How did European make this a better place ?

...

No Africans being unable to control their libido created that problem.

...

Africa is still not developed enough. People get many children because they expect that children will carry thwm when they are old. Also little knowledge about pregnancy prevention,so libido has some rolr in it

That applies to everyone though, improved farming is always associated with population growth. Here's a European example.

>With some exceptions, population levels rose rapidly at the beginning of the Neolithic until they reached the carrying capacity.[9] This was followed by a population crash of "enormous magnitude" after 5000 BCE, with levels remaining low during the next 1,500 years.[9] Populations began to rise after 3500 BCE, with further dips and rises occurring between 3000 and 2500 BCE but varying in date between regions.[9] A study of twelve European regions found most experienced boom and bust patterns and suggested an "endogenous, not climatic cause."

Population growth is not the same as overpopulation and comparing Africa to Neolithic Europe isn't exactly helping your case.

>and comparing Africa to Neolithic Europe isn't exactly helping your case

The concept is the same, exceeding carrying capacity and crashing, and history isn't linear progression.

Funny, African did not invent wheel and plow until as late as 17th century

But europe got huge pop boosts when they got access to top tier crops.

Africa isn't overpopulated because Africa isn't one country, population density heavily varies all over the continent. Agriculture isn't as modernized as other places are and climate change hits the continent harder then most.

Ethiopia had the plow though.

This is a poorly worded question because this vastly depends on which part of africa we're talking about,more specificly whether you're talking about north or south africa,if it's the north then no the effects were mostly negative but the exchange of knowledge ofcourse brought them some stuff that helped for the south it was mostly positive because they were so far behind that it gave them a massive boost in knowledge and technology.

The gap heavily widened during Colonialism though since communication across colony borders of different states was cut off as well as bad colonial policies having a lot of major negative reprecussions.

Development was never the prime concern and a lot of atrocious deeds were committed in the colonies by the very paternalistic authorities sent to rule their countries subjects.

No they didn't

>East Africa
Europeans did fuck over the Swahili cities in the 16th century, but they recovered. Later they ended the Indian Ocean and Red Sea slave trades. Definitely did a lot of good for Ethiopia, helping it transform into a semi-modern state. I think it was positive overall.

>Central Africa
Before colonialism it was being fucked over by Islamic slave raiders. Colonialism turned the Congo into a death camp. Decolonization was followed by civil wars and genocide. Honestly, I don't know what to think of it. It's just constant shit forever.

>Atlantic Africa
European impact here was definitely negative. When Europeans arrived in the 15th century the region was slowly but surely developing, with territorial kingdoms like Benin and Kongo on the rise, urbanism setting in and economies growing more industrious. Initially Europeans might had a relatively positive effect by stimulating trade, but ultimately the largest effect European contact had on this region was the slave trade. Slavery was always a thing there (and almost everywhere ever), but the demand Europeans created turned slave-production into a massive, and incredibly destructive, industry. Developed and cultured civilizations like Benin and Kongo declined while the most powerful states in the region were more like glorified bandits than anything else (see Dahomey). Beyond that, society in general just fell apart (princeton.edu/~lwantche/The_Slave_Trade_and_the_Origins_of_Mistrust_in_Africa_Use_This_One) and economies were destroyed (scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/the_long_term_effects.pdf). You can argue about whether colonialism was positive or negative, but the overall impact was definitely destructive.

The Western Sudan/Sahel and Southern Africa I don't know enough about to say.

>Implying the wheel wasn't only invented on a handful of separate occasion and everyone else just adopted it through contact

>education
>medicine
>agricultural techniques
Germany did a lot of damage to their colonies, but they also uplifted a lot of their native populations. Koch cured sleeping sickness, Tanganyika had a literacy rate higher than any British colony would see until after decolonization, agricultural schools in Tanganyika and Togo were significant until after the British and French took their colonies and then closed the schools down. Outside of Namibia, Germany really straightened the fuck up after 1907 when it came to their colonies.

By teaching them how to cuck. Now they're returning the favor.

They didn't make it better or worse; they just made it different. What are we defining as better? What are we defining as worse?

Africa isn't just one area either. There are millions of different people sharing a continent with vastly different living conditions and expectations. Like every thing in life, you can't just generalise.

Population estimates for Africa, in millions :
1650 - 100
1750 - 95
1850 - 95
1950 - 277
2000 - 794

They made it much easier to survive and reproduce there.

Medicine and limited infrastructure

the problem being, without a functional society most countries lost their infrastructure pretty quick, and medically it just made the population increase without any real economic development to go along with it.

Its a mixed bag. I guess it comes down to whether you think the ends justify the means

African soil can't support that kind of overpopulation

worse, should of just left them alone

t. Leopold II

It's 1.2 billion today

Fugg

And more than 4 billions expected for 2100.