[ExI] How water bottles create cheap lighting in Philippines

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/9/22 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>:
> Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com wrote:
>> 2011/9/21 Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com>:
>>> That is just sad.
>>
>> A meme that reproduces from 1 to 15,000 in a few months
>> is anything but sad.
>
> Depends on the meme, don't you think?

A meme's 'success' is ONLY measured in terms of it's effectiveness as
a replicator. In that sense, and that sense only, it is a good meme if
it reproduces quickly. Even if it's a porn video of Paris Hilton, it's
still a 'good' meme in this sense. Just like good genes are only
measured in their reproductive success. Memes, like genes, are
"selfish" in the Dawkins sense.

Aside from that, from a sociological point of view, I think this is a
pretty "good" idea in that sense too.

>> I would guess that Dennis hasn't spent a lot of time in
>> favellas or other shanty towns. Stuart Brand gives a 6
>> minute introduction to why squatter cities are vital to the
>> future.
>>
>> http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_on_squatter_cities.html
>
> I happen to think many of these spontaneous communities are good examples to
> study -- as opposed to the kind of top-down organization of centralized
> urban planning. (Of course, almost all communities combine the two --
> usually with the state or elites trying to impose their master plan and
> failing, and then a few years later a new elite trying to do the same,
> dictated by whatever's fashionable at the time.)

The point for me is that the shanty town is an expression of
unencumbered liberty (for the most part, they are occasionally
attacked by bulldozers) and thus is one of the more efficient
mechanisms for raising the living standard of the poor. Did you happen
to watch Steward Brand's talk?

>> I love these people. I have spent time with them, lots of time.
>> They are more productive by far than the poor in the United
>> States, who mainly sit around waiting for checks to be
>> dropped from the magic government blimp...
>
> I don't know if I'd generalize, but this might have to do with there being
> wealth transfers in the first place. And given some circulation of the poor
> out of poverty in the States, there are, I hope you'll admit, many
> exceptions.

People go in and out of poverty in the States largely because there is
an insignificant level of real poverty in the US. How many people in
the US live on less than a dollar a day? Pretty much nobody. You can
panhandle $200 a day pretty easily in most US cities if you have a
good spot. Interestingly, spots are often sold by pimps, it's an
interesting aside... but you go and try panhandling at a good spot
without paying off the proper pimp, and you risk getting the hell beat
out of you.

>> These people are upwardly mobile, and moving fast!!!
>> For most of them, life in the squatter city is the very first
>> experience with electricity, and perhaps surprisingly television.
>> It opens up a whole new world of education and experience
>> and opportunity.
>
> I imagine some of the problem here is that few in the West would want to
> live in one of these places and they are probably making the comparison
> between life in one of these squatter cities with, say, life in an affluent
> suburb of, say, London or Boston rather than, say, where the people in the
> squatter cities came from.

One of the major problems in the third world is that people come from
the first world with first world solutions connected to first world
money. They need to learn to think in third world terms first, and
then bring the money to bear in a third world way. That's why we need
to Wikify third world solutions. Allow the third world to solve their
own problems from the bottom up, and only then add money.

I have first hand knowledge of how stupid Americans are in applying
money to problems in Haiti... ridiculous in local terms!!! I've done
ridiculous things myself, being well intentioned, but naive.

Most people in the first world have trouble putting themselves into a
third world mentality. These people are not stupid by any stretch of
the imagination! But they do think very differently.

>> To be able to read inside during the day would be a great
>> blessing to these folks. My only fear is that this will lead to
>> more indoor use of charcoal and other cooking fuels,
>> which is the biggest health problem faced in squatter
>> cities around the world...
>
> Well, sunlight can be used for cooking too, no? Just a matter of innovating
> around that problem.

Sunlight cannot be used for cooking with the same efficiency as
charcoal without a very large apparatus. It requires different (lower
temp) recipes with a reasonable sized apparatus. Perhaps different
ingredients. The learning curve is too high, and the materials to
construct a solar oven may not always be available.

But yes, there is the possibility that there is a third world solution
to cooking with the sun. Keep thinking along these lines, WITH the
input of people actually in the third world, and maybe you'll come up
with something.

The best solution I've seen is a mechanism for producing a low cost,
locally produced, substitute for charcoal.

I highly recommend this talk as it addresses these concerns well:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/amy_smith_shares_simple_lifesaving_design.html

-Kelly