable population [This is my main point: Savant] and it would slowly evolve to a more modern situation on its own over several hundred years. But since we "baby" the place by giving them medicine and food, like all "welfare" recipients, they are dissuaded from developing successful agriculture and institutions of education, law enforcement, and medicine of their own. We could have helped them speed up the process by showing them "how", giving them a written language, some basic hardware to get started, and then leaving. Come back in 100 years and see if any progress has been made.

But we didn't do that. We stayed and became their life-time nanny. The result is that there is infinitely more of them to feed, and increasingly they cannot make it on their own. South Africa is falling into Zimbabwe-like array, and Zimbabwe might be like a starvation-war-zone in another 10 years. The answer is not to let them overwhelm the West via immigration, but for them to fix their own land themselves.

You cannot let someone who is letting his own home fall apart, who wont retain employment and pay his own rent, to come and live with you. He will never leave, and you will just have to pay for him. But what about when he finds a slag and starts having babies? Are you going to feed them all when he and her have five kids? You cannot. You have to let him go to sink or swim for himself.

Bono thinks he is helping, but he is really hurting long term.

I'd just ask whether Bono really does think he's helping. My own belief, just like with Bob Geldof, is that it's all one massive ego trip.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is very true. Leave them to their own devices and then they'd see how much they were 'exploited'.

JamesFl.

Anonymous said...

Colonialism has fucked up Africa and the West is blaming the victims of colonialism for their fucked up state.

SAVANT said...

anonymous 12.20: If colonialism is to blame, why are Liberia and Ethiopia also fucked up, as is Haiti (Africa in the western hemisphere)?

Anonymous said...

what the italians in ethiopia were imagined were they Savant? The wetsrn traders who plundered liberian wealth for centuries didn't exist?? The French were never in Haiti??

your tenous grasp of history boggles the mind ...
but there are plenty of gombeen fellow travellers who will happily take what you say as the truth ...lol

SAVANT said...

The Italians were in Ethiopia for a few years - and whatever buildings there are there now were built by them.

Haiti has been independnet for 200 years.

You just refuse to see it, don't you? Console yourself, I was like you once until, unlike you, I imagine, I actually fot to exprrience those places.

Anonymous said...

Korea was also occupied. So was
Japan, after getting nuked. And
China was also occupied.

Those countries are better now
(North Korea excepted, for obvious
reasons) because Asians aren't
Blacks. They're smart, work hard,
and don't commit lots of crime.

Face it, Blacks are on average
dumber and more crime prone than
ANY OTHER RACE. The only way to change that would be for blacks
to selectively breed, culling out
the dumb and violent.

Ireland should just import millions of them, because Irish
people are BAD! I'm American, you can have a few tens of millions
of ours, if you want.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said

"Colonialism has fucked up Africa and the West is blaming the victims of colonialism for their fucked up state."

Lefties always blame colonialism (by which they mean whites) for third world problems yet the U.S India Australia New Zealand Canada and Ireland were all colonies yet all of them have become first world countries.

I know India isnt a first world country but it is not short of a few quid and if its population wasnt so large it probably would be a first world country

The next arguement here they bring out is because african countries got their independence much later and havent had time to develop.Then one has to wonder why Hong Kong mysteriously has one of the highest standards of living in the world and was a British colony right up until 1997.

Also the vague description given by Anon about the west being in a "fucked up state"?Well the only thing fucked up in the west that I can think of that he is refering to is Moral Degeneracy and Mass Immigration and their legions of related problems (drug taking,alcoholism,unprotected promiscuity dispossesion terrorism corruption crime etc...)Both of which he and his leftist ilk support,advocate and promote at every available opportunity.

Ben said...

Garrett Hardin's paper from 1974 in Psychology Today:

"Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor
by Garrett Hardin, Psychology Today, September 1974
Environmentalists use the metaphor of the earth as a "spaceship" in trying to persuade countries, industries and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources. Since we all share life on this planet, they argue, no single person or institution has the right to destroy, waste, or use more than a fair share of its resources.

But does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share of its resources? The spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid. In their enthusiastic but unrealistic generosity, they confuse the ethics of a spaceship with those of a lifeboat.

