Is anyone else starting to wonder whether somebody is intentionally raising an army for some future purpose in Africa?
Like the thing preventing “development” in Africa isn’t that too many of their children die early. Or, if it is, can someone enlighten me? I don’t understand how that is the problem with “development” occurring there.
You can say the same thing with saving the life of people with rare sicknesses or disabilities in the west. Of course it would be cheaper to let them die as babies. But that’s not a society we wanna live in.
Well the thing with that is that it’s a limited operation. You save the person, and then, if they have kids, their kids won’t be any more likely to be similarly afflicted than anyone else’s kids.
A more apt comparison would be helping someone with a disabling genetic condition to have kids who will then have the same disabling genetic condition.
If you can fix the genetic condition at the same time then sure this is a noble aim. But otherwise, are you not just kicking the can down the road?
Saving the person themselves would be fine, to be clear, I’m just commenting specifically on the “and helping them to have children with the same condition” bit. And where “development” would be curing the condition by allowing them to be self sustaining without continual outside intervention.
We don't need a house right now, we need food, scrap it and sell it.
Some years later: Alright now that food security has improved lets buy a house. Sorry most construction companies got put out of business by Humanitarian Builder Inc. and they just closed shop cos funding ran out. Contractors aren't building permanent businesses.
Let’s replace the local materials and techniques used for generations with expensive, hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs designed in a month by outside builders with no experience of local conditions and no concern for how things fit in with the local environment or whether local people can afford them or build them, making them dependent on outside support, all for some dubious gains in mosquito protection that could be achieved just as well by adding some cheap screens to the existing houses. Groundbreaking.
a lot of these NGO people have done so much damage to vulnerable African populations.
a lot of rural African homesteads are usually spaced out - made out of sustainable materials - reed & thatch for roofing, then earth brick - which is cooling.
the latrines are always at least 30m from the sleeping quarters. but of course - some NGOs will come telling the local people that you've been doing it all wrong.
The local materials and techniques which the locals happily cast aside? The hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs which poorer families were almost ostracized for accepting? Your aesthetic preference for thatched huts does not override the desires of the people who actually have to live in them, nor the proven health impact. Cost is the real problem here; I don't see these houses competing with bed nets anytime soon in practical terms.
Moving some of the villages’ poorest people to the most upscale housing upset established hierarchies, and some of the lucky participants were initially treated as outcasts. Rumors began to circulate—for example that the homes contained a secret room one could enter but never leav
I would have offered it to some middle/upper class first so they would lead by example. You dont win people over by leading with the example of something being the mark of the low class. Not even the lower class want to willingly be associated with marks of the lower class. They want the things rich successful people are associated with; basic human psychology.
Clicked because I want an $8800 house. The key part seems to be this line:
“But who is going to pay for these houses?” he asks. “The same donors who are currently failing to pay for adequate coverage with long-lasting insecticidal nets, costing about $1.20 per person-year of coverage?”
Put it that way, and even running the trial seems like a waste, because there's no way this was ever going to be cost-effective compared to nets. Perhaps it's meant to lead to more convenient housing techniques which could be applied with acceptable marginal cost; but if that's the case, why not just develop and test those cheaper techniques in the first place?
Even expensive buildings in Africa will still use thatch roofs because they're cooler, less noisy, and durable. A "mud hut" is pretty ideal for the climate and can be very clean. If malaria is a big deal mosquito nets is a cheap solution that doesn't require a whole new house.
Performing security verification
This website uses a security service to protect against malicious bots. This page is displayed while the website verifies you
are not a bot.
never finishes - loop. well done science.org webdev team.
17 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] threadLike the thing preventing “development” in Africa isn’t that too many of their children die early. Or, if it is, can someone enlighten me? I don’t understand how that is the problem with “development” occurring there.
A more apt comparison would be helping someone with a disabling genetic condition to have kids who will then have the same disabling genetic condition.
If you can fix the genetic condition at the same time then sure this is a noble aim. But otherwise, are you not just kicking the can down the road?
Saving the person themselves would be fine, to be clear, I’m just commenting specifically on the “and helping them to have children with the same condition” bit. And where “development” would be curing the condition by allowing them to be self sustaining without continual outside intervention.
Some years later: Alright now that food security has improved lets buy a house. Sorry most construction companies got put out of business by Humanitarian Builder Inc. and they just closed shop cos funding ran out. Contractors aren't building permanent businesses.
a lot of these NGO people have done so much damage to vulnerable African populations.
a lot of rural African homesteads are usually spaced out - made out of sustainable materials - reed & thatch for roofing, then earth brick - which is cooling.
the latrines are always at least 30m from the sleeping quarters. but of course - some NGOs will come telling the local people that you've been doing it all wrong.
In that climate? What's next? Sell them the obsolete energy tech nobody wants at home?
"Research". Yeah. "Marketing via Freemium" fits better.
“But who is going to pay for these houses?” he asks. “The same donors who are currently failing to pay for adequate coverage with long-lasting insecticidal nets, costing about $1.20 per person-year of coverage?”
Put it that way, and even running the trial seems like a waste, because there's no way this was ever going to be cost-effective compared to nets. Perhaps it's meant to lead to more convenient housing techniques which could be applied with acceptable marginal cost; but if that's the case, why not just develop and test those cheaper techniques in the first place?
never finishes - loop. well done science.org webdev team.