11–20 of 32 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 ).
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).Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 di…
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?
Ditto for mildew.
The earthquake resistance, pest resistance, and insulating qualities of straw bale construction are mind-blowing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Naive or principled? Who knows in this case. Sad reality is that in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials.
In most parts, and not just to do business.
(only "like a VC" by the same loose metaphor)