Philanthropy for Hackers

Post by bjelkeman-again » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:06 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #28

secfirstmd wrote: post #27

As the CEO of a human rights and tech non-profit startup ( https://www.secfirst.org ) I've spent a number of years looking at the issue. I think the possibilities for applying technology to philanthropy are very high (we are currently doing that for the physical/digital security of activists, journalists and aid workers in high risk countries with our app Umbrella). However, I would caution against an automatic rush…

Assuming HN is a correct window on startup culture (I would think it is), then that too seems awfully techno-centric. Obsession with new (in age, not actual concepts) technical stacks and constant reinvention while the myth of software innovation keeps being propagated are all too common.

Post by secfirstmd » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #30

secfirstmd wrote: post #27

As the CEO of a human rights and tech non-profit startup ( https://www.secfirst.org ) I've spent a number of years looking at the issue. I think the possibilities for applying technology to philanthropy are very high (we are currently doing that for the physical/digital security of activists, journalists and aid workers in high risk countries with our app Umbrella). However, I would caution against an automatic rush…

> Can you imagine an Angel funder in Silicon Valley saying they only fund "innovative" ideas by companies that have five years of existing accounts One way of getting around that for us has been to incorporate some of the best things we have come across into what we do. Essentially taking on those teams or their software. As we finally have the "five years" of accounts. (Described elsewhere in this thread.) We are al…

Post by MacsHeadroom » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 4:32 PM UTC

joyce wrote: post #14

As the executive director of a tech nonprofit ( https://www.stellar.org/ ), this is a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about. Certain problems need scalable, open, global public infrastructure, like global open system for identity, money, healthcare, energy research, climate data, etc. Unfortunately, the current model of foundation philanthropy doesn't fund these kinds of solutions well because the current charit…

Post by fredgrott » Sat, Jun 27, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #22

cconcepts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well put. I'm happy to face the frailties of old age if I can just spend the hear-and-now trying to do something that matters for people less fortunate than me. If we ever got to a point where some people had greatly extended their lives and/or eliminated death for themselves whilst others still faced premature death from a basic lack of the necessities of life, well then, we'd be an even more narcissistic race than…

Isn't this argument along the same lines of why explore space while people are starving on earth? There are 7 billion people on the planet. We all shouldn't simply sit by idling until all the basic problems are fixed. Solving the "basic necessities" problem might be more economic related or come down to creating technology to create cheap, clean energy, for example.

Post by cconcepts » Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 3:04 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #26

cconcepts wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not advocating sitting by idling. I just think it reflects our innate priorities when we put so much effort into extending our own lives when it doesn't take as much effort to greatly extend someone else's life who is less resourced than I am.

You are talking in generalities. What is "so much effort?" If a hundred thousand people work on a problem and spend 10 billion dollars, for instance, are we really depriving the less resourced? The U.S. spends $60 billion on pet food. http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp We spend billions on bottled water: http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/09/bott... Shouldn't we drink tap wa…