A true spaceship would have to be under the control of a captain, since no ship could possibly survive if its course were determined by committee. Spaceship Earth certainly has no captain; the United Nations is merely a toothless tiger, with little power to enforce any policy upon its bickering members.

If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?

First, we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat. For example, a nation's land has a limited capacity to support a population and as the current energy crisis has shown us, in some ways we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our land.

Adrift in a Moral Sea
So here we sit, say 50 people in our lifeboat. To be generous, let us assume it has room for 10 more, making a total capacity of 60. Suppose the 50 of us in the lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the water outside, begging for admission to our boat or for handouts. We have several options: we may be tempted to try to live by the Christian ideal of being "our brother's keeper," or by the Marxist ideal of "to each according to his needs." Since the needs of all in the water are the same, and since they can all be seen as "our brothers," we could take them all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for 60. The boat swamps, everyone drowns. Complete justice, complete catastrophe.

Since the boat has an unused excess capacity of 10 more passengers, we could admit just 10 more to it. But which 10 do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best 10, "first come, first served"? And what do we say to the 90 we exclude? If we do let an extra 10 into our lifeboat, we will have lost our "safety factor," an engineering principle of critical importance. For example, if we don't leave room for excess capacity as a safety factor in our country's agriculture, a new plant disease or a bad change in the weather could have disastrous consequences.

Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible although we shall have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties.

While this last solution clearly offers the only means of our survival, it is morally abhorrent to many people. Some say they feel guilty about their good luck. My reply is simple: "Get out and yield your place to others." This may solve the problem of the guilt-ridden person's conscience, but it does not change the ethics of the lifeboat. The needy person to whom the guilt-ridden person yields his place will not himself feel guilty about his good luck. If he did, he would not climb aboard. The net result of conscience-stricken people giving up their unjustly held seats is the elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat.

This is the basic metaphor within which we must work out our solutions. Let us now enrich the image, step by step, with substantive additions from the real world, a world that must solve real and pressing problems of overpopulation and hunger.

The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become even harsher when we consider the reproductive differences between the rich nations and the poor nations. The people inside the lifeboats are doubling in numbers every 87 years; those swimming around outside are doubling, on the average, every 35 years, more than twice as fast as the rich. And since the world's resources are dwindling, the difference in prosperity between the rich and the poor can only increase.

As of 1973, the U.S. had a population of 210 million people, who were increasing by 0.8 percent per year. Outside our lifeboat, let us imagine another 210 million people (say the combined populations of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Morocco, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines) who are increasing at a rate of 3.3 percent per year. Put differently, the doubling time for this aggregate population is 21 years, compared to 87 years for the U.S.

The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become harsher when we consider the reproductive differences between rich and poor.

Multiplying the Rich and the Poor
Now suppose the U.S. agreed to pool its resources with those seven countries, with everyone receiving an equal share. Initially the ratio of Americans to non-Americans in this model would be one-to-one. But consider what the ratio would be after 87 years, by which time the Americans would have doubled to a population of 420 million. By then, doubling every 21 years, the other group would have swollen to 3.54 billion. Each American would have to share the available resources with more than eight people.

But, one could argue, this discussion assumes that current population trends will continue, and they may not. Quite so. Most likely the rate of population increase will decline much faster in the U.S. than it will in the other countries, and there does not seem to be much we can do about it. In sharing with "each according to his needs," we must recognize that needs are determined by population size, which is determined by the rate of reproduction, which at present is regarded as a sovereign right of every nation, poor or not. This being so, the philanthropic load created by the sharing ethic of the spaceship can only increase.

The Tragedy of the Commons
The fundamental error of spaceship ethics, and the sharing it requires, is that it leads to what I call "the tragedy of the commons." Under a system of private property, the men who own property recognize their responsibility to care for it, for if they don't they will eventually suffer. A farmer, for instance, will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies. If he overloads it, erosion sets in, weeds take over, and he loses the use of the pasture.

