I wish them luck. I'm a sort of history buff and Ethiopia has an amazing history. It's been a state (in various forms and with different names) for more than 2000 years, in a part of the world where such stability has been scarce. It has its own ancient alphabet.
It was the only country in Africa to resist the Scramble for Africa and was only occupied by Italy for less than 10 years (after putting the Italian Army to shame initially... and it was only occupied because it got almost 0 outside help).
This seems like an awesome initiative, but they will need a lot of help. Their population went from 70 million in 2007 to 100 million in 2017. The current forecast is for about 200 million by 2050.
I hope they grow peacefully and without internal conflicts, Africa desperately needs a pole of stability and prosperity in the region.
I wouldn't say it's that stable or that the rest of Africa is instable, especially compared to Europe. It's just that Europe industrialized earlier and got to reap rewards that can only come from most simple needs being met easily.
In general, the developing countries are mostly "behind the curve", meaning their economic growth mostly wasn't that much lower for most of history, but rather they started somewhat later, often because they needed the technology developed in the west (modern agriculture mostly) to start increasing their population density. As far as I understand it, Africa is suitable for both very primitive and very advanced agriculture, but not much "in between" and so they got stuck with hunting/gathering and subsistence farming. They also didn't have access to proper domestic animals before Europe industrialized, though they had better animals than the South Americans, apparently. Neither a LLama nor a zebra can pull a plow.
Many countries in Africa were jumpstarted by colonization, and the colonists didn't have any interest in making that growth sustainable or giving the natives the tools to sustain that growth on their own. That's why white African farmers can say the black Africans can't manage huge farms for sh. Well, the white farmers didn't teach it to them and prevented them from learning it on their own...
> They also didn't have access to proper domestic animals before Europe industrialized
I think you're confusing lack of domesticated animals in primitive times.
Cows and such have been farmed in africa for a long time.
For example, Nguni cattle[0], seems to have brought to southern africa as early as the sixth century.
And, well, there were a host of empires on the coast of northern africa before the industrial revolution.
> I wouldn't say it's that stable or that the rest of Africa is instable, especially compared to Europe. It's just that Europe industrialized earlier and got to reap rewards that can only come from most simple needs being met easily.
Europe's industrialization as well as other Western countries heavily depended on the exploitation of third world countries in Asia and Africa, especially after WW2.
Sweatshops and slavery and cheap mass transportation of goods make our lifestyle possible. For a very recent example, smartphones produced in the US/Europe would simply not be affordable for most users and the technology would be nowhere near where it is nowadays since initial smartphones would have never been popular. It took suicide-level conditions in places like Foxconn to get us our gadget at <$1000.
So who are African nations going to exploit? Each other?
At the time of that spate of suicides Foxconn had nearly 1 million workers in its plants. There were up to 14 suicides (it depends whose count you want to use) among that 1 million. The average rate of suicide in China is 22 per 100,000 people per year. That is, the suicide rate at Foxconn was under 5% of the general suicide rate of the Chinese population.
This is probably the thirtieth time I've seen this debunking over the last several years. The first was not long after the original Foxconn suicides news cycle. This is widely available enough information that if somebody references the Foxconn suicides and doesn't know the figures you mention by now, they have no interest in understanding the reality of the situation.
I say this as someone who's considerably more negative about Apple than the median here. I just think you're wasting your breath assuming intellectual honesty from people repeating a canard years after it's been debunked (Note that I'm excluding people aware of the statistic who are interpreting Foxconn's suicides as still notable for whatever reason)
This is the first time I've seen this debunking. And my head isn't in the sand, and I am definitely interested in understanding the reality of the situation.
Thanks for the counterexample. I'm sincerely curious as to how you ended up in this position. When you read a claim (in this case, "Foxconn workers have an elevated suicide rate"), are you not in the habit of at least Googling it to verify whether the source you read is mistaken or lying? In this case, the very first Google result is a short Wikipedia article containing the debunking, for a grand total of thirty seconds of research required to get a clear picture of the truth of the matter.
This isn't a rhetorical question,as I'm actually curious: taking you at face value as subjectively not having your "head in the sand", I don't have a model for how you'd end up believing the Foxconn suicide claim without being aware of the counterargument.
To be fair, you should compare to a demographic group similar to Foxconn workers. Comparison to the whole population may not be very informative due to confounders.
The first time I heard about Foxconn was in a French newspaper, Libération, on the day we learned about Jobs' death. Steve Jobs was on pages 2-3, Foxconn on pages 4-5. I don't know if it was a crazy coincidence or they were just keeping the Foxconn story on hand to publish the next time they had anything else to say about Apple.
Is there any reason to believe, Foxconn employees don't have any other personal/environmental problem causing them to suicide.
While I am all for improving conditions of employees, it should be in context to the environment. If the whole country is working on 1$/day, expecting few companies to got 5$ just because they have global visibility is not feasible. It is not good for the company, economy and social dynamics of that region.
>Is there any reason to believe, Foxconn employees don't have any other personal/environmental problem causing them to suicide.
It seems #1 reason for sucide is mental illness or chronic pain/disease severely impacting their quality of life.
You need to ask can mentally ill people get employed at foxconn? They would be having interviews like for every other job, and probably the workers are selected based on their efficiency which can exclude a lot of mentally ill people.
If not, then we've to remove the number of people who commit suicide due to chronic health issue or mental illness then compare the data again.
Not my area of expertise, but someone with depression or similar disease should be able to interview and function well in company for most of days. Particularly someone very smart may have problem with communication intensive roles, but may excel in repetitive/manual tasks.
How are we to judge it without numbers? While everyone likely could be better in thid spacd focusing efforts disproportionately on the ones better than average already seems irrational, arbitrary, and potentially counterproductive as it turns into "Improving anything in response to complaints is a mistake - giving in only leads to more trouble over doing nothing and waiting for them to go away."
Disturbingly the later anti-pattern has held shockingly true with ethical standards and as infamous actors go on with bad practices for decades while those who improve are subjected to increasingly harsh criticism and boycotts. Ethical Tall Poppyism is a disturbingly common trend.
> The difference is those suicides at Foxconn are for one reason only, working conditions.
That's a pretty wild assertion.
Is there a reason to believe that the folks working at Foxconn have otherwise 100% idyllic lives with no divorces, deaths of loved ones, clinical depression, etc.?
Well, this happened in France circa 2008 in a state company becoming private. The suicide rate was bit superior to the population average, but not that much.
So the CEO argument during trial was to compare the suicide rate to cop's suicide rate and say "that's not too bad". This is dumb. You should compare to the suicide rate in similar company, or if you cna't find similar company in your country, you take the suicide rate 5 years prior and adjust for intangibles.
Turns out the suicide rate in telco was way inferior to the population average prior to the "new management" methods. The ex-CEO will probably avoid prison still. But the trial isn't over yet, so anything can happen.
Not to mention that there's >1 million of them. There are cities smaller than that. Every kind of deviation from the norm, they probably have one, ten or a hundred of them.
> Europe's industrialization as well as other Western countries heavily depended on the exploitation of third world countries in Asia and Africa, especially after WW2.
If colonialism was necessary for industrialisation the European powers with no or smaller colonial empires would have had lower growth. Germany would have been behind the U.K. and France. Austria would have been obviously suffering compared to Germany. This didn’t happen. The evidence is ambiguous as to whether Empire had any effect on economic growth and what it had certainly wasn’t large. You can not detect decolonisation’s effect on historical GDP by eye. That’s how significant colonialism was to economic growth in the developed world.
