Bill Gates' Donation of Thousands of Chickens Rejected by Bolivia (theverge.com) 317
HughPickens.com shares an article from The Verge: Bill Gates' philanthropic efforts are usually greeted with near-universal praise, but a recent attempt by the US billionaire to donate 100,000 chickens ruffled some feathers. The leftist government of Bolivia...has refused the donation, describing Gates' gift as "offensive." "He does not know Bolivia's reality to think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce," said Cesar Cocarico [Bolivia's minister of land and rural development]... "Respectfully, he should stop talking about Bolivia, and once he knows more, apologize to us."
Gates' "Coop Dreams" initiative partnered with Heifer International, a group which fights poverty by delivering livestock and agricultural training, to deliver 100,000 chickens around the world, mostly to sub-Saharan Africa, as a way to improve the lives of people making $2 a day. In a blog post Gates noted that chickens are cheap and easy to take care, while selling flocks of chickens can be a profitable business, and raising chickens offers other benefits to children and families. "Our foundation is betting on chickens..." Gates writes, adding "if I were in their shoes, that's what I would do -- I would raise chickens."
Gates' "Coop Dreams" initiative partnered with Heifer International, a group which fights poverty by delivering livestock and agricultural training, to deliver 100,000 chickens around the world, mostly to sub-Saharan Africa, as a way to improve the lives of people making $2 a day. In a blog post Gates noted that chickens are cheap and easy to take care, while selling flocks of chickens can be a profitable business, and raising chickens offers other benefits to children and families. "Our foundation is betting on chickens..." Gates writes, adding "if I were in their shoes, that's what I would do -- I would raise chickens."
Here we come to save the day (Score:2, Interesting)
Happened in Africa with food aid. What do you think the effect on an agrarian economy would be if you came in and flooded the market with free food?
Re:Here we come to save the day (Score:5, Informative)
What do you think the effect on an agrarian economy would be if you came in and flooded the market with free food?
This would not "flood the market". 100,000 chickens is less than 0.1% of Bolivia's annual chicken production, and only a small portion of the 100K chickens would go to Bolivia. Most are going to Africa. Anyway, this is not about "more chickens", it is about chicken redistribution. It is not like crates of chickens are going to flown from America. The chickens will be purchased locally and given to a handful of the poorest families. The reason that BG is doing this is because there is actual data that shows it this program has helped similar families in the past.
Re:Here we come to save the day (Score:5, Funny)
640,000 chickens should be enough for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be 640KB(irds) should be enough for anyone?
Although there are some doubts if he really ever said that
Two credible witnesses have said that he did, although he didn't mean it as a blanket statement forever and ever amen, just for DOS. His claim to the contrary is not credible, since he says stupid shit all the time and he's infamous for his arrogance.
Re: (Score:2)
Which two credible witnesses would that be?
Honestly I don't care if people drag Bill Gate's name through the mud, but I hate when people spread big lies about shit even more.
Re: (Score:3)
It is evident he did't believe it (given well documented development from MS supported by Gates) so any statement otherwise could only be a joke or an outright lie.
Here's some facts: MSDOS wasn't limited to 640kiB memory, some MSDOS systems shipped with much more memory and the OS had no problem supporting that. What was limited to 640kiB (actually not - but practically) was the early IBM PC systems and that was entirely due to design choices. So it was fully compatible IBM PC clones that had a limitation,
Re:Here we come to save the day (Score:5, Informative)
The primary consequence of flooding a market with a product is temporary, the secondary consequence is the destruction of the market for the local producers, thereby putting them out of business.
This is why China's public subsidising of their exports is pissing off other countries. This is one of the reasons why Uber is causing such controversy.
The difference here is that the foundation isn't importing the product, but buying them locally & redistributing, thereby both supporting the local market & growing it by helping other's setup shop.
Trending now... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Informative)
Bolivia already produces 115 million chickens a year. The country is not first world by any measure, but people are not starving to death on the streets either.
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Misguided and ill-informed on the part of BG or his advisors, sure - but well-intentioned, and the response was a bit ungracious. Perhaps something along the lines of "Thanks, but we don't really need them. Please send the chickens to country x, and we'd rather have some solar panels or well pumps, or how about some internet infrastructure for our schools?"
