PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Malthus



Oskorei
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) was one of the Classical Political Economists. His political leanings was often towards the aristocracy and clergy, unlike many of the other economists.

Malthus' best-known contributions are probably his essay on population, inspiring among others Darwin and many ecologists ("neo-malthusians"). His other contribution, inspiring Keynes, was probably his thoughts on underconsumption.

Malthus' "infamous" Essay on the Principle of Population.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

Malthus' view on underconsumption and overproduction (I think that he viewed the unproductive aristocracy as important in keeping consumption high, but I am not sure. Anyone know?)
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/classic/glut.htm

Good resource on all things Malthus (several of his works online).
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/malthus.htm

The International Society of Malthus
http://desip.igc.org/malthus/

More on Malthus
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Malthus.htm

Huzar
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 02:21 PM
Te only thing i remember about malthus, are his demographical observations. Very simple, yes, but nobody made similar calculations before. Perhaps Malthus in this, can be considered like the begin of moder way of realize a balancement, a ratio, between resources and humanity.

Deling
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 03:04 PM
Malthus' ideas were ahead of his time, like Marx', Darwin's, Einstein's and others.
He believed that the population explosion triggered by the Industrial Revolution would create starvation, but his linear calculations didn't comprehend intensified economisation, specialization and effectivisation; not to mention the increased 'humankapital' (through national-wide organisation, education, bureaucracy. In one word: nation-state formation). The effect of this eventually (after a proletarisation period in Europe) became: Population Growth = Economic Growth.

I believe Malthus is more relevant today, when (apparently) most techniques to exploit a limited geographical Room has reached its limits. Consumerism is the highest stage of human strife for survival, and from now on there can only be retardation; not 'progress'.

The problem of Malthusianism is: How, and on who, will its policies be formed and applied?

...Just some thoughts.

Huzar
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 04:36 PM
I believe Malthus is more relevant today, when (apparently) most techniques to exploit a limited geographical Room has reached its limits. Consumerism is the highest stage of human strife for survival, and from now on there can only be retardation; not 'progress'.

The problem of Malthusianism is: How, and on who, will its policies be formed and applied?

...Just some thoughts.
Completely right.

Oskorei
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 06:24 PM
One thing struck me after posting this thread. Malthus must be combined with a racial perspective to make sense. "Culture creating" races will probably be able to increase their welfare despite, or even because of, population increase, but the "normal" races will face poverty and eventual depopulation due to starvation and disease when faced with the same situation. Compare Africa with Europe.

Agrippa
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Malthus made mainly one big mistake - he underestimated or couldnt even know enough about fossil energy.

Without fossil energy we would have had serious problems worldwide despite other technological advances.

Deling
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 07:17 PM
"One thing struck me after posting this thread. Malthus must be combined with a racial perspective to make sense. "Culture creating" races will probably be able to increase their welfare despite, or even because of, population increase, but the "normal" races will face poverty and eventual depopulation due to starvation and disease when faced with the same situation. Compare Africa with Europe."

I got some objections here. It's not wrong to make a Malthusian racial perspective, even though Malthusianism is related to Geography foremost(Regional, Spatial, Cultural).
Thus I claim that Africans don't die because of starvation and/or overpopulation (Africa is the LEAST populated continent). The geography and climate matters more than "culture-creating" (which all people can do, in different ways. Not long ago the whole heartland of the Eurasian continent were filled with Barbarians of different kind, Slavic, Aryan, Germanic, Mongol, Turkic a.s.o, threatening the high cultures in China, India, Persia, Arabia, Bysans, Rome: that's not very 'culture-creating').
The greatest factor for Africa's problem is, however, their belief in Westernization. The village and small-town communities are depopulating, and urbanisation and 'modernisation' of economy and agriculture is surely the overwhelming reason not only for economical disasters and starvation, but also for HIV.

Europe is the best place in the world for agriculture, Sub-Sahel Africa one of the worst. Is the problems then Geographical or Racial? Because it (at first sight) appears to be the first; then it's not the Africans' "fault", thus such a theory could be angled into "everyone should be free to live on the best land", which is a direction neither of us want. Minst sagt.

