4 ms·

Excuse my cynicism here but I think it is valid. No world is being changed efficiently or in a new fantastic way here. They ALL appear to be utterly lazy ways

Excuse my cynicism here but I think it is valid. No world is being changed efficiently or in a new fantastic way here. They ALL appear to be utterly lazy ways of supposedly helping people whilst top slicing cash and creating tech jobs, management jobs and evade a chunk of tax. Generating money is intimately opposed to doing altruistic good. Fly out, dig a well and work up a fertile soil and dig drainage and septic channels. Teach them practical skills to help themselves and teach them how to teach others. That would make more people's lives better rather than delegating it via a startup or technology outfit. Technology is a bad solution when there is nothing to sustain it. Knowledge on the other hand is worth more than gold in an investor's pocket...

create_account 15y ago
I saw the founder of Catchafire speak at an investor conference, and she bragged about "making a lot of money" off volunteers and the organizations they volunteer for. I found it disgusting, but no one batted an eye.
- pointyhat 15y ago
  Exactly my point and people are trained to accept it.
szany 15y ago
"Generating money is intimately opposed to doing altruistic good." This might be the stupidest sentence I've ever read on HN. "They ALL appear to be utterly lazy ways of supposedly helping people whilst top slicing cash and creating tech jobs, management jobs and evade a chunk of tax." Speaking of utterly lazy, why don't you tell us what you think after watching this clip of the 19 year old girl you just insulted: http://vimeo.com/26638815 http://vimeo.com/26638815 http://twitter.com/paulg/status/29256073985 http://twitter.com/paulg/status/29256073985
- pointyhat 15y ago
  I shall "insult" her more by analysing the worth of her invention. Basically nothing at all other than to inflate the egos of a few investors and university jocks. She made a solar panel rotation device for $10 to increase the efficiency of solar panels which are not needed to survive (and are very expensive) and are clearly not a priority for most of Africa which is dying of disease and starvation. Farming and sanitation are far more important than optimising solar panels. Ultimately, should the person spending time assembling these and spending money on them, or should they be working the land and buying seed and grain? I think that is obvious, unless you want an easy dollar in your pocket... All of these technology investments are ultimately piggy-backing an invasion of culture. When the technology is in, they become cheap outsourcing puppet in the globalisation race rather than an independent country capable of sustaining its population. In 10 years time, the African land will be a wasteland still and they will be exporting these $10 solar devices from production lines with no other way of surviving. Oh and Paul G is not some wonderous sky daddy; he's just another meat popsicle like myself and yourself.
  - pnathan 15y ago
    Electricity enables a good deal of solutions to help food preservations and more optimal farming. It also enables cell phones, which are becoming one of the primary infrastructure elements in third world companies. I am not sure if what's-her-face's idea is more than a nifty widget. But I assure you that at least its goal is doing more than making a few people feel happy-floaty about giving money.
    - pointyhat 15y ago
      You don't need electricity to preserve food. You can preserve without it. I've done it for years. If you need a fridge, you don't need electricity: http://lionheart.net/fridge/ http://lionheart.net/fridge/ 50 years ago we had larders full of preserves. They don't need the infrastructure, commerce and cell phones. They need food, sanitation and a life which doesn't rely on working for another person day in day out. Introducing capitalism to such people is like introducing a cocaine habit so they are easily controlled.
earbitscom 15y ago
There are certainly some companies that pose as doing good while doing mostly good for themselves, but the inherent concept of what you're saying is incorrect. A founder that builds massive wealth and then uses that money to create widespread changes for good can do far more than the same person just volunteering their time. Example: donating $2M to an organization that feeds the homeless makes a bigger impact than even 10 years of working the soup line. Both are important, but in most cases the 2nd person can't even do their job without the donation from the 1st.
joelrunyon 15y ago
"I don't just want to tinker because it's fun for me, I want it to have an impact on someone else" - Eden Full, 19, SunSaluter. 3 Questions: 1. Are you really that cynical to hate on someone's project that much? 2. "Fly out, dig a well and work up a fertile soil and dig drainage and septic channels." - Don't you think sustainable electricity would help with that? 3. What have you built lately?
- pointyhat 15y ago
  1. No it's called pragmatism. 2. No not at all. Fossil fuels (read diggers) and human energy (read shovels) are far more efficient than solar at the moment. 3. A few solar stills and a reed-bed septic system.
  - joelrunyon 15y ago
    Ah, but given the lack of diggers, I would think solar is better than nothing. That could just be me though...