If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility to protect it. Asking everyone to use it with discretion will hardly do, for the considerate herdsman who refrains from overloading the commons suffers more than a selfish one who says his needs are greater. If everyone would restrain himself, all would be well; but it takes only one less than everyone to ruin a system of voluntary restraint. In a crowded world of less than perfect human beings, mutual ruin is inevitable if there are no controls. This is the tragedy of the commons.

One of the major tasks of education today should be the creation of such an acute awareness of the dangers of the commons that people will recognize its many varieties. For example, the air and water have become polluted because they are treated as commons. Further growth in the population or per-capita conversion of natural resources into pollutants will only make the problem worse. The same holds true for the fish of the oceans. Fishing fleets have nearly disappeared in many parts of the world, technological improvements in the art of fishing are hastening the day of complete ruin. Only the replacement of the system of the commons with a responsible system of control will save the land, air, water and oceanic fisheries.

The World Food Bank
In recent years there has been a push to create a new commons called a World Food Bank, an international depository of food reserves to which nations would contribute according to their abilities and from which they would draw according to their needs. This humanitarian proposal has received support from many liberal international groups, and from such prominent citizens as Margaret Mead, U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, and Senators Edward Kennedy and George McGovern.

A world food bank appeals powerfully to our humanitarian impulses. But before we rush ahead with such a plan, let us recognize where the greatest political push comes from, lest we be disillusioned later. Our experience with the "Food for Peace program," or Public Law 480, gives us the answer. This program moved billions of dollars worth of U.S. surplus grain to food-short, population-long countries during the past two decades. But when P.L. 480 first became law, a headline in the business magazine Forbes revealed the real power behind it: "Feeding the World's Hungry Millions: How It Will Mean Billions for U.S. Business."

And indeed it did. In the years 1960 to 1970, U.S. taxpayers spent a total of $7.9 billion on the Food for Peace program. Between 1948 and 1970, they also paid an additional $50 billion for other economic-aid programs, some of which went for food and food-producing machinery and technology. Though all U.S. taxpayers were forced to contribute to the cost of P.L. 480 certain special interest groups gained handsomely under the program. Farmers did not have to contribute the grain; the Government or rather the taxpayers, bought it from them at full market prices. The increased demand raised prices of farm products generally. The manufacturers of farm machinery, fertilizers and pesticides benefited by the farmers' extra efforts to grow more food. Grain elevators profited from storing the surplus until it could be shipped. Railroads made money hauling it to ports, and shipping lines profited from carrying it overseas. The implementation of P.L. 480 required the creation of a vast Government bureaucracy, which then acquired its own vested interest in continuing the program regardless of its merits.

Extracting Dollars
Those who proposed and defended the Food for Peace program in public rarely mentioned its importance to any of these special interests. The public emphasis was always on its humanitarian effects. The combination of silent selfish interests and highly vocal humanitarian apologists made a powerful and successful lobby for extracting money from taxpayers. We can expect the same lobby to push now for the creation of a World Food Bank.

However great the potential benefit to selfish interests, it should not be a decisive argument against a truly humanitarian program. We must ask if such a program would actually do more good than harm, not only momentarily but also in the long run. Those who propose the food bank usually refer to a current "emergency" or "crisis" in terms of world food supply. But what is an emergency? Although they may be infrequent and sudden, everyone knows that emergencies will occur from time to time. A well-run family, company, organization or country prepares for the likelihood of accidents and emergencies. It expects them, it budgets for them, it saves for them.

Learning the Hard Way
What happens if some organizations or countries budget for accidents and others do not? If each country is solely responsible for its own well-being, poorly managed ones will suffer. But they can learn from experience. They may mend their ways, and learn to budget for infrequent but certain emergencies. For example, the weather varies from year to year, and periodic crop failures are certain. A wise and competent government saves out of the production of the good years in anticipation of bad years to come. Joseph taught this policy to Pharaoh in Egypt more than 2,000 years ago. Yet the great majority of the governments in the world today do not follow such a policy. They lack either the wisdom or the competence, or both. Should those nations that do manage to put something aside be forced to come to the rescue each time an emergency occurs among the poor nations?

