Topic: Why is Africa stuck in the stone age? (Read 11311 times)

The port city of Lagos, Nigeria, is almost as populous as New York State, and probably the largest city in Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos

List of cities proper by population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population.

Gun manufacturing is a profitable business, especially if all the common people of Africa who don't have guns buy them.

The people could be employed at the gun and munitions plants and earn good money. They could take guns home with them to protect their families from foreign invaders.

As skills among Africans increased, they might even get into the manufacture of nukes.

Right now, the country of South Africa is the only notable place in Africa where guns and armament are manufactured. If it spread throughout Africa, Africa could stand up and take its place in the modern world, just like South Africa has.

Of course, all the things associated with guns would have to be included in the package - gun safety training and gun laws and rights.

The problem with this whole idea might be the low mental IQ of much of Africa combined with their high emotional IQ. Africa just might be the place that a populace that had open carry might be constantly getting into gun battles with their neighbors over nothing... just for the fun of it.

You think the solution to poverty is guns? 

The other thought is that Africa is not stuck in any kind of stone age. It is simply that the media makes the rest of the world think that they are not.

Take a look at how poorly doctors and hospitals in the U.S. do at saving cancer patients. Sure, U.S. cancer patients get to die in luxury, but they still die.

If you want to see what is happening (or similar to it) in many places in Africa, watch the 2005 movie Sahara. Stuff like the pollution in Sahara isn't being widely reported. But it is happening. It wouldn't be surprising if an exact scenario like in the movie played out to destroy most life in the whole world.

Also, see one of the things that the people of Africa can do about their conditions: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-arizona-is-keeping-the-world-free-917252.

Low production cost will bring in new technologies and expansion if basic infrastructure and security are in place. If a country can not provide simple need and security for its own citizen, why would anyone invest in the country?

I would say that it is the general lack of current (and recent) colonialism in Africa that would contrubate to it's general lack of technology. When a country starts a colony it will generally bring in resources and it's new technology to it's colony in order for the colony to thrive and to succeed. Without many colonies in Africa it is not importing technology at a as high of a rate that it otherwise would be

Yes but it is not PC

but at least the people in Botswana are trying to change it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana

yet they have still problems to solve :

many people still live in barracks, unstable energy(STEAG shall fix it) and HIV

Face it, he just blew your mind.

Seriously though, it's on this principle that anarchy would succeed if everyone would just not be a turd. If people were not BUTTS to each other, we wouldn't NEED a government. Or Obama.

Countries that offer individual freedom that cannot be overcome by their governments are the countries that succeed. It is only where governments do not allow individual freedom, or where individual freedom is lost somehow, that failure creeps in.

Every country that makes it a crime when someone harms someone else, or damages his property, and allows freedom every other way, is a country that succeeds. This does not mean that there are no laws. It means that all the laws are strong warnings only. If an individual harms someone or damages his property in the face of the warnings about how to act in a right way, then, the country that punishes him according to his crime, that country will thrive. But they will thrive only if there are no other laws.

Freedom is what makes a nation or kingdom or land thrive. Lack of freedom turns the best of people away from prosperity.

According to that article, pretty much every place in the entire world has been a colony of some other place, usually at multiple points in time.

Colonialism is the rule, not the exception.  It seems racist to say that it's fundamentally different when white people do it to black people.

Unlike Africa, Taiwan and Israel have almost no natural resources (except for their people). 

European colonialists were certainly no fans of East Asians or Jews either.  And yet they thrive, despite their ancient and recent history as colonies...

Perhaps culture is a form of technology?

It wasn't just Africa. Asia was prone to colonization as well.
They have turned out pretty okay now.

When people or historians pointed colonialism as an excuse, they should ask why the continent is so prone to colonialism and not able to defend itself. The truth is obvious for non-politically corrected historians.

You are funny, but...

Scientists and archeologists observe all kinds of things. They take measurements. They calculate what happens when they use their measurements on this and that. Then they extrapolate their calculations towards things that they do not have real information for.

Recently, scientists and astronomers found a Star Trek style force field within the Van Allen radiation belts around the earth. Until March 2013, scientists assumed there were only two belts, filled with high-energy electrons and protons, surrounding Earth. However, a NASA-launched probe detected that there was a third belt in between the two.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/11/26/star-trek-invisible-shield-found-thousands-miles-above-earth
http://rt.com/news/210027-earth-shield-radiation-belt/
http://news.discovery.com/space/raise-shields-star-trek-like-barrier-protects-earth-141201.htm
http://www.business2community.com/space-science/scientists-discover-star-trek-style-shield-200-miles-earth-01082788

In other words, scientists overlooked something important until recently. Now they are reformulating some cosmology physics to match the new data. The point? We don't know much of anything by scientific observation. We may know loads of details. But on a scale of what there is to know, we know very little.

The larger point is, our interpretations of what we see are often far from the truth, simply because we missed some little, key element. So, how do we know what happened in the distant past? We interpret the age of the earth based on things that we see. Yet, like the above mentioned force field, we don't have a clue as to what we missed, at least not until we discover it.

The people of ancient Bible times wrote things that they observed, just like today's scientists. The fact that they didn't know everything was the same for them as for the scientists of today. The fact that they described things as they saw them is exactly the thing that modern scientists do. What Bible writers didn't do is assume that they knew more than what they saw.

The biggest point? Why do we often believe our modern scientists who are proving themselves wrong all the time, and we don't at least consider the ancient Bible writers who, though they may not have been corroborated by modern scientists, have not been proven wrong?

We are the people. We are so arrogant, like we know it all. Yet we constantly find that we know so little. When are we going to wake up and look at reality, and let ourselves know that we don't really know very much of anything?

I agree with you on that.

We may differ in our interpretation of the phrase "biblical age" though.

For example, I define it as horseshit.

Good life in japan, must be the diet and a rich smart country also.  Karpeles might bring the average down a little if he was fraudulent

List of countries by life expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy.

They're kind of trying just not to die from
*worms
*malaria
*ebola
*billions of other diseases

You got it.  And my ancestors, the great Nations of Native Americans, traveled across a land bridge through the Aleutian Islands, from Alaska, then to populate Russia and China. 

Expect brutal slavery in places in African like Algeria, Mali, Mauritania, Southern Morocco, Niger, Western Sahara (now considered to be part of Morocco), and others. Even South Africa treats some of its black people like slaves.

TED-ed: The Atlantic slave trade - What too few textbooks told you by Anthony Hazard @youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NXC4Q_4JVg