Mandatory mention of Kenyan Wangari Maathai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai
She started a grassroots movement of planting millions of trees in Kenya.
She received Nobel prize in 2004 for her environmental work in Africa.
That depends on what you're doing and what kind of yield you're expecting. It's not going to completely replace the huge quantities of fertilizer we apply to conventional fields, but it helps. That's part of the reason we do crop rotation - beans/legumes fix nitrogen as well.
No. Potassium and phosphorus are two other macro nutrients. There are also some micro ones. (Going on the basis of what I read long ago or learned in school, maybe there is more current science now.)
But all the nutrients can be got from organic manure and compost.
The same principle, using trees to increase soil moisture and water table, applies in California. Redwoods absorb moisture from fog, while the replacement grassland (or Eucalyptus) do not.
I've read that the drumstick tree [1] is a sort of wonder tree [2] too. It is grown a lot in South India, and the pods as well as the leaves are used as food. The pods are commonly added to sambar, a dish made from dal, vegetables and spices.
I always wonder why we spend 100s of millions on various "aid" programs that miss the most basic ways to improve a struggling country at the agriculture/arboriculture level.
Also, they need a large mix of trees to avoid the vulnerability of single-species diseases, although this gao tree sounds amazing!
You missing the point of aid, or misunderstanding who the "aid" is supposed to benefit.
Look at the caveats the aid is given with. Look at the instances where that "aid" has to be spent on things that is dictated: "we give you this 'aid' which you must use to buy xyz from 'us'.
And to the other post about corruption, don't be so naive to think this is just a problem for the 'natives' to control. The aid giving countries know who we are given it to and what will happen to it. This is planned so that our interests get what they want. The corruption is complicit, maintained and wanted by western countries just as much as it is with the locals who benefit from the corruption
That's also combined with good-meaning-westerners that donate goods, like clothes. Why's that bad? Because dumping that much textiles on a upcoming economy destroys any burgeoning economics related to the dumped thing.
Much more wealth flows out of Africa than it receives in aid via tax evasion by MNCs, interest on debt and resource exploitation - http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2017/may/24/africa-subs.... The research made headlines last year and was reported in several international news sites.
Nobody is missing basic ways. These "poor" countries only problem is large deep corruption. I mean look at the world map - Africa as a continent is twice the size of USA. Enough of it is in a climate perfect to grow vegetables, fruits, and so on. But so what? You send a $100 in aid to Africa, most likely only a dollar would be handed to some poor champ, rest goes thru politicians and government blood hands :(
That's it. Fix enormous corruption and these countries will be in the top 10 prospering in a decade or two.
I've made the same observation traveling in poor and rich countries. Corruption is Α & Ω. It is everyone's responsibility to not parttake in it. It seems to me that lying (using The Word, logos, in untruthful ways) and corruption (using your power in untruthful ways) are the most unholy sins.
I'm a native of Sweden, a secular protestant Christian country. In my understanding of the world, the Christian way of seeing the world stems from the Greek philosophers mainly, among others.
I think it's true that the prosperity of my corner of the world (including the non-European western nations too) is rooted in holding "The Word", logos, in the highest regards, even if I don't hold any metaphysical beliefs.
hm fascinating. I didn't realize that "The Word" / Logos was held is such esteem in Sweden. Fascinating that it can be held ih high esteem even without any of the metaphysical beliefs, but at same time makes sense. Thank you very much for answering.
Think it's very rare here. I certainly did realize those things before listening to Jordan Peterson's lectures on Genesis.
How about yourself? What's your take on those things?
Read some of your comments, totally gonna start carrying a notebook when using weed. You seem like a nice person, feel free to drop me a line if visiting the Scandinavia.
Amazing to hear Jordan Peterson reaching as far as Sweden, it's incredible how often I travel and hear his name now. I'm also fond of his work and talks.
