[chad_oliver]

You raise some important issues, but if anything I actually think that this aquifer is going to reduce the conflict in this area. The civil wars, rape, and poisoning are all symptoms of a deeper illness: poverty. Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else, they're just poorer and therefore more desperate.

Conflict minerals (diamonds, coltan, etc) fuel conflict because they are easy to control. It only takes a relatively few men to control a mine, and any diamonds mined can easily be exported. In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway.

The water won't really be a target for militia, but it will be able to be used to develop the region. More water gives more crops, which gives higher living standards, which gives less war.

(As a side note, another potential benefit is that this aquifer will promote regional integration, since it's on the border between South Sudan and Kenya. South Sudan is in the process of applying for membership in the East African Community, which has the stated goal of eventually transforming into a political federation. I expect that the EAC will be a very strong driver for regional security.)

[eloff]

You can't explain away centuries (millenia in some cases) of tribalism, with hatred and fear and discrimination passed from parents to children for generations as mere poverty. Poverty plays a role to be sure, but the situation is more complex (it always is.)

[chad_oliver]

Sorry, I did not mean to discount the impact of tribalism. It is certainly a significant issue in East Africa (I can't speak for other areas). The history of the USA shows that even affluent western countries suffer from the Us vs Them mindset.

That said, I do believe that poverty is the more significant issue. Increased development generally correlates with stronger government [1], and with better access to government. When this happens, disputes are more likely to be resolved through the legal system.

I'm not an expert on the interaction between tribalism and warfare in developing countries, so don't think I'm trying to claim infallibility. This is just what I believe to be true.

[1] I say correlates, because I can't say that development causes stronger government. It could be the other way around

EDIT: Okay, now it's my turn to ask: what did I say wrong? Would you like to discuss it, rather than just downvoting?.

[eloff]

I didn't downvote. Even relatively rich countries outside of Africa like Mexico, Chile, and Panama have very high violent crime rates, but mostly among the poor (in Panama anyway, in Mexico I suspect there's a lot more drug related violence.) So poverty is definitely a big issue, but tribalism plays a big role too, e.g. bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing. A lot of violence in South Africa is either race related or tribal. So it's not that you're wrong, it's just that the picture is more complex than just poverty alone.

[Jare]

First world countries have an equally long history of the same hatred, fear, discrimination and constant warfare. In general terms, it only lessened when a large proportion of the population could move out of poverty and feel reasonably secure about their future.

You don't have to look far to see how easy it is to revert to barbaric and uncivilized behaviour and standards when that sense of safety and security is put at risk.

[PakG1]

In contrast, an aquifer is hard to control: each liter of water isn't worth that much, and Kenya doesn't have the infrastructure to export water anyway.

My original question was what if these water supplies are found in areas of conflict. In such scenarios, transport is not an issue. And the question remains because although they wouldn't put prices on a liter of water, I'd say it's because the water is invaluable, not because the value is low. If it weren't so, it wouldn't be worth it to poison wells in the first place.

[chrischen]

> Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else

How do you know?

My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war.

Edit: this is an honest question. If I said anything wrong, please let me know as well.

[chad_oliver]

Africans at the moment are, as a group, the most corrupt people on earth [1]. This is equivalent to saying that Prussians were better than the French at making war.

However, this different from saying that Africans are inherently corrupt, or that every Frenchman is destined to make a terrible soldier. I intended to assert that Africans aren't inherently corrupt, and I think you were downvoted because people thought you were disputing this.

[1] http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_b...

[anotheraccount7]

I guess it would matter what you mean by "inherently corrupt". physiologically? very unlikely - but it could definitely be a cultural issue

[chrischen]

Yes, you'd have to define inherently corrupt. Since it could be genetic, cultural, situational... etc.

And even then, you can't really jump to the conclusion that we are all the same.

Being corrupt or warlike are, in my opinions, just traits. They could be evolutionary adaptations to various environmental situations, for all anyone knows. Everyone on Earth is different, with different traits... Africans included. I'm not saying that's what Africans are, but I'm also saying you can't make the claim that those aren't inherent traits. It's a total possibility and nothing should be left out for scientific and reasonable analysis.

[ajuc]

Your history teacher thinks in stereotypes (or thinks only history between 1870 and 1945 is relevant). Nothing to be proud of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena%E2%80%93Auersted...

[chrischen]

Not stating I'm proud. Only stating the obvious double standard.

[jeltz]

> My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war.

He should have hesitated, since historically France is one of the most militarily successful nations.

[pbhjpbhj]

I've read/heard that too I'm thinking either on QI or r/AskHistorians?

[smtddr]

As a person from a Nigerian family, I'm already offended... but... let me try and answer you.

1) It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Take a look at Youtube's attempt at defining hate-speech in their guidelines:

""Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality. "

(Note that I think Google should remove the "protected group" part and just say "any group of people")

2) How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+, on Reddit, on HN or any other site that always ends up derailing the main topic into oblivion.

[chrischen]

> It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans).

