The worst thing about poverty isn't the not being able to buy what you want. It's not having to skip a meal because you couldn't afford it this time. It's not constantly repairing your ancient clothes in an effort to remain not a naked barbarian. It's not even constantly having to beg and plead for your continuing existence.
It's the loss of dignity from all of these. A desperate person would sell their body, soul, or mind, to gain a little relief from the suffering. Relief that can be often as little as $10 away. Two hours labor for me (soon to be reduced to 30 minutes or less), but a week's wages or more for many of them.
I have little money, but I was born fortunate in world terms. I ate regularly, had shelter, and even expensive luxuries like computers and education. 10% of the world somehow survives on one dollar per day. I am gobsmacked by this figure. $1/day is enough to provide me food for the day, if I eat the cheapest possible stuff. It would leave nothing left after for shelter, hygiene, or clothing. They only survive because they live where prices are lower, and thus can afford meager food, self-built shelter, and rags. I would need, to replicate their quality of lifestyle for myself, $50 to begin with and then $5 per day every day thereafter. And this would be living in a tent under the high powered electric lines where everyone else refuses to.
There are some projects to try to improve these figures. I can only hope that they work out. Many of them require perquisites that the average $1/day person can't manage.
Another thing to consider is the exponential utility that can be gained. In the tent scenario, I would sleep in a $25 tent, eat three cans of beans for a dollar, brush my teeth if I had a toothbrush, wake up at dawn, spend the daylight hours walking around looking for work, and at dusk, come back to the tent, rub three cents of rubbing alcohol on me for hygiene, then go to sleep. But with a $20,000 house, I can make hardtack with the oven for about $0.20 per meal instead, hygiene is reduced from 3 cents to .2 cents (as well as being more effective), and sleeping is free after the purchase of a bed. Hygiene of clothes is now possible. Labor-saving appliances free up chore time for more work, or what have you.
I seem to remember reading an article that I can no longer find, about an African government producing a welfare program, in which the penniless masses of the country were given $100 per person, to last them to year. The most commonly bought item with this money was clothes, replacing the previous impromptu rags. The recipients reported that this allowed them to feel like they were real actual people (as compared to being an animal, or a peasant before), and that now they could get jobs and maybe earn enough to pay it back, or otherwise develop. However, wealthy farmers who lived in this country were outraged. Their arguments were the usual rabble about welfare: that it was unearned, that it encouraged laziness, that it would be wasted, and that taxes would inevitably go up directly because of that. Never mind that if the recipients of this money became more productive, there might be a bigger market for the crops.
Sometimes I think many economic policies are built on contempt. That people "deserve" to suffer because they are "lazy." If that's the case, then let's implement a new tax: You pay $8000 per month, minus your average daily Calorie burn. Inactive people like me would have to pay $6000 per month (inactive Adult uses 2000 Calories per day), and a hard laborer might not have to pay anything ($8000 - 8000, it's conceivable that a very active person could use 8000 calories per day), and we'll do this for a year. Then we'll see who pays more "laziness tax."
Showing posts with label World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Of Toilets and Hygiene
Did you know that nearly half the world's population has no access to a toilet of any kind and has to relieve themselves of their bowels and bladders by squatting in a field?
I'd laugh, but I'd be a hypocrite. A mere four generations ago, my great grandfather is on record as refusing to allow a toilet in his house, on the grounds that toilets inherently smell (as the outhouse that he used did), and that having it in the house would stink up the entire house.
But, as the article shows, many people lack even that. They have a bucket, that they empty into a field while no one's watching, or worse, have to squat in the field and hope no one bothers them in the process. Not good for hygiene (that field is going to stink) or health (bandits are a problem in these kinds of countries -- it wouldn't surprise me if they learned to harass people in the field, so to speak) or the environment (these fields are often very close to rivers, or even in them). Ick.
Apparently a number of charities are working hard to dig outhouses, the kind my great grandfather used, in these places so that people will have a safe, clean (if unbearably stinky), non-polluting place to do their business, and this makes a major difference.
Bonus if this also somehow fertilizes the nearby farms. (I've heard mixed reviews as to if that would work.)
