4 ms·
What's frustrating is how un-data-driven these efforts are. Surely we have some empirical research by now on the most cost-effective ways to improve quality of
by slurry 12y ago
What's frustrating is how un-data-driven these efforts are. Surely we have some empirical research by now on the most cost-effective ways to improve quality of life through aid projects. And my guess is the top ten are all sanitation-related.
But they do this. What a [presumably tax-subsidized] waste.
- k-mcgrady 12y agoBecause other people are taking care of sanitation related problems. Why can't we tackle more than one issue? Throwing money at one problem, solving it, and moving on to another one isn't necessarily the most efficient way to solve those problems.
- slurry 12y agoOther people are already treating HIV with anti-retroviral drugs. Why can't we tackle it with shamanic healing ceremonies? This is not evidence-based development strategy. This is a shot in the dark.
- pjscott 12y agoYes, of course you want to direct your efforts at whatever will bring the largest marginal benefit -- and you're right that that can change if other people are already working on the absolute best things. However, that doesn't mean that all the other options are equally good! Would Facebook's money be better spent on internet access, or by being one among many working on sanitation? It's not a forgone conclusion, and it would be nice to see people be more data-driven about how they spend their charity money. In practice, the internet thing is probably Facebook's only option, since it's the only one they can convince their investors to back. This isn't really charity; they intend to make a viable business. I really like that aspect of the plan. Charity comes and goes, but businesses tend to stick around when they're making money.