>How does /id/ believe Africa will proceed into the information age?

Poorly. There are still parts of Africa where people believe that raping a virgin will cure one of AIDs. This obviously doesn't cover the whole African population, but the country has a lot of problems.

>Will the vestiges of industrialism continue to ride the wave west across the East and come crashing down on the Dark continent?

If you're asking if big business will continue to exploit Africa, then yes. As laws covering the consumer become more numerous or strict in Western society, big business will move elsewhere to get the unpopular things done. We see this already with bio-medical corporations testing drugs on African nationals.

>>56
Won't the captains of industrialism who have little ability to adapt to the information age look to Africa as their last safe haven? Industrialism has come from Europe in the 1800's, through the West in the early 1900's, to Asia as a way to spur growth Post-WWII, now it is traveling west further into the east. Resource rich areas sort of circumvent the increased knowledge application needs of the industrial age and this is why there is the rich, small ruling class, and the ignorant starving poor class, with a small market class in between. These resources such as oil, gold and diamonds however will see their demand climb, but shot in the head by renewable energies and a drained perceived value of atoms over bits. So, what does this leave for Africa? A haven for the procurement of the vestige goods of industrialism. The resource rich of today will corporatize the continent and create wage slaves.

What becomes of information? When we value information as we value flesh, when we value we instead of me, when networks are how we connect, when it is more efficient to create food than raise and nurture it, then what will we walk into willingly?

>>57

>Won't the captains of industrialism who have little ability to adapt to the information age look to Africa as their last safe haven?

I suppose if by "safe haven" you mean "exploitation", then yes. It's one of the most problematic countries in the world, barring the war in the Middle East. Africa is a huge mess right now. Remember it's not one big culture, but many smaller ones. It's riddled with conflicts, disease, poverty and starvation. That means human life is cheap, and no one will ask questions given the proper prodding.

>These resources such as oil, gold and diamonds however will see their demand climb, but shot in the head by renewable energies and a drained perceived value of atoms over bits.

There will always be a need for physical goods. Oil, for example, does not just go towards fuel, but towards plastics, buildings, fashion, computer hardware, and other types of uses. There will always be a need for oil. Gold and diamonds increase in value with lessening availability, but their value was always questionable to begin with. Financially, first world countries have walked away from the gold standard for a while now. Diamonds are mostly considered valuable due to cultural bias and the marketing of the their value by the DeBeers family, which owns one of the largest diamond mines in the world (in Africa).

>So, what does this leave for Africa? A haven for the procurement of the vestige goods of industrialism. The resource rich of today will corporatize the continent and create wage slaves.

No, the country is too unstable for that. It's easier to just go in and buy life for specific purposes. Example: Madonna essentially went in, spread some cash around, and circumvented child adoption laws so that she could have an african baby. Example: drug companies test their drugs on third world country citizens because if something goes wrong, no one is in a position to do anything about it. Further, the amount of money those citizens might get paid is miniscule because of the poverty level. There's no point in paying wages or creating wage slaves. That would require stabilizing the financial, social, and political ecosystems enough to hire people for jobs.

>What becomes of information? When we value information as we value flesh, when we value we instead of me, when networks are how we connect, when it is more efficient to create food than raise and nurture it, then what will we walk into willingly?

You overestimate flesh. The late German philosopher, Martin Heidegger wrote an essay "The Question of Technology", which discussed this problem. In a world (such as ours) where physical materials are seen as resources (tree to paper, oil to fuel, plants to clothing, etc), it is inevitable that humans will begin to view each other as resources and exploit each other accordingly.

For example, take Facebook. Facebook makes money by selling the information of its users. This means that the users (humans) are resources being exploited for profit by the people in charge of Facebook. It also means that Facebook is making money off of information - the information generated by its users. Here we see that the information is the valuable part, and the users are just resources exploited to generate that information. Cows by themselves aren't extremely valuable. The leather and meat they provide, however, is. Thus, we grow many cows for the purpose of conversion into profitable materials. Likewise, we collect many users for conversion into profitable information.

>What becomes of information?

You're already seeing it. It's in Facebook, Google+, and any online service that makes money off of knowledge and information. It's just not quite as pervasive, nuanced, and refined as it can be. That will change as time goes on.