If actually being the government and in charge of other countries, being able to loot them more or less at will, and being able to direct their populations’ labour and economic development did basically nothing why would trade immiserate Asia and Africa?
More to the point, literally every decade since WWII has been the best ever, on every continent, since WWII. Lifespan, healthy lifespan, education and literacy go up on every continent. Every continent but Africa sees growth in GDP per capita and they look like they’re joining that trend now too.
As far as Foxconn goes they have a lower suicide rate than the general Chinese population.
> ABC News and The Economist both have done some simple comparison— although the number of workplace suicides at Foxconn is large in absolute terms, the suicide rate is actually lower when compared to the overall suicide rate of China or the United States. According to a 2011 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention report, the country has a high suicide rate with approximately 22.23 deaths per 100,000 persons. In 2010, the worst year for workplace suicides at Foxconn with a total of 14 deaths, its employee count was a reported 930,000 people. The total number of Foxconn employee suicides in 2010 is unknown.
Belgium indeed went on a bit of an exploitation spree. But it's never been notably wealthier than its neighbours. (Of course the king got some nice palaces, but that's not country-level wealth.) Instead the industrial part of Belgium was wealthy in the same era that the nearby industrial part parts of France were (and Detroit was). Now that's rust-belt poor, and the wealthy bits are tracking Holland. These patterns seem hard to explain by referring to the (very real) evils of the congo empire.
It's doubtful Congo was responsible for the wealth of Belgium.
- What is now Belgium was one of the wealthiest parts of Europe in the Middle Ages, long before any colonization.
- Belgium was the second European country to industrialize. This caused the economy to boom and Belgium had the 4th highest GDP in 1900. Congo was only a colony since 1908.
- In 1918 the whole economy was destroyed because of the war. The Germans had plundered the country. Whole factories were dismantled and shipped to Germany.
- In 1945 the economy was once again destroyed because of the Germans.
- In 1956, at the heigh of colonial exploitation, Congo was 3,3 % of Belgian GDP and 75000 direct and indirect jobs. Not nothing but hardly the base of all wealth. It was much lower in the preceding decades.
- Congo became independent in 1960. Annual GDP growth rates were much higher during the 60's than during the whole colonial period.
I would say Belgium is currently wealthy because of the Marshall plan.
I'd say all of Europe, and America benefited from trade with developing countries, especially in terms of Energy. But then the definition of exploitation gets a lot trickier than it already is.
I believe exploitation is simply a not so useful label. Trade agreements, even those that appear lopsided, are in my opinion not morally wrong. The moral issues arise from accompanying violence, corruption and theft.
The developing countries who arguably have been "exploited" could not have developed even to their current state on their own. At least not within centuries.
The oil-rich countries in the middle east couldn't have used their oil for anything until they got the technology to get it out of the earth and somebody paid them for exporting it.
Same goes for many exports of African countries.
Sure thing, the "first world" has done a lot of wrong to the "third world". But the latter isn't going to get anywhere without help from the former, either.
>If colonialism was necessary for industrialisation the European powers with no or smaller colonial empires would have had lower growth.
This assumes that the colonialists countries didn't trade with non colonialist countries in Europe.
Prussia initiated the concept of a common market in 1818 and in 1833 a treaty extended the Zollverein to the larger states of Germany, although Austria, by Prussian design was excluded.
As demand for coal increased, Germany rapidly developed railway and coalfields
We see lots of migration between Europeans countries specially ones with linked borders. There is movement of goods and people which itself can pull multiple of European countries to higher wages levels and living standards.
If french were getting richer and Germans were extracting coal. Germans could sell their coal at much higher price to French and grow rich without getting into colonialism.
If you cross the border and make much higher wages, the news would spread and regions would equalise overtime unless there is something which artificially stops migration.
> Sweatshops and slavery and cheap mass transportation of goods make our lifestyle possible.
One of these things is not like the others!
Cheap sea transport is a triumph of engineering. Sweatshop is just a term for a factory which the speaker disdains. Usually implying that the peasants should stay on their fields in picturesque poverty, and not make their own life choices.
Slavery, on the other hand, is actually evil. Fortunately it's now confined to certain backward parts of the world which have very little to do with the modern economy. I mean how many things manufactured in Mauritania have you bought recently?
Mass transportation means you can profit from slavery or human rights abuses or whatever, while not seeing it because of the distance.
Slavery is more common than you think, and especially because there are conditions equal to any definition of slavery, which are just not labeled that. There still is plenty of such slavery almost all around the world.
Also, slavery is not the standard for exploitation. Subsistence wages alone may or may not be exploitative, but they don't constitute slavery. You need additional restrictions, for example on your movement, choice of work, human rights, etc
"Exploitation" is a very subjective term. I won't argue that Europeans and their colonists did a lot of wrong.
On the other hand, industrial growth isn't just exploitation. Whom is China "exploiting" right now? Sure they are trying to do this to a few countries, but with very limited success compared to European Colonization.
There is no fundamental difference between the growth-rate in different developing countries, or between them and Europe during industrialization. In the final analysis, wealth can only develop through exponential growth. There is no sustainable short-cut.
You realize that the European powers of 17th and 18th centuries "exploited" the Americas to include the U.S and yet here stands the U.S head and shoulders above these "exploiters".
Good going USA. It's too bad Africa as a whole didn't manage the same. But you know, the people in the now USA who did the overthrowing were themselves Europeans. After all, the native Americans are not running things today are they?
It's harder to exploit people who have the institutional/cultural knowledge to fight back.
And still, lots of natives in colonies managed to overthrow their exploiters, usually with higher technology or more ressources than their original hunter-gatherer culture had.
Native Americans were outmatched by the population pressure from Europe. They didn't get the time to develop agriculture and everything to the point that they could compete in population density. And on top of that, a lot of violence, accidental harm and wrongful deeds have been done to them.
America’s success was the direct result of ethnic cleansing of millions of Native Americans and the backbreaking labor of millions of slaves. The comparison is ridiculous. We were the exploiters.
No it wasn't. It doesn't even pass the sniff test.
Why do you think the slave-free north was much richer than the south, before the civil war?
If slavery makes a country rich, why isn't Africa rich?
Why wasn't Brazil, which imported ~4 million slaves (compare to ~200k for USA) significantly richer than the USA?
Native Americans had slaves:
> "An exhaustive search of some 725 late 18th/early 19th century ethnohistoric sources and 20th century ethnographic works indicates that predatory warfare, or preying on other groups for plunder and captives, was engaged in by virtually all Northwest Coast societies."
> "Source after source notes, either through specific instances or in general terms, and with almost monotonous iteration, that within this large area a prime motive for raiding was to gain captives for enslavement."
If you think slavery was instrumental to any rich nation getting rich, I suggest you read a lot more history, and look at who had the most slaves in history, and who has the most slaves today.
> Why do you think the slave-free north was much richer than the south, before the civil war?
Because the North had a diversified, industrialized economy, while the South specialized in cotton production.
But the North never could have diversified in this way if it weren't for the South. First because slave-grown cotton was a major source of capital for the overall US economy - it provided over half of all US export earnings. Second, because the demand for textile factories, meat processing plants, insurance, shippers etc. in the over-specialized South is precisely what created a market for the North to diversify into.
This is on top of the fact that the North itself had slaves for a long time, from initial settlement to abolition many decades later.
I think you're going off of old/bad data. Olmstead's paper in 2016 writes:
> Other findings of the NHC, such as the assertion that the Cotton South was the primary force driving national expansion in the antebellum period, are neither original nor correct.
