I recently listened to a Podcast by a Sengalese businesswoman who had some thoughts on why it has been so hard for Africa to modernize and be prosperous. Based on her experience she feels one of the biggest problems is African countries embracing socialist philosophies when they were nation building in the 50s-60s. She says there is a lot of very bad top-down laws that are an extreme impediment to economic growth.

For instance, she said when she tried to get an LLC to start a business it took her 2 years to get through the red tape. This is something that takes 10 minutes to do online in the US. She also says the tariffs on importing anything to do anything are so high it isn't a viable option. So you have to import everything through bribery and the black market.

In fact she said the bad laws that stifle legitimate business are a main driver of all the corruption. She thinks African nations need a paradigm shift towards a more business friendly bottom-up type of economic governance.



--I dont think it is an accident that the countries with the least economic freedom have the least functional economies. She says even Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia recognize the need for economic freedom, and although they follow Sharia in the cultural realm, many of them are actually very capitalistic and open economically.

What I'm saying and have been saying from the start is that language and ideology that ignores local agency is bad.

Only recognizing external causes, questions such as "should we just let this happen?", an almost imperialistic view of history that thinks the colonial powers had absolute control, and rhetoric and arguments that make it sound like the only thing that exists is African countries is hungry children, corrupt officials, warlords and greedy foreigners.

It's essentially the result of old prejudiced stances where we a lot of the world as as small huts filled with uneducated brutes. And that if we save them, then they would magically agree with us about how their societies should look and function.

If a country struggles with corruption, free market principles are a double-edged sword as it will tend to become "free market" more than free market. Russia is an excellent example.

Economy can't really replace or fix institutions, a lesson our "western" countries are in the process of re-learning.

There is only one future for humanity. If we make it then it wont be bound to planet earth.

The era of the great ****ing of is not as far away as some think. But we have to make it and we may not.

This is exactly rght. It's selling out the future to cling to the the delusion that people will sacrifice much for it.

Hard choices dont happen but we can make far better choices easy. Science & tech is the only serious game in town for humanity. It's muich too late to stop a disaster but there may still time to stop a catastropie

OK I get that point.

But when the question is should we encourage exploitation of resources in Africa by western companies, for our benefit, I think its a very different conversation- which is where this started.

If local communities got the benefit from it it would be a different point.

I view it the same I view people who use axes. We reward lumberjacks and find a way to lock up axe-murderers.

So the leaders and executive officers in charge of the worst practices of Elf Aquitaine, De Beers and Nestle et. al. should be diagnosed and either jailed or locked away in institutions pending results.

I also reject the notion that encouraging or accepting callous business practices abroad would benefit us. I think it is naive and stupid to think that businesses which ignore human suffering is going to contribute "back home", they'll at best do the minimum they can get away with while squirreling away the spoils. We're also rewarding behavior we do not want done to ourselves, a bad idea both for legislators and zoo-keepers.

Probably the most recent example of colonialism/imperialism is the USA supporting horrific right wing regimes in South America via drug crime on an epic scale.

This sounds like Congress also

While it is certainly tempting to use the term colonialism / imperialism about any kind of projection of power (and I have done so myself), especially unethical ones, I think it is important that we let it be its own thing. A better term for what you are describing is "client state" or "puppet state".

As for recent examples of actual colonies, there are colonies in the world today. The US holds 3; American Samoa, Guam and US Virgin Islands. UK and France are the other countries I know which has colonies.

I largely agree that sadly behaviour modification, can only slow, not stop, the coming disaster, as humans will not make the big changes necessary to stop and reverse the growing problems.

I also agree technology may be mankinds only real hope. And there is some hope. Food replication, from the molecular level up (Star Trek Food replicator) are in the early stages of producing meats with cloning and other sciences, that require no farmed animals. A break thru there to an acceptable taste product and mass production capabilities could see mankind end all animal farming. Heck even if the quality (taste and texture) is not up to par, simply due to sustenance value (if it meets all needs), and sky rocketing cost and value of arable land, many may be forced to shift.

