We have to take into account that with climate change the area where the mosquitoes live will probably be wider affecting more people so extending malaria to bigger populations. IMHO, can be wrong , that we have not made a lot against malaria because till now it affected only poor countries but from now on it will probably arrive to richer ones.
Third world countries have already financed the draining of European swamps. It’s the wealth stolen in Asia, Africa and America that made those public works projects possible in the first place.
The reason former colonies haven’t been able to do the same at home is because their society and economy are permanently crippled by colonization.
Colonization, was brutal, self-serving, and its economic consequences are still felt to this day (especially when neocolonialism through private corporations and puppet governments is still a thing).
> Even when we are talking only about the areas that can be considered as part of Early China, back in a time when "China" as a nation was still in her infancy, we find that more cultural developments had taken place in the valleys and strips of plains that are surrounded by mountains and plateaus on the second step mentioned above, or on the transitional belts along the major mountain ranges, but not at the centers of the floodplains located in the east. The reason for this development was simply ecological, given the fact that in the second millennium BC most of the eastern China plains were still covered by marshes and lakes[2], and the coastline in some sections was at least 150 km inland from today's seashores. The pre-Qin texts record the names of more than forty marshes or lakes on the North China Plain, most of which had dried out after the third century AD. In fact, for millennia the North China Plain was continuously caught in the process of sedimentation by the Yellow River which carried on its way east huge quantities of earth from the topographical second step [areas 1-2 km above sea level].
> [2] Even in the historical period, it was recorded that the Yellow River had changed its course some twenty-six times.
The Yellow River killed vast numbers of Chinese who farmed its banks, even being given the name "China's sorrow". But efforts were made:
> Over time, as the bottom of the channel gradually rose, the river overflowed its banks. Dikes were built ever higher to prevent flooding, and in some places the river started to flow above the surrounding countryside. Today, in a stretch of about 1,100 miles, the Yellow River moves along 11 yards above the plain.
> Under the Qin and Han empires [roughly 200 BC - 200 AD], the Yellow River was the core of Chinese civilization, home to around 90 percent of the population.
During that period, the Chinese hadn't really settled farther south, because... it was full of swamps. But the swamps were drained, the people moved in, and the Yangtze River basin and areas further south had become the demographic center of China by the end of the Tang dynasty in, um, 900 AD.
Tang China was probably the wealthiest country in the world at that time. But it was much poorer than any country today.
Warring States China in 400 BC was much poorer than that.
So no, no one has been "permanently crippled by colonization", and if they had, draining the local swamps would still be well within their means.
You kind of proved the point though because century time scales are involved then instead of decades for the project. I would certainly call "multigenerational when others can do it in one" crippled.
As pygy_ explained above, colonialism has morphed into "neocolonialism through private corporations and puppet governments". That is a symptom of the widening gap in power between former colonies and former colonizers. That gap is compounding over time, making it harder and harder for former colonies to catch up. In that sense, the crippling effects of colonization are still felt today, and are continuing to grow with no end in sight.
What makes you think the gap is compounding? Is that fact-based, or feelings-based?
I'd recommend reading Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. It'll cause you to rethink some things.
edit: Here's an interesting fact for you. In the late 1990s, the global extreme poverty rate (around $1.80/day in today's dollars) was 29%. Today, it's under 9%. We've wiped out two thirds of the world's extreme poverty in twenty years. https://www.gapminder.org/topics/extreme-poverty-trend/
> What makes you think the gap is compounding? Is that fact-based, or feelings-based?
What a strange way to engage in a debate. I already explained why I think the gap is compounding. Feel free to offer a constructive rebuttal if you disagree.
> We've wiped out two thirds of the world's extreme poverty in twenty years.
That is fantastic. How does it relate to the compounding power gap we’re discussing?
If you read Factfulness, you'll find that it's not a strange way to engage at all. One thing Hans Rosling proved and taught is that even well-educated, caring, attentive people are incredibly wrong about simple facts about global economics and health - so much so that, on his multiple-choice questions, every group he examined performed worse on their answers than if they simply guessed at random.
So yes, "Is this belief feelings-based?" is an incredibly important question.
So how does the question of the rapid reduction of extreme poverty relate to the "compounding power gap"? First, it shows that progress is being made, that the poorest of the poor are doing much better than they were as recently as two decades ago.
But more importantly, I do not believe you have demonstrated with facts and evidence that there is a "compounding power gap". You believe that there is compounding power gap, based on the fact that there is a power gap at all. But actual, fact-based evidence suggests that power gap (measuring by dollars as a proxy, since you didn't offer a standard of measurement for your power gap) is decreasing, and rapidly. With some exceptions, the poorer nations are increasing their wealth at a far faster rate than richer nations are.
It's a list of countries by GDP growth rate. I assume you're familiar with the miracle of compounding, since you used that word.
The first European country on the list is Ireland, at 13. The next is Hungary, at 40. The first former colonial power is the US, at 107, more than halfway down the list.
If you don't think that economic growth is a reasonable proxy for "compounding power gap", then what is?
You write very confidently, but don’t seem to have a good grasp of this topic, so I’ll give you a few pointers.
First, don’t use yearly growth rates when discussing long-term trends. The data is too noisy. Ten year averages should be your minimum for the topic at hand.