As you say:
> it provided over half of all US export earnings.
This is not true. It may(?) have been over half of US exports, by some measure, but cotton was definitely not over half of earnings. Per Olmstead 2016:
> North’s fellow new economic historians promptly assaulted his thesis. It was widely recognized that cotton was leading U.S. export in the antebellum period. But exports represented less than one-tenth of total income (Kravis 1972). Figure 2 graphs the values of cotton exports as a share the value of U.S. merchandise exports, and then both U.S. cotton and merchandise export values as shares of GDP.30 As the bottom line makes clear, cotton exports were a very small share of national product—less than 5 percent over much of the of the antebellum period (Engerman and Gallman 1983, p. 28).
Emphasis mine. It goes on:
> Perhaps more surprising, given the NHC narrative, is that in 1839 and 1849 corn, not cotton, was even the South’s leading crop in terms of value! Some familiarity with historical data might have moderated the sensational claims of the NHC literature.
If you're interested in the topic, I suggest you read it, especially the section "The Economic History Slavery Debates". You should also read the sections relating about diversification if you have a strong belief in the over-specialized south.
Are you arguing that slavery did not contribute significantly to the wealth of the North, first by using slaves directly, then by integrating advantageously with the South’s economy and the slave trade?
My condensed argument is that Slavery per se does not make countries rich. Rather I am only arguing that slavery, in many countries including the USA, Brazil, and others world-wide, did not contribute to the long term economic success of the nation nearly as much as many claim it does (or solely claim it does in the USA).
We don't have a counterfactual Twin Earth where those countries did not have slaves, but we know for sure slavery is not necessary for a country to be successful. And if we look at countries that had way more slaves, the advantage of simply having slave labor seems hugely insufficient for a country to be successful.
It is possible that the USA had slaves and was able to economically leverage them far greater than all the other countries that had slaves, but this seems unlikely, and such a scenario would also be the biggest gain for a counterfactual scenario that the USA would have been successful without them, too.
> If slavery makes a country rich, why isn't Africa rich?
I never made the claim that any country can become rich simply by having slavery. The question of why the West is so much richer than e.g. Africa or Brazil is obviously vastly complex and does not boil down to "because of slavery." But whether or not the American South was richer than the North at the time of the civil war, it certainly very very wealthy, and slavery was instrumental in this.[0] I don't think this is really controversial.
> Native Americans had slaves:
The existence of slavery in these or other societies does not in any way absolve the US from its past in this regard. Pointing an accusatory finger at some Native Americans who enslaved prisoners of war and the like, in contrast to a vast and extremely profitable business empire built on systematic enslavement, which has had ripple effects of racism on individuals and communities since, seems incredibly tone-deaf. Even more so when you consider that we killed the Native Americans by the literal millions.
I'm not trying to point accusatory fingers anywhere, you're missing the claim. You made the claim that USA success was the direct result of slave labor. If this were true, you would expect other societies with boatloads of slave labor to be more successful. They weren't.
Since lots of places had lots of unpaid labor and did nothing particularly successful, there must be more to it. If there is more to it, it is (usually) evidence that the USA would have been successful without slave labor.
Perhaps my choice of the term "direct" is overly specific, but I feel like this is a very nit-picky quibble. The underlying point I was trying to make doesn't change, which is that the United States benefited hugely (in purely economic terms) from slavery. Whether or not we would have been as, less, or more successful without it, or whether it has been helpful to others, is an orthogonal discussion. As I said, I am not making the claim, and never intended to, that slavery was the only cause of American prosperity. If this is the primary dispute you have with what I said, I readily accept the correction and we can move on.
However, if your intention is to dispute the claim that slavery was immensely beneficial to the development of the American economy, or to suggest that the morality of American slavery was somehow mitigated by other historical examples of slavery, I strongly disagree. I think in general this mentality is incredibly disrespectful. Acknowledging the role played in our success by the (unwilling) sacrifice made by millions of slaves and Native Americans is the very least that we can do.
> United States benefited hugely (in purely economic terms) from slavery. Whether or not we would have been as, less, or more successful without it, or whether it has been helpful to others, is an orthogonal discussion.
I don't see how these can be orthogonal. If the claim of benefiting from something isn't a comparison to a world in which you didn't have that thing, then what is it?
And since we don't have access to a world in which the US didn't have slavery, the best we can do to get information is to compare to other somewhat similar societies. Other places in the Americas with (and without) slave economies seem extremely relevant.
One comparison not mentioned so far: The cotton mills of England spun a lot of slave-grown cotton, just like the ones of New England. It was debated at the time how essential this was. And the civil war blockade provided a useful natural experiment, in which it turned out not to take very long to switch to cotton from other places, like Egypt.
The moral questions don't seem tightly coupled to the economic ones. Would anyone claim that slavery in what's now Haiti (or Brazil) was less of an evil act than slavery in the US, on the grounds that these places are poorer now? Or more evil, on the same grounds? And if not, then why is disputing the economic benefit of slavery in any way taken to be disrespectful of suffering?
First of all, I have heard and read from numerous sources that I trust that slavery played a huge role in the early American economy. But that on its own would be a simple factual dispute.
The second issue is that regardless of the accuracy of the claim, downplaying the value of slavery is a way to devalue the debt owed to black Americans and has been used as such in arguments. The less valuable slavery was, the less white Americans should feel owed to pay back. So I think there’s a significant moral cost to this argument, and yes I think it’s disrespectful. But again, it’s factually controversial as well.
I had also made a variety of significant points which GP failed to respond to, instead focusing only on a hyper-literal interpretation of one subset of my argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The fact that England, another state with a horrific history of exploitation and colonialism, was also guilty of slavery, is hardly exculpatory for the US. Whether slavery was economically beneficial in every single historical example is a separate question from whether it was beneficial to the United States.
That the slave economy was huge in early America is beyond doubt. But the more interesting debate is to what degree this influenced later American wealth. This question doesn't answer itself, we need evidence. And the presence of lots of other slave sugar plantation economies nearby is a treasure-trove. Many were also rich in the 18th C, like Barbados & Saint-Dominque... richer than the weird experiment in theocracy going on around Boston. Their 18th C riches didn't translate to 20th C riches. The "huge role in the early American economy" at early dates actually tells us very little about the effect on the trajectory in later centuries.
My argument re English cotton mills was much more focused than you credit. It was about how rapidly they switched from slave-grown cotton to non-slave cotton, once there was a blockade, not some denial that they consumed slave-grown cotton before this.
I don't think slavery is instrumental in the economic success of the USA - it probably hindered development, while no doubt enriching some individuals. If true, then when slavery was ended we would presumably have seen a stagnation in the economic fortunes of the USA, which I don't think has happened.
> If true, then when slavery was ended we would presumably have seen a stagnation in the economic fortunes of the USA, which I don't think has happened.
Something like that did in fact happen -- the post-civil war period coincided with the Long Depression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression), which some economic historians would date between 1873 and 1896.
However, the Long Depression was at least in part a global phenomenon, and with any economic story there are many confounding factors. (And on top of all of this, nations did not keep rigorous economic statistics at the time anyway.)
Actually America industrialized quite early. The north was business and industry savvy, while the south focused on slavery. Slavery was not important for national economy - otherwise there would have been no civil war in 1860:s. Instead north was doing just fine economically without slavery, while south wanted to hold to most of it's capital (slaves).
I agree that the expansion to west was facilitated by forced migration of native americans from their homelands in a process that was borderline genocidal.