That's probably a different scale of funding, but BG has $$$ to spare.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's probably a different scale of funding, but BG has $$$ to spare.
True, but Bill Gates has been trying to apply his business principles to his philanthropy. Okay, maybe not the best way to put it, but to put it roughly, he's been trying to utilize his time to determine where putting his money will be the most effective. Basically, he's a venture capitalist donator. Give him a good enough pitch and business plan and get money.
Given the number of positive things I've heard about his donations, I figure that this is one of his rare screwups. Or, more accurately, it's a s
Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's Bolivia not Venezuela, you ignorant american!
Also, those were probably GMO chickens he was trying to donate. Third world people usually don't take kindly to them.
Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Funny)
The chickens don't just have GMOs but come with a "free" copy of Windows 10, which they also rejected.
Re: (Score:2)
Genetically modified chickens? Seriously? Speaking of ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
...those were probably GMO chickens he was trying to donate. Third world people usually don't take kindly to them.
You mean those whose first exposure to Westerners has been hippie activists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current chicken farmers probably don't want an outsider to come in and 'crash' their market by widely distributing breeding stock to the entire populace. That would be a game changer if it gave the whole population a respite in the form of enough chickens to start breeding them on their own, instead of only having enough of them to eat.
Just my conjecture, not anything known for certain.
But the President of Bolivia is just being a politician and grandstanding against the Big Bad Westerner.
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, because apparently people were confused.
I know this took place in Bolivia, but I'm using Venezuela as an example of where officials are willing to cut their own country's throat to save some face.
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this took place in Bolivia, but I'm using Venezuela as an example of where officials are willing to cut their own country's throat to save some face.
Bolivia is another country where appearances matter more than reality to the government. Bolivia as a whole is not as poor as many countries in Africa, but there are still some very poor people who would benefit from this gift. Instead of refusing it out of pride, maybe Morales should let the individual families decide for themselves.
Disclaimer: I am a non-poor American, and I have chickens (six leghorn laying hens). Chickens are very easy to care for, and mine live mostly on table scraps, garden waste, and bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing... Do you think anyone n that country that would have been a recipient of a chicken would have refused them? If so, the Government did not act in the best interests of those people. If they were the majority, you could seriously claim that the Government was not acting in the best interests of its people (it total).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are ignorant as **. If they produce 150 million chickens a year as claimed, even the poorest of them should be able to spare a few cents, buy a few chicks and raise them at home if thats what they want.
The reason they don't do it already is because like in most countries, the population is mostly urban and raising chickens in cities is an unsanitary hell and a huge health hazard. Don't just believe my words, get a dozen of chicks and try raising them in your house and give us your thoughts after a year.
Re: (Score:3)
They are cleaner and easier to care for than my dogs.
I have chickens. They are cleaner than dogs. But in some ways they are harder, and in other ways easier to raise. If I forget to feed my dog, or her water dish is empty, she will come and let me know. With chickens, I have to remember. But you don't have to walk a chicken, and they will scrounge and scratch for some of their food. Also, dogs don't lay eggs. My daughter had parakeets for several years, and the chickens are definitely less trouble than those.
Re: (Score:3)
Disclaimer: I am a non-poor American, and I have chickens (six leghorn laying hens). Chickens are very easy to care for, and mine live mostly on table scraps, garden waste, and bugs.
This is interesting to me. I've been considering getting some chickens, but other family members who have them say they're actually quite expensive to feed, and argue that the resulting eggs, while good, are far more expensive than those from the grocery store. What's your take?
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is interesting to me. I've been considering getting some chickens, but other family members who have them say they're actually quite expensive to feed, and argue that the resulting eggs, while good, are far more expensive than those from the grocery store. What's your take?
You are NOT going to save money unless you consider your time to be worthless. You can't compete with factory farms. You should just think of it as more of a hobby. Here are some benefits:
1. You will have fresh eggs everyday. More in the summer but a few even in the winter. Roughly 300 eggs/year/hen.
2. Your kids will learn that food doesn't come from factories, and they will learn responsibility.
3. You will know that your eggs came from humanely treated chickens, and not from a warehouse of hens crammed into battery cages. Go visit a factory farm. The stench alone will make you never want to eat store-bought eggs again.
