There are no forseeable adverse biological effects from genocide besides death to the subjects. 
My thoughts on Africa: (you can back these up with numbers if you search)
It is conceivable that, with the current food yield, if there were no restrictions on trade, no cost of infrastructure/shipping, and equal distribution, mankind could support mankind. World hunger would be eliminated. FOR NOW.
The most modernized countries have low or negative population growth rates. These also happen to be the countries that are not experiencing widespread famine and the sociological and biological effects of such a condition.
Now consider the birth rate in Africa. It's relatively tremendous. The solution, then, is not to throw food at them. Sending food to Africa, while it may make you look like a savior, is usually doing us as a species more harm than good.
First, there are logistical hurdles. Much of Africa is undeveloped or poorly developed. Little infrastructure makes distribution of food and medical aid very challenging. It seems as though much non-governmental aid arrives from humanitarian concerns. (e.g. pampered Westerners who see a way of life different and apalling to them who wish to "solve" this problem with money and dilligence) However, you have to consider INCENTIVES in this case.
If I am a general who has just taken power in an unstable country and people arrive at my doorstep who think they can change the world by offering help I haven't asked for, sure I can let them in, but I'll demand some sort of tribute or food priority in order to access my citizens. This way, my men can be fed, remain loyal to me, and I will have a stronger army to eradicate any other warlords who oppose me and thereby remain in power.
The incentive for young men, then, is to join such an army and thereby get fed. Also, there is the opportunity that as a young man, you may rise through the ranks and someday take over yourself and enjoy the posh and godlike benefits of being a generalissimo of oppressed masses.
For women, if you have no money or possessions, you have yourself and your wit. Without proper education, that wit isn't going to take you very far. So you pretty much have yourself. If there are 10 girls, but only enough food for 8, which ones do you think will get priority? The ones who put out or the ones who just sit there?
For UN peacekeepers, you're thousands of miles from home. You're a soldier, but you're not fighting for your country. You may not have seen a fellow countrywoman in months. There are local women, but it is somehow forbidden for you to become intimate with them, making it even more attractive. The climate is hot and humid and you only have enough food to feed 8 out of 10 girls. 8 offer to put out. Which ones will you give preference to?
I can understand why normal people, like you or I, would be forced into what we might otherwise see as apalling behavior, given desperate circumstances. If you are faced with a choice between death or shame, sometimes your body tells you to accept shame on the merit of self-preservation.
Certainly imperialism and its withdrawl have ravaged Africa. The solution remains: better education, better infrastructure, better incentives to create a sustainable society. The solution is NOT more food. Famine will prune the population. It is a natural consequence of overstepping the bounds between our base desire to reproduce and how much the Earth can support us.
I refuse to donate money to a starving child in Africa not because I am some sort of monster who does not value an individual life, but because I know I will be compelled to donate money to the five starving children this child will produce once he or she grows up. It's just another pyramid scheme.
My thoughts on Africa: (you can back these up with numbers if you search)
It is conceivable that, with the current food yield, if there were no restrictions on trade, no cost of infrastructure/shipping, and equal distribution, mankind could support mankind. World hunger would be eliminated. FOR NOW.
The most modernized countries have low or negative population growth rates. These also happen to be the countries that are not experiencing widespread famine and the sociological and biological effects of such a condition.
Now consider the birth rate in Africa. It's relatively tremendous. The solution, then, is not to throw food at them. Sending food to Africa, while it may make you look like a savior, is usually doing us as a species more harm than good.
First, there are logistical hurdles. Much of Africa is undeveloped or poorly developed. Little infrastructure makes distribution of food and medical aid very challenging. It seems as though much non-governmental aid arrives from humanitarian concerns. (e.g. pampered Westerners who see a way of life different and apalling to them who wish to "solve" this problem with money and dilligence) However, you have to consider INCENTIVES in this case.
If I am a general who has just taken power in an unstable country and people arrive at my doorstep who think they can change the world by offering help I haven't asked for, sure I can let them in, but I'll demand some sort of tribute or food priority in order to access my citizens. This way, my men can be fed, remain loyal to me, and I will have a stronger army to eradicate any other warlords who oppose me and thereby remain in power.
The incentive for young men, then, is to join such an army and thereby get fed. Also, there is the opportunity that as a young man, you may rise through the ranks and someday take over yourself and enjoy the posh and godlike benefits of being a generalissimo of oppressed masses.
For women, if you have no money or possessions, you have yourself and your wit. Without proper education, that wit isn't going to take you very far. So you pretty much have yourself. If there are 10 girls, but only enough food for 8, which ones do you think will get priority? The ones who put out or the ones who just sit there?
For UN peacekeepers, you're thousands of miles from home. You're a soldier, but you're not fighting for your country. You may not have seen a fellow countrywoman in months. There are local women, but it is somehow forbidden for you to become intimate with them, making it even more attractive. The climate is hot and humid and you only have enough food to feed 8 out of 10 girls. 8 offer to put out. Which ones will you give preference to?
I can understand why normal people, like you or I, would be forced into what we might otherwise see as apalling behavior, given desperate circumstances. If you are faced with a choice between death or shame, sometimes your body tells you to accept shame on the merit of self-preservation.
Certainly imperialism and its withdrawl have ravaged Africa. The solution remains: better education, better infrastructure, better incentives to create a sustainable society. The solution is NOT more food. Famine will prune the population. It is a natural consequence of overstepping the bounds between our base desire to reproduce and how much the Earth can support us.
I refuse to donate money to a starving child in Africa not because I am some sort of monster who does not value an individual life, but because I know I will be compelled to donate money to the five starving children this child will produce once he or she grows up. It's just another pyramid scheme.