Thus a Racial Malthusianism must take into account two spectrums: the Racial and the Geographical (and how they are interveined). Otherwise it will just be a theory used irregulary and randomly; eller som vi svenskar skulle säga: godtyckligt.

Agrippa
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 07:30 PM
Europe is the best place in the world for agriculture, Sub-Sahel Africa one of the worst.

Thats nothing which you should say across the board, because there are many fertile areas in Subsaharan Africa as well.
The problem is mainly the corruption, form of organisation and dependence of the state and economy from the internatonal capital.

Furthermore the human ressources are just not that high quality there, like they are in East Asia f.e.
For certain work and industries the tropical zone is not that good, but there would be solutions.

Anyway, Africans still live a tribal and animistic life without too much knowledge and education, they are less intelligent and depending on the international capital in a form which doesnt allow them too much. They have no useful ideology on their own and their politicians and system is totally corrupted, even compared to areas like Southern America or parts of Eastern Europe now...

Its not just about their racial background, but about this things and many others as well.

Anyway, I think that racial and social darwinist views should be included in every Malthusian speculation.
Malthus was influenced by his liberal thoughts and class conceit and his reasoning was often too brutal, more than what would be necessary.
But in principle he was right about many things and had an (primitive) Eugenic perspective.

I say social Darwinism is right, but more the collective oriented, not the individual one, because the individual one is not just more brutal and unjust, but doesnt really work in a modern society as well.
Though I have to admit under the conditions of his time individual social darwinism would work better than now, because the women weren't that career oriented at that time and so, at least in theory, the upper class could have survived and have more children in the situation of a serious crisis.

Anyway, he couldnt know certian things at his time, but he was a pioneer in some areas.

Oskorei
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 07:53 PM
Thus I claim that Africans don't die because of starvation and/or overpopulation (Africa is the LEAST populated continent). The geography and climate matters more than "culture-creating" (which all people can do, in different ways. Not long ago the whole heartland of the Eurasian continent were filled with Barbarians of different kind, Slavic, Aryan, Germanic, Mongol, Turkic a.s.o, threatening the high cultures in China, India, Persia, Arabia, Bysans, Rome: that's not very 'culture-creating').
The discussion on which peoples are culture-creative, if any, is off-topic so I won't elaborate on that. It would probably turn this thread into a garbage thread as well. ;) I will start such a thread in the Free Speech-area instead.


The greatest factor for Africa's problem is, however, their belief in Westernization. The village and small-town communities are depopulating, and urbanisation and 'modernisation' of economy and agriculture is surely the overwhelming reason not only for economical disasters and starvation, but also for HIV.
HIV has next to nothing to do with Westernization. It is grounded in the promiscuity and rather brutal patriarchy of most African cultures. And that is, in turn, caused by racial differences (like a high sex-drive and less self-control), as explained by Rushton.

I agree with you that Westernization has not made the life of the Africans better, but that is a combination of racial reality with modern political economics. The IMF and the World Bank forcing illiterate IQ 70-populations into the free market is a crime, but the racial reality is still there.


Europe is the best place in the world for agriculture, Sub-Sahel Africa one of the worst. Is the problems then Geographical or Racial? Because it (at first sight) appears to be the first; then it's not the Africans' "fault", thus such a theory could be angled into "everyone should be free to live on the best land", which is a direction neither of us want. Minst sagt.
Iceland is not that arable either. Nor is Singapore. My point is that creative races adapt to most situations, non-creative races don't. I agree that a geographical aspect is useful to complement Malthusianism, but the racial perspective is not less important because of that. After all, different races deal with their geographical reality in different ways. White Rhodesians exported food and paid good wages to their workers, Black Zimbabweans starve.

Huzar
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 08:44 PM
"
Europe is the best place in the world for agriculture, Sub-Sahel Africa one of the worst. Is the problems then Geographical or Racial? Because it (at first sight) appears to be the first; then it's not the Africans' "fault", thus such a theory could be angled into "everyone should be free to live on the best land", which is a direction neither of us want. Minst sagt.

