Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: Economically, the African countries are less developed than the western states, but I think that they are far more advanced or developed when we’re talking about family ties and family organizations than the western states are. So I think it’s a little bit of a trick question, and then there are the issues that we have exploited, the western world has exploited the African continent for centuries, so it’s no wonder they are less developed unfortunately. But I think they are far more advanced, I want to point that out. I think they are far more advanced in some areas, of course, regarding family ties and family organization and taking care of each other and so on than we are in the western world. We’re very disorganized when we look at us in the family kind of way. Now when we’re talking about exploiting the African continent, we’re still exploiting it. We have a, there’s a lot of diseases in Africa and we don’t actually help them, serve them. We’re trying to earn a lot of money from all those diseases. We don’t want to give away our, we don’t want to give away our medicine. We want to earn money on it, so we in some ways are still exploiting the African continent, and that’s why they’re less, less developed than the western states, but not in the family way, still. I want to point that out still.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: The argument that Western states are more developed than African states is an interesting idea because it depends on what you consider development. We have many people from Africa who come to the United States to teach us the skills of relating to each other again, or our young people to go through the processes of development that aren't available in our culture. So maybe they have something very important to offer what is called development in the West. The wisdom of the ages that has come from Africa or where they say the birthplace of civilization was in Mesopotamia, which is between the Tigris and Euphrates, and I can tell you that I've been there, I've seen the place where much of what Western world stands on the shoulders of and the language, the writing and that, it's utterly being destroyed by what we're calling development. So what that word is and how we look at it and what we value as development is important. One thing is is that Africa is very warm and it's easy to feed yourself and if you look at where development comes from it comes from the colder countries where to survive meant having power over and not being in relationship with their environment but trying to control it, use it and the consolidation of power. So as we've seen that may not be development because it is more on a fast road to self-destruction. And so I think there's right now the, what has to happen is a, a melding of the two, a learning from each other, a finding out, what needs to be kept, how do we nurture what's valuable for our society, for people, for the extension of life and what has failed. And I think Africa has a lot to teach us there.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

John Gage: Humanity began in Africa, humanity began in northwestern Kenya, in the Rift Valley, and the first humans, who over thousands of years, migrated south into the continent of Africa and migrated north. Some turned to the right and went along the coast lines to India and to Southeast Asia. Some went to the left and went through the Middle East, moved northward, moved westward into Europe. The migratory patterns of humans are well known and well established. Everyday with the power of DNA sequencing and mapping the human genome in every human population, these stories become clearer and clearer, common sources of humanity. But, what does that do, how does that affect African states? There are 54 African states, very different, each from the other. What is the state of Africa today? A state of abandonment? No, a state of steady, but slow improvement. Today, the innovative trade pathways, the innovative exchange of ideas, the innovative use of new technologies, those pathways established early, hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago, in the Middle East, in Europe, in India, in Asia, in Africa. The interior states of Africa had no natural pathways for trade, the coastlines did, but the interior of Africa impenetrable, climatically difficult, with a small variety of foods to be raised, with a disease pattern that inhibited human activity, with a pattern of heat and climate, environmental circumstances that made it difficult, pastoral, nomadic and agricultural life was very stable but did not develop. And then with colonialism, the extraction of natural resources by European states kept these African states in stasis. That’s now changing. We passed through 40 years since independence from colonialism into new forms of government, new dedication, new governments, new methods of taking the ideas of technical change and bringing them down closest to those that live on the ground in Africa. And that’s the hope for the development of the African states.

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: The life of states does not begin in Africa. Biological life might begin in Africa. I don't know. I'll accept that premise as true; that's what science has thus far discovered. We might discover later that life began in Latin America, you could say the same thing, that it's less developed than other states. Or we might find that life began some place where states are more developed. China might become a very developed state and we might find that life began there, or Sri Lanka. But let's presume that it is a fact that life began in Africa. States did not begin in Africa. States - or maybe states did. I mean I don't know what the first state was. Was Egypt the first state? Was the first state in Samaria? Was the first state in the Indus valley? Exactly what is meant by a state? Is it an organization with a King? We had kings a long – you know thousands and thousands of years ago. I presume that the question talks about the modern nation-state which emerged in the 17th century, largely in the treaties of Westphalia, here, very close to where we are here, as a response to the religious violence of the thirty years war, in which Catholics and Protestants were killing each other. And then the state became a - an institution largely at the service of the business interests, of the mercantile class of Europe. Which in turn attempted to dominate and colonize the world, and did in fact colonize and dominate Africa, and enslave the people in Africa, and sold them like chattel. I don't believe Africa has recovered from this terrible injustice. The state, the modern state system, was built to some extent on the backs of the people of Africa. An there is I believe a moral account that needs to be adjusted, and the rest of the world has a moral duty to right the wrong of what happened in Africa for several hundred years. We still see the residual cancer of racism. And ah - we had states that institutionalized racism. We had [inaudible]

