Less kids in Africa equals better security for America and Europe

Abort the poor buggers!
 
By MMK
 
Jeffrey Sachs who leaps over tall buildings in Bolivia and Russia in a single bound and lands in Africa to solve its many problems is at it again (read article in Scientific American).
 
Sachs once promoted the power of unfettered markets, advising the Russians on the ‘shock therapy’ that left a bulk of state assets in the hands of a cabal of crooks, he is now an environmental activist urging benign state intervention in economic development.
 
His latest campaign involves helping the environment by helping poor people in Africa and the Middle East whose numbers are rising too fast. Allowing that people in the rich countries live on about $30,000 per year, well above the global average of $10,000, which itself is substantially more than most Africans consume and earn, his suggestion is that giving birth to less poor bastards is the best course of action in the future.
 
Get this: Sachs is worried not about the suffering of the unborn poor should they live like their parents in scarcity and ill health, but rather that they may fulfill their economic aspirations.
 
If poor countries continue breeding like the proverbial rabbits by 2050 according to UN forecasts (not usually worth the paper they are printed on by the way) world population will be 9 billion with 2.5 billion of this number born in the poor countries. If this ‘surplus’ somehow finds a way to earn and consume today’s $10,000 average, it would by Sachs calculations cause untold environmental stresses especially due to the fact that cruel fate has chosen to locate ‘biodiversity hotspots’ among the unwashed masses.
 
He worries of the unhappy fate of these hotspots especially since they are a critical part of the ‘Global biological heritage’ a phrase that I think is better read as ‘we in the west destroyed our biodiversity in our pursuit of wealth and now we want access to yours even if that requires that we get rid of the hungry, ambitious, dare-to-want-to-survive poor.’ Sachs then appeals to American national security and economic interest. His argument in summary is that the more poor bastards there are the angrier the number of young men willing to take up arms against prosperous America.
 
He bewails the Bush administration’s ‘religious right’ inspired refusal to support fertility control in the poorest countries. Better to invest in fertility control now; it is the best use of dollars for a more militarily and economically secure future for America. He is kind enough to stress that this should be voluntary fertility programs.
 
     
    
Heaven forbid that under the ambit of national security women and men in Africa should be led into little hospital rooms and rendered infertile. As usual Sachs is never one to pursue his arguments to their logical ends and couched in his kindness is a kind of neo-eugenics idea: rid the world of the poor by ensuring that they do not give birth to more like themselves; the world is running out of room of, especially for you if you are from the poor nations (read brown nations if I must go there.) If it is really a matter of national security then under the present American administration’s pre-emptive doctrine against emerging threats, there is a need to limit the number of children that the poor have. Yes, this might be achieved by voluntary measures.
 
But foremost will not be the issue of helping the volunteers improve their lives, it will be as was true in all eugenics programs, an attempt to protect ‘society’ from the undesirables. In this case the poor. It might appear to be a bit much for me to be comparing this kind of well-intentioned policy advocates with the eugenics movement. 
 
I believe that Sachs call folds neatly into those of a century ago and that once the more hysterical and less politically correct types make it, all will be much clearer to you poor, over-breeding buggers. The humanitarians of the today behave like the European missionaries in the nineteenth century, providing justifications for colonial misadventure ‘for the good of the poor, native blighter.’ They increasingly join their mission with the ‘imperial’ promotion of the west’s interests. To the point that NGOs are now a critical tool in military strategy, helping to blunt the impact of the bombs and bullets poured into a target population.
 
It does not surprise me in the least that with the likes of Sachs running around aid agencies are increasingly being targeted as non-neutral in many battle grounds. The toothless and rudderless left to which Sachs is an honored member has become the sheep’s clothing for a hawkish, domineering constituency that needs fodder for its military adventures. What could be more convenient and humane than to save the poor from themselves while being able to pursue imperial goals clothed in the Good Samaritan’s robes? In 1807, William Hazlit accused Malthus of making himself ‘conscience-keeper to the rich and great, especially to those of them who are not of a giving disposition, all in coining or at least popularizing for their use the magical phrase or formula ‘surplus’ or ‘redundant’ population.’
 
Sachs too acts to promote the interests of the rich nations but, with a perpetual nod to political correctness and disingenuousness, he would rather he appeared to be seen as promoting the interests of the poor themselves. He therefore urges the rich to give even more, despite much of this money coming to no good whatsoever and even being harmful in a lot of cases.
 
The animating spirit of his ideas is a restless ambition to be counted first among the rich and great by opining as an expert on regions and matters where his knowledge is thin and mostly involves advocating policies that have been tried for decades and found wanting.
 
Joined by the other hapless musketeers, Bono and Geldof, his is a media game joining concern for poverty with the celebrity bandwagon for the selfish pursuit of personal plaudits and the conscience cooling balm of the ‘feel good factor’. To hell with the poor made to swallow his bitter medicines no matter how ill it makes them. As Samuel L. Jackson would say of Sachs: ‘How smart can he be? He’s peeing into the wind.’
 
MMK is a London-based writer and journalist. He is currently on a working tour of Africa and blogs as African Bullets and Honey.
 
Please e-mail comments to comments@thenewblackmagazine.com
 

  Send to a friend  |  

View/Hide Comments (0)   |  

  Print