11–20 of 61 posts
I wish there was some way for her to profit off of the idea not for the sake of getting rich but to encourage others to take a look at solving other problems. Profits as signalling rather than for the sake of profits.
Profit for the sake of profit works as signalling just as well as any other profit.
I like the ingenuity of it, seems pretty counter intuitive though. I mean keeping the elephants away by bring swarms of african killer bees into close proximity with humans... not sure if the trade off is worth it. There is a reason elephants are afraid of them. That being said I am sure the farmers understand the risks more than I do, if they are down with it seems like a good solution
But it is still possible to safely and enjoyably keep and tend Africanized bees -- you just require some extra precautions, like smoking the hell out of them when you're working the hive, and leaving your protective gear on even after you're far from the hive.
A friend of mine did beekeeping in Paraguay through the Peace Corps (the last country featuring a Peace Corps beekeeping program), and said bees would still be ramming his face veil, even after walking several kilometers away from the hive.
That was, however, after he had been working them for anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Generally bees don't bother you if you're not bothering them. And if they do, you might just wear a veil when harvesting the crops closest to the fence.
I have to wonder, why are these kind of solutions driven by outside players instead of local communities? Is there some kind of informational advantage the locals don't have? Elephants scares bees seems so simple that I'm not sure why locals weren't already doing it.
Secondly, there is a non-trivial cost to thinking up ideas and experimenting. Beyond costing time and resources that the farmers may not have/may not want to spend, experimenting as a whole is pretty risking. Being an outside player with far greater ability to take on risk has an obvious advantage.
Thirdly, while the farmers probably don't want to fight elephants, in the scheme of things, they probably individually rate the well being of elephants lower than their survival. We on the other hand probably rate the importance of the two far more equally, and thus have a greater incentive to solve the problem in such a way.
I wish there was some way for her to profit off of the idea not for the sake of getting rich but to encourage others to take a look at solving other problems. Profits as signalling rather than for the sake of profits.
It says in the article she was given an environmental prize. It's $100,000: http://www.thestandrewsprize.com/lists/2013.htm
'The recognition and financial support will enable us to expand our vital research work and protect many more rural farming families from elephant invasions.'
I was friends at university with Lucy - she's amazing and the success and expansion of this work will definitely be her main motivator. She's doing it because she adores elephants and spending the money on protecting even more of them will be her main priority.
Like all 'overnight successes' (she's been working on this for over 10 years) it's the result of many years of tough grind and convincing skeptical people you have a viable idea. It's great to she's getting the recognition she deserves.
Brilliant! I'm a little confused by this line though: >> If an elephant makes contact with one of the hives or the connecting wires, the beehives all along the fence will swing and release the bees. The first part made it sound like elephants would stay away from this perimeter just because there was an active beehive, so it's unlikely the elephant would get close to the fence anyway. But then if it does, wouldn't th…
It's also possible the elephant doesn't stomp through the fence, but simply meanders toward it until it feels the wire. After which some of the bees come out and the elephant simply decides to not break through the wire and to instead return from where it came.
Brilliant! I'm a little confused by this line though: >> If an elephant makes contact with one of the hives or the connecting wires, the beehives all along the fence will swing and release the bees. The first part made it sound like elephants would stay away from this perimeter just because there was an active beehive, so it's unlikely the elephant would get close to the fence anyway. But then if it does, wouldn't th…
It seems that fences are set up to prevent elephants from entering entirely. Although they are spaced widely (and a weak breakaway trip wire is strung from hive to hive), so that if an elephant is trapped, or approaches the fence violently, it can still pass through without damaging the hives.
I'm guessing that has to do with their 85% effectiveness. Most of the time the fences work, but when they don't they want to minimize hive damage.
I wish there was some way for her to profit off of the idea not for the sake of getting rich but to encourage others to take a look at solving other problems. Profits as signalling rather than for the sake of profits.
Interesting notion. You want her to profit but not to get rich. It's amazing how being rich has been demonized by society of late. Profit for the sake of profit works as signalling just as well as any other profit.
Man, that's a crazy good idea. First, it's 85% effective in solving the elephant problem; second, free honey which makes the fence a profitable venture in its own right; and third, the bees will pollinate the crops they're protecting, potentially maximizing crop yield.