Thus a Racial Malthusianism must take into account two spectrums: the Racial and the Geographical (and how they are interveined). Otherwise it will just be a theory used irregulary and randomly; eller som vi svenskar skulle säga: godtyckligt.

I disagree. At a first sight, it seems so, true. It's right that westernization hasn't made better, the conditions of the continent. Although, you forget some basilars facts : there were many nations, in history, whom developed themselves in various angles of the world, without western help, and this, even in far and disvantaged geographical situations. South and central america, before columbus discovery, south- easth asia and southern part of indian sub-continent(Deccan) : all these geographic realities, developed great civilizations ( and the starting conditions were very critical, in the jungles); besides, more important, those areas, (vietnam, india birmania thailand) are growing at fast rate ( and note that all were colonized by the west in 19th century, exactly like africa). The only decolonized continent, persistent in TRAGIC conditions, is Africa (SUB saharan africa). Least, and the most important, black population in EVERY state of the world is in the same conditions of poverty underdevelopment etc. (see u.s.a., Brazil Carebbean) although the possibilities and benefit to live in a rich country; everywhere the social pyramid is equal. It's not possible speak of racism against coloured people : for example, in U.S asians and latin americans have a good social success (the same in Brazil about asians, and the same in south africa).

Deling
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 02:50 AM
Well, 3 against 1... ;)

NORTHERN TIGER & AGRIPPA: This has nothing to do with racism or colonisation, it's just nature. Europe is the best land, I dare to claim. 500 years of agricultural improvement and on-going 'capital accumulation' (not to mention focusing on secondary needs) shows it, even if it has sowen its sacrifices in English coal-mines, German factories...
Europe is a U-formed peninsula, basically, with many oceans and sub-oceans on all sides (Mediterranean; Adriatic, Aegean, Black Sea. Atlantic; North Sea, Baltic Sea), all connected together by rivers and 'side-rivers' (Donau, Rhen, Wisla, Dnjepr, Dnjestr, Seine, Thames, Volga...to name a few). It also has a consequent climate (atleast in relation to the rest of the world) with the Gulf Stream as primary source; neither too tropic or arctic. Finland is the farther-most north located nation in the world (ranging the Southern border in relation to the northern), but it still is a great agricultural country; just as Sweden and Britain, which lies on the same latitude (or longitude; I always forget which is which) as Quebec and Siberia.
Europe thus has an ideal temperate climate, and ideal geographical situation for agriculture. This is what I meant.

OSKOREI:

"The discussion on which peoples are culture-creative, if any, is off-topic so I won't elaborate on that. It would probably turn this thread into a garbage thread as well. I will start such a thread in the Free Speech-area instead."

Neither do I: All people are both creators and destroyers, just Time and Space tell who is who when.

"HIV has next to nothing to do with Westernization. It is grounded in the promiscuity and rather brutal patriarchy of most African cultures. And that is, in turn, caused by racial differences (like a high sex-drive and less self-control), as explained by Rushton."

HIV surfaced in the 80's, and Africans' "promiscous" lives has existed far longer than that. If something, it helps spreading it. What caused HIV to surface, probably, just as many other deceases in the past (The 'Spanish Flu' is considered a result of the changed social situation of WW1, for instance) is the social revolutions that occured, and occurs, in Africa. Large-scale urbanisation, changed social pattern, demographical patterns. To me it's a clear case; this is the main reason for HIV surfacing when and where it did.

"I agree with you that Westernization has not made the life of the Africans better, but that is a combination of racial reality with modern political economics. The IMF and the World Bank forcing illiterate IQ 70-populations into the free market is a crime, but the racial reality is still there."

I'm indifferent to Africans' lives. What I care about is:
1. Westernization destroys Africa's cultures, and I believe in multi-culturalism. Globally, that's.
2. Westernization causes ecological problems. Traditional African life-style does not.
3. Westernization is the Nr 1 cause of migration streams; if African problems are solved, the repatriation is much easier. The future lies in Africans', not in universal salvation methods the Western-educated African elites believe in. A Zulu or Kikuyu is a better African leader than western-minded Mandela, Julius Nyegere, Mengistu or Idi Amin. Not to mention all WN's nr 1 African enemy: Robert Mugabe.