create_account 15y ago

I saw the founder of Catchafire speak at an investor conference, and she bragged about "making a lot of money" off volunteers and the organizations they volunteer for. I found it disgusting, but no one batted an eye.

pointyhat 15y ago
Exactly my point and people are trained to accept it.

szany 15y ago

"Generating money is intimately opposed to doing altruistic good." This might be the stupidest sentence I've ever read on HN. "They ALL appear to be utterly lazy ways of supposedly helping people whilst top slicing cash and creating tech jobs, management jobs and evade a chunk of tax." Speaking of utterly lazy, why don't you tell us what you think after watching this clip of the 19 year old girl you just insulted: http://vimeo.com/26638815 http://vimeo.com/26638815 http://twitter.com/paulg/status/29256073985 http://twitter.com/paulg/status/29256073985

pointyhat 15y ago
I shall "insult" her more by analysing the worth of her invention. Basically nothing at all other than to inflate the egos of a few investors and university jocks. She made a solar panel rotation device for $10 to increase the efficiency of solar panels which are not needed to survive (and are very expensive) and are clearly not a priority for most of Africa which is dying of disease and starvation. Farming and sanitation are far more important than optimising solar panels. Ultimately, should the person spending time assembling these and spending money on them, or should they be working the land and buying seed and grain? I think that is obvious, unless you want an easy dollar in your pocket... All of these technology investments are ultimately piggy-backing an invasion of culture. When the technology is in, they become cheap outsourcing puppet in the globalisation race rather than an independent country capable of sustaining its population. In 10 years time, the African land will be a wasteland still and they will be exporting these $10 solar devices from production lines with no other way of surviving. Oh and Paul G is not some wonderous sky daddy; he's just another meat popsicle like myself and yourself.
- pnathan 15y ago
  Electricity enables a good deal of solutions to help food preservations and more optimal farming. It also enables cell phones, which are becoming one of the primary infrastructure elements in third world companies. I am not sure if what's-her-face's idea is more than a nifty widget. But I assure you that at least its goal is doing more than making a few people feel happy-floaty about giving money.
  - pointyhat 15y ago
    You don't need electricity to preserve food. You can preserve without it. I've done it for years. If you need a fridge, you don't need electricity: http://lionheart.net/fridge/ http://lionheart.net/fridge/ 50 years ago we had larders full of preserves. They don't need the infrastructure, commerce and cell phones. They need food, sanitation and a life which doesn't rely on working for another person day in day out. Introducing capitalism to such people is like introducing a cocaine habit so they are easily controlled.

earbitscom 15y ago

There are certainly some companies that pose as doing good while doing mostly good for themselves, but the inherent concept of what you're saying is incorrect. A founder that builds massive wealth and then uses that money to create widespread changes for good can do far more than the same person just volunteering their time. Example: donating $2M to an organization that feeds the homeless makes a bigger impact than even 10 years of working the soup line. Both are important, but in most cases the 2nd person can't even do their job without the donation from the 1st.

joelrunyon 15y ago

"I don't just want to tinker because it's fun for me, I want it to have an impact on someone else" - Eden Full, 19, SunSaluter. 3 Questions: 1. Are you really that cynical to hate on someone's project that much? 2. "Fly out, dig a well and work up a fertile soil and dig drainage and septic channels." - Don't you think sustainable electricity would help with that? 3. What have you built lately?

pointyhat 15y ago
1. No it's called pragmatism. 2. No not at all. Fossil fuels (read diggers) and human energy (read shovels) are far more efficient than solar at the moment. 3. A few solar stills and a reed-bed septic system.
- joelrunyon 15y ago
  Ah, but given the lack of diggers, I would think solar is better than nothing. That could just be me though...