Just in case the world didn't have enough people on it.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, while Africa is subject to regular famines, this has more to do with the lack of infrastructure, war, and imperialism than with Africa having too many people. Africa is actually quite scarcely populated, and has less than 600 million human beings last time I checked. Europe, a quite smaller place, has way more.

[Lorizael]

It has 922 million according to Wikipedia. Europe has 731 million.

Discounting that, while most of Africa isn't densely populated, there are a few countries that are very dense, such as Nigeria.

[rah]

I don't think population density comparisons are valid when discussing how many people the land should be able to support. As stated, how many people the land can support is dependent on infrastructure and resource availability.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Who are we to make these decisions for them? You can look at a poor family and cast judgement on them saying that they cannot support 10 kids, so it is better that 9 die just to appease your judgement?

IVF doesn't change the fact that this family has 10 kids.

Would it not be better to help them support their ten kids so that they grow up and become productive citizens?

Sure it would. Hell employment in on of these facilities would help slightly.

It may surprise you but Africa needs more people. They have far lower density then in Europe. They have an enormous wealth and riches there in Africa, they just need to go through the same process that we did in the industrial period. They need to go through the same demographic transition as we did, if we keep them from increasing their population, then we will consign them to remain where they are now.

Tribal warfare and intolerance consign them to remain where they are now, not us.

As for just being like us, the lowest death ratio from AIDS in sub saharan africa comes from Uganda, which has rejected western aid. Maybe we should stop imposing our ways on them, when their ways are better.

It's not necessarily true:

The scope of Uganda's success has come under scrutiny from new research. Research published in The Lancet medical journal in 2002 questions the dramatic decline reported. It is claimed statistics have been distorted through the inaccurate extrapolation of data from small urban clinics to the entire population, nearly 90 per cent of whom live in rural areas.[1] Also, recent trials of the HIV drug nevirapine have come under intense scrutiny and criticism.[2]

US-sponsored abstinence promotions have received recent criticism from observers for denying young people information about any method of HIV prevention other than sexual abstinence until marriage. Human Rights Watch says that such programmes "leave Uganda’s children at risk of HIV".[3] Alternatively, the Roman Catholic organization Human Life International says that "condoms are adding to the problem, not solving it" and that "The government of Uganda believes its people have the human capacity to change their risky behaviors."[4] People in Uganda are also being taught the ABCD's. A=Abstinence, B=Be Faithful, C=Condom use, or D=Death.

There have been calls for a more nuanced view of Uganda's response to HIV/AIDS. There is no doubt that there has been sustained, long term political commitment at the highest levels of government on this issue. Determining why this happened in stark contrast to the majority of Sub-Saharan Africa is the key question.

One argument is the drop in HIV/AIDS prevalence rates had more to do with the end of the civil war in 1985 than with any prevention efforts which happened subsequently. Nonetheless, there was an appearance that these efforts had been working. This helped create a virtuous cycle, whereby in was in the interest of politicians to talk about HIV/AIDS as this helped the prestige of the country and encouraged HIV/AIDS related aid money.

Notice the US response is what you would want, Ben, abstinence as the only method.

ACK!

[Kontiki]

To say that Africa needs more people to spur development is stupid in the extreme, but considering the source, it's not a surprising statement.