I'd laugh, but I'd be a hypocrite. A mere four generations ago, my great grandfather is on record as refusing to allow a toilet in his house, on the grounds that toilets inherently smell (as the outhouse that he used did), and that having it in the house would stink up the entire house.
But, as the article shows, many people lack even that. They have a bucket, that they empty into a field while no one's watching, or worse, have to squat in the field and hope no one bothers them in the process. Not good for hygiene (that field is going to stink) or health (bandits are a problem in these kinds of countries -- it wouldn't surprise me if they learned to harass people in the field, so to speak) or the environment (these fields are often very close to rivers, or even in them). Ick.
Apparently a number of charities are working hard to dig outhouses, the kind my great grandfather used, in these places so that people will have a safe, clean (if unbearably stinky), non-polluting place to do their business, and this makes a major difference.
Bonus if this also somehow fertilizes the nearby farms. (I've heard mixed reviews as to if that would work.)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Toy Car to Defeat Unexploded Ordinance
Unexploded ordinance is a major problem in many former warzones. Various land-mines, grenades, and dud ammunition litter the area, and continue to menace people, especially small children, farmers, the inquisitive, and people who dig or run. The mine, unfortunately, is not aware that the war ended, and explodes just the same, killing and maiming everyone within a certain radius. The mine also cannot distinguish between a small child running about and an enemy soldier.
Mine clearing equipment exists, but is bulky, expensive, and is either frequently destroyed, or tricky to operate. Sometimes it only locates the mines, and defusing is another problem altogether.
However, for $50, one can buy a radio-controlled toy car. This is simple enough to operate, even a child can do it. To this we attach a steel rope, and the rope to a 65kg weight. We then drive the car across the minefield. Sometimes, the weight goes over a mine -- BOOM! The weight and rope should be replaced. If the car gets excessively damaged, it, too, can be replaced.
I would rather a billion r/c cars got destroyed this way than one child. After all, the factory will happily build another r/c car. Furthermore, if this pans out, one can donate used and unwanted r/c cars to the cause of global peace.
Mine clearing equipment exists, but is bulky, expensive, and is either frequently destroyed, or tricky to operate. Sometimes it only locates the mines, and defusing is another problem altogether.
However, for $50, one can buy a radio-controlled toy car. This is simple enough to operate, even a child can do it. To this we attach a steel rope, and the rope to a 65kg weight. We then drive the car across the minefield. Sometimes, the weight goes over a mine -- BOOM! The weight and rope should be replaced. If the car gets excessively damaged, it, too, can be replaced.
I would rather a billion r/c cars got destroyed this way than one child. After all, the factory will happily build another r/c car. Furthermore, if this pans out, one can donate used and unwanted r/c cars to the cause of global peace.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Rules of innovation
Over in White African, the author, a Kenyan who is Caucasian (yes, they exist), describes principles that drive innovation in Africa in general. The "White African" is his personal blog, he has another one, AfriGadget about African inventions in general. Technically, this is a reposting of Ethan Zuckerman's expose on the innovation that he routinely sees.
Africa is rather different from much of the rest of the world. It has been bled white of resources in a series of wars, after a long history of colonial rule, often kleptocratic. Many of its natural resources have grotesquely deteriorated. The northern part was, in ancient history, a lush forest, but is today the Saraha desert, a burning wasteland of sand and little else. The Savannah to the south is likewise difficult for human habitation.
Africans have generally been described as hungry for education and jobs to pull themselves out of desperate poverty. These things are not readily available, as the people are poor, the government is poor, the infrastructure was all destroyed in the last war, and even if the resources were available, many people are afraid to help out because the wars could restart at any minute now. (The less stable countries tend to abruptly collapse into a coup, which then decides that a border war would be an excellent idea.)
That said, apparently lots of Africans own cell phones, which they buy from Latin American companies. (Land lines? Long destroyed.) When there's no schooling to be had, Africans feel that owning a cell phone is prestigious. You can make calls, transfer money, even make some money. Apparently Africans will forgo eating for a week to afford a good phone.