(Westernization is not colonialism/imperialism to me. Rather...Western universalism, so to say).

"Iceland is not that arable either. Nor is Singapore. My point is that creative races adapt to most situations, non-creative races don't. I agree that a geographical aspect is useful to complement Malthusianism, but the racial perspective is not less important because of that. After all, different races deal with their geographical reality in different ways. White Rhodesians exported food and paid good wages to their workers, Black Zimbabweans starve."

Sure, but the European colonists had another 'världsbild', perception of the world, than the Africans. They also had techniques originating from a culture the Africans couldn't comprehend; it's not strange that Europeans succeeded in cultivating Rhodesia. They used methods unknown to the Africans, and when the Africans inherited these methods, they were alien to their 'världsbild'.

All races adopt to their situation perfectly. How is it possible for someone to say that they don't?
What you don't think about is that you use Western 'måttstockar' (can't translate it to english) and angles to view the world. The Africans sure adapted well to their habitat, but 'Westernization' has made them, how to say, 'alienated' to it. Africans starve and fail not because they're stupid, but because they've inherited alien techniques, perception of the world, mentality and culture. This is Racial, and also time-bound. It's also social antrophology. It's certainly not Europeans' fault; even if our race has spread a civilisation Africans as a whole can't adopt to (except if they all became European and westernized; which is what the Multi-Kultis want).

Iceland is said to belong to Europe, and politically it does, but I think you get my point when I say Europe in this case: that is, the Geographical Europe.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 03:08 AM
Furthermore the human ressources are just not that high quality there, like they are in East Asia f.e.
For certain work and industries the tropical zone is not that good, but there would be solutions.

Well, I have to say its odd that all the major centres of early state formation are further north than the tropics (Mediterranean, northern India, China) The only exception to this would be the Andes, which isnt like the conditions in most of Africa so to me it looks like tropical societies have difficulties supporting civilisation.

Agrippa
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 03:20 AM
Right, climate and geography are important, sure they are. Moderate climate and rivers are essential for certain developments or at least can be.

I dont wanted to say that subsaharan Africa has the same potential, talking about geography, as Europe, but just its own.
And parts are quite fertile, so if its about crops, this is not the reason.

Tropical selection of humans and the circumstances dont really further biological or cultural progression in the same way as the moderate North.

But now other groups had the ability to use their particular strength, at least with the knowledge the Europeans gave them, but Negrids are not the best example for such an adaptation to say the least.

One problem might be that the distance to the higher cultures was so huge, that even people with a better biological equipment would have problems to adapt fast, thats for sure.

But still, geography alone doesnt explain the African problems, nor do the racial differences alone do, I just brought some important things up if its about this question...

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 03:32 AM
I dont wanted to say that subsaharan Africa has the same potential, talking about geography, as Europe, but just its own.
And parts are quite fertile, so if its about crops, this is not the reason.

Which parts do you think are quite fertile? I suspect that most of Africa has a very low potential, because of the historic inability of Africans to produce a major civilisation.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 08:09 AM
If you measure "agriculture" by the production of cereal grains, then North America is the best by far--more airable land, more varied crops, wheat, barely, oats, corn, rice, can be grown there.

Malthus is known for another interesting population prediction which is something like: The larger the urban area the greater and further it will draw people from surrounding suburban and rural areas.

So a big city like New York will draw people from all over the USA while a smaller city like Omaha will draw people but from only a shorter distance. People from Omaha will be drawn to New York but not vice-versa.

