Moderator: Peak Moderation
Actually, you said something quite different.UndercoverElephant wrote: In other words, although people do not have the same abilities, they do have the same rights. That is all I have suggested in this thread, and it attracted an accusation of racism, which it isn't.
Castle Square. Come and dance drum and sing to raise money for Africa Famine Relief. 10.30 am to 12.30pm. Bring musical instruments
What did I say that was quite different?biffvernon wrote:Actually, you said something quite different.UndercoverElephant wrote: In other words, although people do not have the same abilities, they do have the same rights. That is all I have suggested in this thread, and it attracted an accusation of racism, which it isn't.
You have just accused me of racism by my own standards, but did not explain where. You are now claiming you will not identify the crime, because you don't want to repeat the comment, and are asking me to move on????biffvernon wrote:No I don't want to repeat the offensive comment. Move on.
Agreed.London is more densely populated than anywhere in the Horn of Africa. It feeds itself by the trade arrangements that have been built up over many generations. Many of these arrangements are exploitative and unfair. Londoners, generally, have a vastly greater detrimental impact on the planet's biosphere, the easiest metric being carbon footprint.
Why?If you really want to reduce the impact of humans on the planet then perhaps you might suggest diverting food from London to Somalia.
Is it OK for Spanish people to eat British fish?Perhaps the least we should do is insist that Londoners do not eat African fish but instead allow Africans to eat it.
Londoners have the lowest CO2 footprint in the UK, as it happens: http://www.climatechangewales.org.uk/public/?id=112.biffvernon wrote:No I don't want to repeat the offensive comment. Move on.
London is more densely populated than anywhere in the Horn of Africa. It feeds itself by the trade arrangements that have been built up over many generations. Many of these arrangements are exploitative and unfair. Londoners, generally, have a vastly greater detrimental impact on the planet's biosphere, the easiest metric being carbon footprint.
If you really want to reduce the impact of humans on the planet then perhaps you might suggest diverting food from London to Somalia.
Perhaps the least we should do is insist that Londoners do not eat African fish but instead allow Africans to eat it.
NATO intervened.Ludwig wrote:That, if you don't mind me saying, is a disingenuous comment. The Balkans in the 1990s were a hellhole, quite comparable with the most strife-ridden parts of Africa (Rwanda and Burundi excepted). I don't remember the details of how the Balkan conflict was resolvedUndercoverElephant wrote:
What point are you trying to make? No, I can't imagine this, because it doesn't fit into history. And I'm really not sure why the location of the borders in sub-Saharan Africa are all that relevant. Are you suggesting that if, say, Zimbabwe was a bit bigger or a bit smaller then it wouldn't be a basket-case?
Borders cause problems all over the place - just look at the balkans. But for all the wars fought over those borders, the balkans aren't an African-style basket-case.
Serbia lost, because NATO intervened., but I think it was more due to a simple stalemate than a triumph of civilised values.
Agreed.Of course, once peace returned, the Balkans could tap back into the overarching European culture that they'd been part of historically, an option not open to African countries.
What do you think about the stuff I've posted about the "silent revolution" that nobody has so far commented on?There are other parts of the world where tribal warfare is endemic, but it doesn't get reported on because it happens below the level of politics. New Guinea and parts of South America are cases in point. So it's not, as you seem to be making out, a particularly "black" problem.
I agree with you that the issue of racial differences is a valid one to consider, but I am further than you from forming conclusions about it, and I feel your assessment is far too one-sided.
Yes, I was just giving the good folk of Chipping Norton a breakRogueMale wrote: Londoners have the lowest CO2 footprint in the UK, as it happens: http://www.climatechangewales.org.uk/public/?id=112.
You are on the right track there. A suburbanite can spend a third of their income on cars and the fuel to run them. ( 20K * .55 /mile =$11,000)biffvernon wrote:Yes, I was just giving the good folk of Chipping Norton a breakRogueMale wrote: Londoners have the lowest CO2 footprint in the UK, as it happens: http://www.climatechangewales.org.uk/public/?id=112.