Anwyay, I see these rules as relevant not only to Africa, but to me, here, in wealthy America. Innovation proceeded poorly in many of the wealthier eras, which had a remarkable lust for snake-oil, Veblen goods, and the most comedicly wrong thinking of all time. It was during the poorer and more threatened times that the real innovation shines through. Incidentally, my home state was initially populated with a gold rush, but guess who actually made the money? It wasn't the gold miners, it was the people who sold them things. (Forgot a pickaxe? Want eggs for breakfast instead of those iron rations? Need a pair of jeans that doesn't have a huge hole in the knees? I accept gold nuggets!) This is a wealthy time currently, so much of the discourse is bitching about how expensive everything is and wondering how to offshore more of it.
Working with culture is important because it's the basic framework of people's lives. It defines their sense of time, space, good and evil. Working against culture will make people find your work pointless, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
Use market measures. Giving stuff away encourages people to just take all they can until your resources are exhausted. People better respect what they have to pay for.
Start with what you've got. To build a train, you'd need rail, fuel, trainyards, train station, and a train engineer, but a bicycle fleet can be put together with what you've got.
Problems are not obvious from afar. The framework that applies to me does not apply to the various frameworks of Africa, nor would any of their frameworks apply to me. Tanzanian children love stationary bicycles and can use them for power generation because it's a fun novelty. American children probably have their own bike, yawn, boring. Many Africans are surviving on $1/day, an amount at which I would be homeless and on a starvation diet.
Infrastructure can produce more infrastructure. If trains are really important to you, you will find a way to build the rails. Cars are important to America, since we like the idea of a vehicle that obeys our personal individual will, so roads and highways are built up at great expense. In Africa, cell phones are quite common, so a network of solar powered car batteries have been developed to recharge them, and a young genius has a system to use cell phones to prevent grand theft auto. (Note to self: Find way to fund this.)
Most importantly, I want to see how running lean might work out. Anything of which I can reduce the expenses is a thing that can sell for cheaper, and hence more. Muhahaha.
Africa is rather different from much of the rest of the world. It has been bled white of resources in a series of wars, after a long history of colonial rule, often kleptocratic. Many of its natural resources have grotesquely deteriorated. The northern part was, in ancient history, a lush forest, but is today the Saraha desert, a burning wasteland of sand and little else. The Savannah to the south is likewise difficult for human habitation.
Africans have generally been described as hungry for education and jobs to pull themselves out of desperate poverty. These things are not readily available, as the people are poor, the government is poor, the infrastructure was all destroyed in the last war, and even if the resources were available, many people are afraid to help out because the wars could restart at any minute now. (The less stable countries tend to abruptly collapse into a coup, which then decides that a border war would be an excellent idea.)
That said, apparently lots of Africans own cell phones, which they buy from Latin American companies. (Land lines? Long destroyed.) When there's no schooling to be had, Africans feel that owning a cell phone is prestigious. You can make calls, transfer money, even make some money. Apparently Africans will forgo eating for a week to afford a good phone.
Anwyay, I see these rules as relevant not only to Africa, but to me, here, in wealthy America. Innovation proceeded poorly in many of the wealthier eras, which had a remarkable lust for snake-oil, Veblen goods, and the most comedicly wrong thinking of all time. It was during the poorer and more threatened times that the real innovation shines through. Incidentally, my home state was initially populated with a gold rush, but guess who actually made the money? It wasn't the gold miners, it was the people who sold them things. (Forgot a pickaxe? Want eggs for breakfast instead of those iron rations? Need a pair of jeans that doesn't have a huge hole in the knees? I accept gold nuggets!) This is a wealthy time currently, so much of the discourse is bitching about how expensive everything is and wondering how to offshore more of it.
Working with culture is important because it's the basic framework of people's lives. It defines their sense of time, space, good and evil. Working against culture will make people find your work pointless, stupid, evil, or some combination of the three.
Use market measures. Giving stuff away encourages people to just take all they can until your resources are exhausted. People better respect what they have to pay for.
Start with what you've got. To build a train, you'd need rail, fuel, trainyards, train station, and a train engineer, but a bicycle fleet can be put together with what you've got.
Problems are not obvious from afar. The framework that applies to me does not apply to the various frameworks of Africa, nor would any of their frameworks apply to me. Tanzanian children love stationary bicycles and can use them for power generation because it's a fun novelty. American children probably have their own bike, yawn, boring. Many Africans are surviving on $1/day, an amount at which I would be homeless and on a starvation diet.