Huzar
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 09:38 AM
The REAL point is another : we could observe that caucasian populations, in contrary of blacks, created civilization, at least basilar, even in bad climatic conditions through history, winning all difficulties with rational and dynamic spirit

Oskorei
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 11:56 AM
NORTHERN TIGER & AGRIPPA: This has nothing to do with racism or colonisation, it's just nature. Europe is the best land, I dare to claim. 500 years of agricultural improvement and on-going 'capital accumulation' (not to mention focusing on secondary needs) shows it, even if it has sowen its sacrifices in English coal-mines, German factories...
Europe is a U-formed peninsula, basically, with many oceans and sub-oceans on all sides (Mediterranean; Adriatic, Aegean, Black Sea. Atlantic; North Sea, Baltic Sea), all connected together by rivers and 'side-rivers' (Donau, Rhen, Wisla, Dnjepr, Dnjestr, Seine, Thames, Volga...to name a few). It also has a consequent climate (atleast in relation to the rest of the world) with the Gulf Stream as primary source; neither too tropic or arctic. Finland is the farther-most north located nation in the world (ranging the Southern border in relation to the northern), but it still is a great agricultural country; just as Sweden and Britain, which lies on the same latitude (or longitude; I always forget which is which) as Quebec and Siberia.
Europe thus has an ideal temperate climate, and ideal geographical situation for agriculture. This is what I meant.
Nice introduction to the field of economic geography :thumbsup


"The discussion on which peoples are culture-creative, if any, is off-topic so I won't elaborate on that. It would probably turn this thread into a garbage thread as well. I will start such a thread in the Free Speech-area instead."

Neither do I: All people are both creators and destroyers, just Time and Space tell who is who when..
Apparently I forgot to start such a thread. Probably just as good. ;)


HIV surfaced in the 80's, and Africans' "promiscous" lives has existed far longer than that. If something, it helps spreading it. What caused HIV to surface, probably, just as many other deceases in the past (The 'Spanish Flu' is considered a result of the changed social situation of WW1, for instance) is the social revolutions that occured, and occurs, in Africa. Large-scale urbanisation, changed social pattern, demographical patterns. To me it's a clear case; this is the main reason for HIV surfacing when and where it did.
Agree on that. I've heard that it, and ebola, started as a result of increased exploitation of the deep jungles (or as an evil scheme of the CIA, which wouldn't surprise me totally). But of course, when started, promiscuous groups such as Negroids and gays are harder hit by the disease. A combination of various factors, as usual.


I'm indifferent to Africans' lives. What I care about is:
1. Westernization destroys Africa's cultures, and I believe in multi-culturalism. Globally, that's.
2. Westernization causes ecological problems. Traditional African life-style does not.
3. Westernization is the Nr 1 cause of migration streams; if African problems are solved, the repatriation is much easier. The future lies in Africans', not in universal salvation methods the Western-educated African elites believe in. A Zulu or Kikuyu is a better African leader than western-minded Mandela, Julius Nyegere, Mengistu or Idi Amin. Not to mention all WN's nr 1 African enemy: Robert Mugabe.

(Westernization is not colonialism/imperialism to me. Rather...Western universalism, so to say).
True. In Africa, Westernization often takes the shape of Marxism, and more general trends such as imitation of the European National State and the almighty Market Forces.


All races adopt to their situation perfectly. How is it possible for someone to say that they don't?
Few people claim that of course, but it is implicit in the Liberal denial of biological differences between human races. :D


What you don't think about is that you use Western 'måttstockar' (can't translate it to english) and angles to view the world. The Africans sure adapted well to their habitat, but 'Westernization' has made them, how to say, 'alienated' to it. Africans starve and fail not because they're stupid, but because they've inherited alien techniques, perception of the world, mentality and culture. This is Racial, and also time-bound. It's also social antrophology.
Agreed. (I do think that they are starving partially because they are stupid though, but no need to "rub it in" so to speak)


(except if they all became European and westernized; which is what the Multi-Kultis want).
Perceptive. That is my impression of the Multi-culturalist project too. The end-goal is making all cultures essentially Liberalized, so as to make them good little consumers and voters. Shallow traditions like dances and clothes will be kept, but nothing more.

Deling
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 03:39 PM
"Nice introduction to the field of economic geography"

Thanks. I'll start studying ekonomisk geografi on ÖRU next week ;)

"Apparently I forgot to start such a thread. Probably just as good."

Yes, it will just be a smear-thread in the end.

