Would industrializing Africa be beneficial to global economy?

[too-open-minded]

I agree, we should be dropping scholarships on Africa above all else.

 

Economically what if we had different countries in Africa produce a large amount with a small variety of goods that have elasticity. Of course we have to take certain things into account about the areas that are to be industrialized and educated. Such as cost of energy and whether or not subsidies will be necessary. Their exports, imports, and waste should be taken into account.

 

I guess I said NATO because the other thread about WW3 defense made me think about what role countries in Africa would possibly play. Globalization is not necessarily a good thing lol.

[iNow]

I agree, we should be dropping scholarships on Africa above all else.

We'd probably realize a higher ROI and lower opportunity cost if we instead dropped teachers and Internet access and solar lamps so tribal peoples can keep reading even after the sun goes down.

[Tzurain]

They can still live a happy life in an agricultural community. We just need to give them better education in my opinion, and better homes.

As well as that, less exploitation on their resources. They can get enough food from their farming , and other resources can be traded over if needed. However, the current problem is that they don't get to eat the food that they sweat to earn. After a 100 bag of rice they produce, they'll get only one bag for themselves (Estimation/Exaggeration).

But after all, from the economical and exploitative standpoint, it's not our problem, so why should we take responsibility into the problem of others?

[too-open-minded]

They can still live a happy life in an agricultural community. We just need to give them better education in my opinion, and better homes.

 

As well as that, less exploitation on their resources. They can get enough food from their farming , and other resources can be traded over if needed. However, the current problem is that they don't get to eat the food that they sweat to earn. After a 100 bag of rice they produce, they'll get only one bag for themselves (Estimation/Exaggeration).

 

But after all, from the economical and exploitative standpoint, it's not our problem, so why should we take responsibility into the problem of others?

 

In my opinion, it's only a matter of time until Africa as a continent or a majority of the countries their are industrialized. With that being said, it won't be a bad idea to go ahead and influence a plot of land with potential. If we do this, energy subsidies, pollution, and waste could be avoided. Help the growing area's develop trash systems like Swedens - https://sweden.se/nature/the-swedish-recycling-revolution/

 

Part of our problem with clean energy is economically we're very dependent on other sources. Money along with jobs could potentially be harmed in a massive transition of fossil fuels to clean energy. (I'm not 100% sure about this because I don't know the demographics and logistics)

 

Investing into their education could possibly benefit us, who knows maybe under the right educational system we'll get the next Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs.

 

So if we can identify areas that are going to be industrialized in say the next 100 years, maybe we should lend a hand.

[MigL]

Really ? You're comparing Einstein to a huckster like Jobs ?

[iNow]

In my opinion, it's only a matter of time until Africa as a continent or a majority of the countries their are industrialized. With that being said, it won't be a bad idea to go ahead and influence a plot of land with potential. If we do this...

If we do what, specifically? It's not terribly clear to what you're alluding when you say, "go ahead and influence a plot of land with potential." Influence what? Influence how? Can you clarify?

 

Part of our problem with clean energy is economically we're very dependent on other sources. Money along with jobs could potentially be harmed in a massive transition of fossil fuels to clean energy. (I'm not 100% sure about this because I don't know the demographics and logistics)

In a transition from fossil fuels to renewables, some jobs will be lost and other jobs will be created. It's a process described as creative destruction. The open question is whether or not more jobs will be lost or created on net.

 

However, even that question misses the larger point, IMO. Perhaps more net jobs will be lost during such a transition, but if that's the case then those losses will only be relevant on a very short time scale, maybe only over the next few years.

 

Once we begin looking at longer term decadal time scales, it becomes massively clear that the unabated climate change caused by continued use of burnt fossil fuels for energy will result in enormous job losses (not to mention the insane additional costs from increased droughts, more intense storms, and coastal damage), and those losses will be orders of magnitude greater than any immediate losses encountered during a transition to renewables, losses which will likely seem quite insignificant and trivial by comparison.

