Register or Login

Question

126 responses | 1 vote

view media
play

Aug 30, 2006 3:14:44 PM cite

If Darwin's theory is right about life beginning in Africa, then why are African states less developed than Western states?

by abcq

Please login to rate.

Nov 28, 2008 7:57:31 PM cite

if the birth of agriculture happened in africa they would have surpluses of food. plus they would have been exposed to more germs and be able to understand how to use them as biological weapons. surpluses of food would also be able to provide for those who wanted to develop steel. eventually leading to guns.

by thelovelybrenda

Please login to rate.

Aug 24, 2008 2:22:28 AM cite

Based on the question 'abcq' seems to be a bit confused. Darwin's theory does not address where life started but defines how it developed from one species to another. Life did not start in Africa, it started in the ocean billions of years ago. Humans first appeared in Africa, and due to climatic conditions migrated to the rest of the world. Human developement goes in cycles, an area will advance and then regress, at any one time a particular culture may appear to be more advanced than another. Other answers in this thread have given good explinations for this.

by thedoc

Please login to rate.

Aug 23, 2008 8:01:56 AM cite

as humans spread out from Africa, they continued to develop technologies that would help them. However, I believe that the Africans didn't need these technologies. They had farming, and hunting and lived it a place that suited them. Humans in other places needed to develop ways to farm and survive in different climates as opposed to the Africans who had a climate that was fairly perfect for them. As other humans invented technologies to fit into other climates, ideas of invention and ideas and thinking prospered creating areas of a technological enlightenment. Over time these prospered to create the developed nations that we know of.

by thezeloniaprojectcompanyinc

Please login to rate.

Jul 21, 2008 6:07:34 PM cite

Africans had large city-states well established at the time of the Ancient Greeks. When an African King went on a pilgrimage to Mecca he gave away so much gold is caused an inflation crisis. Africa suffered from the loss of its major trading partner, the Roman Empire. The Europeans were then able to develop guns first. The differenced between European geography and African geography also played a large role. Africa lacks harbors for sea going vessels. Europe has an abundance. This limited the ability of sub-Saharan Africans to trade with outside peoples. They had to develop in relative seclusion, whereas the Europeans did not. When the Europeans came they destroyed the social order of the African Kingdoms with their port towns before they even realized there were African Kingdoms. Then the Europeans raped the land of the natural resources available. Encouraged a foolish location of villages (villages were previously kept away from mosquito populations due to malaria). And introduced a form of Agriculture that instigate a population explosion causing further problems. African was developing very effectively for Africans. Then the Sahara expanded, they were cut off from Europe and the Middle East, and then the Europeans outpaced them and invaded. - Benjamin

by Hypnopompia

Please login to rate.

Jul 21, 2008 7:19:28 AM cite

The main force in this phanominon is Natural Resources. To be geographically correct, human life began in the fertile crescent, or also known as the middle east, the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates river. Not only is this were life started but it is the site of the first major civilizations the world has ever seen. The force that started these new civilizations is the Agricultural revolution. The point in time when men started to live in permanent housing and started to farm and gather food in major quantities allowing them to feed more people easily. abandoning their nomadic ways. Unfortunately for these early civilizations, the only lagitament natural resource was wheat and barly. Desertification took its tole on the land, and as civilizations found that they could prosper in distant regions, so it began. In Africa, the people are still living in a hunter gatherer society, simply due to its climate. So there it is, simplified version of my answer to your question.

by Judd64

Please login to rate.

Jun 11, 2008 9:04:21 PM cite

It's not the whole answer, but it's a great start. The basic principle is that the geography of the various continents and the characteristics of local plants and animals enabled cultures in different places to develop at different rates, and that these disparities influenced the outcomes of the eventual cultural encounters and conflicts.

by katlinruff

Please login to rate.

Nov 30, 2006 1:40:50 PM cite

Hello Elliot, I think you understood that one can't mix up Darwin's theory on the evolution of speciec (!, not economies) with economic deveopment. But nevertheless, your question intrigues me to write down some thoughts I have on the reasons for Africa's bad (economic) standing - I think that there are reasons lying much further away than colonialism. After all, the reason that the colonial powers could "conquer" Africa so easily is that the white colonialists were , on a technical and economical level, far superior to African leaders of that time - so the question could be: why was euroe more developed than africa 200 years ago? Let's discard racist's theories, but let's take a look a the environment: Africa is like paradise (and a lot of authors already mentioned its natural wealth) - which means, you can harvest all around the year, and there's no need to prepare for a cold winter. That's why in Europe, people started to develop technologies already a long time ago (after all, a good shelter and methods for food preservation are simply necessary to survive up there), and the thinking of planning ahead and making inventions became an essential part of european culture. Down here in Africa, none of this was necessary - farming just means planting and harvesting, and pastoralists are even "better" off, looking at cattle being their main task. So its no surprise that technologically superior Eurpeans were able to impose their set of rules on the continent.

by Lars+

Please login to rate.

