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

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

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

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

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+

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

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

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

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

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

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

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

Sep 9, 2006 10:25:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

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