Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "Why will the WORLD DEPEND more and more on AFRICA? - VisualPolitik EN" video.

Well, and it fails to consider Africa's notorious reputation for Brushwars. A large and young population can either be a blessing or a curse. If there is no significant labor market for which that population can be put to work (nominally in a free market where employers compete for the labor), it WILL engage in strife and conflict. How many child soldiers have been created since the 1960s because they were readily available to the local warlord?
6
Or, it may result in warlordism much like during the famine in Somalia that led to a certain incident involving US Helicopters. The video authors blatantly ignore the history of brushwars that have plagued the continent.
4
@garyish Complete agreement. Case in point is Japan. Much of the country is mountainous and not useful for either farming or living. But what suitable land there is benefits from hyper-rich volcanic soils making the few crops they do produce domestically some of the most productive in the world.
3
I agree about ending the handouts that encourage and reward large families. As for the world population, we haven't even come close to what the planet is capable of sustaining. That hysteria about overpopulation has been going on since the 1890s. And much like Peak oil hysteria, it has never come to pass because the doomsayers ignore technological innovation that changes the equation.
2
Indeed. They blatantly ignore the history of brushwars. Odd considering that they have discussed them in previous videos, but not here.
1
@Farhan917 QUALITY is more important than Quantity with regards to supporting population. Japan's soils being volcanic in nature are VERY fertile. Can the same be said of areas of Africa? Something tells me the answer for most is no. There is a reason why the British Empire's Tea Plantations were in India rather than Africa.
1
@samanth. "Most fertile lands in the world"? I think you are sorely mistaken. It is a well-documented fact that volcanic soils are among the most productive rivaled only by the Chernozems of Ukraine and Russia. As for Rhodesia, I seriously doubt that they ever outperformed the Assam Tea plantations of India. Something tells me that those areas were growing cacao rather than tea.
1
@stephanledford9792 Agreed. I think we are on the same page, just coming at it from different directions.
1
You make a good point. The forecasts are seen through rose-colored glasses and ignores the issues that have plague the continent for decades. Hand-in-hand with the corruption is the proclivity for warlordism. The authors blatantly ignore the numerous brushwars that have plague the continent.
1
@haroldmorris5901 Wow, you are completely delusional. First, guns are not the problem. Man will kill with spears, axes, or bows just as easily with guns. If anything, guns make people more polite. And before you bloviate about gun deaths in the US, keep in mind most gun violence in the US occurs in areas where the population is forcibly disarmed. Second, Africa has always been ungovernable by outside forces and remains so. Thomas Sowell has great documentaries explaining why this is. Geography, geology, and topography is but one reason as to why. Your last paragraph is nothing more than word salad of fancy words you think you understand, but clearly don't. Most of them are completely unrelated to each other. Put down the sherry and stop engaging in hysterics.
1
@samanth. By "stable" do you mean the nearly continuous Brush Wars? I suppose consistently in conflict is a stability of sorts.
1
@samanth. No consistent war in Africa? Let me educate you. Pick an area of Africa. Any location. This list is hardly comprehensive. And all of them have cited sources confirming that they actually did happen. h t t p s :// en. wikipedia . org /wiki / List_of_conflicts_in_Africa PS, and calling me "Racist" for point them out only proves that you know I am correct and cannot win the merits of the debate. In effect by calling me racist you are admitting defeat.
1