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: Darwin's theory is his own. Whether his theory is right or wrong, is absolutely irrelevant. If the life began in Africa or in Atlantis or in Germany or on an other planet, is completely insignificant. Nobody is able to tell why or even whether Africa developed, less developed, not developed or more developed. Nobody knows it, we have to remove our pride and arrogance. Nothing is for sure. Everything is unsure. This is the most open game. We do not know anything. We have to recognise that not our measure is important, but an other. Darwin had his own measure, Africa has its own. The Theory itself has its own degree, the life hat its own, the terra has its own too. All these things cannot be connected to each other, they are nothing. We have to feel humbled by not recognizing anything, not knowing any connections, by accepting everything, allowing everyhing. Everything is free, everything is divine, everything is love, everything is hatred. Darwin was a god of himself, as Ezra Pound, as Oscar Wild. Africa will be that what itself wants to be, not that what the human being wants him to be. Africa is its own secret, his allness, its power, its energy. Wonderful - this energy may reign us, totally and absolutely, randomly, freely, numinously, systematically, radically, well and badly, as it wishes. That what Darwin stated is stated by himself - nothing else is to say. Zardoz said that Zardoz had said, e.g. Otto Wels, Rose Butt, Darwin, Karl Marx, Echnaton. Every social system in the future - wonderful, total. Everything is love.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: I don't think Darwin has contemplated human beings in terms of this time. I think this time that you are talking about of human evolution, Darwinian time frame is of millions of millions of years. So, I would not see anything -- I think evolution, you need to kind of really look into the Darwinian Theory. The fact that Africa is where human life emerged is not -- and in fact, today, African states are not succeeding well is not something that you should -- it is like comparing apples and oranges. I think the question is, the way I look it of course is that Africa in part because it is the source of human life, now this could be conceptual or could be real, but it is also -- and it has not reached its potential in terms of its application of the energy that exists within that country, within that continent. It is like filled with promise. So, the fact that Africa hasn't developed like western states, that just means it's got more room to develop in the future. I see that the problems in Africa have nothing to do with the Darwinian's evolution there. They have much to do with the flaws of human kind and just the happenstance of history. But, I look -- looking backwards, things don't look good. Looking today, things are -- it's fucked. But, moving into the future, filled with possibility. Anyhow, going back, I have just been doing a lot of work Africa. Part of the reason I love working there is because I just think that it is filled with promise and I love to be in places where there is promise because it just means -- it is like everything you can imagine. You are not locked or weighted down by what was, it is just like what can they become. And so, that's why I keep going back and we will be back again this year and be back shortly.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto: This is a very interesting question. One has to mention historic reasons. I do not think there is a single reason and to tell the truth, I do not think there is a connection between Darwin's theory and the underdevelopment of Africa. Rather one has to imagine not only political but maybe also cultural reasons that are not decisive but establish different paths of development for all the continents. Africa is a rich continent with a grand culture and its potential is huge just like that of the other continents. However one cannot turn a blind eye on the effects and the heritage of colonialism either, on the savage exploitation to gain power, like it was the case with Belgium in the Congo. This type of historic trauma leaves scars difficult to reverse and a heritage difficult to retract. Nevertheless, there are African countries showing that Africa is capable of a lasting development, it is capable to bring forth a democracy with its own roots. I think we are talking about a current situation here, about a situation that is soon to be changing and that will turn to good account in the near future. It is no permanent situation, it is not going to stay forever, and this is what I think about this question.