 

Side thought: The larger problem in tribal areas is not potential job loss, but parity. These populations already struggle even to get the tiny amounts of energy they use today from cheap sources like coal due to a lack of available recurring income. In most instances, renewables can't yet be delivered to them at the same low cost per watt as a fossil fuel... That's what I mean when I say that renewables lack parity... so it's really a nonstarter from the outset, anyway. That is, of course, unless some steady source of outside funding is in place or unless technology brings the production, installation, maintenance, and storage costs of renewals significantly down from where they are today (although, I do like what I'm seeing in the trends, so it's most certainly not all bad in that respect).

Edited October 3, 2014 by iNow

[iNow]

Speaking of that cost trend, good news!

 

http://rameznaam.com/2014/10/05/solar-wind-plunging-below-fossil-fuel-prices/

First, the plunge in renewable prices continues, and over the last 5 years, wind has resumed its plunge as well. Their numbers show an average price decline over the last 5 years of 78% for utility scale solar and 58% for wind.

 

Those numbers above are unsubsidized, without investment tax credit.

 

<snip>

 

Second, unsubsidized prices are cost competitive with grid wholesale prices.

 

<snip>

 

Third, It’s all about storage now. (Or soon, at any rate.) Inside of a decade, in most of the US and most of the world, solar or wind will be cheaper than coal or natural gas on an instantaneous, non-stored basis. This trend appears inexorable. And so long as there is demand for more energy at the hours at which solar and wind are delivering (which is the case right now), then the situation is great.<continue reading>

Edited October 7, 2014 by iNow

[too-open-minded]

Specifically, I'm not really sure. The best I can come up with is establish trade between goods for them to produce and a consumer population for them to buy.

 

Compare Einstein to Jobs, I don't think it's that off of a comment to make.

Steve Jobs had so much to do with computer software we use today, it's not even funny.

Steve Jobs invented the mouse, the whole concept of being able to have a free cursor to move around with.

Steve Jobs invented Pixar and had alot to do with the development of 3d graphics.

 

Steve Jobs has not made the contributions to man kind that Einstein has, however the man was a genius in his field.

[CharonY]

Off-topic, but the statements are either wrong or misleading.

 

Jobs was not an engineer behind the Macintosh, but was a manager (he probably did steal the idea of the GUI from Xerox, so there is at least that). I am not sure how influential the Macintosh was, however, as it was easily overshadowed by Microsoft OS. Even the current very popular OS is still behind in total volume and on top is based on Unix. . So I am not sure what you mean with "it's not even funny".

 

The mouse was invented by Douglas Engelbart around the time when Steve Jobs was ten or so.

 

You do not invent a company. But Pixar was originally part of Lucasfilm where they were already doing CGI and then became a an independent company with Apple funding. It is not that Steve Jobs created the company (if that is what you mean)..

Edited October 10, 2014 by CharonY

[too-open-minded]

Off-topic, but the statements are either wrong or misleading.

 

Jobs was not an engineer behind the Macintosh, but was a manager (he probably did steal the idea of the GUI from Xerox, so there is at least that). I am not sure how influential the Macintosh was, however, as it was easily overshadowed by Microsoft OS. Even the current very popular OS is still behind in total volume and on top is based on Unix. . So I am not sure what you mean with "it's not even funny".

 

The mouse was invented by Douglas Engelbart around the time when Steve Jobs was ten or so.

 

You do not invent a company. But Pixar was originally part of Lucasfilm where they were already doing CGI and then became a an independent company with Apple funding. It is not that Steve Jobs created the company (if that is what you mean)..

Well I guess everything one of my favorite teachers in highschool told me was wrong. He gave a big presentation on Jobs after his death and then showed us his speech to a graduating class at Harvard. Jobs creating the company is what I meant, reckon I was wrong though.

Edited October 11, 2014 by too-open-minded