1. Your country

absolutely based
wildlife. all other answers are cucked
africans had a resource-rich land of plenty, and look how far they got. mud huts. the animals made better use of the land than the people did.
all we have is some rivers, minerals, and average farmlands, and we still managed to be prosperous.

Aren't african people considered part of the african wildlife?

Coons are closer related to me than baboons so I'll fund the ethnic cleansing of baboons, simple.

No, but seriously, there isn't a scenario where Africa doesn't kill off its fauna. There will be a gorillion negroes there in 100 years and there won't be any space or resources for them. Elephants will turn to burgers and savannas into parking lots.

So just save what can be saved and start shitting ddt all over the place so we at least afford the basic courtesy of eliminating malaria. Seeing all those "one race the human race :)" faggots letting Africans croak by tenths of thousands annually just because muh environment makes me wanna puke. You shat this thing all over the US and other places for decades, got rid of malaria there and it didn't do as much damage as the fucking mosquitos do in 2 years.

Many subsaharan countries have shit rainfall.

african being resource rich is a meme

Triple dubs speak the truth.

I care about both.

memes aside. Had a discussion on this in uni. I care more about the wildlife than the african people. Its selfishness born of a relatively cushy life but losing diversity for future generations is not a pleasant thought.

If the choice was between saving the life of an african or a mountain gorilla, I'd unironically choose the gorilla. Sure some family might be upset they lost a member, its less of a dent to the species than it would be for the gorillas to lose one.

>resource-rich land of plenty, and look how far they got. mud huts.

You know there are cities in Africa right?

Attached: Airport_City_at_Night.jpg (1080x712, 314K)

Wildlife.