Personally, I've mainly heard Logos and "The Word" in the context of kinda borderline esoteric christians or sufi's like Rudolf Steiner, Gurdjieff or Gnosticism in general, etc. Which I guess makes sense considering they all share an appreciation of christian knowledge, language and understanding.
And definitely take notes while high! I honestly couldn't recommend it enough. I'm not sure if you read that Carl Sagan quote in my previous comment but it described it very well. The simple act of writing down the idea solidifies it and makes it more permanent... sort of anchors it in existence (where before it is more ephemeral), allowing you to refer to it again in the future. I always found it immensely relieving to know that I have written down an idea because then I don't need to think of it anymore and can let it go, knowning that it's effectively been internalized and will eventually come back to me with new inspiration.
The funny thing is that I've almost never read any of my notes, but the simple psychological comfort of knowing that I Could, and that my ideas are safely externalized and a history of them is relatively incorruptible... is profoundly comforting and ultimately, I believe, is what has enabled my ideas to evolve very rapidly. It's my belief that the simple act of writing notes while you're high seems to create a powerful internal psychological foundation for the rapid evolution of ideas.
And thanks for the invite! Likewise, if you're ever around Montreal or Toronto, drop me a line
> And thanks for the invite! Likewise, if you're ever around Montreal or Toronto, drop me a line
Duuuuude(gender neutral)!!! I love going to Toronto and Montreal both! A very good friend of mine is Torontian, and I've spent a lot of time there and around Ontario and Quebec.
My Bitmessage address is in my HN profile description, feeling uneasy about publishing my email publicly.
> Personally, I've mainly heard Logos and "The Word" in the context of kinda borderline esoteric christians or sufi's like Rudolf Steiner, Gurdjieff or Gnosticism in general, etc. Which I guess makes sense considering they all share an appreciation of christian knowledge, language and understanding.
Although the terrible situation in North Africa and the Middle East (notably Iraq, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, Iran) was and is still enforced by some NATO member states (notably USA, UK, France).
Maybe the population in Africa is too dispersed which makes it easy for bad traditions to persist and for corrupt politicians to rule like kings or warlords.
> These "poor" countries only problem is large deep corruption.
I'm curious, why do you think there's so much corruption in these countries compared to others globally? Just keen to understand what your take on this is.
Centralized control of resources creates a single point of failure and makes corruption more attractive than if regions / states only paid taxes to the federal government.
Africa is resource rich. If left alone, African countries might be as influential as the Saudis. Gold, colbat, petrol, diamond and other resources would be far more expensive to buy. Thus, a divided, corrupt Africa is in the best interest of developed countries.
It's said that Kwame Nkrumah, a man who helped hasten the independence of a few African countries including Nigeria was ousted from Ghana through external help (CIA?). Because he was working towards an industrialized, self reliant and United Africa.
I also read here on HN of a Swiss banker whose job it was to offer attractive loans to African leaders for projects he knew would never be repaid. And collect payments in intentionally undervalued natural deposits and/or concessions for their multi national companies. He would in the same deal help setup untraceable swizz accounts for these leaders. And teach them various means of looting their countries dry. And threaten the leader who doesn't play ball with immediate repayment of compounded loans.
Lastly, like the war on drugs, I believe that Africa's war in corruption is corrupting the continent far more than all other factors combined. Here's why:
New leaders spend their first two years fighting corruption, trying to recover loots because the treasury's empty. Thus houses will be seized, companies repossessed, accounts frozen...
Thus the current commander in thief and his crew would invest in foreign real estate, companies, offshore accounts... Thus impoverishing the country further.
Obviously, the solution is that they shouldn't steal. But that's not an option. Because leaders who don't steal are mocked by the populace - true story. Money equals power. Thus, honest but powerless ex-leaders are easily framed / scapegoated by their successors.
To protect their interests, the truly corrupt never leave power. 40 years in office is normal. And their children gain official posts as soon as they are born - no joke.
That's my two cents.
100 years from now, hopefully, transparency will get better.
