Here's a popular one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
EDIT: I really am worried. This is a terrible situation and one which I could see as getting much worse.
This is very very interesting because right now, due to a lot of education and a relatively higher standard of living Kerala can boast of a sex ratio of 1084 females/1000 males the only state in India with more females than males.
Also, Kerala is famously a stronghold of a Communist Party (the Communist Party of India (Marxist)).
What's the cost of inept Western assistance to Africa when it actively impedes them developing their own civilization, accidentally enforcing poverty and propping up terrible governments? This, too, destroys wealth and lives, up to and including killing people, but it's a lot harder to see. It is, nevertheless, real. Real people are really dying and living in nightmare states.
Which is really worse? I don't have an answer, which is my point. It's hard to tell. But it's possible to rack up death tolls with non-"military intervention" that can put most military interventions to shame.
Yes, except replace the word "easy" with "can be measured." Once you get into the domain of things that cannot be measured (or "not easy to see" as you say, presumingly requiring interpretation -- by whom?), you lose the empirical ground, and thus anything you say becomes close to worthless. I would rather stick to things that can be measured and not require speculation.
An authentic non-Western civilization in Africa is a very beautiful dream, but there is one huge problem to it: guns are effective and can be smuggled, whether by white people or black people or whoever.
Try looking at the spread of Christianity in Africa. Suppose there were no Western missionaries. Would we have had a "more authentic Africa" then? Probably not, we would have likely ended up with a "more Islamic Africa" instead. But don't dwell too much on this because it is just another of those "would" things that can't be measured.