"Agree on that. I've heard that it, and ebola, started as a result of increased exploitation of the deep jungles (or as an evil scheme of the CIA, which wouldn't surprise me totally). But of course, when started, promiscuous groups such as Negroids and gays are harder hit by the disease. A combination of various factors, as usual."

CIA have nothing to do with HIV, that I'm sure about. Sounds to PK to be true.
I'm no biologist nor antropologist, but nature react to changing social patterns; disturbances in the regular balance. Gays being hit hard by deceases isn't so strange either; homosexuality has changed sexual patterns, and the new ones becomes targeted by nature. I can't explain it, but I think we as Humans have forgot that we're a piece of nature's holistic (and eccentric) puzzle: not above it. Cause and consequence is not unrelated to nature (whatever nature means).

"True. In Africa, Westernization often takes the shape of Marxism, and more general trends such as imitation of the European National State and the almighty Market Forces."

I'm not generally talking ideologies, but revolutionary social patterns generally. Marxism and free-trade Liberalism; sure, but the emerging of metropoles in Africa isn't result of ideology, but a trend that westerners unfortunately left behind. Just as 'we' eradicated many African agricultural methods, and replaced them with western.
On this I read an article before, about how Labour representatives sent agricultural advisers to Malawi (I think) to help Africans using 'better' (that's; western) methods to cultivate the land, instead of traditional domestic methods. One year later, these 'effective' methods had led to fiasco, literary. Africans' everywhere must live by their own culture, without some altruistic Labourist showing up to 'educate' them how to cultivate land, which they've done longer than Europeans have in Europe, with totally alien methods. The Africans' know best what they are to do in Africa, not western humanists. This is my point.
And, of course, free-market 'arbetsdelning'; where some countries grow cacao, and another make rubber, is a sick and unstable balance. The only exception is Benin, which export during the 1970's to the most part was made up of Marxist-Leninist propaganda :D

"Few people claim that of course, but it is implicit in the Liberal denial of biological differences between human races."

Yes, and then they say that if Africans and Indians westernize more, they will reach a democratic heaven were everybody is happy. Disturbances in balance make folk and races crumble down the abyss, and unfortunately in the case of Africans' it can be said to be Western 'fault'. Which is not the same as Western guilt, which is something that really got nothing to do with African problems!

"Agreed. (I do think that they are starving partially because they are stupid though, but no need to "rub it in" so to speak)"

I'll write this in Swedish, because I get head-ache of all English, and I'm lazy:

Min farsa besökte Japan på 1970-talet. Han besökte en liten risodlarby norr om Tokyo, där han provade med att plantera ris (i sådana risterrasser/risbassänger som är vanliga i Östasien). Han började plantera dessa frön, och meter för meter tog han sig framåt. En bit ifrån honom hade en gammal japansk gumma börjat plantera också. När farsan tittade upp några minuter senare (efter att ha rört sig några meter framåt i planterandet), var kärringen hundra meter framför.

Min farsa är inte av japansk ras; inte ett barn i den kulturen och traditionen. Med andra ord är han korkad, av samma anledning som afrikanerna är korkade: de är inte barn av de västerländska teknikerna och kulturen. Om européer skulle 'påtvingas' japansk agrikultur, skulle vi ha jäkligt stora problem att anpassa oss: med största sannolikhet skulle svält uppstå.
Det är alltså en raslig aspekt, men inte såsom du formulerar den. Vi är alla korkade i främmande världsbilder, men negrer har dock ingen tradition av västerländsk bildning, så du har ju rätt. Men du använder återigen västerländska måttstockar.

"If you measure "agriculture" by the production of cereal grains, then North America is the best by far--more airable land, more varied crops, wheat, barely, oats, corn, rice, can be grown there."

Yes, but a reason for USA's success in agriculture is that its land were cultivated by Europeans, who had techniques for mass-production, how to exploit land to its limits, and were able to export and import different sorts of crops from all over the world: potato, wheat, rubber, tobacco... ...the list is long.