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: i believe that the development is not evaluated by the age of the people, but it is evaluated by the economic ,political and environmental circumstances which play the most important rule of people developing. For example, usa age is just 4 centuries , but usa has achieved a progressive level by taking advantage of the minds,the human resources,the material resources and the substances of the weak countries. Thanks.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, I don’t believe in Darwin’s theory as such that even if we feel that the human kind was also begin -- the birth of human kind begin from Africa or any other region which are not really rich in comparison to other places in the world, one must understand that in African region particularly the conflicts at different levels, the insurgencies, the wars, the violence has led to extremely appalling conditions and finally resulting in poverty and the perpetuation of poverty. And, secondly, the people who devised more advanced knowledge to exploit the nature, as well as human beings, they found that Africa is a place where the people could be imported from as slave labors, and it has been done for centuries and that has also resulted in the embouchement of African region.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: I think you really, really have to think about your question is or includes that the African state should be less developed than Western States? Please think with me once again, are they? They might be concerning economics, concerning stuff, concerning goods, concerning laundry machines, but this is purely a question about values. What if you look into family structures? What if you look into ways of being together? What if you look into being connected to tradition? What if you look into being connected to nature? What if you look into being connected to your family? Is Africa then still that less developed? It’s not my thinking. My thinking is that what you think about here is only economics and that’s a part of the world; it’s also a crucial part of the world, but it’s only a part of the world. What do you see in other countries that should be more developed than Africa is more isolation, less family connection, less sharing of tradition, less understanding of nature. So, you could just as well say that the countries you find more developed are in fact less developed. So, please look into the qualities, the strengths of Africa; I mean Africa, the land every child would know. Look into the qualities and do not believe if other people tell you that you are less developed.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: Only the fittest are going to survive. There are huge differences concerning dependence on nature, for example climate, conditions for possibilities to harvest, conditions of the soil and possibilities for working and so on. All of these factors are in Africa worse than in countries in temperate zones in which climate, wind, weather and everything else is arranged in a way, which is more convenient for human beings. That things are better in one place and worse in another is due to the nature of things. For example the camera industry was residing in Germany in the 20ies and 30ies of last century, they had the best products. Today it is in Japan where the best cameras are made and so forth. This means that the competition between national economies leads to developments, which are better in some countries and worse in others. That's a totally natural process and the insight of Darwin is slightly historic and dated.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Expansionism, colonialism, every single rottenism that has placed itself at the center of human life has made it thus. I find it incredibly offensive in the first place that the African continent should forever be seen as a place of violence, pestilence, disease, a place out of which only the darkness of negativity, only the darkness of destruction, only the darkness of human lack can come. Even then, we do go back down to human beginnings; we can say perhaps the human being is at an utterly, absolutely, repulsively, genocidally negative state of denial. Europe set out to place its old filthy sense of importance upon entire humans on this planet, and the African continent from its very first contact with Europe has in itself suffered more than any other part of the continent from greed, the greed of outsiders, the greed of those that saw Africa as a place where they could chop off hens, chop off heads, where they could castrate, rape, pillage and that continues up to this point. Africa has been sucked dry in order to probe either centers of commerce, or the entire world economy, West, South, East and North has been built on the blood of slaves who were African, on the blood of …

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: Well, about Africa, that includes a [gap] and that there’s a long history of colonization, war and disease in Africa, which is also linked to [inaudible] colonization and other things. So if these in Africa is, Africa state is less developed and we should look back at the history, this long issue of colonization and all the things. The fact, an influence in the development in Africa and I think is not just an isolated case in Africa, but rather the relationship in Africa to other European countries.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: If Darwin's theory is right, what would a monkey think? The important thing is what "developed" means. In fact, the developed countries can bind the African states, or Indonesia, or other less developed countries onto a fast chariot and force them to involuntarily develop. That is crucial.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Well it depends on what you mean by developed. I guess you mean economically developed. You know is Darwin's theory right? I'm not too sure. This idea of the hierarchical survival and development in terms of humanity and I have some qualms and questions about that. And you know, if Darwin's theory is right, as I said I'm not too sure about it. In some ways I'd think that the so-called under developed countries and states and societies are probably very well developed in other ways in community and dare I say spirituality? I mean economically they may not be developed but spiritually and community-wise they are. I heard a woman from Nigeria talk the other day and she said, you know, people just see the surface. They're not part of the community but people do take care of one another in a way that we don't do in the West. Of course in Africa too there was a lot of exploitation of the resources by the Colonial invaders. So, yeah this is a very profound and serious question. I think that we need to be careful of the words that we use when we talk about who's developed and who's not developed or who's underdeveloped. In some ways I think that people who use nuclear weapons or have access to nuclear weapons are very, very underdeveloped and that includes the West.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: Well, this statement by Darwin is that life began in Africa may be true, may be wrong. But, in my theory – in my understanding of this statement, Darwin has got a lot of interest in Africa and therefore, I agree with him. What he actually means here is that a lot of resources, knowledge, experience, wealth has started from Africa. People in Africa has got one history, one strong point that they are very rich in history, they’ve got valuable wealth, they have got a lot of resources and all these resources were taken away when colonized by the Western countries. Colonized and then came back after for implementation and then it was modernized. In other words, these ideas were taken from Africa to the Western countries and they were then [incorporated] and brought back to Africa in style. Therefore, the African power was pirated to the Western countries. That is what it means. And indeed, one – it goes without saying that most of the African activities were pirated to Western countries and this compromised the position of the African world and as such, really life have begun in Africa and came back to Africa for Africa.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: We have to distinguish Darwin’s theory from the theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory is an explanation of the theory of evolution. If the evolution theory is correct that life, that human life has originated in Africa. Now, then we have to ask well, what does developed mean? In the present day, developed means being like the developed nations, like Europe and the United States, which have a very distorted value system based on money and wealth and material wealth, but in terms of real values, Africa is not underdeveloped at all. It is highly developed with respect to human values, love, friendship, value for community and in fact, according to the happiness and contentment index, Africa scores much better than the average individual in Europe and the United States, who have much more material wealth and consume forty times as much energy as the average African.

by Mae-Wan Ho