[Bored chemist]

In almost every interview, documentary,  and TED talk he has given over the past 10 years about Africa.

Citation please.

[alancalverd]

Reducing the population is the only way to make life tolerable and sustainable for our successors. Agriculture in many parts of Africa is already marginal despite a century or so of introducing modern farming methods. Famine is pretty much the norm thanks to unpredictable rainfall and a failure to control locust populations in areas where civil war has been raging for decades, so the priority areas for controlling the one variable that can be controlled (population) must be in such states.   

[Jolly2 (OP)]

In almost every interview, documentary,  and TED talk he has given over the past 10 years about Africa.

Citation please.

Citation,  if you want to see Bill Gates talk about reducing Africas population, just go do search.

This is am interesting story from algazeera

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Reducing the population is the only way to make life tolerable

Tolerable? And no it isnt.

and sustainable for our successors. Agriculture in many parts of Africa is already marginal despite a century or so of introducing modern farming methods. Famine is pretty much the norm thanks to unpredictable rainfall and a failure to control locust populations in areas where civil war has been raging for decades, so the priority areas for controlling the one variable that can be controlled (population) must be in such states.   

More doom and gloom nonsense.

[Kryptid]

Of possible relevance: https://observers.france24.com/en/africa/20210119-bill-gates-kill-three-billion-people-video-conspiracy

I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?

[alancalverd]

The statistics, such as I can find, show the continuation of historical starvation in bits of Africa but, oddly, not in the areas where the Gates Foundation is working, apart from Nigeria.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The statistics, such as I can find, show the continuation of historical starvation in bits of Africa but, oddly, not in the areas where the Gates Foundation is working, apart from Nigeria.

Is that the same Nigeria expected to have a population increase to make it more populous then China? What a shock.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Of possible relevance: https://observers.france24.com/en/africa/20210119-bill-gates-kill-three-billion-people-video-conspiracy

I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?

It the hilarious thing about these supposed reports they title it one way then write the article in another.
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by about 10 or 15% But there we see an increase of about 1.3,” Gates says, breaking down the formula.

Honestly who voted for Bill Gates to be a population Zar?

[Kryptid]

It the hilarious thing about these supposed reports they title it one way then write the article in another.

So what in the article says the opposite of what the title says? The part that you quoted certainly doesn't.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It the hilarious thing about these supposed reports they title it one way then write the article in another.

So what in the article says the opposite of what the title says? The part that you quoted certainly doesn't.

They change the actual statement of the doctor from "eliminate" to "Kill" to make the title more punchy, no doubt as a part of click bait.

The doctor is talking about agendas to reduce Africa's population. And its exactly a stated goal of Gates.  And As I have questioned in this tread starvation could be one of his tactics in that endeavor,  certainly seems plausible when you see starvation increasing in the countries he is active.

[alancalverd]

starvation could be one of his tactics

So could nuclear devastation or just walking away and letting the people starve by themselves. Please replace "could be" with some evidence of something. 

I have heard it said that you might be an agent of Satan.

[Kryptid]

certainly seems plausible when you see starvation increasing in the countries he is active.

I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

certainly seems plausible when you see starvation increasing in the countries he is active.

I'm also curious, do we have any actual statistics regarding hunger in those countries? Sure, one can claim that it's increased 30%, but do the statistics back that up? If so, was that a trend before Gates even started his program?

Farming yields before ARGA were going up
"In the period before AGRA, yields in these countries had grown by 17 percent. The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical."
https://dianeravitch.net/2021/01/04/the-gates-foundations-not-green-revolution-in-africa/

[Kryptid]

The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical."

So then Gates is not actually increasing hunger in Africa beyond what would have otherwise occurred anyway.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

starvation could be one of his tactics

So could nuclear devastation or just walking away and letting the people starve by themselves. Please replace "could be" with some evidence of something. 

I have heard it said that you might be an agent of Satan.

Seems more your line of work, you happily seem to promote western tyranny over Africa and extremely defend the current course of action taken by the despots incharge.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical."

So then Gates is not actually increasing hunger in Africa beyond what would have otherwise occurred anyway.