4. They will eat almost anything, including watermelon rinds, apple cores, carrot peels, etc. and convert all of that into protein nodules. You will still need to supplement that with some commercial feed.
5. The eggs taste much better, especially if they have access to a lot of insects and worms. I use a pitchfork to turn over part of the compost heap so they can get to the wrigglers.
6. When the zombie apocalypse comes you can feed the human corpses to your chickens, or if you prefer, you can let the bodies decompose and feed the maggots to your hens. You will survive while others starve.
Re: (Score:3)
Chickens are modern dinosaurs and will gladly eat meat.
We have a few sturdy wooden boxes into which we regularly throw animal carcasses. The bodies are mostly scavenged from the road-side, others from shooting.
After a half week the body is crawling with maggots. We tip the whole lot out into the chicken coop. The little bastards go crazy for the wrigglers, but what may be surprising to many is that after a few days the bones will be stripped clean: the chickens happily eat the lot.
Very good for the chickens
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the number of positive things I've heard about his donations,
That's odd, everything I've heard about his donations has been negative. When he gives health care, it's to strengthen big pharma. You can't get it unless your nation agrees to give strong IP protection to them. When he gives education, it's to create more IT professionals, but it doesn't really improve general education, and usually it actually harms it by drawing attention (and funding) away from initiatives which are actually meaningful. So what positive things have you been hearing about the donations of the Gates foundation?
Re: (Score:2)
Though I'm totally not a Microsoft fan, this is pure bunk. There is general agreement that Gates runs the best of all the Silicon Valley philanthropy campaigns. I'm sure the antivax conspiratariat isn't pleased, though.
Re: (Score:2)
From what i've read about the Gates foundation i'd argue the same. Think what you want about Microsoft, the guy seems really committed to make the world a better place. I just believe his efforts in Bolivia are misinformed, to say the least.
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's odd, everything I've heard about his donations has been negative.
That's called confirmation bias. You hate him, so you only seek, find, remember, and pass along information that allows you to feel good about that position. Maybe you should check with someone who doesn't have malaria, but otherwise would. Or someone in a developing country that has unprecedented education opportunities they'd otherwise have missed out on. They'd question your priorities. Ask someone in Cameroon, who literally went from rural village life to being a well paid consultant in a rapidly growing tech-centric urban economy if they'd rather the Gates Foundation had closed up shop. I know, you think it's either apocryphal, or that whatever strings are attached are too onerous. Having had just such a formerly impoverished rural boy from Cameroon move in as the young man next door, and watch him, over the course of just a few years, buy three houses in the neighborhood for his extended family (the children of which rotate through schools in Europe and trips back to Africa to further broaden their horizons), I think your smug disdain for the Gates Foundation is a bit of Shakespearean protesting too much. What's the problem, really? Just frustrated that it's not the Clinton Foundation that my Cameroonian friend praises for wildly improving the lives of nearly everyone in his large family?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should check in with someone who dies because he can't afford medication, because Bill Gates conditioned his aid on IP protections for drugs.
It's not as if there are people dying on only one side of the comparison here. The negative aspects of Gates' donations result in people dying who are every bit as real as the people with malaria.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should check in with someone who dies because he can't afford medication, because Bill Gates conditioned his aid on IP protections for drugs.
Maybe you should consider the people who don't die because the drugs exist in the first place, which in most cases wouldn't happen without the private sector spending billions on the highly regulated, generally money-losing, years-long process of putting new drugs into the hands of doctors. I know, you think that all of the companies that spend that money should do it as a donation, and they should instead earn money selling t-shirts at their bar performances, just like musicians who shouldn't be allowed t
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's nice. So what about the money they spend on advertising and marketing?
What about it? Do you own a business, or work for one? Have you considered how well you'd fare if nobody was allowed to promote your business or try to find new customers, or remind people why your product or service is a good alternative to something else? Do you understand that private companies have to actually generate revenue or they can't do anything, because they'll be bankrupt?
Actually, Medicare is a financing program that pays private providers, not a health care provider itself.
Except in order to use that financing program, you have to find doctors and facilities that are willing (usually at a financial loss) to conduct their operations and even their patient-by-patient, case-by-case decision making and prioritization according to Medicare's rules. That generally results in doctors losing money, which brings us to...