"But it isn't their fault!" Some kind-hearted liberals argue. "How can we blame the poor people who are caught in an emergency? Why must they suffer for the sins of their governments?" The concept of blame is simply not relevant here. The real question is, what are the operational consequences of establishing a world food bank? If it is open to every country every time a need develops, slovenly rulers will not be motivated to take Joseph's advice. Someone will always come to their aid. Some countries will deposit food in the world food bank, and others will withdraw it. There will be almost no overlap. As a result of such solutions to food shortage emergencies, the poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively greater emergencies as their populations grow.

Population Control the Crude Way
On the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. Only rich countries have anything in the way of food reserves set aside, and even they do not have as much as they should. Poor countries have none. If poor countries received no food from the outside, the rate of their population growth would be periodically checked by crop failures and famines. But if they can always draw on a world food bank in time of need, their population can continue to grow unchecked, and so will their "need" for aid. In the short run, a world food bank may diminish that need, but in the long run it actually increases the need without limit.

Without some system of worldwide food sharing, the proportion of people in the rich and poor nations might eventually stabilize. The overpopulated poor countries would decrease in numbers, while the rich countries that had room for more people would increase. But with a well-meaning system of sharing, such as a world food bank, the growth differential between the rich and the poor countries will not only persist, it will increase. Because of the higher rate of population growth in the poor countries of the world, 88 percent of today's children are born poor, and only 12 percent rich. Year by year the ratio becomes worse, as the fast-reproducing poor outnumber the slow-reproducing rich.

A world food bank is thus a commons in disguise. People will have more motivation to draw from it than to add to any common store. The less provident and less able will multiply at the expense of the abler and more provident, bringing eventual ruin upon all who share in the commons. Besides, any system of "sharing" that amounts to foreign aid from the rich nations to the poor nations will carry the taint of charity, which will contribute little to the world peace so devoutly desired by those who support the idea of a world food bank.

As past U.S. foreign-aid programs have amply and depressingly demonstrated, international charity frequently inspires mistrust and antagonism rather than gratitude on the part of the recipient nation [see "What Other Nations Hear When the Eagle Screams," by Kenneth J. and Mary M. Gergen, PT, June].

Chinese Fish and Miracle Rice
The modern approach to foreign aid stresses the export of technology and advice, rather than money and food. As an ancient Chinese proverb goes: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he will eat for the rest of his days." Acting on this advice, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations have financed a number of programs for improving agriculture in the hungry nations. Known as the "Green Revolution," these programs have led to the development of "miracle rice" and "miracle wheat," new strains that offer bigger harvests and greater resistance to crop damage. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize winning agronomist who, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, developed "miracle wheat," is one of the most prominent advocates of a world food bank.

Whether or not the Green Revolution can increase food production as much as its champions claim is a debatable but possibly irrelevant point. Those who support this well-intended humanitarian effort should first consider some of the fundamentals of human ecology. Ironically, one man who did was the late Alan Gregg, a vice president of the Rockefeller Foundation. Two decades ago he expressed strong doubts about the wisdom of such attempts to increase food production. He likened the growth and spread of humanity over the surface of the earth to the spread of cancer in the human body, remarking that "cancerous growths demand food; but, as far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it."

Overloading the Environment
Every human born constitutes a draft on all aspects of the environment: food, air, water, forests, beaches, wildlife, scenery and solitude. Food can, perhaps, be significantly increased to meet a growing demand. But what about clean beaches, unspoiled forests, and solitude? If we satisfy a growing population's need for food, we necessarily decrease its per capita supply of the other resources needed by men.

India, for example, now has a population of 600 million, which increases by 15 million each year. This population already puts a huge load on a relatively impoverished environment. The country's forests are now only a small fraction of what they were three centuries ago and floods and erosion continually destroy the insufficient farmland that remains. Every one of the 15 million new lives added to India's population puts an additional burden on the environment, and increases the economic and social costs of crowding. However humanitarian our intent, every Indian life saved through medical or nutritional assistance from abroad diminishes the quality of life for those who remain, and for subsequent generations. If rich countries make it possible, through foreign aid, for 600 million Indians to swell to 1.2 billion in a mere 28 years, as their current growth rate threatens, will future generations of Indians thank us for hastening the destruction of their environment? Will our good intentions be sufficient excuse for the consequences of our actions?