Sep 16, 2006 6:17:08 PM cite

I find Darwin?s theory to be completely applicable to this earth and all its beings at their most natural states. If this theory is true then the obvious inquiry would be ? why is Africa so under developed in comparison to the western states, with emphasis on the fact that life began in Africa?? well I think that Africa does have a lack of development, but this deficiency is not as great as it may appear. In my opinion Africa has developed substantially, but this development was in a far different direction than that of their western neighbors. Instead of developing intellectually, and contriving ways to survive via the human mind, Africa seemed to develop in more of an animalistic way, developing ways to survive which include more primitive methods and tactics. Some theories suggest this was the result of the ice age forcing other parts of the world to adapt to the diversity presented and to formulate ways to create shelter and ways to keep warm and find food. Now does this development by Africa into a more animalistic ?society? make it any more fallacious or any less better off than the rest of the world? Well due to the massive amounts of genocide and disease in the continent I think the answer to that question is apparent.

by keymoney

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: I don’t find the Darwin’s theory very appealing, because Social Darwinism brought us into the situation which we have now. Social Darwinism is the concept that man is living according to the laws of nature, this means, that the strongest win, who has the strongest claws, teeth and so on. But in fact I think that the core of a human being is of some different kind. Of course it origins from nature, and in the nature not always the strongest are those who win, that is not quite the right point of view. And I believe that people absolutely didn’t understand right Darwin. They act from the position of power, and they try to take every opportunity, and they have been trying centuries long to use this theory and to act with principles of power. Europeans and generally white people had weapons, captured territories, enslaved African and other countries, conquered colonies. They robbed treasures of those countries, where they governed, where they reigned, and were not interested in the intellectual development. They were content with everything in Africa and other colonial countries staying on the same level of development as when they conquered it. They gave glass necklaces in exchange for a lot of treasures. This is “the theory of glass necklaces”.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Abbas Beydoun: We should dream that world progresses so that Africans, Asians and all other less developing nations progress too. This is a big dream and maybe imaginal or it does not match the reality, but for all that we should not stop dreaming and hopping.

by Abbas Beydoun

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: The issue of Africa is an issue that concerns the whole planet and the responsibility we have in this part of the world. I think most African countries have suffered and are suffering the scars of inhumane, unhuman colonial systems that left their nations, their economies completely devastated. And, devastated not only economically, but systems that destroyed and threatened very deeply the cultures of all these countries. I think there is a very -- and this, I could say for Latin America as well. Of the scars of colonialism affected very deeply the self-esteem of these countries than the people who inherited the power, the Africans that inherited the power from the colonial structures that left inherited also the capacity for despising their own people. I think corruption is very much in the core. Political corruption is very much in the core of this problem and this issue of corruption which I would like to speak more about is in the center of the need of transformation of society.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Andries Botha: I don’t believe that we need to define development as a particular Western idea [or] the assumption that certain states are not developed, because they cannot adapt to the prevailing economic and Western cultural system, does not necessarily mean it's less developed. The fact which is more pertinent why is Africa not coping, why is it not being able to respond and adjust to a Western capitalist system is more relevant. I think there are very -- I know that there are very very sophisticated life forms of support sustainability in Africa. They don’t necessarily conform or are measured to what we would consider to be developed in the 21st century. I think a species, a nation, a world is developed if it can -- if it could work more on its own sense of -- its own intrinsic sense of humanity. So, I don’t necessarily think Western states are developed and African states are undeveloped or underdeveloped. It's all a matter of perspective priority.