The fun part is about american industrialization - quite lot of it was based on directly stealing the IP of european industrialists (i.e not respecting their patents). This is quite fun in the sense how vocal US is now in upkeeping IP laws.
if we're talking geopolitically yes of course, if we're talking culturally yes of course. The other leaders at some point like Portugal, Netherlands, UK, Spain, all had their time in the sun. Now it is the U.S's, I'm not making the claim this will remain in perpetuity.
Currently your international relations with most countries are in shambles. You've got a nearly 20 year war going with Afganistan over a terrorist attack that wasn't sponsored by the country, and it doesn't look like the Taliban is going to actually disapear. Your other misadventure into Iraq completely destabilized the area, and resulted in creation of ISIS.
Speaking as an American who has lived in other countries, the idea of "American Exceptionalism" is rampant in the USA and you will not undo it with any appeal or facts. It's built into the identity of so many people here. Seeing that as a group Americans are a majority on most English speaking websites, criticism, however correct, is always met with egoistic backlash. I hope you haven't taken it personally, nor believe that it's ALL of us. Nationalism is a disease, but one not likely to be cured.
> Currently your international relations with most countries are in shambles.
That's an empty, meaningless claim. Even if it were true (it's not), it simply does not matter very much. When Obama was in office, it was celebrations, so to speak. When Trump is gone in N years, normalcy will return, even if it requires some relationship repair. A few years does not matter in any grand scheme when it comes to relationships between the US and eg France or Britain. One President is not going to wreck relationships that are hundreds of years old. Trump is not worse than what Bush put us through with Iraq 15 years ago when it comes to international relations, not even remotely close.
> You've got a nearly 20 year war going with Afganistan over a terrorist attack that wasn't sponsored by the country, and it doesn't look like the Taliban is going to actually disapear.
That's a bogus premise. The US didn't go into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. The US achieved its primary objective in Afghanistan a very long time ago - neutralizing Al Qaeda as a globally threatening, effective, large terrorist organization. Removing the Taliban and establishing a stable democratic Afghanistan, is the stretch goal that was always going to be very difficult to accomplish. It's questionable that such a thing could be accomplished short of fully occupying every inch of the country and pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into it annually. Is the US going to fail to achieve an impossible goal of nation building a democratic Afghanistan in under 20 years? Yeah.
> Your other misadventure into Iraq completely destabilized the area, and resulted in creation of ISIS.
That one is partially correct. It's the dictatorships of the Middle East (nearly all nations in the Middle East are without functioning democracy and most are very illiberal; the US has introduced two of the few examples of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan), their systems of government, and Islamic extremism, that perpetually destabilizes the region. Some of that mess is entirely localized, some of it has been introduced by foreign powers over centuries. You already know that of course, the Taliban (the theocratic group you mentioned the US is failing to remove) are a prime example of it. There is no such thing as a stable dictatorship or stable theocracy (they require constant threats or applications of violence to hold their positions). Nearly all dictatorships in modern history have resulted in disaster and chaos in their wake. Whenever Saddam's regime fell (however long that would have taken without the US involvement), it was always going to result in the sort of chaos that we've seen in Iraq, as the country is a forced-together bifurcated society of conflicting factions. The US should have never gone into Iraq, however it's also false to pretend that Iraq was stable or functioning well before that (What does a wildly violent, murderous stable dictatorship mean exactly? That's a contradiction in terms. Stable in what regard, the lack of all basic human rights and democratic institutions? Stable in the application of consistent terror to oppress the people?).
That's because the U.S. was never decolonized. It just became an independent colonial state, where European settlers and their descendants continued to steal land, kill natives, and import slaves for another hundred years.
That's how the U.S. came to stand "head and shoulders" above European nations: unlimited land and free labor, which yielded almost unlimited wealth, which was all acquired by Europeans.
Today slavery is abolished, and Native American nations are recognized as sovereign entities; but descendants of slaves and Native Americans continue to live in a country where colonial descendants of European settlers hold all the wealth and power, and the history of expropriation and massacre of their ancestors has been whitewashed as quaint folklore.
So if you look at it from the perspective of the colonized people and their descendants, North America has had it even worse than almost anyone.
What. A simple counter point that breaks down everything you said would be the measurement of butter production in the northern states pre bellum (civil war) versus that of the southern states.
So no, nothing to do with "unlimited land and free labor".
You're going to have to elaborate, I didn't understand your point at all.
I look forward to watching you attempt to demonstrate that appropriation of native land, and free labor from slavery, aren't the pillars on which most wealth in the US was built. I'm sure it will be entertaining.
Sure, butter production in the southern states where there was "unlimited free labor" was roughly 20% of the national output, even though they had 40% of the total dairy cows. So there is your counter point to the argument that with "free labor" things got massively built. Quite the opposite. Its hard to get high productivity from slave labor (go figure).
Anyhow, one has to observe to be first aware of such things like the butter production in the south as compared to the north to realize that the basic argument of "free labor and unlimited lands" doesn't hold up very well.
I'd also like to point that during the peak of the British Empire in the late 19th century up to the early 20th century, the British had by that point outlawed slavery.
Lastly, it is amazing to me that you keep bringing up certain groups of peoples. My sister recently took a genetics test and confirming what I already knew I'm roughly 25% "native" like you keep referencing to. Is this my mic drop moment?
Indeed this is something that even George Washington famously wrote about. His conclusion was that slave labor is an economic disaster and that he would be far better off financially not being responsible for carrying all the costs of the labor. And that's before the US developed a far superior economic model to what existed in Washington's time, in regards to productivity (ie even in a backward, low productivity agrarian context, it was obvious slave labor was extremely inefficient, it did not work well at all).
This is something that has been proven repeatedly by studies that have looked into slave labor in the colonies and elsewhere. When people on the Internet say otherwise, my experience has been that they never support their claims, they're always empty statements held up as fact.
The US would have developed faster if the slaves had been free. Along with being obviously morally evil, slavery inherently must involve a great misallocation of human resources. It's an extreme example of command economics. The Soviets, Chinese and others more recently have demonstrated how poorly slave-based economics works in practice. We're not lacking for proof; there isn't a single example from modern history of it working well versus free labor.
The greatest example of this in action in recorded history, is modern China. They only developed at all after they began to shift away from a de facto slave-based labor system, to something closer to free labor. Simply put, they unleashed their human capital and it has done the rest, going to work building out modern China (in spite of the restraining, backwards, command economics system that remains, rather than because of it; something Internet pundits frequently get wrong about China).
First, I'll note that you haven't addressed the "unlimited land" part at all. Shall I conclude that you agree with me, at least, that appropriation of native land was one of the pillars of US wealth creation?
> butter production in the southern states where there was "unlimited free labor" was roughly 20% of the national output, even though they had 40% of the total dairy cows.
So from this one example, you're extrapolating that slavery did not play a major role in the creation of overall US wealth? That is a... bold claim, to put it lightly. It is not supported by contemporary historians, and your other comments don't exactly inspire confidence as to your mastery if History, so forgive me for being skeptical.
How about you start by telling me, of the 13 original colonies, how many had slaves? And, perhaps, how much wealth had been accumulated in the original colonies before they abolished slavery?
From there, perhaps move on to researching how slavery enriched the North, even after abolition.
> I'd also like to point that during the peak of the British Empire in the late 19th century up to the early 20th century, the British had by that point outlawed slavery.
I fail to see how that is relevant to the US.
Before you take your British Empire comparison too far, you might want to research the origin of the empire's wealth during the 19th and 20th century...
> I'm roughly 25% "native" like you keep referencing to.
Oh you're Native American, that's great! What tribe?
