I have been reading the information here with great interest. I've read the "Warning", including their list of things to do. I think, perhaps, that they are missing the essential problem. I'm not certain that I know what the essential problem really is, but a thought experiment seems to suggest that something is wrong. Consider:
One magical day, the entire contents of the United States, some 280 million of us, are transported to Africa. At the same time, the much larger population of Africa is whisked to the United States. All of this happens in mid-sentence, with each population group confronted with the tools, resources, and climate formerly enjoyed (or not) by the other group.
What do you think the situations would be like in 5 years, or 10? How about 50?
I propose that within the lifespans of most who made the transfer, the African nation would be thriving, and the United States residents would be struggling with the aridity of most of the western states, and the infrastructure problems of getting resources of the continent to the locale where they are needed. The US is not, in fact, a friendly place -- in much of it, you would die outdoors from extremes of exposure.
There would be a few New Americans who, while living relatively primitively, would be doing so in grandeur, and at the expense of millions of their "subjects" who would be steadily killed off, while the technology level would never rise far from the "lost" state just after the transfer.
If you think that the above scenario is plausible, then you must agree that the natural resources of the two continents were not very much a factor, and therefore are not now much of a factor.
Should the new residents of the United States of Africa remain at the primitive level they were deposited into? While their consumption would remain low, who would benefit from that artificial suppression?
Any thoughts?
Level Head |