My final example of a commons in action is one for which the public has the least desire for rational discussion - immigration. Anyone who publicly questions the wisdom of current U.S. immigration policy is promptly charged with bigotry, prejudice, ethnocentrism, chauvinism, isolationism or selfishness. Rather than encounter such accusations, one would rather talk about other matters leaving immigration policy to wallow in the crosscurrents of special interests that take no account of the good of the whole, or the interests of posterity.

Perhaps we still feel guilty about things we said in the past. Two generations ago the popular press frequently referred to Dagos, Wops, Polacks, Chinks and Krauts in articles about how America was being "overrun" by foreigners of supposedly inferior genetic stock [see "The Politics of Genetic Engineering: Who Decides Who's Defective?" PT, June]. But because the implied inferiority of foreigners was used then as justification for keeping them out, people now assume that restrictive policies could only be based on such misguided notions. There are other grounds.

A Nation of Immigrants
Just consider the numbers involved. Our Government acknowledges a net inflow of 400,000 immigrants a year. While we have no hard data on the extent of illegal entries, educated guesses put the figure at about 600,000 a year. Since the natural increase (excess of births over deaths) of the resident population now runs about 1.7 million per year, the yearly gain from immigration amounts to at least 19 percent of the total annual increase, and may be as much as 37 percent if we include the estimate for illegal immigrants. Considering the growing use of birth-control devices, the potential effect of education campaigns by such organizations as Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Zero Population Growth, and the influence of inflation and the housing shortage, the fertility rate of American women may decline so much that immigration could account for all the yearly increase in population. Should we not at least ask if that is what we want?

For the sake of those who worry about whether the "quality" of the average immigrant compares favorably with the quality of the average resident, let us assume that immigrants and native-born citizens are of exactly equal quality, however one defines that term. We will focus here only on quantity; and since our conclusions will depend on nothing else, all charges of bigotry and chauvinism become irrelevant.

Immigration Vs. Food Supply
World food banks move food to the people, hastening the exhaustion of the environment of the poor countries. Unrestricted immigration, on the other hand, moves people to the food, thus speeding up the destruction of the environment of the rich countries. We can easily understand why poor people should want to make this latter transfer, but why should rich hosts encourage it?

As in the case of foreign-aid programs, immigration receives support from selfish interests and humanitarian impulses. The primary selfish interest in unimpeded immigration is the desire of employers for cheap labor, particularly in industries and trades that offer degrading work. In the past, one wave of foreigners after another was brought into the U.S. to work at wretched jobs for wretched wages. In recent years the Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans have had this dubious honor. The interests of the employers of cheap labor mesh well with the guilty silence of the country's liberal intelligentsia. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are particularly reluctant to call for a closing of the doors to immigration for fear of being called bigots.

But not all countries have such reluctant leadership. Most education Hawaiians, for example, are keenly aware of the limits of their environment, particularly in terms of population growth. There is only so much room on the islands, and the islanders know it. To Hawaiians, immigrants from the other 49 states present as great a threat as those from other nations. At a recent meeting of Hawaiian government officials in Honolulu, I had the ironic delight of hearing a speaker who like most of his audience was of Japanese ancestry, ask how the country might practically and constitutionally close its doors to further immigration. One member of the audience countered: "How can we shut the doors now? We have many friends and relatives in Japan that we'd like to bring here some day so that they can enjoy Hawaii too." The Japanese-American speaker smiled sympathetically and answered: "Yes, but we have children now, and someday we'll have grandchildren too. We can bring more people here from Japan only by giving away some of the land that we hope to pass on to our grandchildren some day. What right do we have to do that?"

At this point, I can hear U.S. liberals asking: "How can you justify slamming the door once you're inside? You say that immigrants should be kept out. But aren't we all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants? If we insist on staying, must we not admit all others?" Our craving for intellectual order leads us to seek and prefer symmetrical rules and morals: a single rule for me and everybody else; the same rule yesterday, today and tomorrow. Justice, we fell, should not change with time and place.