Salt Water desalination can already be done at mass scale but the cost is extremely high. That cost may come down but it may not need to become economical. As fresh water thru the the US South and midwest (and in other countries) becomes increasingly sparse and heat continues to rise, many areas may just become unlivable without the impact of fresh water availability. It may create a market 'at any price'.

There are other areas and many more sci-fi type things that are speculated upon such as arrays of satellite mirrors in orbit to deflect back a significant percent of sunlight so it does not reach earth, and spraying certain aerosols into the atmosphere to trap sunlight, as well. These ones scare more, due to unintended consequences.

Re the US fresh water concerns as Lake Mead and the Colorado river threaten to run dry, I could foresee this becoming a real flash point for future conflict between Canada and the US if the US sees no other viable path to getting fresh water if certain hypotheticals play out.

the hypothetical is that as areas in Canada's vast North, CONTINUE to become unlocked from the permafrost and give access to massive amounts more of fertile, resource rich, arable lands that people are happy to live on and exploit. Canada is going to get wealthier and wealthier, while the US suffers and struggles with the changes. I have seen models showing Toronto and Montreal, being more like Florida in temperatures and climate, and the vast far North of Canada being more like Edmonton was 20 years. Very liveable for those willing to deal with real winters.

Canada will continue to be able to absorb, and will need, mass amounts of immigrants and migrants to settle and live on and work these lands, and similar to how the West was settled in the frontier days of the US, that will be one of the biggest impacts of the planet warming.

Consider this population density map of Canada, but imagine a change where people are now willing to fill in most of that white, non lived area as it is not prohibitively cold and wintery.

Understand that 50% of Canadians live South of Seattle, in a very narrow corridor abutting the US border.




Now look at this US map...





... and imagine instead it is so hot and devoid of water and arable land that as was the case in Canada's north (but due to cold and permafrost), that the South and MIdwest of the US is no longer inhabitable for the masses due to heat and drought and lack of arable land.

The US population cannot all just shift up towards the Canadian border (as the Canadians have done due to winter) and instead those citizens would have to seek mass migration to these new Canadian frontiers and to become Canadian.

You would see Canada, effectively becoming the US and the US effectively becoming Canada in terms of populace and GDP.

Would the US allow that while they still had the strength to take action instead to just find a reason to absorb Canada as the 51 State, like it or not and thus still rule via elections and superior numbers and to then allow direct migration with incentives for those who move to the new US frontier?



I know how much this forum loves to play with these type of doom type scenarios (not) but Water Wars are a topic of Think Tanks and academics around the world, including in Canada where i have listened to many podcasts discussions theorizing what the US might, or might not due, if things get unliveable for them? For those who hate such speculative talk and think only once a real threat presents should it be discussed, feel free to skip this post with my blessing.

As Canada looks at an expanding and resource rich North, it would be foolish for gov't to not be considering the increasing challenges on our neighbours to the South. A good gov't is game theorying all options out and trying to find ways to navigate them all, if they present.

Attributing all those laws to socialism is kind of asinine. Endemic corruption, famines (until the green revolution made its way to Africa), constant warfare (a lot of which traces back to colonial borders designed so the populace is diverse/divided as to prevent unified uprisings), a combination of civil law and lack of trained lawyers/civil servants to update civil law, unfavorable geography, and a whole lot of other reasons.

The technology that will save us is a highly automated production system distributed by AI algo.

People might have less stuff, but more time.

People talk about poverty but its perfectly possible to have a situation of less consumption but less scarcity, because people get what they need, not what they want.

One brand of shampoo for example.

Ultimately its a maths problem.

A system like this works much better if you take humans out of the decision loop as much as possible, which is why we need AI.

Probably dont even need AI if the algo is good enough, just enough flops to run it.

Agree that we only try and implement such after our present system has led us into the abyss.

Climate change is a good example of why such specualtive conversations ar so important. The conflcits and rise of extremism aren't considered enough by the population.

