PG on nonprofits/Darfur(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
PG on nonprofits/Darfur
http://www.paulgraham.com/darfur.html
7 comments
This is from a couple years ago. It didn't work out very well. The local government officials wouldn't let them build anything. The technology is cool though; literally.
Any idea why the government officials stop them from building anything?
I get the impression that in a corrupt country like that, government officials say no to everything by default, in order to make you bribe them to say yes.
There is probably more than a little of that.
Then there is the fact that when you're attempting to pull off a genocide of your political opponents so you can get at the oil beneath their land, letting in white do-gooders to build them cool new houses is not exactly #1 on the to-do list.
Plus, any improvement in their living conditions just means the West sends your poor impoverished people less money that you can steal. Look at, say, aid flows to Costa Rica ("not a basket case") vs. pick-your-favorite-usual suspect. If you're a tyrant, miserable people are a rich national resource.
Then there is the fact that when you're attempting to pull off a genocide of your political opponents so you can get at the oil beneath their land, letting in white do-gooders to build them cool new houses is not exactly #1 on the to-do list.
Plus, any improvement in their living conditions just means the West sends your poor impoverished people less money that you can steal. Look at, say, aid flows to Costa Rica ("not a basket case") vs. pick-your-favorite-usual suspect. If you're a tyrant, miserable people are a rich national resource.
Exactly. Darfur is wretched because the government has a stake in keeping it that way. Anything that threatens to weaken their stakes will in every likelihood meet resistance from the government. Had the government’s intent been to see a thriving and safe Darfur, the crisis wouldn’t exist in the first place. It’s not surprising that any attempt to improve lives in Darfur would be frowned upon.
Be that as it may, it never ceases to amaze me how some nifty startups come up with innovative ideas that discreetly transform the lives of people more than what UN’s billion dollar diplomacy fails to pull off. For example the stoves that helped keep Darfur’s women safe.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/27/stoves.darfur...
http://www.darfurstoves.org/
Be that as it may, it never ceases to amaze me how some nifty startups come up with innovative ideas that discreetly transform the lives of people more than what UN’s billion dollar diplomacy fails to pull off. For example the stoves that helped keep Darfur’s women safe.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/27/stoves.darfur...
http://www.darfurstoves.org/
And no bribe was offered? Undertaking a project in an area like that without being willing either to shoot or to bribe government officials strikes me as naive.
It's also illegal for a US, Canadian or European company to offer bribes to government officials abroad.
A recent crackdown cost Siemens $1.6 billion, as bribes were apart of their standard system of doing business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21s...
A recent crackdown cost Siemens $1.6 billion, as bribes were apart of their standard system of doing business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21s...
It occurs to me that it would be a fascinating test case if a charity like this one were to be tried for bribery and plead self-defense.
"plead self-defense" to whom? To the govt that you didn't grease correctly? To the govt in your home country that thinks that bribing other govts is wrong?
Note that "self-defense" typically is to prevent grave bodily harm or death and is usually reserved for immediate threats. Not being able to build houses for some poor wretch who will probably live at least a few weeks without the house doesn't qualify.
Note that "self-defense" typically is to prevent grave bodily harm or death and is usually reserved for immediate threats. Not being able to build houses for some poor wretch who will probably live at least a few weeks without the house doesn't qualify.
To the home government. And while self-defense typically connotes imminent grave bodily harm, it is also typically plead only when one is accused of inflicting the same. In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations one is expected to seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into his own hands. But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have an interesting case.
> In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations one is expected to seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into his own hands. But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have an interesting case.
No, you don't. The home govt has decided that bribery is wrong. It's well aware that banning bribery will mean that some poor wretch won't get a house and believes that that's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of banning bribery.
No, you don't. The home govt has decided that bribery is wrong. It's well aware that banning bribery will mean that some poor wretch won't get a house and believes that that's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of banning bribery.
[deleted]
The reason that this did not work is that it's really the height of stupidity to want to build anything like this in the middle of a unstable region. The same rules apply all over the world - when people are shooting and you are getting pushed out of your home, you really don't want to be testing out new stuff. You want to survive, get some food, educate your children and so on.
It's easy to sit in a comfortable home in the U.S and see this as something that would be great for the people in Darfur, but they don't care about this. They just want some stability in their life, and bringing in new materials and things does not work at such times. They want to work with known quantities.
I find it really sad that there is so much that talented people with energy to spend can do to help so much of the world, and they instead choose to expend their energy on the topics that are being hyped by the newspapers. Such a system would have worked excellently in Kenya or Congo or one of the dusty countries of middle asia, why even consider Darfur for this?
One should not see a charity as a fashion statement or a networking tool, one should spend money and time on things that actually matter and make a difference. Not things that are currently trendy, and which one can excitedly tell friends about.
It's easy to sit in a comfortable home in the U.S and see this as something that would be great for the people in Darfur, but they don't care about this. They just want some stability in their life, and bringing in new materials and things does not work at such times. They want to work with known quantities.
I find it really sad that there is so much that talented people with energy to spend can do to help so much of the world, and they instead choose to expend their energy on the topics that are being hyped by the newspapers. Such a system would have worked excellently in Kenya or Congo or one of the dusty countries of middle asia, why even consider Darfur for this?
One should not see a charity as a fashion statement or a networking tool, one should spend money and time on things that actually matter and make a difference. Not things that are currently trendy, and which one can excitedly tell friends about.
Development aid is unfortunately really, really complex (having worked their myself). To pick the right one is probably not any easier than picking the right startup to invest in (if you are not a pro it's mainly luck... ).
