3 ms·

> For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water. No we realistically can't. How exactly do you propose doing that? Keep

> For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water. No we realistically can't. How exactly do you propose doing that? Keep in mind that there is a ton of precedents where local governments withheld foreign aid (which was supposed to "solve hunger" at least at that part of the world) to enrich themselves and/or to control their citizens. How do you solve that with any amount of money? Bomb the "bad governments" into submission? Just keep the money in some account waiting for those governments to become more civilized? Might as well colonize Mars in the meantime

ada1981 8y ago
I think Scott Harrison has done well with Charity Water -- I believe he has singlehandedly solved 1-2% of the global water problem in the last decade. Surely, if a NYC nightclub promoter can stop doing blow and start drilling wells, we can scale what he is doing.
- lambdadmitry 8y ago
  No, not really. Two reasons: - water access is a source for income in quite a few places (e.g. [1]). Drilling a few wells in remote villages might fly under the radar, but "solving clean water" means cutting people very much capable of violence from their income. That can't be solved by NYC nightclub promoter, unless they are willing to wage urban warfare. - it's not enough to drill the wells as they will dry out eventually if there are no regulations and water distribution infrastructure. It's just not sustainable. And to solve the water problem sustainably requires a lot of infrastructure, water treatment, pipes, pumps, maybe some desalination plants. Even US itself is too gridlocked to solve its own problem of water supply, allocation, and aging infrastructure (e.g. Flint or CA's almond orchards), despite having all the money in the world. Why do you assume it's somehow enough to throw a few trillions at a few dozen countries with wildly different political and cultural climates? [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/thirsty-venezuelans-forced-to-pay-for-water-as-army-takes-over https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/thirsty-v...

ada1981 8y ago

I think Scott Harrison has done well with Charity Water -- I believe he has singlehandedly solved 1-2% of the global water problem in the last decade. Surely, if a NYC nightclub promoter can stop doing blow and start drilling wells, we can scale what he is doing.

lambdadmitry 8y ago
No, not really. Two reasons: - water access is a source for income in quite a few places (e.g. [1]). Drilling a few wells in remote villages might fly under the radar, but "solving clean water" means cutting people very much capable of violence from their income. That can't be solved by NYC nightclub promoter, unless they are willing to wage urban warfare. - it's not enough to drill the wells as they will dry out eventually if there are no regulations and water distribution infrastructure. It's just not sustainable. And to solve the water problem sustainably requires a lot of infrastructure, water treatment, pipes, pumps, maybe some desalination plants. Even US itself is too gridlocked to solve its own problem of water supply, allocation, and aging infrastructure (e.g. Flint or CA's almond orchards), despite having all the money in the world. Why do you assume it's somehow enough to throw a few trillions at a few dozen countries with wildly different political and cultural climates? [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/thirsty-venezuelans-forced-to-pay-for-water-as-army-takes-over https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/thirsty-v...