Infrastructure can produce more infrastructure. If trains are really important to you, you will find a way to build the rails. Cars are important to America, since we like the idea of a vehicle that obeys our personal individual will, so roads and highways are built up at great expense. In Africa, cell phones are quite common, so a network of solar powered car batteries have been developed to recharge them, and a young genius has a system to use cell phones to prevent grand theft auto. (Note to self: Find way to fund this.)
Most importantly, I want to see how running lean might work out. Anything of which I can reduce the expenses is a thing that can sell for cheaper, and hence more. Muhahaha.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Worldwide Land Travel
Did you know that we're only a few bridges and/or tunnels away from being able to drive or take a train anywhere in the world except for a few minor islands? (Which people typically take planes or boats to or from anyway and have no reason to do otherwise?)
S'true.
Sure, some places seem so distant and impractical to travel to, and this worldwide road and/or train track would be rather...indirect...for some pairs of starting points and destinations. (Florida to London in this would involve going to long way around the world.)
Much of this is also marred by political constraints. The most logical connection from mainland Asia to Japan would be from southeastern Korea, Busan, to Tsushima, which has a ferry to the big Japanese island, and which a bridge could easily be built to. This connection would be sabotaged by the bad relation between the two countries, with Korea furious at Japan for various historical slights and modern indignities, and Japan rolling its collective eyes so often back at Korea that said eyes will fall from their collective heads if they do it any more. By political relationship, Japan would have to be connected to Taipei through Naha. This would be at least ten times more expensive to build.
Within the US, there's no good way to reach Hawaii. (Any tunnel between mainland North America and Hawaii would involve thousands of miles undersea.) And Alaska can be reached either by sea or through Canada. Hawaii should still be connected between its own islands. (Hawaii is about six islands. Ferries run between them when practical.) If Canada complained about US traffic between Washington state and Alaska going through its boarders, then the US would have to dig an expensive sea tunnel between the two. Urgh.
Australia and new Zealand would be a major pain to connect, and there's no other good connection for New Zealand. (Except maybe Antarctica, and that would be an even bigger pain to work with.) Australia would reach Asia through Papua New Guinea or Indonesia.
Probably the most profitable first connection to make would be the tip of Alaska with the tip of Siberia. (Chukchi.) If this connection were made, it would be possible to drive from southern Chile/Argentina, all the way to the northern UK, in a massive, world-spanning trip.
I tend to believe more in the obvious concrete benefits of building some of these bridges, such as increased commerce and reduced transportation costs, over the tauted benefits of increased world peace.
S'true.
Sure, some places seem so distant and impractical to travel to, and this worldwide road and/or train track would be rather...indirect...for some pairs of starting points and destinations. (Florida to London in this would involve going to long way around the world.)
Much of this is also marred by political constraints. The most logical connection from mainland Asia to Japan would be from southeastern Korea, Busan, to Tsushima, which has a ferry to the big Japanese island, and which a bridge could easily be built to. This connection would be sabotaged by the bad relation between the two countries, with Korea furious at Japan for various historical slights and modern indignities, and Japan rolling its collective eyes so often back at Korea that said eyes will fall from their collective heads if they do it any more. By political relationship, Japan would have to be connected to Taipei through Naha. This would be at least ten times more expensive to build.
Within the US, there's no good way to reach Hawaii. (Any tunnel between mainland North America and Hawaii would involve thousands of miles undersea.) And Alaska can be reached either by sea or through Canada. Hawaii should still be connected between its own islands. (Hawaii is about six islands. Ferries run between them when practical.) If Canada complained about US traffic between Washington state and Alaska going through its boarders, then the US would have to dig an expensive sea tunnel between the two. Urgh.
Australia and new Zealand would be a major pain to connect, and there's no other good connection for New Zealand. (Except maybe Antarctica, and that would be an even bigger pain to work with.) Australia would reach Asia through Papua New Guinea or Indonesia.
Probably the most profitable first connection to make would be the tip of Alaska with the tip of Siberia. (Chukchi.) If this connection were made, it would be possible to drive from southern Chile/Argentina, all the way to the northern UK, in a massive, world-spanning trip.
I tend to believe more in the obvious concrete benefits of building some of these bridges, such as increased commerce and reduced transportation costs, over the tauted benefits of increased world peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