Oskorei
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 04:02 PM
"Nice introduction to the field of economic geography"

Thanks. I'll start studying ekonomisk geografi on ÖRU next week ;)
Good luck then (not that you seem to be needing that ;)), and feel free to educate us on it :) The Forum needs more economic geographers.


Africans' everywhere must live by their own culture, without some altruistic Labourist showing up to 'educate' them how to cultivate land, which they've done longer than Europeans have in Europe, with totally alien methods. The Africans' know best what they are to do in Africa, not western humanists. This is my point.
And, of course, free-market 'arbetsdelning'; where some countries grow cacao, and another make rubber, is a sick and unstable balance. The only exception is Benin, which export during the 1970's to the most part was made up of Marxist-Leninist propaganda :D
True, the attempts to make african sustenance farmers to convert into growers of cash-crops, have made them more vulnerable to fluctuations in the marklet, and often caused erosion as well.


I'll write this in Swedish, because I get head-ache of all English, and I'm lazy:
And I'll try translating it into English, since I find it a valuable anecdote and central to the discussion here:


"My dad visited Japan in the 70's. He visited a little rice-growing village north from Tokyo, and there he tried plating rice (in the terraces common to Eastern Asia). He started to plant these seeds, and meter by meter he advanced. A short distance from him, an old japanese woman had started planting too. When my dad looked up after planting for a couple of minutes (after advancing a handful of metres), the old woman was hundred meters ahead of him.

My dad is not of the japanese race; not a child of that culture and tradition. In other words he is stupid, for the same reason africans are stupid; they are not children of the western techniques and culture. If europeans would have japanese agriculture "forced" upon them, we would have very serious problems adapting, and likely starvation would result. So it is a racial aspect but not as you formulate it. We are all stupid in alien worldviews, but negroes have no tradition of western culture, so you are right though. But you are again using western models/measures."

I recognize this perspective, it is Spenglerian? Anyway, I agree that we are very much influenced by the Culture in which we grow up (these Cultures are of course also shaped by the Racial characteristics of the people who give birth to them, in a complex relationship). So I am not advocating a simplistic racial materialism, but rather a complex model where both race, culture, and economy interact.

Deling
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 04:26 PM
"And I'll try translating it into English, since I find it a valuable anecdote and central to the discussion here:"

Your efforts are admirable. Of course Rep.Point.

"I recognize this perspective, it is Spenglerian? Anyway, I agree that we are very much influenced by the Culture in which we grow up (these Cultures are of course also shaped by the Racial characteristics of the people who give birth to them, in a complex relationship). So I am not advocating a simplistic racial materialism, but rather a complex model where both race, culture, and economy interact."

No, it's not Spenglerian I would say. What could be is my claim that Africans' deeply (just as, for example, Indians) have problem to emulate the Westernization in depth. Spengler claims that a culture only affect other cultures shallowly (like early Islam adopted Hellenic philosophy, but only shallowly; any other thing is impossible, Spengler claims).

But there is a clear Racial connection, just look at Latin America, whose population in large part is a Euro-'Indian' mix. They haven't got the same problem accepting the 'Westernization'.

Culture and Race is bound together, when I talk about Culture I also mean race; the line between them doesn't really exist. But there's a line between different cultures; historically I would claim there exist a distinct British culture, thus a British European meta-race. This race is just as valid as the general European race, just on a different level. This argument sounds a little Yockeyite, but I believe one has to consider these 'meta-races' too, otherwise we could just say history is about the struggle between Whites, Blacks and Yellows.

I don't have problem with Materialistic Race (all this 'idealistic and spiritual' thing fail to hit the target: I don't understand its purpose, and neither do the idealists), because Racialism is a materialist, and determinist, doctrine. This cannot be altered, the sole issue is in What Way Determinist?, and What Matters?.
Race is materialistic, but its complicated. If one is a Darwinist also, it gets even more complicated (the aspect of geography must be regarded then). The third aspect is that collisions are often between Civilisations, defined by Geography, which makes Racialist doctrine even more complex.

But there are ways to solve these complexities, but biologism alone can't: and biologism solely is what I object against. You and I probably agree in depth, but we use different sets of words to articulate ourselves.