[DumErrory]

For one thing, the level of the hunger. Yes, there were people who starved in 1790s England, for example, but not a whole hell of a lot. There were plenty of poor people, and even homeless people, but RELATIVE TO the poor people today in Africa, they were far, far better off. Are you sure you want to go there?

How many folks in Africa have cell phones? Access to the internet? Do you really believe that the average African have a lifestyle worse then the poor did in 1750? The richest folks back then were fortunate to have a privy.

Well, the leaders of Britain and Prussia and France and the US during that time frame were many things, but "corrupt" was not the way one would generally describe them. By who's standards? They were plenty corrupt back then compared to the standards of today.

And again, while POOR people made up the majority of society, let me make a couple of points: 1)The poverty in those nations relative to the poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa today is not the same - it's worse in Africa. Really? I would have a hard time believing that the life of the poor in Africa is worse today then the life of the middle class in 1790. In many cases the poor in Africa live better then even the rich did back then.

2)There was a very productive entrepreneurial class, a well-educated, well-supported academia, and the beginnings of a middle class, none of which applies to most African states today. Well no. Most of the best go to the West because that's where the jobs are.

That's what I'm trying to do, although honestly, before we started this discussion, I thought it was so obvious that all I had to do was state it as fact. Seriously. Also, you are slipping something extra into the argument - you are assuming greater industrialization for Africa. I'm assuming no such thing. Why do you think that Africa is on the verge of an "Industrial Revolution" that will propel it in much the same way Western Europe and the US were propelled by it? I am saying that they are starting to make the concrete steps necessary. I am not looking at states like Zimbabwe or South Africa, who technically have industrialised. I am looking more at states like Kenya or Nigeria.

Look how rampant corruption has been in Haiti. Also, consider that the Dominican Republican was under outright occuption by the US Marine Corps for decades, in the early 20th Century - US influence may have something to do with the disparity. So the problem isn't the lack of food resources, but the management. The food is there. You get good people in power, the nation will thrive.

Here are some relevant figures, though. As of 2007, the US population growth rate was 0.88%. The growth rate of China was 0.61%. That's not that significant of a difference, given that the average WORLD population growth rate is 1.17%. For comparison, the growth rate of Ethiopia is 2.31%, that of Chad is 2.88%, that of Niger is 3.49%, and that of Liberia is a staggering 4.50%. For a full listing, see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ion_growth_rate Yes I am aware of that, but those nations are far and few. If you look at the fertility rates, they are declining. Africa is the only nation which has fertility rates in the same range as western Europe did in the late 18th century. Everywhere else in the world is past that point.

You don't find a legitimate First World nation until Ireland, at #69, followed by Israel at #78, Luxembourg at #118, and Australia at #127. I think my point is well made. Sure, they are in different stages in the demographic transition. Africa has changed from the high death rate, high mortality and is starting to experience the large population growth that we saw in the west when the death rates came down and the birth rates stayed high. Many nations in the developing world have already progressed to the next stage where the birth rate drops to meet the death rate, something we didn't see in the west until the 20th century.

Now, for the disparity between China and the US, in terms of greater population growth in the US, even though the US is a richer nation, I think the explanation is that China, faced with a MASSIVELY expanding population in absolute terms, took steps to address that expansion so as to AVOID over-growing it's available resources. I don't support the manner in which China did so - an enforced 1 child policy through forced abortion - but China's continued growth alongside of efforts to curb population growth seems to make my point, not yours, anyway. The problem is that they will suffer economic collapse. Yes it is possible to make the jump that china did if people no longer have the burden of raising children, but that does not provide a solid economic foundation. Soon their workforce will be declining, just as ours will be except that their workers are only a third as rich as ours are. That will destroy their economy.

Famine, perhaps. Starvation, no, at least not in the US, Britain, France, Prussia, and the other rapidly industrializing powers. The Irish famine was still in 1850. Famine was still a large worry 50 years earlier.

Agreed, but there wouldn't have been an Agricultural Revolution without many of those factors I listed, to begin with. There is considerable capital floating around. The major problem is management more then anything else.

Duh, but you have to be able to FEED your population density first. I don't need to be Adam Smith in order to know that if your nation can't feed itself, then expanding your population won't help anything, unless/until you can address the food crisis. More people = more food that can be cultivated. Food is a very inelastic commodity. There is no incentive to grow more then you need. When the demand for food rises, then the productive capacity expands to meet the need.

And you continue to compare the relatively modern states of the US, UK, France, and Prussia with the relatively backwards, corrupt basket cases that make up much of Africa today. I think Prussia in 1790 would get crushed by the Nigeria of today.

You haven't yet told me why you think there's going to be ANY SORT OF agricultural or industrial revolution in those nations, They are in the correct phase of the demographic transition. Severe upswing in population and their death rate is going down while the birth rate stays high.

Among other things, a health minister who refuses to admit HIV causes AIDS. So if you wear a condom you will never get AIDS?

I can list more examples if you like, but population density does NOT greatly correlate to prosperity. Fine. Is the wealth of Australia concentrated near Alice Springs? Population density has a very direct relationship to wealth.

Hey, fine! I'm all for ending foreign aid to Africa. You seem to be the one in favor of it. I'm just saying that if we DO send aid to Africa, we should make it contingent upon checking their population growth and spread of disease through reasonable, scientifically proven methods. If they think that is unfair, well, fine - according to you they don't want the aid anyway. Right? Well then why are we arguing against each other? I think they would be best off without aid too.

Come on. Lack of contraception by definition causes greater population growth, which leads to greater hunger if you can't feed the population you already have and have no reasonable means for doing so. The first point follows, the second does not. Food is an inelastic commodity. There is no incentive to produce beyond your needs. When the population expands, then the demand pushes the supply to increase along with it and the food supply increases with population growth.

This is the argument that Thomas Gray used to rebut against Malthus way back when.