The problem, as noted by others, is that while it's easy to imagine nation-specific PODs those probably wouldn't do much to uplift the other countries on the continent.
Perhaps if AIDS hadn't made the jump to humans? I'm not well versed in the origins of HIV/AIDS, but according to Wikipedia it first spread to humans in the early 20th century, and grew better adapted over the century. Might be that a single(un)fortunate mutation not taking place would be enough to prevent AIDS. Or delay it by a couple of decades?
Besides the obvious decrease in human suffering, this may also lead to better economic performance: labour supply not being culled, less burden on the health system. OTOH it likely means a larger population(in the short term, increased odds of survival are associated with declining birthrates so it may mean a smaller population in the long term), which means greater strain on the food supply. Although for a counterargument see this, which argues that the spread of AIDS was associated with a seriously diminished agricultural production due to culling the agricultural labour force.
If there's one positive thing that colonialism can be credited with, it's the imposition of clearly defined borders. Credit also goes to the postcolonial African governments for treating those borders as sacrosanct.
With the scramble for Africa absent or restrained, is it likely that we'd see emerging native state borders mediated in a Treaty of Berlin fashion? Doubtful- more likely we'd see borders determined by conquest, young empires fracturing again in civil wars, all sponsored by Western arms dealers looking to sell their merchandise, and corporations/governments aiding their favoured proxies in exchange for most favoured nation status. The endless territorial wars in Eurasia ended because of... well, we could debate whether it had more to do with economics, cultural change, MAD, the establishment of international organizations. But whichever of those explanations you credit, it's likely they'd be slower to stabilize Africa- poorer, less able to afford nukes, little in the way of natural Schelling points when it comes to borders and state legitimacy.
I suppose there's a credible argument that this might actually be a good thing- that it would lead to patriotic ideologies subsuming tribal identities, that it would favour those states that did a better job of modernizing and industrializing as they would be more likely to survive and conquer weaker/less efficient states. Survival of the fittest, if you will. Though this assumes that those factors that make a country successful in war correlate with those factors that make it successful in economic/human development.
Perhaps if AIDS hadn't made the jump to humans? I'm not well versed in the origins of HIV/AIDS, but according to Wikipedia it first spread to humans in the early 20th century, and grew better adapted over the century. Might be that a single(un)fortunate mutation not taking place would be enough to prevent AIDS. Or delay it by a couple of decades?
Besides the obvious decrease in human suffering, this may also lead to better economic performance: labour supply not being culled, less burden on the health system. OTOH it likely means a larger population(in the short term, increased odds of survival are associated with declining birthrates so it may mean a smaller population in the long term), which means greater strain on the food supply. Although for a counterargument see this, which argues that the spread of AIDS was associated with a seriously diminished agricultural production due to culling the agricultural labour force.
There's at least one possible problem with organically developing states- they mean organically developing borders. I know that the artificial imposition of borders on Africa is typically held up as a Bad Thing Because It Divided Ethnic Groups, but this critique ignores that organically developing borders aren't determined by censuses. They're determined by war.Certainly it is unrealistic to expect that all of Africa will be a perfect paradise, but organically developing states would probably do a better job because they would make their decisions locally - and there's nothing to prevent (indeed, it would be quite inevitable) that European influence would be imposed on them anyway, even if colonialism didn't occur.
If there's one positive thing that colonialism can be credited with, it's the imposition of clearly defined borders. Credit also goes to the postcolonial African governments for treating those borders as sacrosanct.
With the scramble for Africa absent or restrained, is it likely that we'd see emerging native state borders mediated in a Treaty of Berlin fashion? Doubtful- more likely we'd see borders determined by conquest, young empires fracturing again in civil wars, all sponsored by Western arms dealers looking to sell their merchandise, and corporations/governments aiding their favoured proxies in exchange for most favoured nation status. The endless territorial wars in Eurasia ended because of... well, we could debate whether it had more to do with economics, cultural change, MAD, the establishment of international organizations. But whichever of those explanations you credit, it's likely they'd be slower to stabilize Africa- poorer, less able to afford nukes, little in the way of natural Schelling points when it comes to borders and state legitimacy.
I suppose there's a credible argument that this might actually be a good thing- that it would lead to patriotic ideologies subsuming tribal identities, that it would favour those states that did a better job of modernizing and industrializing as they would be more likely to survive and conquer weaker/less efficient states. Survival of the fittest, if you will. Though this assumes that those factors that make a country successful in war correlate with those factors that make it successful in economic/human development.
Last edited: