Nuke Africa! (Fun with Rawlsian logic)

[hmkpoker]

Let's assume that John Rawls' theory of justice, that society should be stuctured in such a way that one would select it if he were to enter it from a random veil of ignorance, is correct.

Let us also assume that there are six billion people on this planet, and that one billion of them are in Africa.

Let us also assume that Africa is a cesspool of disease, famine and starvation. Poverty and violence run widespread. While a small percentage of Africans enjoy life, most live in absolutely miserable poverty. The poverty is very destructive, both domestically and globally. Africa produces very little for the global economy, and the call for subsidies to keep the Africans alive is high.

Africa presents a problem for our friend behind the veil of ignorance. With ~1/6 of the population, there is a 16.6% chance that he will be born an African, and have to live in miserable squalor.

Africa could, in theory, be subsidized by the rest of the world to a semi-decent standard of living, but this would also drain the world's resources, and lower the quality of life for our fellow behind the veil (though it may reduce some variance).

Let us also assume that we can fly a few planes over the continent and bomb it into oblivion with few environmental externalities. All of the Africans would be wiped out, and there would be no chance for our friend behind the veil to inherit such a lifestyle.

By Rawlsian reasoning, is it not best to structure society in such a way that one has the best chance of a worthwhile life? And if so, doesn't eliminating the poor facilitate that?