myEWB

I think it's an interesting article and idea. Decentralized water treatment and waste/water treatment might make sense in small villages. There's no mention of what happense to the waste sludge from the treatment process. I know there are simillar units being used and developed across the world, anybody know about how much waste these produce, and how this waste is managed?

Interesting inventions. But challenging applications. There are three assumptions that are made in the article that perhaps highlight some challenges in implementing these ideas.

Assumption 1: Lack of electricity is a "problem" for the quoted 1.6 billion people. Perhaps the question is to understand what the priority would be for the different demographics in "developing" countries. For people living in North America or Europe, the idea of not having electricity may seem somewhat outrageous, thus the notion that it is a basic need. But for people not living the "wealthy" life, electricity may not seem that important.

Assumption 2: "The electric generator is powered by an easily-obtained local fuel: cow dung" i.e All "poor" people live on excesses (produce a lot of garbage) and thus have excess to burn and fuel these units. I was amazed by the minimal amounts of garbage that were produced in the villages I was living in while in Madagascar. Everything is used, reused, and recycled. Very little is "garbage". Dung == really good fertilizer as well. What's more important, electricity or higher crop yield and better nutrition?

Assumption 3: "Everybody feels that they need filtered water". The water filter idea is great, but there are many "simple" solutions out there for water purification. Again, the idea that everybody needs filtered water probably requires more attention. Not saying that people (children) won't die even if they don't have pure water. But, do people really feel the need to have filtered water. From my short experience, most people that I spoke with didn't necessarily believe that they needed it?they were happy to receive the "gift" from donors or foreign agencies willing to put the time and money into getting them water?hence why one of the villages dropped out of a water and sanitation program. They didn't feel they needed it. But then again, I was living in the bush. Maybe it's different in cities. Maybe people in cities realize the problem a lot more because of the higher densities and thus higher probability of getting sick from contaminated water.

Obviously initial thoughts on the article/inventions. Great ideas but perhaps not looking at the root cause of poverty. A good article on poverty was posted here and introduces the idea of the powerful and overpowered.

http://www.myewb.ca/home/ShowPost/8895

$0.02

I'd have to agree here. The article goes at length on how great the machine is and what it could do.

But the ultimate question should be - do the people actually want it?

I mean doesn't an entrepreneur go into an area and do "target market research" before he engages in an ambitious project? Shouldn't he do the same for a developing country before assuming that every person in that area wants it?

The WHO is currently trying to eradicate polio from the world, a noble cause for sure. But you should see the amount of resistance to being given the few drops that one needs to be vaccinated (and in so resisting, risk the entire operation). How would it be easier to sell the idea of this contraption to them, when they have to exert effort to maintain and supply the machine, without knowing the target demographic?

Good point Shawn, about 'market research', I completely agree.

Unfortunately, I think many organizations created along charity or non-profit lines don't necessarily think in this way, as it can be seen as a 'for-profit' behaviour, which can even be seen as 'exploitative' or 'part of the problem'.

Furthermore, even people whose primary activity is for-profit all of a sudden forget all they know about markets when they delve into charity or poverty-reduction work (maybe Mr Kamen? or those $100 laptops? see also http://www.myewb.ca/home/ShowPost/6858). It seems like when they do charity work, they forget all about the demand side of the market's supply'n'demand equation, assuming that the only reason whatever they're donating isn't already there is because 'it hasn't been supplied cheaply or freely', rather than the often-more-likely 'it isn't being demanded'.

The Economist had a great article the other day (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3742817) about how the 'digital divide' can and is being successfully overcome, but not by providing below-market-price or break-even laptops/internet access, but by for-profit cell-phone companies. People are getting the info they need through an appropriate tech they can afford and is clearly being profitably locally maintained. So... $100 laptops?

Now obviously, if the market could do everything all by itself, all would be well in the world, which isn't the case. But we also can't forget or ignore it :)