by Andries Botha

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Elliot, what an interesting question you pose to all of us in the world. And I pray that you will be able to hear what I think about that particular question. Yes, if life began in Africa how come it is less developed? No, it’s not less developed. It is developed highly, it’s just that the economics of that development did not arrive at your doorstep. It’s not part of your life. It’s in the pockets of very few of those who are developing that very incredible continent. It does not really matter any more the question about where the mankind started. We now know that it did not work the way we did it. So when you look at the development and say that the western world is really advanced it did so by taking the resources of your country. And you were kept in silence and not being part of the development. Did you hear my answer? I hope you understood what I’m trying to say that it is so important to realize that Africa is not less developed. Africa is highly developed it’s just that the development of results have not come home to you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: The question raises a question that mistakes the question of why states today are in the position that they're in. The reality that states are in the position that they're in today are on the basis of their position in the history of the development of the human species. It's not an anthropological question. It's a political question. It's a historical question. In fact, what we see repeatedly if you look in history, is that civilizations that at particular moments have created some of the most remarkable achievements in human history, had those achievements literally destroyed or wiped out through conquests; through colonialism; through imperialism; through war. If you look, for example, at the history of British Colonialism, you see the British effort to suppress development in India; to suppress development in Africa. There was a conscious de-development, under-development of the countries of Africa, of the countries in Asia that were colonized; in the countries of Latin America that were colonized. And Africa, in particular, suffered from that colonial legacy; suffered from the conscious pillaging of those societies for their resources; the conscious exploitation of their workers in such a brutal way that the workers were, in essence, disposable. The Belgium conquests of the Congo is a particularly brutal example of the understanding that the workers were disposable; that they were not human; that they can be killed in the process of extracting their labor; and that the economic calculations of the population, the approach of the colonizers to the population meant that there was no concern that hundreds of thousands; in fact, ultimately more than millions were being murdered, were being slaughtered in order to aggrandize the wealth and power of people like King Leopold in Belgium. So, it's a question of history. It's a question of conscious under-development of those countries, and it's a problem that continues today. It's a problem that we continue to have to confront today.

by Anthony Arnove

Please login to rate.
  by Anuradha Koirala 0 votes
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I don’t think it’s about the African countries that they are least developed, or they are not developed as the Western states, and we have to question the meaning of development. It is true, Africa is a continent which gave birth to humanity, but it is also a continent which is incredibly rich and that has been its worst problem. It has been conquered, it has been pillaged, it’s been raped, it’s been colonized; and that colonization continues even today which prevents the people of Africa from being able to have governments which actually represent their wishes. Instead, you have the interference of Western countries which still want to continue the form of colonization that we have seen in the past. We know about the English colonization, we know about the French, we know about the Belgium; and now you have a new kind of colonization which is of the corporations from the Western countries who continue to pillage Africa as a continent. And the projects that come to Africa in the name of development need to be questioned. These are projects who displace people, which reject the way of life, the indigenous way of life, which bring in technology which does not work. So, it’s a whole myth when we think that the people are hungry or poor in Africa or Africa is a basket case. No. Even when there has been starvation in countries like Ethiopia, food has been exported from there. So, the real issue is one of colonization that continues even today.

by Anuradha Mittal

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think this question, very interesting, turns on the question of what does developed mean and whether or not life originated in Africa? Let’s assume it has originated in Africa. The evolution of cultures over millennia, it is clear that if it can really enter not from the prejudices of so called western cultures, if we could step out of the lens of western cultures and go into the mental ecologies of the peoples of Africa and to their different world views and life worlds, we will get a very different understanding of what developed means. So, what is developed from the point of view of say Western, American, European standards? The Western standards may not be developed from the point of view of a whole human being living in the concept of an integral community where the values of deep dialog and mutual honoring of one another and of nature and the whole ecology. From the point of view of the measuring standards of global wisdom, African traditions may be seen to be more developed or so called third world countries that are usually from an economic point of view seem to be underdeveloped or undeveloped compared to first world countries, may be reversed from the point of view and standards of spirituality and wholeness and true humanity. So, I would like to reconsider this question and recast it and ask a question back to the questioner or the question. What do we mean by developed, truly developed? And, can it be the -- say, certain indigenous people around the planet are highly developed spiritually, holistically from the human standards whereas people who may have more economic development and more material wealth and material standards of living, they’d be highly underdeveloped from the point of view of these human standards of integral whole being in harmony with nature? I think that would be a good question to pose back to this question.

by Ashok Gangadean

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: I think we really need to look at this fundamental question of who purports to own the earth. And when we understand objectively that Africa is one of the world's wealthiest continents, it has everything that man desires, it's wealthy in gold, platinum, diamonds, oil, timber, then how is it that the world's wealthiest continent should also have the world's poorest people as well as most of the conflicts that are going on in the world today? In sub-Sahara Africa, over 100 million Africans face conflicts every day. So when we understand that there are huge interests in the world that compete for these natural resources for which Africa has been abundantly blessed, there is a connection that we have to make as to the poverty of the people, the wealth of the land, and be observant as to where this wealth is going. And since it's not going into the hands of the people in Africa, not the people in the villages, not the people in urban areas, who don't have sufficient shelter, clothing, or food, we have to ask where is the wealth of Africa going to. So we have to be able to see the connections of what is going on today in the world that has really oppressed the people of Africa, put them in position of extreme conflict, loss of lives because of conflict, and also ask the question why is it that the wealth of Africa is not going into the hands of the African people themselves.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Please login to rate.