This is exactly it. But to add my 2c: one thing really missing from these countries that we take for granted is a sense of community outside the immediate family. i.e. the spirit of nationalism is missing, which means that members work and and responsible only for their immediate families.
Which is for good reason: most folks don't interact with the State, they only really get help from family and occasionally friends.
So when in power who do you think they will tend to favor? When the family calls in a favor, you give. Or you do favors for your family and call in a favor later when you really need it.
However, do notice that a lot of pretty corrupt countries (south and eastern Europe, China, South Korea, some parts of Latin America) are still comparatively very rich. So it seems that corruption is not the _only_ problem, but it's certainly one.
When I studied comparative politics in college, we were taught two types of corruption - centralized (generally meaning that the government is corrupt) and decentralized (generally meaning that every interaction is potentially corrupt). While both aren't great, decentralized tends to be more disruptive to the rule of law, as in centrally corrupt nations, it's easier to price the cost in and plan for it than decentrally corrupt countries.
The classic example was in centralized corruption, you knew that at certain points on your drive across the country, you'd hit roadblocks where the fastest solution is to pay a bribe to the soldier or civil servant. In decentralized corruption, those roadblocks might appear anywhere, created by anyone.
Interesting, though I doubt that there are real-world examples of purely centralized and purely decentralized corruption. Also, is centralized corruption a subset of decentralized?
I'm from Bulgaria and it looks like we have plenty of both types here. Come to think of it, the whole Balkan region looks like decentralized corruption on a large scale - there is no central authority that can take your bribe and let you get on with your business in peace.
The forms of democracy that are in place in most of our African countries is legally very one-sided. In other words, the president and his immediate circle usually have near unilateral sway of the allocation (or creation in the case of something like currency) of state resources.
Thus, if the leader is corrupt (and few aren't, given that much control) then the corruption becomes much more apparent and influential at all levels of government. Compare this to, say, most Western countries which have a tradition of strong checks and balances in place to prevent this level of unilateral control, right down to the citizenry (consider any recent HN article on the term extension of Xi Jinping and the related comments).
>I'm curious, why do you think there's so much corruption in these countries compared to others globally? Just keen to understand what your take on this is.
According to folks like Dambisa Moyo, aid is part of the reason these regions are corrupt: governments becomes beholden to foreign donors instead of local citizenry.
Are you from the US? Let me remind you that your country (and to a lesser degree other rich countries) often intervene in these poor countries to control politics and maintain their (corrupted) interests.
Do you think all these forced regimes were a force of good for the world?
Do you think they allowed for the honest and proper growth of all these countries?
Or did they cement bullshit ideologies (In my home country some people still cling on to calling any leftist opinion as "communist"),
and corrupted networks of international oligarchs (much like, regrettably, Russia seems to be doing now to the US).
<edit> Oh and let's not forget the stripping and funneling of natural resources to the rich countries </edit>
Corruption is indeed a big problem in poor countries, but it has been re-enforced and maintained by international interests of rich countries again and again and again and again.
You could say the same thing about income redistribution in western countries. We spend huge amounts of money in rural communities just providing basic services which are funded by wealthier urban areas. Much of Africa is an extreme example of this where you have subsistence farming communities. You are never going to be able to fund basic services from that tax base.
This reliance upon, or even worship, of one species is a disaster waiting to happen. Permaculture would solve this, it strives to create multitude of relationships between many animal and plant species, and unorthodox accomodation to local circumstances /ecosystem. Then whole agriculture would not depend one single type of tree and is more resilient.
But the unorthodox part is probably where it breaks down, it's much easier for humans to follow "recognized" methods than observe and adapt.
My impression from reading the article was that this wasn't a choice of a gao tree monoculture over better methods, but actually a choice between this monoculture and widespread slash-and-burn [0]. See also, [1].
It may not be the best from an ecological standpoint, but it's certainly better than the alternative, and as you said, has the advantage of being well-accepted among the farmers in the area.
