Sanitation technologies have advanced throughout millennia, but the divide in access still lingers. Superior sanitation investments and services are funneled into the neighborhoods of the privileged, while 2 billion still lack basic access. Technology alone will not solve the problem.
Thanks! Yes, please include author credit and a link back to the original publication in your blog. And please post a link here to your translated version!
Hi Riley, I have done translating and will put it up after I write down some of my thoughts related to your topic but about agriculture. I have a note for you: in your article you out Darwin and Spencer together as supporter for social Darwinism but Darwin was actually against it. He once said, “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”
Thanks for sharing this. You make an interesting comparison with food systems. Does that mean that you’re not a fan of concepts like vertical gardens for improving urban diets?
I’m not against vertical gardens. I’m not against any technology, but I think it has to fit in context, and even better if it has a hand in improving social equality. I did my dissertation research on urban farming in Senegal and one of the things that the government was doing was supporting microgardening, which a lot of urban women were taking advantage of (microgardening is kind of a modified, simplified form of hydroponics). the ostensible goal of the program, as articulated by the gov, was to improve household nutrition, but the women that seemed actually to be gaining the most from it liked it because of the social outlet it provided and because it served as a kind of collective action, where they could come together with other women and think of even more things to do. So, for me one has to think of technology in social terms, not just in narrow economic or productivist terms.
There’s some crazy random capitalization of words. the typing into the reply field is in all caps and I can’t tell when I’ve weirdly capitalized something!
I agreed with nearly everything said in this article until I got near to the end where mention is made of “successful businesses.”
What does this mean? I can only assume selling products to customers with real money! It cannot be for the poor!
But there are sanitation techniques that could be introduced to the poor replacing their latrines with something better. Why do NGOs like Oxfam, Sanergy, etc. not do this instead of just selling products to those who can afford them?
Riley -thanks for highlighting this important concept. I continue to see Prizes and attention given to technical solutions, and even simple ones (building latrines) are fraught with challenges. We looked for evidence of success over time and didn’t find as much as we’d hoped. http://www.improveinternational.org/2016/05/02/seeking-sanitation-success/
Hi Graham, thanks for commenting. I noticed that your post had some odd capitalization and I saw another commenter mention that there might be a bug in our commenting fields, so I took the liberty of editing your comment to give it normal capitalization. I assume that’s what you intended (but of course I apologize if you had meant to capitalize unconventionally).
Hi Graham, besides the logistical comment I just made I also wanted to address the concern you raised here. I think it goes to the heart of a debate and a shift in global aid and development in which charity models are being supplanted by subsidized sales or even straight, capitalistic (unsubsidized) sales. I’m sure you’ve heard of the social businesses that are springing up and prospering in developing countries and marginalized communities around the world. But that said, charity models are still alive and well. Maybe Riley has thoughts to add, but that’s my brief response for what it’s worth.
Internet access is recognized as a human right, but unfortunately around half the world still lacks Internet connectivity. An even greater challenge, however, is the fact that around 90%...
Thanks for writing this! I really enjoy it. May I translate it into Chinese and put it on my blog?
Thanks! Yes, please include author credit and a link back to the original publication in your blog. And please post a link here to your translated version!
Hi Riley, I have done translating and will put it up after I write down some of my thoughts related to your topic but about agriculture. I have a note for you: in your article you out Darwin and Spencer together as supporter for social Darwinism but Darwin was actually against it. He once said, “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”
Will let you know once I put it up. Thank you!
Hi. I enjoyed your article and reblogged it, with a few of my own observations. Per your guidance in the comments, I’ve cited you on that Page, and am leaving the link here, as well. http://www.foodnoodle.social/2017/04/reblog-why-technology-alone-will-never.html
Thanks for sharing this. You make an interesting comparison with food systems. Does that mean that you’re not a fan of concepts like vertical gardens for improving urban diets?
Thanks for sharing stephanie… I enjoyed your extension of these same ideas into your field…
I’m not against vertical gardens. I’m not against any technology, but I think it has to fit in context, and even better if it has a hand in improving social equality. I did my dissertation research on urban farming in Senegal and one of the things that the government was doing was supporting microgardening, which a lot of urban women were taking advantage of (microgardening is kind of a modified, simplified form of hydroponics). the ostensible goal of the program, as articulated by the gov, was to improve household nutrition, but the women that seemed actually to be gaining the most from it liked it because of the social outlet it provided and because it served as a kind of collective action, where they could come together with other women and think of even more things to do. So, for me one has to think of technology in social terms, not just in narrow economic or productivist terms.
There’s some crazy random capitalization of words. the typing into the reply field is in all caps and I can’t tell when I’ve weirdly capitalized something!
I agreed with nearly everything said in this article until I got near to the end where mention is made of “successful businesses.”
What does this mean? I can only assume selling products to customers with real money! It cannot be for the poor!
But there are sanitation techniques that could be introduced to the poor replacing their latrines with something better. Why do NGOs like Oxfam, Sanergy, etc. not do this instead of just selling products to those who can afford them?
Graham K – BIODESIGN
Yeah, that’s weird. I edited your previous comment to take out those capitals. I’ll bring it up with IT. Thanks for saying something.
Riley -thanks for highlighting this important concept. I continue to see Prizes and attention given to technical solutions, and even simple ones (building latrines) are fraught with challenges. We looked for evidence of success over time and didn’t find as much as we’d hoped. http://www.improveinternational.org/2016/05/02/seeking-sanitation-success/
Hi Graham, thanks for commenting. I noticed that your post had some odd capitalization and I saw another commenter mention that there might be a bug in our commenting fields, so I took the liberty of editing your comment to give it normal capitalization. I assume that’s what you intended (but of course I apologize if you had meant to capitalize unconventionally).
Hi Graham, besides the logistical comment I just made I also wanted to address the concern you raised here. I think it goes to the heart of a debate and a shift in global aid and development in which charity models are being supplanted by subsidized sales or even straight, capitalistic (unsubsidized) sales. I’m sure you’ve heard of the social businesses that are springing up and prospering in developing countries and marginalized communities around the world. But that said, charity models are still alive and well. Maybe Riley has thoughts to add, but that’s my brief response for what it’s worth.
Interesting about the microgardening. I’m going to send you an email.