Not only does your genetics test not matter, by claiming native heritage in this way you are participating in something which actual Native Americans find problematic.
Native American Cultures are extremely dynamic. It's hard to define objectively who is native American and who is not. As in similar matters, it may be the best thing to let people call themselves what they want.
You can define Native American ancestry in some way or other, but that would say nothing about an individuals connection to that culture which may be high or may be zero.
> Native American Cultures are extremely dynamic. It's hard to define objectively who is native American and who is not.
Sure. To quote the interview linked in my previous comment:
"We have debates amongst ourselves about whether being Native American is about being a citizen of your tribe – a political designation – or about culture and traditional practice. I tend to come down on the side of political citizenship. It’s true that it’s about much more than blood – culture matters. But our political autonomy matters too, and that helps produce a space in which our cultural traditions can thrive."
So it's true that there isn't one unique, immutable rule for determining Native identity.
But there is also a very real pattern of white people claiming Native identity in a way that 1) all tribes disagree with, and 2) erases the voice of actual Native Americans, and sometimes even actively hurts them.
> it may be the best thing to let people call themselves what they want.
They can call themselves whatever they want. But if they're going to use some bullshit blood test as a "get out of jail free card" to make a white supremacist argument, furthering a well-documented pattern of disrespectful behavior to Native Americans, then I'm going to call them out on it.
Just imagine someone saying "Hey, I'm sick of you always bringing up specific people when you mention the Holocaust. A got a blood test and I'm 25% Jewish. Is this my mic drop moment?" . In this context would you also say "Meh, let people call themselves what they want". Context matters.
If he can't use his 25% native part as an argument for wealth partially accruing to original inhabitants of the continent, you can't use his other 75% as an argument for wealth accruing to European settlers (assuming his other 75% is European).
The shortest and simplest argument is that the South barely had the funds to prosecute the war while the North not only could fully fund their war efforts, they had access to extensive lines of credit from other nations. The South had to rely upon the largesse of European countries using it as a pawn.
The North lost roughly one soldier for every African slave brought to the South and the least we could do is not imply they were some impoverished slavers who couldn't plant a crop, open a factory, or build rail lines without some help from the South.
> The shortest and simplest argument is that the South barely had the funds to prosecute the war while the North not only could fully fund their war efforts, they had access to extensive lines of credit from other nations. The South had to rely upon the largesse of European countries using it as a pawn.
Interesting argument. And what was the wealth of the North built on?
Well we know it wasn't slavery. In the South the rich invested in slaves, and the rich controlled most of the economy. In the North the economy was dominated by agriculture, and was well along into the industrial revolution.
To put the economies in the starkest of differences, 90% of all the capital in the United States, prior to the Civil War, was located in the North. The North employed 1000% more factory workers, in factories that were magnitudes more profitable. Steel production, railroads, engines, chemicals, all this was produced in the North in almost their entirety.
The South produced only three things of note: cotton, slavery, and traitors.
Interesting. Would you say the South was an important market for the industrialized North?
Would you like to guess whether businessmen in the North invested in the slave trade and grew rich thanks to it?
And what do you make of the fact that the North abolished slavery only after decades of using slaves, making it plausible that they never could have succeeded as colonies without slaves in the first place?
You can't say the northern states were not benefiting from exploitative conditions or even slavery in the south. And all of white America continued to profit from denying non-whites equal rights in one way or another.
The Confederates had probably hoped the North would not want to go to war over the Union thing.
And also: Even though slavery is not an effective means of production (though it probably was, at some points for some people), it's still wrong.
> Europe's industrialization as well as other Western countries heavily depended on the exploitation of third world countries
Causality and time moved the other direction.
Industrialization made Britain and a few other countries rich and technologically advanced. That enabled them to conquer and exploit third world countries. On balance, that enriched a lot of individuals and made a lot of leaders feel powerful, but didn't actually make the countries any richer.
The earlier conquests of the New World by Spain and Portugal was a whole other thing, mostly based on astonishing immunological luck.
Somehow it's easy to imagine that the Iraq war could happen for the benefit of some people's careers, and Halliburton's stockholders, while being a complete disaster for the US as a whole (not to mention for everyone else).
Yet when we discuss 19th C colonial adventures, the default assumption is that the much weaker states of the time certainly knew exactly what they were doing, for their own good. And could make sure that their generals, months away by post, certainly obeyed, and never got rich themselves...
> Europe's industrialization as well as other Western countries heavily depended on the exploitation of third world countries in Asia and Africa, especially after WW2.
Serveral landlocked European countries industrialized just fine without a single square foot of colonies, certainly no worse than first generation colonial powers.
> It was the only country in Africa to resist the Scramble for Africa
Indeed. In many ways you do better to think of Ethiopia (of that period) as a colonial power. Although there were no sailing ships involved, a fairly small center conquered lots of surrounding territory, inhabited by people who linguistically and culturally were about as foreign as could be.
> Their population went from 70 million in 2007 to 100 million in 2017. The current forecast is for about 200 million by 2050.
And from 20 million in 1960, when America was about 200 million.
Have you by any chance read the book "Dictatorland" by Paul Kenyon? If you haven't, you'll love it. Anyways, another incredible history if Eritrea, and their common history with Ethiopia is pretty crazy too. One of those countries the world really knows nothing about...
The modern history of Ethiopia (and Africa) is also extremely interesting, the current prime minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiy_Ahmed), has turned into a huge reformer ... unexpectedly pushing through huge political and economic reforms
Amusingly during the Second Italian-Ethiopian War when fighting fascist Italy, Ethiopia received marginal material support from Nazi Germany in the form of a handful of airplanes, a few thousand rifles, and a few million rounds of ammunition.
(Italy and Germany had a dispute over Austria, which seemingly manifested in this way.)
A couple of months ago they weren't even paying their soldiers^.
The country is overrun by Islamic Extremists killing and terrorising at will. See the daily news.
Africa's population growth is fundamentally destroying any hope they have for stability or progress. People emigrate to informal settlements near major cities in an uncontrollable/unaccountable way destroying delicate balances of resources with only a tiny fraction of the population contributing to the national or municipal coffers.
You can't grow your population so rapidly, with so few resources and
expect standard of living increases equivalent to the west. With that you can't expect the stability of the west.
They will inevitably keep looking to officials who will promise the earth with no hope of delivering.
Except living standards are improving in Africa and have been for a while outside actively unstable regions.
Underdeveloped Africa is actually a good but risky place to invest partly because or diminished returns run backwards - smaller investments can get bigger returns but they are more vulnerable to things like economic downturns. And fortunately that also boosts efficiency to sustain the resource needs.
I have a few funds invested that target Africa. They have consistently underperformed even in this bullish market. But like a compulsive gambler I hang onto them wishing and hoping this time things are going to turn around. Africa may be a good investment, but the inflection point may take decades to arrive.
You might want to target eastern Africa. Not all countries, but Ethiopia and maybe some countries in the EAC (especially if the constitution is accepted by all). As long as western Africa does not break free from the CFA, i don't see any equivalent there anytime soon.
They claim it happened in 12 hours. Unless they're talking about planting seeds, I find it hard to believe and take this story just as a political stunt.
Ethiopia's population is 100M. Did 10% participate in this somehow, and each person plant 35 trees across the country?
I have a friend who has a small business doing, well I actually have no clue what the English word for it is, but its direct translation would be “Nature Nursing/Care taking”. A descriptive translation would be something like a wild nature gartner.
I asked him and he said it would be little trouble to plant that many seedlings if you coordinates the efforts and planned for it.
