

PG on nonprofits/Darfur - chris11
http://www.paulgraham.com/darfur.html

======
pg
This is from a couple years ago. It didn't work out very well. The local
government officials wouldn't let them build anything. The technology is cool
though; literally.

~~~
bokonist
Any idea why the government officials stop them from building anything?

~~~
pg
I get the impression that in a corrupt country like that, government officials
say no to everything by default, in order to make you bribe them to say yes.

~~~
dfranke
And no bribe was offered? Undertaking a project in an area like that without
being willing either to shoot or to bribe government officials strikes me as
naive.

~~~
h34t
It's also illegal for a US, Canadian or European company to offer bribes to
government officials abroad.

A recent crackdown cost Siemens $1.6 billion, as bribes were apart of their
standard system of doing business.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html)

~~~
dfranke
It occurs to me that it would be a fascinating test case if a charity like
this one were to be tried for bribery and plead self-defense.

~~~
anamax
"plead self-defense" to whom? To the govt that you didn't grease correctly? To
the govt in your home country that thinks that bribing other govts is wrong?

Note that "self-defense" typically is to prevent grave bodily harm or death
and is usually reserved for immediate threats. Not being able to build houses
for some poor wretch who will probably live at least a few weeks without the
house doesn't qualify.

~~~
dfranke
To the home government. And while self-defense typically connotes imminent
grave bodily harm, it is also typically plead only when one is accused of
inflicting the same. In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations
one is expected to seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into
his own hands. But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have
an interesting case.

~~~
anamax
> In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations one is expected to
> seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into his own hands.
> But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have an
> interesting case.

No, you don't. The home govt has decided that bribery is wrong. It's well
aware that banning bribery will mean that some poor wretch won't get a house
and believes that that's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of
banning bribery.

------
sutro
I'll make a plug for these guys:

<http://www.inveneo.org/>

I met the founder last year at an event in SF. They've created an impressive
solar-powered computer for the developing world. They seem to embody the best
of both high-tech entrepreneurship and nonprofit altruism. They would
appreciate your donations.

------
andreyf
What about a non-profit which works like a VC? Plug:

<http://www.acumenfund.org/>

(only "like a VC" by the same loose metaphor)

------
BvS
Best site I know to look for effective nonprofits: <http://givewell.net/>.

They have a good blog as well (I would especially recommend their take on
program expenses vs. total expenses: <http://blog.givewell.net/?cat=6>).

~~~
blasdel
God no, they are the slimiest bunch of scammers:
<http://mssv.net/wiki/index.php/Givewell>

    
    
      1) A so-called "charity" engages in shady, dishonest marketing online
      
      2) It's soaking up a huge amount of money as salary, while not doing anything itself,
         rather it's trying to act as a "charity middle man"
      
      3) They promote transparency and accountability in philanthropy without
         bothering to practice what they preach.
      
      4) Hedge fund wankers continuing to act in a greed-is-good manner despite entering
         a philanthropic endeavor, and weakening trust in non-profits indirectly (by being
         shady themselves) and directly (by bashing other charities anonymously in order to
         promote themselves).

~~~
BvS
1) I agree that they made some online comments while hiding their identity. On
the other hand they apologized in a way that makes me believe that they will
not do it again (check their blog or the mp3s of the board meeting following
the incident).

2) They are totally transparent about their salaries which are obviously only
a fraction of what they earned while working for hedge fonds (around 60,000
for NYC isn't that much, is it?). Since they are trying to allocate donation
money to the ngos which are most efficient, they are actually doing a very
important job. Having worked in development aid myself I can assure you that
the output (saved lives... )per $ varies probably even more than if you
compare programmers in a tech company. Just giving everyone the same amount
although one is ten time as productive doesn't seem like a good idea.

3) I haven't heared about any ngo as transparent as GiveWell (providing the
records of their board meetings as an mp3 is just one example, check out their
website for more).

4) Just because they have worked for a hedge fund in the past means that they
are up to no good? Don't get the argument.

------
nir
Architecture For Humanity are doing very interesting work in the area of
applying alt (and mainstream) design solutions for people in need, worldwide:
<http://architectureforhumanity.org/>

------
vaksel
that donation page is abysmal...honestly if I just found that page using
Google, I'd think it was a scam site.

It looks like the site hasn't been updated since 2001

------
rokhayakebe
This type of habitat should also be implemented in developed countries.

~~~
pg
It is. When Kate renovated my house in California she built a retaining wall
out of it. That could be a good way for this technology to get a foot in the
door in the US.

Another option that might work even better in the US is straw bale adobe:

<http://www.buildingwithawareness.com/house1.html>

I believe the reason Kate & Co. went with Eco-Domes for Darfur was that they
couldn't count on finding anything there except dirt. But there is lots of
straw in the US.

~~~
ensignavenger
However, straw burns- and mildews, rather easily. I'm sure they have ways to
minimize the negative consequences of this, but I think the dirt houses may be
easier?

What do they use for roofing on the Eco-Domes?

~~~
mkn
Actually, straw bales burn very poorly. When locked away behind a layer of
stucco, even more poorly.

Ditto for mildew.

The earthquake resistance, pest resistance, and insulating qualities of straw
bale construction are mind-blowing.

~~~
ensignavenger
Okay, I can agree with a tightly bailed bail of hay not burning (as long as it
stays tight) but mildew? I've seen a lot of mildewed hay in my life. Living in
a farming community, I know the importance of keeping your hay dry. Of course,
I'm not totally familiar with the construction techniques- if you have any
links you'd recommend, I'd be willing to read up on it.

