Well, yes, I understand the "point" of the pop density map is to dramatize natural barriers, oceans of sand and sea, languages and tyrannies, religions and so forth, between civilized peoples. The natural barrier between North Africa and Europe is smaller than the barrier between North Africa, therefore Europe, and "Black Africa" is insurmountable. Regardless of whatever.

Reflecting on a trope of 18th century neo-Hellenistic phases of humanity would be comical if it were not 2010 and its repetition so eurocentric, mindless, and creepy.

So where we will disagree apparently is in acceptance of a foregone conclusion: the necessity of "integrating" Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia, and Egypt with Europe for all practical, technical, and economic intents and purposes of a plan devised by the Club of Rome and the Union for the Mediterranean, programmed by M. Sarkozy (UMP). <insert concern troll>

The only purpose I've read at ET, until  Melanchthon alluded to consummating "centuries of shared history, economy and culture," is to expropriate energy resources in the Sahara which --you've illustrated so graphically-- are obviously idle inspite of Europe's great time of "decarbonised" fuel needs.

60 years ago it was rubber and oil. 100 years ago, iron ore and oil. 200 years sugar and slaves. 400 years ago, gold.

The PwC business case, "100% Renewable, a roadmap to 2050 for Europe and North Africa," is here. This is a thoroughly researched strategy for expropriation, where "the integration of North Africa and Europe" is nothing more than "the smooth flow of electricity and revenues" to Europe to be consumed.

This story is credible. This story is consistent with compulsive, acquisitive premises of industrial governance. It kinda squeals for lipstick.

Like European investment banks supporting "North African political and economic development" because Algeria, Lybia, or Egypt are close, good neighbors.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.