However, in terms of overhead, it's quite as good as any number of private providers of insurance and better than many.
No, it's not. It's rife with fraud and waste. Hundreds of billions of dollars' worth.
But the VA? For all the complaints about it, it has high satisfaction rates when it comes to care
Once you GET care. Or IF you get care.
IOW, good stewardship of your tax dollars. Do you want to change that?
Good stewardship of my tax dollars would have seen at least ONE person lose their job over the truly terrible conditions and processes exposed year after year as third parties and the VA itself review how awfully run the agency is. Vets waiting months and years to be seen. Do you understand that?
It's more cost effective to get Bill Gates to stop.
Yeah, better to just let all of that medical care and education grind to a halt. You hate him so much you'd rather see other people suffer than see them enjoy a shred of improvement through the billions of dollars his foundation spends on helping people. If the goal is to express your hatred, then yes, it might indeed be more efficient to let a lot of people die or go without education just to give you the satisfaction of shutting him down. In the meantime, why aren't YOU providing health care and education through your own foundation? Be specific.
Re: (Score:3)
When you find yourself defending the VA, it's time to stop talking. Seriously.
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. I've spent a lot of time in the poorest Latin American countries (Guatemala, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia), and if there's one thing the region has in abundance, it's fucking chickens. The things are everywhere. Offering chickens demonstrates an utter lack of any kind understanding of the region. It would not be so bad, except that the countries are also full of holier than thou aid workers who cruise around in land rovers and try to tell farmers how to farm... except the aid workers aren't farmers and don't know how to farm, especially given local climates.
If you ask Bolivians, they'll tell you the first thing they need is transpotation infrastructure so that they can trade these scads of chickens they have. Spend some time there and you'll see they're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I know every Hollywood movie I see that portrays one of those countries always shows a bunch of chickens running around in the poor areas. I haven't been there so i don't know myself.
But I do know that transportation infrastructure is generally the realm of government and not foreigners taking pity on the people subject to those governments. So why don't the government accept the chickens, run a state chicken farm using prison labor and resell the chickens to foreign countries for profit that goes to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because there's really no chicken fertility crisis, so if they'd wanted 100,000 more chickens they'd have bred them already.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Insightful)
These countries need to develop their own economy first.That's why UN assistance for developing nations [undp.org] focuses on building infrastructure, increasing the number of citizens participating in the economy (education and gender equality), figuring out ways to exploit natural resources, facilitating trade and economic development, and helping set up government programs to help support all these things. Once you get the economic ball rolling, they can grow their own food, clean their own water, build their own hospitals. These things are the result of development. Giving people the end product instead of the means to produce the end product is exactly what the aphorism "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life" tells us not to do.
Re: (Score:3)
So, then, buying some chickens from local farmers and giving them to some poorer folks, so that they can participate in the economy themselves, that would be good, right? This isn't about handing out Chicken McNuggets, it's about letting a few new families become chicken farmers.
There are plenty of aid organizations focused on the exact things you describe: education in skills directly useful in the community, making it safe for girls to go to school, helping people get a small capital stake to move beyond
Re: (Score:2)
except the aid workers aren't farmers and don't know how to farm, especially given local climates
Yeah, the local habit of chopping down all the rain forest for one-shot, poor use of the acreage for farming - that's a sure sign that native farming instincts are wildly superior to the methods used in more advanced economies, where far, far more food is produced per acre, with far less energy used.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the biggest problem in rainforest removal today is lumbering, cattle-ranching, and export agriculture.
Right. All agricultural activities, and poorly planned and executed. That's exactly the point. Moving away from subsistence agriculture to more viable, productive, commercial-grade agriculture DOES benefit from the expertise of people who come from places where it's done well and very efficiently. Unlike the way it's practiced in places where those poor decisions are made.
Second, actually, the methods used in the west require a lot of energy inputs, like fertilizer and mechanization, or even just pumping water from place to place.
Yup, a lot of energy. Just a lot LESS energy than poorly executed, stone-age carve-into-the-jungle agriculture that barely feeds the pe
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask Bolivians, they'll tell you the first thing they need is transpotation infrastructure...
So what's your plan, give money to the government so 95% of it can be absorbed by corruption? No. Chickens is where it's at.