Second, GDP is not a useful way to detect the ways in which former colonies are crippled. There are several reasons, but just to name a few: it does not distinguish raw materials from refined goods and advanced industries (why do you think Lybia is on top of your list?); it does not reflect quality of life or security; it does not reflect independence from foreign interests; it does not reflect military power or the ability to influence global and regional affairs. There isn’t a single metric which neatly reflects every dimension of the problem (I never claimed there was), but as a starting point for further research, I recommend studying the UN’s IHDI report. You can find lists of countries sorted by IHDI. Another good thing to do is study the bottom third of pretty much any sorted list of countries - by IHDI, HDI, any variation of GDP or GDP growth - and ask yourself 1) “why are these countries in the bottom?” and 2) “how likely are these countries to be in the top third in 50 years?”.
Third, study the role of Trans-National Corporations in the world economy. How much do they contribute to the economic output of former colonies? To what extent are they headquartered in former colonial powers? To what extent are their profits, and capital gains realized by their shareholders, reinvested in former colonies vs. colonial powers? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Fourth, for a different take on the problem, study the racial wealth gap in the US, Canada and Australia. Study the development state of indigenous nations within those countries. Can you guess the root cause of this state of affairs? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Lastly, quoting from your favorite self-help book doesn’t make you magically smarter or more convincing, just obnoxious.
I hope these pointers will help you in your quest for “factfulness”.
And fwiw, I firmly believe that reading Factfulness and absorbing its lessons does make you smarter. Enough so that I would buy you a copy, if you promise to read it.
It's not weird to think a book can make you smarter, either. Assuming you believe reading and learning in general make you smarter (I assume you do), and that smart and engaged people are sometimes wrong (I assume you believe that as well), then it stands to reason that a book dedicated to understanding how smart and engaged people can believe incorrect things will make you even smarter than before.
You're making excuses in order to ignore my data. I've presented both current growth rates and long-term per capita growth for periods of over 50 years. You're just lying to yourself in order to avoid acknowledging that former colonies are now growing economically faster than former colonizers. Face facts.
Why is Libya at the top of the list? Probably due to the growth response to the cessation (or at least reduction) of civil war. That happens. And no, this doesn't take into account raw materials vs advanced production, which is a long-term growth concern for many countries. On the other hand, many former colonies are developing advanced manufacturing, particularly in Asia.
Military power and the ability to influence global affairs via violence is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Exploitation at gunpoint is no longer a viable economic model, and hasn't really been since WWII, which is why colonization ended in the first place.
Believe it or not, former colonies are independent nations with independent economies and independent goals, who don't just exist at the tolerance of great powers anymore. Your attitude towards them pretends to be supportive, but is actually utterly condescending. Really, please stop and think about that point.
I'm well aware of the role of trans-national corporations in this system (I use the phrase "neoliberal hegemony" pretty freely). But the simple fact is, when those corporations invest in former colonial economies, they're creating jobs and growth there, and there's a lot more opportunity there than in the fully developed economies of former colonial powers. That's why those economies are growing so fast. China in particular (a former colony itself) has invested heavily in its "Belt and Road" approach to investing in infrastructure to create mutually beneficial trade opportunities - building ports, factories, communications, etc.
And yes, I'm aware of the racial wealth gap in the US (which is a special case in many ways) and other countries. Been studying it for decades, actually.
Of course you think it's obnoxious. You're getting told that your condescending attitude towards former colonies and reactionary attitude toward their "oppressors" is wrong, that things are much better than you think they are. Being wrong is a bitter pill to swallow. But which is better... feeling good about being wrong, or being right?
Improvements in extreme poverty rate are neither here nor there when talking about whether the long-term effects of colonialism cause the speed of long-term development in former colonies to be slower. This is all that is necessary for wealth, income and power gaps to compound.
I would argue that, at the moment, economic development of former colonies is happening considerably faster than development in the former colonizers. And the evidence agrees with me. Take China, for example. Per capita income there has grown from $89 in 1960 to over $9000 today (constant 2018 dollars), a 100x increase. Over the same period, US per capita income grew from $3000 to $60,000, a 20x increase. The number of nations mired in desperate poverty drops every year, and the number of nations improving their economies rapidly grows.
My home state of Minnesota jokes about mosquitoes being our state bird, but I have zero risk of catching malaria from them. That's because malaria isn't carried by our native mosquitoes. So our cost of mitigation is rather lower.
- with climate change the area where the mosquitoes live will probably be wider
Malaria used to be widespread in Italy. It was causing 15000 deaths/ year in the 19th century. It's nowhere to be found now thanks to insecticides and soil drainage.
So I'm a bit sceptical when I hear that climate change will widen the range of malaria. The range already included the first world, we eradicated it.
> The only approved vaccine as of 2015 is RTS,S, known by the trade name Mosquirix. It requires four injections, and has a relatively low efficacy. Due to this low efficacy, the World Health Organization (WHO) does not recommend the routine use of the RTS,S vaccine in babies between 6 and 12 weeks of age.[1]
> A WHO-led implementation program is piloting the vaccine in three high-malaria countries in Africa in 2019. The first phase of the project, covered by grants from Unitaid, Gavi and the Global Fund, is planned to establish the feasibility, impact and safety of RTS,S, when used as part of a routine immunization program.[2][3] Research continues into recombinant protein and attenuated whole organism vaccines.
