6 ms·

Clean water and sanitation access in Burundi is rapidly improving thanks to many international aid programmes, so perhaps this invention is not needed there—the

Clean water and sanitation access in Burundi is rapidly improving thanks to many international aid programmes, so perhaps this invention is not needed there—the country is bordered by freshwater lakes, after all. Your point still stands, but the $4 wouldn’t be paid by end users: it would likely be covered by these organisations, which would then be able to provide aid for a much larger population.

Tepix 4y ago
Ideally it would be cheap enough that they can afford it themselves without having to rely on aid programmes.
wildmanx 4y ago
And how sustainable is that solution?
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  More sustainable than having a growing population depend on surface water and open air defecation.
  - wildmanx 4y ago
    That's not an answer to my question. I meant, how sustainable is it to keep depending on foreign aid? Obviously dirty surface water that does not suffice for the whole population is not sustainable. But in the long run, creating new dependencies on aid can't be the solution. Any long-term plan that involves foreign aid is a bad plan.
    - eurasiantiger 4y ago
      Infrastructure is a lot more permanent than ad hoc solutions. Not having the knowledge or equipment for drilling water wells is a problem. Getting the knowledge and the equipment there is another. The result is not a dependency—rather, the alleviation of a dependency.
      - wildmanx 4y ago
        Exactly! What we are discussing here is an ad-hoc solution. That $4 device will work for how long? A week? A month? Then we're up for the next one. A continuous stream of aid is necessary to keep this solution going. So, it's not sustainable, assuming we don't consider permanent aid a sustainable solution. (I don't.)
        eurasiantiger 4y ago
        I agree, it is not a primary solution. However, in a world increasingly plagued by natural disasters, well water can often become unusable, and in those disaster scenarios devices like these can save lives.
mcherm 4y ago
If the aid programs can easily afford to simply give out the average annual income to each person, then why on earth don't they just do that already?!
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Look at what happened to the US when people were given free money. Money is ultimately numbers on a piece of paper. It's inherent worth is equal to that of monopoly money. It takes a lot of effort to keep that from happening.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Look at what happened to the US when people were given free money. I like how in this worldview giving money to the capital class of society is fine and dandy, but giving money to labour class is disasterous. Seems suspiciously convenient.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      Giving money to the capital class means that Manhattan high rises cost more than the average millionaire makes in a decade. Giving money to the working class means that such luxuries as lettuce double in price. The rich have been dealing with ridiculous cost of living inflation since 2000. No one particularly cares because fuck em. But if you think that the middle class can survive the same inflation you're in for a rude shock. 20% interest rates are the best thing that can happen to the economy now.
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        > such luxuries as lettuce double in price. Only if the supply of lettuce doesn't keep up with the increase in the supply of money. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern...
        4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Tepix 4y ago

Ideally it would be cheap enough that they can afford it themselves without having to rely on aid programmes.

wildmanx 4y ago

And how sustainable is that solution?

eurasiantiger 4y ago
More sustainable than having a growing population depend on surface water and open air defecation.
- wildmanx 4y ago
  That's not an answer to my question. I meant, how sustainable is it to keep depending on foreign aid? Obviously dirty surface water that does not suffice for the whole population is not sustainable. But in the long run, creating new dependencies on aid can't be the solution. Any long-term plan that involves foreign aid is a bad plan.
  - eurasiantiger 4y ago
    Infrastructure is a lot more permanent than ad hoc solutions. Not having the knowledge or equipment for drilling water wells is a problem. Getting the knowledge and the equipment there is another. The result is not a dependency—rather, the alleviation of a dependency.
    - wildmanx 4y ago
      Exactly! What we are discussing here is an ad-hoc solution. That $4 device will work for how long? A week? A month? Then we're up for the next one. A continuous stream of aid is necessary to keep this solution going. So, it's not sustainable, assuming we don't consider permanent aid a sustainable solution. (I don't.)
      - eurasiantiger 4y ago
        I agree, it is not a primary solution. However, in a world increasingly plagued by natural disasters, well water can often become unusable, and in those disaster scenarios devices like these can save lives.

mcherm 4y ago

If the aid programs can easily afford to simply give out the average annual income to each person, then why on earth don't they just do that already?!

thrown_22 4y ago
Look at what happened to the US when people were given free money. Money is ultimately numbers on a piece of paper. It's inherent worth is equal to that of monopoly money. It takes a lot of effort to keep that from happening.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Look at what happened to the US when people were given free money. I like how in this worldview giving money to the capital class of society is fine and dandy, but giving money to labour class is disasterous. Seems suspiciously convenient.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    Giving money to the capital class means that Manhattan high rises cost more than the average millionaire makes in a decade. Giving money to the working class means that such luxuries as lettuce double in price. The rich have been dealing with ridiculous cost of living inflation since 2000. No one particularly cares because fuck em. But if you think that the middle class can survive the same inflation you're in for a rude shock. 20% interest rates are the best thing that can happen to the economy now.
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      > such luxuries as lettuce double in price. Only if the supply of lettuce doesn't keep up with the increase in the supply of money. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern...
      - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]