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Funny)
Outside the cities, much of the country is dirt poor. If the government will not allow aid distribution, Gates should do a covert air-drop to impoverished villages.
However, to reduce the environmental risks of yet another introduced species escaping and going feral, a native American fowl could be dropped instead. I suggest turkeys.
Re: (Score:2)
Chickens can go feral, but only under ideal conditions. Natural selection takes care of them otherwise: They are too domesticated. There's a lot of them on Kauai, but only because the island has almost no predators. Just think of the energy cost of laying an egg on most days - domestic birds have been bred to do that, no wild bird does. Besides, chickens have already been farmed for a very long time in all parts of the world - I'm sure a few have already escaped.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a lot of them on Kauai, but only because the island has almost no predators.
The Polynesians brought chickens to Hawaii, and all of the islands used to have feral chickens. But introduced mongooses wiped them out on all the other major islands. Kauai has no mongooses, so they survive there. Mongooses cannot kill an adult chicken, but they eat the eggs and young.
Just think of the energy cost of laying an egg on most days.
Feral chickens quickly revert to laying far fewer eggs. The feral chickens on Kauai only lay a few clutches per year, when they are ready to brood.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you Les Nessman :-)
As God as my witness, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He would have been better donating them to Venezuela, with the on-going problems and food riots it might have helped a bit. There's also the possibility that it would have simply intensified the problem.
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maduro would have just claimed it was another gringo plot to unstablize his workers paradise. Then he'll claim anyone accepting one of these Yankee chickens would be investigated for terrorist leanings.
Venezuela is best left to the Venezuelans. I think of it as a drug addict, it must hit rock bottom before it will accept any sort change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:2)
Clueless rich white guy doesn't know that Bolivia has chickens.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, i'm sure that the donation of 100,000 chickens will ease that issue...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, that sounded extremely patronizing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Again: Bolivia is far from a promised land, but things there are MUCH better than most other places in the world. Their death by malnutrition rates are well below most of Africa, for example: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/ [worldlifeexpectancy.com].
My point is, in a country which already produces 300,000 chickens per day, offering 100,000 to fight hunger is a bit insulting.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is, in a country which already produces 300,000 chickens per day, offering 100,000 to fight hunger is a bit insulting.
That depends on who would be receiving them. The country I live in has McDonalds. Clearly that means there's no poverty and any work done to help the poor is an insult.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The point is: if you're offering aid it should at least be appropriate. Bolivia has many many problems, but raising chickens is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
So what, aid organizations should only help the most needy country?
The poorest countries tend to be corrupt and mismanaged, so most aid is stolen or ineffective. Aid is more effective when it goes to poor people in not-so-poor countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Keeping our citizens at the brink of starvation is how we maintain power. Increasing access to food weakens our political position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Translation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what about? [worldhunger.org]
Poverty in rich countries is not comparable to poverty in poor countries. The root causes are totally different. Poverty in poor countries is mostly caused by government mismanagement, and lack of opportunities. Poor people in rich countries are surrounded by an ocean of opportunity, but fail to take advantage of it, often because of substance abuse, mental illness, or simply bad health. Those are much harder problems to fix.
Re: Translation (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "simply bad health", and the rest of your comment is also bullshit.
Rich countries usually have much better and more accessible medicare than the US.
Maybe Bolivia should donate some chickens for the needy in the US and see whether they get accepted in the ocean of opportunity.
Customs! (Score:3)
Well, I'm sure they really would have taken them, but the customs paperwork is just SO unpleasant, you know? And there is the matter of the 17% import duty on livestock, and there needs to be proof that someone will feed and house the chickens so that they don't become a burden on society. We can't have foreign chickens just coming into the country whenever they want.
Re:Customs! (Score:5, Funny)
We can't have foreign chickens just coming into the country whenever they want.
Aren't chickens on the "no fly" list already anyway . . . ?
Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Almost 20% of Bolivia is malnourished... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a lot less baffling if you understand that the prideful people in power who are refusing the gifts are not the same folks that are going hungry.
Insightful? (Score:2)
Bolivia has plenty of chickens. This is a tiny amount for them; furthermore, just about anybody can afford to buy some chicks and start on their own. If he wanted to help the poor with chickens he'd provide education on raising them and maybe some chicken feed... It's incredibly ignorant to think that giving any group of people on earth free chickens is going to greatly benefit them.