He also told me that these stunts, like airlines planting a lot of trees to go carbon neutral, often ends up with a lot of dead trees. Because the hard part isn’t planting trees it’s making sure they survive the first five years.
> Because the hard part isn’t planting trees it’s making sure they survive the first five years.
Which is interesting because the article already mentions a lack of water resources:
>> as Ethiopians heeded Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s ambitious plan to roll back years of drought and scanty rains that the United Nations says has left some 3.8 million people in immediate need for assistance.
It's important to remember that the water used by trees is not necessarily zero sum. Trees shade the ground reducing evaporation; they contribute to soil structure increasing the soils ability to hold water; they break hard-pan layers allowing more water to seep into the ground during rain-fail events etc.
Check this out as well: forests attract rain! So if they can manage to keep a forest healthy it should help improve the local climate rain patterns and increase rainfall.[1]
Now that is interesting. What are the challenges for making sure the trees survive the first five years? Do you have any knowledge you can help to elaborate?
As I understand it, it’s a range of things. Water and protection from animals, as other mentioned, is a big part of it. But so is growth speed, most trees grow rather slow, but grass, weeds and shrubbery doesn’t. This means that seedlings can lose the struggle for sunlight if you don’t “now the lawn” around them.
There is also quality of the seedlings. The best example is kitchen herbs. If you buy some
rosemary in a pot at you local supermarket, it’ll taste fine. It’ll probably also survive long enough for you to eat it. If you try to plant it in your garden with the intention of keeping rosemary around for years, then there is a good chance it’ll have died within its first month. That’s because supermarket herbs are mass produced in safe environments, where long term survival isn’t valued. You could get lucky, but you’d have a much higher rate of success if you buy your rosemary from a grower who grew them to be planted outside. This is both slower and more expensive though.
Getting 350 million seedlings, often as cheap as you can, is easier with the mass-production approach, and that’s typically what these projects do.
All valid points, but Ethiopia is a dry mountainous country next to other dry countries. It already has a track record for droughts and famines. Proper irrigation probably the #1 problem.
They've been planning this for a while. Lots of schools and government offices were closed so people could do this - I wouldn't be surprised if more than 10% of people were involved.
They didn't mention that most schools in Ethiopia are half day by default (because they lack sufficient teachers & school rooms to educate all the children for a full day). So in reality, most children wouldn't have been in school for half the day regardless.
"The average British Columbian planter plants 1 600 trees per day,[5] but it is not uncommon for experienced planters to plant up to 4,000 trees per day"
I looked at the source of that and it seems to come from a "Preventing Tree Planting Injuries" safety manual.
They state that you can plant 100-200 trees per hour, and extrapolate that to planting 8x a day (presumably assuming an 8 hour work day).
Simply using common sense will tell you that this number is total nonsense, unless you're using seeds and just tossing them into the ground. 200 trees per hour assumes 1 tree every 18 seconds.
Multiple issues here:
1. The work is strenuous. I've planted trees before the proper way and it's not something you can do for 8 hours day in day out without breaks. Digging is intense work that requires frequent breaks even for a person who is in shape.
2. You need to have 1600 saplings available somewhere. Simply taking the time to bring 1 sapling to the dug hole will take you probably anywhere between 10 and 30 seconds. The farther away the hole from the sapling collection, the longer it will take, possibly up to a minute.
3. 18 seconds for digging a tree hole is absolute nonsense as well. This assumes top quality topsoil that's already been prepped for planting (trees or other plants). It basically assumes garden soil quality and no need to dig the hole back up once you planted the tree.
4. You need put the dug up soil back and cover the exposed roots with either soil that you dug up or good soil that was brought to the planting site. You also need to water the soil afterward and compress it around the roots to make sure the sapling doesn't fall from the slightest gust of wind. This easily triples the time compared to just "digging a hole".
Basically - don't believe the first number you see on the wikipedia or the internet. The source is not reputable and sounds like it was written by a person who hasn't done a day of garden work in their life.
I also wouldn't really consider anything less than a 2-3ft sapling a tree. And I wouldn't consider it "planted" unless it survives at least the next year.
Yea, it does feel like there must be some fine print behind that number. FWIW, the Minister's twitter account does specify tree seedlings, so it doesn't sound like they just airdropped 350 million seeds or anything like that.
Though the limiting factor on how fast you can plant trees is more the production of seedlings than the physical labor of planting. So I guess if they've spend the last several months growing and distributing seedlings in preparation for this campaign, actually plainting them all in one day isn't so crazy
Apparently they're seedlings, not just seeds. Seems to be a large campaign; one company alone was boasting about having planted 1M. But I have no idea if it's verified in any way.
Ethiopia is a gorgeous country. I highly recommend it as a place to visit. I've been a handful of times and there's so much to see. The people are awesome, the food can't be beat, and coffee is everywhere. Its a multi-cultural country so as you travel around the diversity in how people live and dress is striking.
Regarding the trees - it is the rainy season in Ethiopia, should last another few months. The country is huge and while parts of it are very very dry, other parts are borderline jungle. There are some cloud rain forests, not sure if they have "proper" rain forests. Ethiopia actually as a country has a lot of water (though it does need to be carefully managed)
The government invests heavily in the country (as does China). In the span of a few years I saw huge changes in the infrastructure.
I'm not a botanist, but if they are experiencing drought then how will these newly planted trees survive? According to the article they are so low on water they are slashing output on their hydro-power system and ceasing electricity exports.
It is quite possible to change microclimates[0], even in a small area, and guess what, you change enough microclimates you change the climate in the whole area.
A great example of transforming large tracts of land is the UVM Jericho research forest in Vermont. It was farmed for nearly 150 years, its soil degraded to the point where it was sandy and barren. I've heard it described as a moonscape. After planting 70,000 trees [1] and letting nature do its thing, it now resembles an old growth forest. It's a prime example of nature's capacity to heal itself and is a source of hope for me in the context of climate change.
I don't know how well it scales, but trees perspire and also provide shade and root systems that keep groundwater from leeching out of the soil. They may not survive, but the ones that do I imagine will help as long as they're of the right varieties.
An example would be olive trees, but hey there's a whole wikipedia article about it that definitely knows more than me:
"Trees store water, raise water from underlying aquifers, reduce evaporation after a rain, attract animals (and thereby fertility through feces), and they can cause more rain to fall (by temperature reduction and other effects), if the planted area is large enough."
Also not a botanist but often places could experience drought because they have cleared the land and the water runs off to river/ocean. By planting trees, when it does rain the trees can absorb the water and stop the run off.
Planting a tree is as easy as planting a tiny seed in the ground. What all these headlines omit is that the majority of things planted won't survive. My back yard has a few thousand tree seedlings growing in it naturally.
When we hear of tree planting we picture a mayor or rich person planting a four year old tree in a park. The reality is that trees grow from seed.
In the case of commercial forestry all the trees planted won't make it.
A better vision of tree planting is Johnny Appleseed.
Edits. The Twitter from the Ethiopian minister says tree seedlings.
> When we hear of tree planting we picture a mayor or rich person planting a four year old tree in a park. The reality is that trees grow from seed.
Yeah but trees are hardline r-strategists and produce millions of disposable seeds with a very low survival rate. Planting a seed is in no way equivalent to planting a germinated, sprouted, and developed seedling.
The article gives no details but I'd look to see how many things are planted from seed in a nursery each day to at least get an indication of the number of things which can be "planted" in a given day.
Many trees could be said to have been planted by someone scattering apple seeds out of their pockets.