Africa is a continent. There are white Africans. If I had said, black people, that would be different, however I did not. I did not because the OP mentioned Africans and I was only pointing out that his statement about a generalization of an entire continent (he implied most Africans cannot be different from most other humans, which is already untrue even if you consider just skin color). However, had the OP stated what he stated and used "black people" instead of "Africans," I would have still asked the same question. Because he still would have made a generalization that he could not possibly know.

> How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+

Exactly. You can't prove that it's not a trait. That's all I'm questioning. Btw, I can't prove I'm not a racist to you, but I can prove that I have not yet made a racist remark. By YouTube's definition, I have not made an insulting remark based on a generalization of a race. Just because I don't agree with the author's assertions, does not necessarily mean I agree with the opposite assertion (that Africans are more corrupt and warlike). I have not made the claim or generalization that Africans, or black people, are more corrupt or warlike. Just because you are insulted, does not mean what I have said is actually insulting.

That being said, I'm sorry if it offended you, but I stand by my point. All I wanted to say was that the OP himself made a generalization. And I tried pointing it out with a question that might have made me look like I was making a racist remark... but I was just pointing out the fallacy in his claim by implying the opposite could be true..

[smtddr]

I won't be in this thread after this. I already see the rabbit-hole falling has begun.

Since we can actually measure & look at people in a very non-debatable way, you can get unquestionable & unbias data on how tall people are and the color of their skin. You cannot debate 6-foot tall versus 7-foot tall. We've(first-world at least) all agreed on what is a ruler. 12 inches is 12 inches. You also cannot debate the color red versus green as it has been defined.

The OP's generalization of people being equal is a fair generation to make considering the context of the world we live in today.

You should understand and be sensitive to the fact that racism is a real problem in the world today. As such, statements/questions implying directly, or indirectly, a characteristic of a group of people that support ideas aligning with racism should be done with care and not without quality evidence that suggests the negative characteristic; otherwise it just appears malicious. Especially for a group of people who have already experienced very similar abuse for many years and are still dealing with it today.

[chrischen]

Again, I did not imply anything racist. I did not make any generalizations, about a race, a country, or EVEN a continent! Please listen to what I'm saying!

Just because you constantly assert I'm a racist without actually listening to the substance and nuance of anything I have said does not make me a racist.

Please, specifically point out what statement I said was a generalization about a race?

Just because I do not agree with the OP, does not mean I agree with the opposite. Just like how if you're not with the US on Iraq does not mean you are with the terrorists.

My question "how do you know?" is simply a thought experiment showing the fallacy in the OP's assertion that in fact Africans are not more corrupt or warlike than anyone else. It is totally possible they are. He does not know, nor do I. The point is that he doesn't know anymore than I do. I am not, and have never, stated Africans are more corrupt or warlike either! If I did in fact, state this, please point this out otherwise I will be inadvertently spreading racist beliefs (which I do not. I am totally on your side with this. Let's work together okay?).

The OP is the one who made a generalization (Africans are not more corrupt or warlike than other people). All I did was question his generalization. He could have also said "Africans are not any more black than other people." That one is easier to verify that he is wrong, so if I pointed that out by saying "how do you know?" I would have gotten many more up votes.

By ignoring the possibility that Africans might have genetic, cultural, societal, or other factors causing the corruption and "warlike" is doing a disservice to the issue, reason, and scientific method.

[some_guy_there]

> He does not know, nor do I.

Yes, but there are level of beliefs that can be assigned to arbitrary hypothesis. Consider the fact(s) that

1) the scientific consensus agrees that most human being are almost equivalent in skills and intelligence to form decent social structures

2) Africa has a billion plus human being, the scale at which laws of large number dictates that their overall behavior should be close to human mean.

3) there have been advanced cultures in Africa in past, as recent as just before European colonization.

Keeping that in mind, reasonable people would agree that Africans are not inferior merely due to continent they are born upon. Is this the scientific level of proof that matches the 5 sigma precision coming out of LHC? No. But it is reasonable to expect so, and no proper scientific resources are being devoted to this micro-study, after most of Science has already has rejected idea that one large group of humans could be statistically inferior to other large group.

As a side note, you might not have realized it, but similar arguments have been used (and are still being used) by people who want to raise a rhetorical question, like how do you know that evolution explains x,y,z fact? More often than not, these people do not have intention of genuine questioning but rather want to show that ignorance of one detailed thought experiment is enough to discredit entire field of scientific evidence. It is thus not surprising that people would think that you belong to one of that group.

[Joe-Z]

I really shouldn't be getting into this, but whatever:

Let's assume that you believe that "all men are born equal" and you know for yourself that you are not a war-mongering, savaging monster and that this are also not typical traits for other people around you. Then, from your believe that "alle men are born equal" it's just far more likely that people in africa would default to a similar, peaceful, state like you and the thing that drives people in african war-torn countries must be outside factors.

(Also, let's be realistic and just admit that it's mostly just racism if you state something negative about a particular group, and not when it's something positive)