I'll make a plug for these guys:
http://www.inveneo.org/
I met the founder last year at an event in SF. They've created an impressive solar-powered computer for the developing world. They seem to embody the best of both high-tech entrepreneurship and nonprofit altruism. They would appreciate your donations.
http://www.inveneo.org/
I met the founder last year at an event in SF. They've created an impressive solar-powered computer for the developing world. They seem to embody the best of both high-tech entrepreneurship and nonprofit altruism. They would appreciate your donations.
What about a non-profit which works like a VC? Plug:
http://www.acumenfund.org/
(only "like a VC" by the same loose metaphor)
http://www.acumenfund.org/
(only "like a VC" by the same loose metaphor)
Best site I know to look for effective nonprofits: http://givewell.net/.
They have a good blog as well (I would especially recommend their take on program expenses vs. total expenses: http://blog.givewell.net/?cat=6).
They have a good blog as well (I would especially recommend their take on program expenses vs. total expenses: http://blog.givewell.net/?cat=6).
God no, they are the slimiest bunch of scammers: http://mssv.net/wiki/index.php/Givewell
1) A so-called "charity" engages in shady, dishonest marketing online
2) It's soaking up a huge amount of money as salary, while not doing anything itself,
rather it's trying to act as a "charity middle man"
3) They promote transparency and accountability in philanthropy without
bothering to practice what they preach.
4) Hedge fund wankers continuing to act in a greed-is-good manner despite entering
a philanthropic endeavor, and weakening trust in non-profits indirectly (by being
shady themselves) and directly (by bashing other charities anonymously in order to
promote themselves).1) I agree that they made some online comments while hiding their identity. On the other hand they apologized in a way that makes me believe that they will not do it again (check their blog or the mp3s of the board meeting following the incident).
2) They are totally transparent about their salaries which are obviously only a fraction of what they earned while working for hedge fonds (around 60,000 for NYC isn't that much, is it?). Since they are trying to allocate donation money to the ngos which are most efficient, they are actually doing a very important job. Having worked in development aid myself I can assure you that the output (saved lives... )per $ varies probably even more than if you compare programmers in a tech company. Just giving everyone the same amount although one is ten time as productive doesn't seem like a good idea.
3) I haven't heared about any ngo as transparent as GiveWell (providing the records of their board meetings as an mp3 is just one example, check out their website for more).
4) Just because they have worked for a hedge fund in the past means that they are up to no good? Don't get the argument.
2) They are totally transparent about their salaries which are obviously only a fraction of what they earned while working for hedge fonds (around 60,000 for NYC isn't that much, is it?). Since they are trying to allocate donation money to the ngos which are most efficient, they are actually doing a very important job. Having worked in development aid myself I can assure you that the output (saved lives... )per $ varies probably even more than if you compare programmers in a tech company. Just giving everyone the same amount although one is ten time as productive doesn't seem like a good idea.
3) I haven't heared about any ngo as transparent as GiveWell (providing the records of their board meetings as an mp3 is just one example, check out their website for more).
4) Just because they have worked for a hedge fund in the past means that they are up to no good? Don't get the argument.
Architecture For Humanity are doing very interesting work in the area of applying alt (and mainstream) design solutions for people in need, worldwide: http://architectureforhumanity.org/
that donation page is abysmal...honestly if I just found that page using Google, I'd think it was a scam site.
It looks like the site hasn't been updated since 2001
It looks like the site hasn't been updated since 2001
This type of habitat should also be implemented in developed countries.
It is. When Kate renovated my house in California she
built a retaining wall out of it. That could be a good way for this technology to get a foot in the door in the US.
Another option that might work even better in the US is straw bale adobe:
http://www.buildingwithawareness.com/house1.html
I believe the reason Kate & Co. went with Eco-Domes for Darfur was that they couldn't count on finding anything there except dirt. But there is lots of straw in the US.
Another option that might work even better in the US is straw bale adobe:
http://www.buildingwithawareness.com/house1.html
I believe the reason Kate & Co. went with Eco-Domes for Darfur was that they couldn't count on finding anything there except dirt. But there is lots of straw in the US.
However, straw burns- and mildews, rather easily. I'm sure they have ways to minimize the negative consequences of this, but I think the dirt houses may be easier?
What do they use for roofing on the Eco-Domes?
What do they use for roofing on the Eco-Domes?
Actually, straw bales burn very poorly. When locked away behind a layer of stucco, even more poorly.
Ditto for mildew.
The earthquake resistance, pest resistance, and insulating qualities of straw bale construction are mind-blowing.
Ditto for mildew.
The earthquake resistance, pest resistance, and insulating qualities of straw bale construction are mind-blowing.
Okay, I can agree with a tightly bailed bail of hay not burning (as long as it stays tight) but mildew? I've seen a lot of mildewed hay in my life. Living in a farming community, I know the importance of keeping your hay dry. Of course, I'm not totally familiar with the construction techniques- if you have any links you'd recommend, I'd be willing to read up on it.
I agree and am not joking when I say I bet there would be a huge interest in people building them all over the US for/by homeless people, people interested in trying something new, 20-somethings living with parents, etc. The better we get at building them, the better they become and the better we can help others build them.
What other groups can you add to this list, who would be interested in building one of these for themselves?
What other groups can you add to this list, who would be interested in building one of these for themselves?
I doubt this would work out. Social pressure is too strong in the US, even for poor people. No one wants to live in what looks like a 3rd world mud hut.
I am sure the designer could make it look very appealing. Think about the Rocio Romero house or the Container house.