Next we'll hear about Gates giving poor Hindus cows or drilling water wells in the Amazon or providing winter coats to north
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Read a bit about Evo Morales. That will make it easier to understand.
That said, offering a measly 100,000 chickens to fight hunger in Bolivia is naive at best. The country already produces over 300,000 per day.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea isn't for the chickens to be eaten, it's to bootstrap a chicken farm for the person in their local area. So you'd probably get 10 hens and 2 cocks and some training on how to feed and farm them for meat, how to get the hens fertilized and laying, then how to hatch and raise the chicks. It's an attempt to get a self-sufficient cycle going. How good an idea or how feasible it might be is left to your discernment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The problem here is that the cycle is already going. Bolivia has many problems, but lack of chickens isn't one of them. Every Bolivian can, in principle afford to buy some live chickens and start breeding, there's a chicken surplus, and chicken-based dishes are really popular in Bolivia. The trouble stems for the fact that the same surplus makes for low margins, lack of good infrastructure hampers trade in some areas, and a measly 100k chickens isn't going to do very much. The number is dwarfed by the total
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to re-read the summary. These 100,000 chickens were going to be delivered by Heiffer International, which has a track record going back to WWII of delivering livestock to the desperately poor in third world countries. Having worked with a different charity that works wi
the old chicken or egg conundrum? (Score:2)
The leftist government of Bolivia, "He [Bill Gates] does not know Bolivia's reality to think we are living 500 years ago, in the middle of the jungle not knowing how to produce..."
Silly Bill Gates, maybe he should give them 100,000 fertilized eggs instead?
We live in a wealthy world. So wealthy. (Score:3)
That complaint seriously misses the point. Let me tell you why: African farmers don't need to farm. They need to do something that pays for what they need. Any work will do, really. As long as an unskilled person can do it. So there are three possibilities here: Industrialization is impossible for African nations (so there can't be other work) OR there isn't enough investment to drive industry (so the farmers can't get other work) OR technological unemployment now makes unskilled work insufficiently profitable to support a person.
Now African farmers are already doing something otherwise (effectively entirely) done by machine in first world countries. A farm in Europe requires far, far less human labor. A European farmer's job is more in the line of managing machines, scheduling planting, organizing finances, and so forth. You won't see him on his knees weeding a patch of land. You won't see him with a scythe in his hand at harvest time. You won't even see him helping a pig give birth or tending a sick cow* An EU farm averages "...an average size of 16.1 hectares per agricultural holding. [europa.eu] An average EU farm has less than one person see here. [europa.eu] 12 million farms, 10 million farmers.
If the above theory about farmers going out of work is to be believed then it's impossible for farming to make up a significant percentage of employment. Otherwise the complaint would be invalid. So the farming singularity has not arrived in Africa. I'm going to beg the question that a strong industrial economy and a service economy also haven't, I think it's obvious. This leaves the third possible support for The Theory completely without support. In Africa unskilled labor can still pay what passes for a living wage. On to the first possibility.
The statistics here [africaneco...utlook.org] tell us that Africa has averaged a 3 to 6 percent increase in GDP for the last decade. This is despite AIDS, Malaria, pants-on-head retarded or just evil actions by African politicians, revolutionary wars, and otherwise being the unwashed asshole of the world. More to the point, this increase represents industrialization. For evidence see this [africantra...mation.org] economic diversification report.
It may not be enough [un.org] yet, or even certain [uneca.org] but it is happening.
Going back to africaneconomicoutlook.org [africaneco...utlook.org] if we look at table 10, foreign direct investment we see that the middle objection to food exports to Africa is quite strong. Africa has averaged 51 billion dollars per year of direct foreign investment. For a whole continent that's shockingly small. As shown by continual growth through massive problems... problems that are going away one by one, Africa is at the cusp of a new era. All that needs to be done is entice a rational amount of foreign investment (say, 400 billion dollars per year) by parties interested in money, not power (actual economic investment, not strings-attached economic manipulation) and it will industrialize at a clip only seen so far in China's rise to power.