No your miss reading that means at best AGRA made no difference at worst they reduced farming output.
Farming was increasing by 17% before AGRA, simple means initially AGRA didnt interfere with that trend, not now after 14 years it certainly has, what was an increase of 17% has become a reduction of 20%

[Kryptid]

No your miss reading that means at best AGRA made no difference at worst they reduced farming output.

How do you get that out of "almost identical"?

Farming was increasing by 17% before AGRA, simple means initially AGRA didnt interfere with that trend, not now after 14 years it certainly has, what was an increase of 17% has become a reduction of 30%

That doesn't match this statement:

By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent

An increase of 18 percent is not a reduction of 30 percent.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

No your miss reading that means at best AGRA made no difference at worst they reduced farming output.

How do you get that out of "almost identical"?

But fourteen years after AGRA was founded, it’s safe to say that the initiative has failed to meet its goals. Rather than combat hunger and poverty, hunger has actually increased by 30 percent in the AGRA focus countries — meaning that thirty million more people are suffering from it than when AGRA started. By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent, as opposed to the 100 percent AGRA promised. In the period before AGRA, yields in these countries had grown by 17 percent. The increases in yields with and without AGRA were therefore almost identical.

Effectively ARGA achieved 1% of it goals. After 15 years... I have trouble believing that isnt by design.

Farming was increasing by 17% before AGRA, simple means initially AGRA didnt interfere with that trend, not now after 14 years it certainly has, what was an increase of 17% has become a reduction of 30%

That doesn't match this statement:

By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent

An increase of 18 percent is not a reduction of 30 percent.

Sorry my mistake, hunger increased by 30% cerial crops reduced by 21%

Statistics for the thirteen AGRA focus countries show that production of cereals has fallen by 21 percent since the initiative was launched. A yield decline of 7 percent was recorded for root and tuber crops. All in all, AGRA reduces the diversity in farmers’ fields and thus also the variety of seeds being used. This development in turn makes agriculture even more vulnerable to the consequences of the climate crisis.

[Kryptid]

After 15 years... I have trouble believing that isnt by design.

So it was "by design" to waste money on an operation that effectively neither increased nor decreased the farming growth trend. He intentionally wasted money doing something that would have happened anyway without his interference. Are you serious?

Statistics for the thirteen AGRA focus countries show that production of cereals has fallen by 21 percent since the initiative was launched. A yield decline of 7 percent was recorded for root and tuber crops. All in all, AGRA reduces the diversity in farmers’ fields and thus also the variety of seeds being used. This development in turn makes agriculture even more vulnerable to the consequences of the climate crisis.

Source? So where does the, "By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent" statement fit in? If the total agricultural yield has increased 18 percent while cereal and tuber production has gone down, the production of other crops must have gone up significantly in order to explain overall growth and not reduction.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

After 15 years... I have trouble believing that isnt by design.

So it was "by design" to waste money on an operation that effectively neither increased nor decreased the farming growth trend. He intentionally wasted money doing something that would have happened anyway without his interference. Are you serious?

There are really on a few explanations,  Bill Gates has been ripped off, which I ha e trouble believing. You invest and see your investment fail for a few years ok, but eventually you have to conclude maybe the actual claimed agenda of the program is a cover story. Leading to one of the other possible explanations the program is meant to reduce food production and increase hunger, as a part of a depopulation
Program. Seeking to reduce population by giving them more food, seems counter productive actually,  seeking to de populate by giving them less actually fits.

Statistics for the thirteen AGRA focus countries show that production of cereals has fallen by 21 percent since the initiative was launched. A yield decline of 7 percent was recorded for root and tuber crops. All in all, AGRA reduces the diversity in farmers’ fields and thus also the variety of seeds being used. This development in turn makes agriculture even more vulnerable to the consequences of the climate crisis.

Source? So where does the, "By 2018, agricultural yields in the focus countries had increased by only 18 percent" statement fit in? If the total agricultural yield has increased 18 percent while cereal and tuber production has gone down, the production of other crops must have gone up significantly in order to explain overall growth and not reduction.

Not really with the 17% occurring anyway, it's an increase of 1% for certain crops. And that 1% certainly wasnt enough to feed the people, leaving an increase in hunger.