We Americans of non-Indian ancestry can look upon ourselves as the descendants of thieves who are guilty morally, if not legally, of stealing this land from its Indian owners. Should we then give back the land to the now living American descendants of those Indians? However morally or logically sound this proposal may be, I, for one, am unwilling to live by it and I know no one else who is. Besides, the logical consequence would be absurd. Suppose that, intoxicated with a sense of pure justice, we should decide to turn our land over to the Indians. Since all our other wealth has also been derived from the land, wouldn't we be morally obliged to give that back to the Indians too?

Pure Justice Vs. Reality
Clearly, the concept of pure justice produces an infinite regression to absurdity. Centuries ago, wise men invented statutes of limitations to justify the rejection of such pure justice, in the interest of preventing continual disorder. The law zealously defends property rights, but only relatively recent property rights. Drawing a line after an arbitrary time has elapsed may be unjust, but the alternatives are worse.

We are all the descendants of thieves, and the world's resources are inequitably distributed. But we must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point where we are today. We cannot remake the past. We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as people reproduce at different rates. To do so would guarantee that our grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren, would have only a ruined world to inhabit.

To be generous with one's own possessions is quite different from being generous with those of posterity. We should call this point to the attention of those who from a commendable love of justice and equality, would institute a system of the commons, either in the form of a world food bank, or of unrestricted immigration. We must convince them if we wish to save at least some parts of the world from environmental ruin.

Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible. For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less."


http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

Ben said...

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa's conclusion on IQ and health:

"Conclusion
The results from the macro-level and micro-level analyses collectively cast some doubt
on Wilkinson’s earlier conclusion that ‘Inequality kills. People die younger in countries
with greater inequalities in income’. It appears that inequality does not kill and people
do not die younger in countries with greater inequalities in income. The macro data
from all nations show that, once national IQ is controlled, neither income inequality nor
economic development has an independent effect on male and female life expectancy,
infant mortality rate or age-specific mortality rate for individuals aged 15–19. Only
national IQ has a very strong and significantly positive effect on these measures of
population health. Consistent with the prediction from the Savanna Principle, national
IQ has no effect on life expectancy among countries in the evolutionarily familiar sub-
Saharan Africa. The micro data from the United States show that verbal intelligence has a
stronger effect on health than income. These results point to the need for
epidemiologists and health psychologists to pay closer attention to the role of general
intelligence in health and longevity. General intelligence may be the key that allows
individuals in evolutionarily novel contemporary society to recognize health risks and
deal with them appropriately."


http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/BJHP2006.pdf

Ben said...

Anon,

Remember the role of IQ:

"I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.

Remember, these are averages, and all groups overlap. You can't deduce an individual's intelligence from her ethnicity. The only thing you can reasonably infer is that anyone who presumes to rate your IQ based on the color of your skin is probably dumber than you are.

So, what should we make of the difference in averages?

We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher. The report doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.

How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight."

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

anon 12.20 said...

hmm I mean the importation of Western Technology and medical science by colonialism, has distorted the formerly native societies so they are now disfunctional and most of their problems can be traced to this.

Take the borders of nearly all African nations, most of them are inappropiate and unnatural and the West (ie the UN) won't allow them to be changed.

As for the politicians they are little more than bought Western puppets who'll be chucked out of office (courtesy of various Western "Agencies") if they get any independent ideas.

Anonymous said...

Hi all,

Im the guy "anonymous" who made that post Savant highlighted.

I **really** dont mean for it to sound as crude as some might think, but I'll call attention to the first anonymous'es contention:

"Colonialism has fucked up Africa and the West is blaming the victims of colonialism for their fucked up state."