But's it's an interesting observation that, other things being equal, people in cities tend to have lower carbon footprints. Probably a lot to do with proximity and less need for transport, plus smaller houses, more people per house etc.
I wouldn't wave that about with too much gusto if I was you. The figures for the SE, for instance, include all transport emissions from Dover, Southampton, Portsmouth, Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted and the whole of the M25. To express that lot per capita of the residents is hardly going to produce valid data is it?RogueMale wrote:Londoners have the lowest CO2 footprint in the UK, as it happens: http://www.climatechangewales.org.uk/public/?id=112.
But in other respects the lack of rationality and recourse to superstition when times are hard unites humanity:Dozens of counties have been designated natural disaster areas and will get some form of federal help.
The forecast seems dire. With no relief on the horizon, the governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, has asked Oklahomans to set aside a little time on Sunday to pray for rain from a higher power.
More at http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/j ... n-parcticeHelen de Jode wrote:Underneath the high visibility famine lies an age-old and sustainable way of living that has been disrupted by a modern world system, and whose ability to adapt to the cycle of drought has been severely undermined.
An estimated 20 million people live in the dryland areas of the Horn of Africa; nomads, or pastoralists, who own livestock and feed themselves, their communities and the regional economy with milk, meat and other livestock products. Pastoralists have lived in the harsh and erratic dryland environments of the Horn for centuries, surviving its regular and repeated cycle of droughts through their unique production strategy that depends on mobility.
While a farmer waits for the rain to arrive, a pastoralist moves to where the rain has already been – feeding their camels, cows, sheep or goats on the new grazing opportunities and accessing the water sources. Complex social systems that cross national borders, and the reserving of key areas of land for drought periods, have traditionally ensured that pastoralists have adapted to the extreme climatic variability they face.
But in recent decades vast areas of the pastoralist land in the Horn of Africa have been taken over by agriculture and large-scale commercial farms – often in the key strategic riverine areas previously reserved for times of drought. This has undermined the whole system and reduced yields of milk and meat.
When livestock are forced to stay in the same place, they also become more susceptible to disease. With the loss of so much of their grazing areas many pastoralists now prefer to herd camels, which can survive on the remaining degraded habitats, need less frequent watering and can also feed at night when it is cooler. The conflict and insecurity of the region further restricts livestock mobility and affects the long-distance livestock trade, particularly from Somalia.
Zambia, Nigerian and Romanian gave effectively the same answer.UndercoverElephant wrote:Was life under white colonial rule better or worse than it is now under self-rule by blacks? Romania is in a different category, I think.
Undoubtedly. Money and material posessions are the new gods.2 As and a B wrote:Zambia, Nigerian and Romanian gave effectively the same answer.UndercoverElephant wrote:Was life under white colonial rule better or worse than it is now under self-rule by blacks? Romania is in a different category, I think.
Then: less freedom of movement (and thought and choice in Romania)
Now: economy bad, too much personal greed
BUT, this is an experiment without a control. Might this not, generally, just be the way the world is going?
This is not, at its root, an issue of weather. It is an issue of justice and politics and this drought has only come on top of a deeper crisis of poverty and marginalisation.
Pastoralists in particular in the region talk of having been made more vulnerable to drought because competition for land has forced them from grazing areas relied on through dry seasons. Smallholder food producers too are not invested in. For the Somali population this drought comes on the back of decade of conflict, no real government, and being denied access to humanitarian organisations. Finally, the lack of food has been coupled with soaring food prices which mean that even available food is effectively restricted to those who can afford it.
Things could have been done to invest in these people so that their lives were not so destroyed by the drought. Pastoralist and agricultural land rights must be resolved, small-scale food producers invested in, and an awareness of the growing need to respond to changing seasons and climate must be built in to all policies. Food prices must be addressed nationally, regionally, and on a global scale.
Very interesting article about the grim fate of Africa going into the next three decades.This article examines the interaction of a variety of influences on the African food supply over the next three decades. The influences include climate change, rising oil and fertilizer prices, HIV/AIDS, rising population, falling GDP, food import and distribution requirements and global food price inflation. The article then looks at what the growing constraints on fuel, food and finance might mean for the population of the African continent over the coming years.