AIDS in Africa

Yep Africa is in trouble. Remember the huge birthrate problem we were being warned about? Guess what there are countries in Africa where the prospective pool of parents for the next generation are riddled with high percentages of AIDS. Seems without any intervention from the developed word, the third world problem in Africa has taken care of itself.

Just when did we become so racist as to allow flimsy laws and agreements preventing even humanitarian aid? And what gets me is that from a capitalistic viewpoint, the shear numbers of AIDS in Africa would allow huge economies of scale. Even if the western drug companies charge $1 a day for the drugs, they would reap huge huge profits.

In fact, supplying AIDS treatments to Africa would probably pay for the entire original investment which created those drugs.

I am not much a believer in conspiracy but in the case of inaction on AIDS in Africa, I can see no justifications at all. All I know is that the overpopulations which were feared in the 1970's did not take place in the 1990's like the UN feared. These countries are no longer in danger of doubling populations, they are now in danger of having severely reduced populations.

Rhodesia was one example. I use the colonial name of the country because I think it has changed again. But I remember reading about the current state of affairs in the country. The book "Things Fall Apart" is loosely based on Rhodesia and what happened when this country fell from a democracy to a racist military dictatorship. In reality the country really did fall far. But by the mid 1980's the country was beginning to recapture some forwards momentum. The paper I was reading, was in an anthropology journal so it was, as usual, very dry reading. But the thing that I still remember as shocking was that of the population of child rearing age, 55% of the adults had AIDS. The implications are obvious. If you remove 55% of your future population, how the heck do you ever form a stable prosperous country?

And because AIDS is a magnifying disease, the effects on the second generation is even more pronounced. Out of 100 people in a village, 55 people die and don't have children. The next generation is based on 45 breeding people. if 55% of them die, you can see the results. every 20 years the growth is ridiculously low. That's just Rhodesia.

In a way, instead of overpopulation in Africa we are now faced with depopulation. And depopulation benefits the rest of the world. Now when a famine hits Africa, less hungry mouths have to be fed. Since economies are unstable, investment is cheaper and easier in Africa. In fact, a depopulated Africa has created a perverse possibility of a secondary unofficial colonialism. Western Economies well get the benefits of economic output without the drains of actual control.

Look for example at Belgium sending troops into the Congo. 20 years ago there would have been a world wide cry of "foul". Now, due to the weakness of the populations, a former and hated colonial power can do what it wants. Yes there were political overtones to the invasion of Congo, but the real benefit was to Belgium economic interests.

A society suffering from disease is unable and unwilling to resist outside interventions. African Governments are privately so preoccupied with AIDS, that they can not focus on any other issues.

Hunt Petroleum out of Huston Texas conducted an exploration of Kenya for oil reserves. This was in the late 1980's. The oil fields found are massive. Kenya's population is riddled with AIDS. The government is currently unable to even control the development of the oil fields. Hunt Oil is basically in collusion with other world oil companies in not developing the oil reserves. Imagine if Kenya could use oil revenue to pay for AIDS drugs? The population would be healthy, and more importantly Kenya would be socially stable enough to do what it collectively wants with these oil reserves.

I guess what makes me wonder is that there is absolutely no reason for AIDS drugs not being sent to Africa. Most of the countries could completely pay for them right now. More people alive would mean large economies, and larger economies mean more purchasing power. Why would Bayer, Merck, Littlejohn, etc not want to sell to a huge market?

I don't know what my point is, but if the goal of capitalism is to make money in available markets why the heck are the drug companies not selling in this market?

I really hope its not racism.