If that happens:
1. The Theory's complaint will be rendered moot very quickly by African farmers reaching par for productivity.
2. Food can be freely given on the basis that the vast majority of
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of resource wealth Africa by all rights should be one of the most powerful continents on the planet, its economic output should be putting the US to shame the way the US currently puts most smaller African nations to shame.
The problem is it's also been brutally colonized and had its economy, environment, and even borders completely fucked up by that. Africa's not going to get unfucked until a few more border rearrangements happen and the lines on the map actually line up with ethnic/tribal boundari
Re: (Score:2)
If the blame is colonization, then how do you account for the many African countries which were worse off before becoming a colony, better off while they were colonies and suddenly took a massive turn for the worse after they gained independence?
Wouldn't that indicate colonization was a positive benefit to those countries, not the cause of all their problems? Or are you one of those people who don't let facts get in the way of your professor's ideology?
BTW, the United States and Canada were both colonies fo
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to make an opposing case.
Africa land is poor, because it didn't have glaciers crushing and moving the land etc. fertilizing it dozens of times. Lush forests are amazing but sustain on thin humus on top of worthless soil.
Huge stretches are water poor.
It's huge, like twice it looks like due to Mercator projection bias on maps.
I'm sure it might turn out a lot better, still.
I don't know about drawing borders on ethnical boundaries. No idea what the many cultures there think. Ethnical or tribal bound
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:4, Funny)
Look at least he is not trying to give them Windows 10, that would really be insulting.
Thank you 0.1-percenter! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, your opinion is that the 0.1 percenter who has done more humanitarian work with his money that you could possibly dream of while you sit behind a keyboard and bitch about it should keep his mouth shut? I think I'd rather have him talk about his projects and why he stands behind his decisions. Honestly, I wish you'd make up your mind. You either want the billionaires to share their riches or you don't. You can't demand that they share and then complain when they do. I don't think he should have to a
Hopefully (Score:2)
Well, The Netscape Chicken Retail Stock (Score:2)
Chickens in the altiplano (Score:2)
I doubt that raise chickens in the altiplano is a good idea. The most poor population in Bolivia are the altiplano over 3000 m. about sea level. If they did a real field check of the plan they would be donating Llamas or Alpacas and Tools needed for fiber produce.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think chickens would be bothered by the altitude. Otherwise how would they be able to fly?
-- Bill Gates
Bing Sucks (Score:2)
If Bill Gates knows nothing of Bolivia, it is probably from using Bing.
I'd hazard a guess that it is Bolivia's government he knows little about, more so than Bolivia itself.
Any place could use 100,000 chickens (Score:2)
Texas produces 5 billion chickens a year, and it could still use a gift of 100,000 chickens to poor and unemployed who could get some income out of raising them. As if often happens, pride and politics are getting in the way of helping some people :(.
Come to Venezuela (Score:2)
To buy a chicken you need to spend anything from 4 to 12 hours in a line. A donation like that would help, but sadly i think it would be rejected by the government as well.
We desperately need food and medicines and countries have tried to help, but the government doesn't allow it
Just one image in head reading headline (Score:2)
"With God as my witness, I thought chickens could fly"
Re: You are not chickens (Score:4, Insightful)
You're mistaken. The lack of funny and lack of sense does not arise from you being new.
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't like chicken?
In a developed country, when a ball rolls into the street that you are driving on . . . you hit the breaks, because you know that some children will come running into the street, chasing the ball.
In a Third World country, when a chicken runs into the street that you are driving on . . . you hit the breaks, because you know that some children will come running into the street, chasing the chicken.
Folks in Third World countries like their chickens . . . but they love their children.
Hell, if Bill Gates is
Re:Seriously? (Score:4)
Thems the brakes.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously... to hell with that. I'll start:
"In breaking news, Microsoft once again lays an egg."
"Bolivia to Gates: We don't give a cluck."
"After airdropping 100,000 chickens on Bolivia, Bill Gates was heard to say, "As God is my witness, I thought chickens could fly.""
"Bill Gates thought that a chicken in every pot was a great idea.. until Bolivia then requested 100,000 pots."
"Bill Gates planned to ship the chickens by sea to Bolivia. When informed that Bolivia was landlocked, and did not have any ocean p
Re: (Score:3)
Kudos for the wkrp reference. I doubt most will get it but it was the only one i actually laughed at. It made the rest tolerable.
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy people.
ftfy.