4 ms·

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.

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.

grecy 14y ago
We just need more people who's motivations are not monetary. Take a look at your average soup-kitchen volunteer - they're the kind of people we need.
maxerickson 14y ago
It says in the article she was given an environmental prize. It's $100,000: http://www.thestandrewsprize.com/lists/2013.htm http://www.thestandrewsprize.com/lists/2013.htm
- simonsquiff 14y ago
  Yes but she said in that article that the money will go towards expanding the programme: '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.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    I don't understand your "yes but". I was just pointing out that the signalling being asked for in the GP comment was quite real.
    - simonsquiff 14y ago
      Yes you are right. I was really just qualifying the original post about her getting rich. On reflection we're all making the same point that she's getting recognition and the programme is getting financial signalling of a job well done, which is great.
frogpelt 14y ago
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.
- msandford 14y ago
  I'd be happy if she got rich, that would be fine by me. I think the economics of her getting rich off of it are hard for me to imagine, but I don't have any problems with it. Since I can't imagine a way for her to get rich given the rural (and thus likely poor) nature of the problem she's solving I was simply providing a caveat.
- freehunter 14y ago
  He said "not for the sake of getting rich". This indicates he's okay with her being rich, but he hopes she becomes rich for the sake of helping with an innovative idea rather than pure profit-mongering.
  - frogpelt 14y ago
    The phrase "profit-mongering" also shows that you demonize wealth unless you agree with the recipient's intentions. Markets should be designed to reward people who produce and serve others well. When a market rewards someone or a group of people for producing and serving well, it should not be demonized. If what they are producing or serving is counter to the good of society then society must adapt laws and regulations to prevent those products and services from being distributed. To pretend that a bee fence deserves more reward from the market than a soft drink formula simply because it makes you feel better inside is not a sustainable economic model.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      I don't know what your agenda is, but you're assuming an awful lot about me and the other guy. You're reading things we never wrote, and it's quite irritating. Because I use the term "profit mongering" means I demonize wealth? I don't think so, and I'd appreciate you not to insult me like that. I think it's pretty easy to understand what we're saying. You seem to be being intentionally dense, or intentionally argumentative. I'm not sure which. Society adopting laws and regulations depends on there being a respectable society to being with. Laws will only get you as far as their enforcement. It's incredibly easy to take advantage of a poorer person than yourself just because you have the upper hand. I'm not talking the difference between bee farms and soft drinks, I'm talking the difference between helping farmers set up these fences themselves and forcing farmers to set these up while demanding half their profits forever in return. But you completely understand that, don't you? The phrase "because it makes" shows that you are going to stop being pointless unless you have a valid argument to bring to the table. To quote The Big Lebowski: You're not wrong, you're just an asshole.

grecy 14y ago

We just need more people who's motivations are not monetary. Take a look at your average soup-kitchen volunteer - they're the kind of people we need.

maxerickson 14y ago

It says in the article she was given an environmental prize. It's $100,000: http://www.thestandrewsprize.com/lists/2013.htm http://www.thestandrewsprize.com/lists/2013.htm

simonsquiff 14y ago
Yes but she said in that article that the money will go towards expanding the programme: '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.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  I don't understand your "yes but". I was just pointing out that the signalling being asked for in the GP comment was quite real.
  - simonsquiff 14y ago
    Yes you are right. I was really just qualifying the original post about her getting rich. On reflection we're all making the same point that she's getting recognition and the programme is getting financial signalling of a job well done, which is great.

frogpelt 14y ago

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.

msandford 14y ago
I'd be happy if she got rich, that would be fine by me. I think the economics of her getting rich off of it are hard for me to imagine, but I don't have any problems with it. Since I can't imagine a way for her to get rich given the rural (and thus likely poor) nature of the problem she's solving I was simply providing a caveat.
freehunter 14y ago
He said "not for the sake of getting rich". This indicates he's okay with her being rich, but he hopes she becomes rich for the sake of helping with an innovative idea rather than pure profit-mongering.
- frogpelt 14y ago
  The phrase "profit-mongering" also shows that you demonize wealth unless you agree with the recipient's intentions. Markets should be designed to reward people who produce and serve others well. When a market rewards someone or a group of people for producing and serving well, it should not be demonized. If what they are producing or serving is counter to the good of society then society must adapt laws and regulations to prevent those products and services from being distributed. To pretend that a bee fence deserves more reward from the market than a soft drink formula simply because it makes you feel better inside is not a sustainable economic model.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    I don't know what your agenda is, but you're assuming an awful lot about me and the other guy. You're reading things we never wrote, and it's quite irritating. Because I use the term "profit mongering" means I demonize wealth? I don't think so, and I'd appreciate you not to insult me like that. I think it's pretty easy to understand what we're saying. You seem to be being intentionally dense, or intentionally argumentative. I'm not sure which. Society adopting laws and regulations depends on there being a respectable society to being with. Laws will only get you as far as their enforcement. It's incredibly easy to take advantage of a poorer person than yourself just because you have the upper hand. I'm not talking the difference between bee farms and soft drinks, I'm talking the difference between helping farmers set up these fences themselves and forcing farmers to set these up while demanding half their profits forever in return. But you completely understand that, don't you? The phrase "because it makes" shows that you are going to stop being pointless unless you have a valid argument to bring to the table. To quote The Big Lebowski: You're not wrong, you're just an asshole.