Sent from my phone > On Jun 2, 2014, at 18:03, RussellMc wrote: >=20 >> On 3 June 2014 05:13, Vitaliy M wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Jun 2, 2014, at 9:49, RussellMc wrote: >>> Q: Will people pay good money to help one 'save the world' [tm]? >>> A: Quite possibly yes. >>=20 >> Absolutely, yes! It's been happening for centuries, and lately the trend >> has been greatly accelerating. >=20 >=20 > Re: " >> You witnessed and documented it in your recent travels. >> " >=20 > I did? We may be looking through different filters :-). > While I saw much good I also saw much not good, and the latter appeared t= o > dominate as fas as 'saving the world' went. >=20 > Seriously - What aspect were you thinking of when you made that comment? The children were clothed "in clean clothes" and looked "reasonably happy".= There were shops, presumably stocked with goods, and self-propelled means = of transportation. I don't remember this part specifically, but my guess is= that there were cell phones. >> The trick is to convince the people who need the saving, to fund the > saving. Convincing other people to fund it, is a very distant second best= .. >=20 > Maybe. No, for sure. :) It is the only way for it to be sustainable, and the only = way to accurately measure whether the value you offer *to the people you ar= e serving* is worth the resources you expend. The problem with the 2nd way is that the signal in this case, is the indica= tor of the satisfaction of the sponsors, so it is much less direct. > I have in mind a product [solar powered lighting related][not totally > surprisingly] that is effectively free (or of negative cost) to the most > needy of "3rd world" users when viewed from a distance but which appears = to > cost a finite but reasonable price up close. This is essential in > developing country roles as the overwhelming experience is that that whic= h > is free is not valued. A very valuable observation, and another argument in favor of #1. > AND that product will also be attractive to people > in most countries as well. However, people are working long those lines a= t > present and if they do genuinely well enough there is no point in my > weighing in as well. > The cost in $ to the "western" users is not zero or negative in $ terms > (due to energy cost distortions*) but is high enough in utility value tha= t > they will likely crowd fund it because of its dual value - they get utili= ty > which is value for money in its own right - and they know they are part o= f > producing a product that will assist others - not funding MANUFACTURE > manufacture but funding development. > [* Very roughly - the less you earn the more "high grade" energy costs bo= th > in absolute and relative terms. How much energy per $ do you imagine you > get when using kerosene for lighting or cooking at the far end of a '3rd > world' distribution chain? Then there are candles - a major source of > lighting for many. >=20 >> I shall not name the third alternative. >=20 > I'll ignore that :-) - except to say that I can think of several more. PM me. My guess is that the ones you're thinking about, are variants of the= three. > Aside: Don pedants hat - FWIW- There are never more than two alternative= s. Google says you're wrong: " 1. one of two or more available possibilities. "audiocassettes are an interestingalternative to reading" synonyms: option, choice, other possibility; More" You may be thinking of "alternate vs alternative"? Good luck with your project. Feel free to ping me for free (but hard earned= ) KS advice. --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .