SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Microsoft founder Bill Gates has called on Europe to stop demonstrating generosity towards asylum seekers to avoid an overwhelming migrant influx. He also advises European states to make Africans' way to the continent much more difficult.
During an interview Germany's Welt am Sonntag, Gates, one of the richest people on the planet, warned of the grave consequences of exceeding generosity towards refugees coming to Europe, whose numbers would only rise unless something is done.
"On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees, but the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this – which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa," Gates said.
While Germany has been one of the pioneers of the open door policy, it cannot "take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe." Thus Gates advised European nations to take action in order to make it "more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes."
Source: https://www.rt.com/news/395356-migrants-overwhelm-europe-gates/
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:58AM (4 children)
In the real basket cases I don't know how to do this without essentially taking over the government, but in the less insane ones, why not give charity mainly in the form of infrastructure?
I am specifically thinking of small-scale concentrating solar plants, greenhouses, and other approaches on the village and city level that allow small nuclei of safety, self-respect, and sufficiency to thrive. The top down approach doesn't work, especially not when it's nothing but "dump a shitload of food into the port (and ruin the local farming economy)."
Not to say food aid isn't needed, but that's an aspirin for a cancer. Serious charity begins with the handout (food/water aid) to stanch the immediate bleeding, and then proceeds to sustainable infrastructure to help the country heal from the inside, village by village if need be.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jcross on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:58AM
It's a good thought, but the problem with a lot of modern infrastructure is it depends on things like supply chains for spare parts and the expertise to fix the inevitable problems. I've seen some good examples of appropriate technology, but unless something can at least in theory be built and maintained with local resources and skills, it's going to wind up as a pile of junk before too long. Many many people have already made the mistake of transplanting high-tech stuff to poor areas without understanding that the stuff is designed for a certain context, because if you grow up in that context you tend to take it for granted.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:14AM
The problem is not technology but virtues and education. Law and order etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:47AM (1 child)
There's something really interesting I read. It was about an isolated tribe in South America. This tribe though they had had contact with the modern world, had relatively little interest in adapting. One thing the people that contacted them noticed is that they would simply swim or use drift wood to get around the rivers. One group that spent some time with them then taught them how to make canoes which provided a vastly safer and more efficient means of work. But once the canoes fell apart the people did not repair them or make new ones, but simply began using them as drift wood and going back to the old ways.
I don't know exactly why this is, but I think there is a strong argument to be made for letting people learn for themselves. If there is more intelligent life in our region of space, we're probably in the same situation. Imagine we were suddenly granted the capability to generate practically infinite energy or nanoreplication capable of self replication as well as effective elemental transformation. The possibilities for good are absolutely endless there, but would we throw down our arms, start singing kumbaya, and praise the immediate utopia we'd just brought forth? I think the answer is pretty obvious. We're simply not evolved enough as a species to handle the responsibility and freedom that such technology would enable.
We managed to settle and build great cities and eventually empires even in places like Northern Europe where it can drop below -50 in some places. While Africa may not have been the birthplace of humanity, it's certainly a place we have been for many millenia. Why have they, for the most part, not progressed? I'm not sure of the answer there, but I don't think just giving them stuff is the answer. I'd support education. I think the best result for these countries is not that we not give them tools, but give them the knowledge necessary to give themselves the tools.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:50PM
Thing is, they already HAVE accepted some modern tech, specifically the medical and sanitation part of it. The death and infant mortality rates dropped, *but the birth rate hasn't.* Their "demographic shift" has stalled out in what is known as the pig-in-the-python phase.
This is an unstable positive feedback (fewer deaths means more babies, fewer of whom die, meaning even MORE babies, etc) and that can *only* end in a sudden, horrific crash. It will be Hell on earth. We need to either convince them to slow down reproduction or get them to a sustainable standard of living, *fast,* where the urge to pop out 8 kids goes away.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...