[gavaw]

You forget the part wher African countries have terrible political stability and no money. The only way of making this work would be neocolonialism, which is ok imo (in the end it benefits both parties), but it's frowned upon by some political circles.

[_8j50]

Sir, I thank you for your honesty. People hate it here if I even mention that term but you openly admit your acceptance of it.

See, the reality is, the strong will always desire to rule over the weak. The colonized should not have relied on the good conscious and will of the colonizers to begin with. They should have become strong enough to resist neo-colonialism, they only have their own weakness to blame.

What truly revolts me is when neo-colonialism is packaged as democracy, human rights, etc... instead of just like what you did, openly admitting that is your goal and the people who will be colonized will benefit from it, so that is your moral justification.

[omneity]

Many african countries are extremely resource rich. They do have money, but also corruption sapping a lot of it away.

That and I don’t think political instability is a fact of life.

I like to think of it through Maslow’s pyramid of human needs. As the lower layers start to be satisfied, even the conduits for violent impulses change in nature (from physical fights to toxic gaming behavior let’s say).

As Africa lifts itself and addresses the basic needs of its population, many of the challenges it is currently experiencing will start to fade away. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem but I also happen to be an optimist :)

[ethbr0]

There's also the underappreciated value of institutional inertia.

A large part of why mature democracies work is the historical mass of their institutions serving as ballast to keep the system from oscillating/crashing.

I.e. Courts work in large part because people believe they work. And they believe they work because they've historically worked.

Or, in individual terms in less stable countries: "Why should I act contrary to my individual interests when the state might be gone tomorrow?"

So a big part of creating stability is faking that stability until historical mass has time to form in everyone's minds.

[BurningFrog]

Being resource rich is a well known path to poverty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

It's no coincidence that the resource free Singapore and Hong Kong grew from desperate poverty to the richest cities on Earth, while the countries around them did not.

[gavaw]

>Many african countries are extremely resource rich. They do have money, but also corruption sapping a lot of it away.

Which is why they need their leaders replaced by Western puppets, which will divert all the riches to the West and leave some crumbs to the citizens. Since the current power structure doesn't leave anything to the citizens, leaving crumbs would be an improvement. See India for example.

[BurningFrog]

Since 1-3 decades, Africa is developing quite nicely and peacefully.

I read somewhere that they're ~100 years behind economically, but are catching up 3 years per year

[omneity]

Don’t forget the boost factor from new technology appearing. Even something as core and basic as farming benefits immensely from technology such as drones (better information), mobile phones and data (faster communication and coordination), and now AI (cheap personalized on-demand expert advice).

With the current progress of tech and barring any catastrophic event, soon enough it will become trivial technologically speaking to meet all human needs on any location on earth at a very low cost.

[runsWphotons]

This is true of some countries in Africa and bot of others, so depends where.