Another area that I ponder is tectonics, volcanoes etc. It's hard not to believe that rises in sea level dont risk some devastating destabilisation. Eartquakes seem obvious. Volcanoes less clear but with more potential for extreme catastrophie.

Agree with the alst line. There is no chance thatw ills ave us.

Ultimately though it's population. At every stage when we think we are improving sustainability etc what we are actually doing is supporting a larger population. Doesn't solve anything while the population grows faster than that imrovement. Sorry to bang the same old drum but like any species in any fishpond - we're going to need a much bigger pond.

Eh?

Population is very likely to be considerably less in 20 to 30 years time.

No chance at all unless it's as a result of catastophie.

I dont like to get nasty about it but I did raise an eyebrow at someone from extinction rebellion explaining why their actions were necessary to save the future for their five kids.

Rate of expansion has halved since 1970 and is at its lowest level since WW2.

Yes catastrophe, what do you think we are discussing?

Annual growth rate is only 1%, most of the highest growth rates are in countries that are going to get hit hardest by climate change.

Pestilence, famine, war, they are all locked in, and its not going to take much to tip 1% to a negative.

Oh okay. I though we were still holding out some hope of preventing or avoiding a catastrophie. I'd still take the over for 20-30 years by a long way. There's even a tiny chance I will still be alive

The proint remains that measure to make us more environmentally friendly wont save us from catastrophie because ithey're essentially measures for a bigger population.

I'd still go for the bigger pond. That should buy us a few years.

Oh? 1% of seven billion is seventy million. Do you see any catastrophe reducing the world population by that much in a single year in the near future? And that would only balance out the reproduction rate, not reduce the overall population.

The fact of the matter is that human beings are extremely adaptable and resilient and will survive, if not thrive, in conditions MUCH worse than most are experiencing right now. Maybe life will be miserable, but it'll go on. Most scientists think that we're several billion short of Earth's "maximum capacity," given existing technology.

So everyone will be living like Corbin Dallas in fifty years.

Reducing the growth rate is an absolutely different function to a simple quantitative reduction in population.

You mention the reproduction rate.

Growth rate is an outcome of two factors, how many die and how many are born.

If more people die, and we have seen some huge increases in expected deaths over the last few years and less people are born then the growth rate can turn negative.

There is also a functional relationship between existing people dying and less people being born.

Its nothing to do with a flat 70M people dying.

Plenty of countries already have a negative replacement rate of birth, UK for example has 1.7 PW when you need 2.1 to maintain population, the only reason population has increased in the UK is due to immigration.

If you look at the countries with the highest replacement rates, they are all countries that are going to get hit hardest by climate change.

Yes, but we're talking about "extra" deaths due to, as you put it, "catastrophe." You posit a set of conditions that would tip population growth to population loss. And I'm saying that that would take calamities, and multiple ones as that, each of which would dwarf anything we've seen so far in human history--wars, pandemics, Beanie Babies.

The key is that for all but a very small percentage of the world's population, their lives can be made considerably worse without killing them en masse. Prosperity can turn to poverty, poverty to privation, privation to starvation. But people don't start dropping like flies until they're at the end of that cycle. We have quite a ways to go yet before that happens.

Now, I'm not saying climate change won't have horrible effects. I just see it as handing out much more plain old misery than actual death in the near future.

You are ignoring completely the function of replacement rate and focusing purely on absolute deaths.

In 1992 population growth in USA was 1.4% in 2021 it was 0.1% (0.5% in 2018), that is an over all reduction of 1.3%, higher than the 1% reduction need to reverse global growth.

Have there been numerous catastrophes in the USA.

No.

There has been one pandemic, but just as importantly there has been a reduction in the replacement rate.

Lack of water, lack of food, wars, pandemics, these things dont just impact absolute deaths, they will have a huge impact on the replacement rate.

If the replacement rate falls low enough, then simple natural cause deaths will lower population and this is already happening in several countries. its happening in the UK which relies on immigration for population maintenance.