The article says something about 40 trees planted by each citizen... so I'm guessing this 350 M batch was distributed equally to everyone they could reach.
It does seem quite a bit, furiouspete talked about jobbing as a student in reforestation in Canada (his shrooms video) and apparently if you are quick you go through 4k a day per person a 12h shift.
Even 200 seeds per hour would require ~145,000 participants to plant all 350M seeds in a 12 hr time frame. I’m literally just imagining a few guys with a leaf blower and a bag of seeds for how they got 350M in 12 hours haha.
Not the worst way to teach kids a bit about how to nurture their environment. The absolute worst case here is a bunch of kids learning stuff and applying it later in their life. The best case is that and some meaningful percentage of these trees actually survives and helps restore a bit of land. Sounds like an interesting example to follow elsewhere. There's no shortage of recently arified land across the world.
I think there are a lot of countries finding out that they are not passive participants in the curve balls nature is throwing them and that they can influence what happens with simple, low tech solutions like planting trees and taking care of them and maybe a few simple changes in behavior like keeping sheep and cattle away from volatile areas.
This seems similar to (and maybe inspired by) efforts in Pakistan [1] and India [2] from the last few years. It would be interesting to read follow-ups to those efforts.
This is really cool. I'm the adoptive father of an Ethiopian daughter, and we've come to love the country. It's a physically beautiful place, really excited to see them continue to move forward in the climate change front.
How so? When replanting clear cuts here in Sweden with pine or fir each tree takes a few seconds to plant - you stamp your tool in to the ground which makes a hole, drop the plant down, stomp the ground and then your off to the next. There is also no need to tend to them afterwards (except treatment to deter deer/elks).
Definitely a scattergun approach but that’s similar to how nature does it, I’ve heard the survival rate for seedlings in north American confirer forests to be about 1:1,000,000.
It's pretty quick to plant bare-root seedlings using a spade or "dibble". About 45 years ago another Boy Scout and I planted approximately 1,000 pine seedlings on a tree farm in a single day using a variant of the method shown in [1]. Once we got a rhythm going we planted around 3 trees per minute.
I am surprised that no one mentioned the Greenbelt Movement, a grass roots effort started in neighboring Kenya by Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai [0]. They have successfully planted millions of trees over the years to combat deforestation.
The strides that the current Ethiopian government has taken in terms of human rights and commitment to resolving ethnic disparities are tremendous [1]. Since most humans have an Ethiopian grandma in the family tree, these are accomplishments that we can all take pride in.
Did they plant native tree species? Did they plant them in places that should naturally be forested? Most of Ethiopia's naturally occurring landscapes are deserts, savannas, and shrublands.
I worry they're destroying native landscapes by replacing them with non-native tree plantations.
Numbers about Ethiopia's forest cover vary greatly, I see 4% in the year 2000 mentioned on Wikipedia, I see 14% in 2018 mentioned in this Bloomberg article and I see some numbers in between in a 2015 paper by Abraha Hatsey http://wiki.awf.forst.uni-goettingen.de/wiki/images/e/e9/6_3...
The numbers vary so much because they're (nearly) all fabricated by whomever was interviewed. The Ethiopian government is notoriously corrupt. Lots of talking heads who contribute little. They're just trying to one up each other with fabricated statistics.
Based on the thread from yesterday, they're pushing for carbon taxes because that will solve everything. /s
It always astonishes me how central government control is the only possible solution. Even if planting tree isn't going to solve climate change tomorrow, it does increase the amount of CO2 that is subtracted from the atmosphere, trees provide living spaces for numerous types of wildlife, they help prevent erosion. Given how many benefits there are to trees, people should be planting them even if they did nothing for moderating green house gases. The only thing they don't do is provide control and opportunities for graft. So I guess it makes sense that some people will poo-poo tree planting in favor of enriching their team.
Did you try reading any of the links people have added in this thread? Schools and government offices were closed. This was a big event that was planned for months. 10% participation sounds absolutely plausible if not lower than I'd expect.
No. I would assume if this was such a big event that the original article would cover it.
I guess it was that big that they did not need to add any details.
Band Aid in this case refers to a charity fundraising effort started in the 1980s to combat famine in Ethiopia. It included some misleading lyrics in its headliner song:
> Lyrics of the song included description of the country saying, "where nothing ever grows, no rain or rivers flow..."
It was a response to an immense drought in Ethiopia (largely the result of deforestation). They had years with almost no rain. It really wasn't misleading with respect to the situation at the time.
They all don't need to stay alive. They just need some of them to take hold and grow and then spread seeds so that new trees grow, like a normal forest.
The idea is to plant 350 million knowing that a lot won't survive, but that in planting a huge amount, many millions will survive and nature can take over.
Wikipedia puts Seatle at 37.49", Washington State as a whole at 42.2", and Addis Ababa at 45.9". The precipitation figures (for Washington/Seatle) includes snowfall - I think it's about 10:1 snow:rain
Washington state is like Texas: there is a huge variation on climate. The same is true in Ethiopia, whether you are in the high planes (erm plateau) or towards sea level.
math is hard..... ok, I've been over this on another thread. The average forest density in the United States is 5500 trees per acre. So 353 million trees equals about 64182 acres of equivalent US forest. This sounds impressive, but that equals 100 square miles. A square 10 miles by 10 miles in size.
For a little more perspective, Ethiopia is 426,400 square miles in land mass. This means they planted the equivalent of 0.02% of their land mass with trees vs the forest density of the typical US forest.
(for the record, those evil guys that cut down trees for profit, plant 52 million trees per year every year in the US)
Meanwhile, as per the 353 million-in-a-day estimate:
let's say for sake of argument that the average person can manage to plant one tree per minute and they are working an 8 hour shift with no breaks, pauses, distractions or complications. That's close to half-a-million people to cover all three shifts in a single day. And that's with generous assumptions.
The Ethiopian government says that they expect a single volunteer to be able to plant 100 trees in a day. Which means if the 350 million in a day is accurate, they had 3.5 million volunteers. Call me suspicious of such an ambitious estimate.
with a little more digging, to their credit, these 350 million trees are just the latest on a re-forestation project that now boasts 2.6 billion trees planted since it began. But math again, that equates to 739 square miles of equivalent US forest (less than 0.2% of the total land mass of Ethiopia or an equivalent square of 27 miles on a side of typical US forest. That's just over half the size of the state of Rhode Island or about the size of Washtenaw county, MI where I live.
Tt their ultimate goal is to plant 4 billion trees total before the project is finished. Admirable indeed. But, I did find figures on my home state of Michigan for comparison.
While I have yet to find a number on the total number of trees before the reforestation in Ethiopia, I can guess based on the decline of 25% cited and the goal of 4 billion trees total. ((4/25) * 15) = 2.4 (billion) for a total of 6.4 billion trees assuming their desire is to re-achieve the 40% number from a century ago.
Estimates for the state of Michigan are a total of 13.5 billion trees across the entire state. That's more than twice the assumed 'final goal' for the entire country of Ethiopia. Oh, should I mention the land area of Ethiopia is 4 1/2 times more than that of the state of Michigan?
Other things worthy of consideration which I noticed while digging. Many areas of Michigan were clear cut in the late 1800s and early 1900s. (i.e. about the same timeline as the de-forestation in Ethiopia) To be fair, some of the areas cut were re-forested by WPA government work programs in the 1930s. But not all. The reports I was pulling my figures from were actually surveys done by the state government for the purpose of evaluating potential future timber cutting, and they noted a large number of hardwoods (oaks, maples, elm, etc) in those numbers (most of the wpa planted trees were pine trees) and a growing quantity of older trees as a percentage of the total. aka "old growth" or mature forests.