When the Western colonialist "found" Africa, they noted for all history how impoverhed it was. I mean hell, these people were fighting each other tribally with spears and arrows. They didn't have metal armor, gunpowder, cannon, seaworthy ships (sorry, but canoes in rivers dont count), horse mounted calvary (no horses, I conceed that), grapeshot, large siege-tower slings, Greek fire, ........................................they didn't have the things that Europeans had back in the days of Alexander in the fourth century BC. The Europeans knew the Africans were way way way behind in terms of military equipement, much less battle formations, battle tactics (calvary, infantry, long-projectile, formations, etc.) and the like. The place was in almost stone age development. They didn't see writing anywhere, no books, no libraries (even though some Afrocentric dreamers will tell you the Greek-built library of Alexandria was really the work of Africans), no large buildings.......just huts. They saw nakedness everywhere they looked.

That is not Europe's, Russia's, Japan's, or China's fault.


Loony-left-wing organizations like Randall Robinson's want you to believe some sort of fairy tale about Africa, that it was formerly wealthy before colonialism. It was not. The European explorers well-documented on paper what they found there, and henceforth why their writings have been practically censored. Jospeph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, a great book, is probably off some reading lists by now because it describes colonial Africa a little too precisely.


I brought up the Adamintine Islands because that is a place that has not ever seen white (or Indian, Chinese, Arabian) man. Its in the stone age. We didn't put it in the stone age, it put itself there. We dont owe these people anything just because they can breed. They breed irresponsibly because we keep giving them medicine and food. We should stop. We are making a mess so large that we will not be able to clean it up. It would be hard for them for 10-20 years if we left. There would be some starvation, but after a time, people would grow their own food, limit the amount of children they had, and civilization would begin to flower and the place could build itself up without our help.


We will always be resented if we are the ones to "give" Africa what it has. Every human with any pride on the face of this planet wants to be able to make it himself. The faux of colonialism was some Europeans looking to loot some natural resources in Africa, using humanitarianism and Christianity as a pretext, so they could use some of that wealth to get a leg up on the rest of Europe and eventually become the dominant power therein. If England, France, Spain, and Germany could have just gotten along............colonialism as we think of it might have never happened.

If you want the real ugly truth, the Opium debacle in China is probably colonialism's biggest sin by far. England pretty much got an entire nation hooked on dope for money. Thats something to be ashamed of. But look at the Chinese now. Industrious and getting rich. They are not wallowing in self pity for shit that happened in the 1800's. I mean fuck all folks, its 2008 now. The American Civil war ended in 1865. Blacks here in America shunned going back to the continent of their origin, but many will holler to high heaven about how "they are owed reparations" or some such baloney.


Just about every white person on earth had ancestors who were serfs in medieval Europe, probably had an ancestor raped by the Mongols or Moors, probably was virtually enslaved by the Greeks or Romans. Nobody is demanding some sort of payment for all of that. That is the sort of mentality you get when you spoil a child.


Bono is a moral vanity exhibitionist. If he REALLY cared as much for Africa as he says he does, he'd move down there himself and start building schools, hospitals, and some infrastructure and a few factories that would be the bulwark of an economy for one of those nations, but he knows that would be pissing into the wind. The only way for Africa to make it is to transform itself over a good century or so without our meddling. To be "ugly" truthful, we are broke ourselves at this point. Our nation is in debt up to its ears.

kerdasi amaq said...

Ireland may have(and expect) a first world standard of living; but culturally and politically this is very much a third world nation.

We evade our social problems (providing a living for the majority of Irish people born on this island) by emigration.

Ben017 said...

Some interesting YouTube clips on fallacies about race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JOkCTQf7EY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShLF3e9YHg8

anon 12.20 said...

"Colonialism has fucked up Africa and the West is blaming the victims of colonialism for their fucked up state."

"Also the vague description given by Anon about the west being in a "fucked up state"?Well the only thing fucked up in the west that I can think of that he is refering to is Moral Degeneracy and Mass Immigration"

I didn't say that the West is in a fucked up state(but thanks to progressive liberalism we're getting there) the "fucked up state" applies to "the victims of colonialism".

Colonialism is the imposition of an alien social order, by coercion, on other peoples to the benefit of the colonisers and regardless of the long-term consequences for the colonised people.

Independence was 'granted' to the colonies, not out of benevolence(as they would have you believe), but because the cost to the colonising countries was probably greater than the economic benefit from maintaining the colonies.