Plantation-style forestry like that found in the US is much less efficient as a sink because the harvesting carbon cost is amortized across a much more frequent harvest cycle.
This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you please review them and stick to them while posting here? We're trying to avoid this sort of low-quality, off-topic subthread.
Note that they include: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
Edit: Damn. I think OP was being sarcastic. A quick look through the comment history shows a different view than the one expressed in the comment. I removed the downvote.
---Original comment---
Here's why I downvoted you:
- It doesn't matter if the water is clean or dirty because that's not what's causing climate change.
- The United States was the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2015. CO2 is a leading cause of climate change.
- The term "bigly" is often used by people who are proud of their ignorance. Ignorance isn't something to be proud of.
To be fair the only real giveaway was "bigly", which was subtle. Otherwise I've heard people try to make this exact argument. "Well the air isn't all smoggy so I don't know what you all are so worried about."
Should get international politicans to use their nation's climate virtue as a beating stick. No need to manufacture other kinds of outrage since climate atrocity is in plentiful supply.
The parent comment was of course sarcastic. However, your trip savvy list is seven countries long.
The US does not have the best tap water in the world, I think everyone here can guess that already. It does have extremely safe tap water overall however, save for a few examples like Flint (and fracking regions in West Texas or Oklahoma, both of which get bad ratings on water violations). Its rate of serious drinking water violations is low nationally going back over the last 20-30 years.
Right now it does. Major financial/political interests are seeking to gut the laws that got us the cleanest water and air in order to make more money for themselves.
The air in the US is in fact as clean as Western Europe. Comparing it to individual smaller nations, then I'm sure there are many examples that are cleaner. Comparing the US to larger population regions however it does compare very well to the best.
Not to discourage, but even reforesting entire land that could possibly be covered in forest will not arrest climate change noticeably.
The reason is because forest do not change CO2 levels noticeably, in the long run. The reason is because there is roughly constant amount of carbon in Earths biomass. Planting treas only increases the amonut of biomass by a little bit but has no lasting effect of scrubbing CO2 from atmosphere.
The real solution to climate change is undoing decades of constant addition of CO2 to atmosphere. This requires not only scrubbing CO2 from atmosphere but also sequestering the carbon somehow which means preventing it getting back to carbon cycle.
If you really wanted to make planting trees have an effect you would not only need to plant trees, you would need to regularly cut them (before they burn) and store them somewhere, maybe at the bottom of ocean, from where it will not be released (decomposed, burned, etc.)
Of course, planting trees have other beneficial effects like helping to keep rainwater. It is just important to make sure right kinds of trees (and large variety of them!) are planted to not repeat mistakes that were made in other places.
Well, humanity uses around 15 billion tonnes of coal and oil and gas every year. At that speed, in just 30 years, we add as much carbon to the atmosphere as entire biomass of Earth.
> "The reason is because forest do not change CO2 levels noticeably, in the long run"
What does "in the long run" mean? Will it suck up carbon for the first 20 years while the tree is growing? 20 years would of borrowed time would be quite useful.
Timber buildings, furniture are possible targets for medium term sequestration of co2 via timber.
More offbeat approaches might include modern giant pyramids built of timber, perhaps in the Australian outback. As long as they could be secured from fire and decay.
It would catch fire in the Australian outback. Dry, hot, windy thunderstorms would see to that! We have tonnes of natural wildfires, and some are still started by aboriginal tribes as part of their nomadic way of life and spiritual beliefs. It wouldn't last.
In June and July wildfires have been tearing through the arctic destroying insane amounts of forest. Go stack it on the poles and as the temps continue to warm it'll just do the same eventually.
Look up terra preta, regular wood would just decompose and release the carbon back. You have to make charcoal out of it to be able to sequester carbon in the longer term (thousands of years)
If you cut down the trees and sequester the carbon elsewhere, you can sequester more, but just establishing new forests all over would still increase the amount of carbon cycling in those local ecosystems, and get it out of the atmosphere. Both is probably best.
I don't have any figures, but on the assumption that few processes are 100% efficient I'd guess you wouldn't get complete decomposition before the fallen tree is buried. You'd probably get a reasonable, if inefficient, removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Probably better than nothing if you couldn't figure out a way of using the wood more effectively.
I believe that accumulation happened before microorganisms had evolved to digest cellulose (?). If we can ever produce a surplus of electricity, we would ideally sequester carbon in a place other than the bottom of the ocean, creating a giant Earth-battery. Although it would be ironic if "carbon sequestration" meant heaping plastic in landfills.
That would negate the advantage of not requiring extra effort/energy. And decomposition of organic material is required for the rainforest ecosystem to work.
And I'd go with radiation or heating for sterilization.
or you know, maybe just using the new "easy" tech of lignin removel through oxidation. But you're right, we can't excessively clean the forest of organic "waste".
Planting trees definitely does not hurt and as you say, prevents soil erosion and helps keep ground water which is going to be more and more important as we go. Just don't think this will magically revert global warming, this would be dangerous attitude.
Waste of time, money, and resources. Appearance of fixing a problem without doing so reduces motivation to actually fix it. Global support might wane because "they fixed it".
Seems like there are many reasons not to do a fix unless you know it works to some reasonable extent.
And it doesn't hurt that it probably slightly improves global warming and planting trees isn't very costly. Especially in places where labor is inexpensive.
Why would they not do this is often a question I've been left with after talking to climate change nihilists. No, it won't fix global warming. But it doesn't cost very much, helps their population and economy, and makes a dent in global warming.
At least they're not turning off perfectly functional nuclear power plants like in so-sophisticated Germany. They're reforesting. Do what you can and try not to make things worse.
As software developer, you should also be comfortable with the concept that there is no silver bullet[0] and sometimes you just have to use a lot of lead bullets.[1]
Those perfectly functional nuclear power plants have a tendency to blow up a lot more often than predicted. After a couple of theoretically impossible accidents people get a bit nervous.
And they produce perfectly radioactive nuclear waste nobody knows what to do with right now...
Yes, I assumed it was primarily erosion they're aiming to combat in a few years when the trees have decent root systems and enough foliage to provide wind-shelter.
Deforestation is definitely a big deal. We need to preserve nature's diversity and forests are extremely important part of that.
What I meant is to warn people against thinking that if we start planting trees en masse then we have somehow on the right track to solve the problem. We are not.
I guess another option would be to shred the wood and dump it in wasteland to compost it. Considering we have a huge problem with soil erosion, this might be a viable way to regain some of it.
Hmmm, this makes me wonder how much of the carbon petrified wood retains and if there isn't some method where the process might be accelerated (without a lot of energy input, a quick google shows you can do it rapidly using a heated chamber but that's going to be counterproductive and require an absurd amount of energy).
Although, maybe you could use concentrated solar or even geothermal for the heating part. Hell, you could probably make it profitable selling the petrified wood for use in construction (mantles, counter tops, tile). If it retains a decent amount of the carbon.
It was the only country in Africa to resist the Scramble for Africa and was only occupied by Italy for less than 10 years (after putting the Italian Army to shame initially... and it was only occupied because it got almost 0 outside help).
This seems like an awesome initiative, but they will need a lot of help. Their population went from 70 million in 2007 to 100 million in 2017. The current forecast is for about 200 million by 2050.
I hope they grow peacefully and without internal conflicts, Africa desperately needs a pole of stability and prosperity in the region.
It's going to be a tough struggle for them!