I like the idea, but I dislike the "we'll distribute this for free" attitude. Distributing any kind of stuff for free has major economic impact, especially in poor countries where you replace or obsolete parts of the economy[1]. It's very common in the poorer parts of africa (Mozambique, Zimbabwe, ...) that people make their living of buying fuel at the gas station and reselling it by the liter for use in cookers and lamps or by collecting and selling wood.
A better way to go would be to validate the concept and find a way to produce the lamp and as much parts of it in the target communities, helping them to become self sustainable. The current idea just replaces local economy with earnings for a {american, european, chinese} manufacturer, effectively funneling funds away from the people that you want to help. So the goal is laudable, but I can't support the approach they're taking.
[1] other examples include food help which drives the local farmers out of business or donating clothes. Clothes often get sold for cheaper prices than the locally produced ones. Both may be useful in very specific circumstances, but are harmful in large scale.
You are right that the money will go out of the local economy, but this is not excuse for making better tools and technology.
For example I live in Europe, and when I get an iPhone... the money goes to the US, but this is not a problem as its technology and its an extra in my life.
But see when you have to buy basic things for living, like food, fuel etc... from non local companies its a problem.
Especially the poorness of Africa is deeper subject and i don't think that tools like that are the cause of it.
This thing can be applied my many more places that lacks electricity and its rather good than bad to have it.
Comments
I like the idea, but I dislike the "we'll distribute this for free" attitude. Distributing any kind of stuff for free has major economic impact, especially in poor countries where you replace or obsolete parts of the economy[1]. It's very common in the poorer parts of africa (Mozambique, Zimbabwe, ...) that people make their living of buying fuel at the gas station and reselling it by the liter for use in cookers and lamps or by collecting and selling wood.
A better way to go would be to validate the concept and find a way to produce the lamp and as much parts of it in the target communities, helping them to become self sustainable. The current idea just replaces local economy with earnings for a {american, european, chinese} manufacturer, effectively funneling funds away from the people that you want to help. So the goal is laudable, but I can't support the approach they're taking.
[1] other examples include food help which drives the local farmers out of business or donating clothes. Clothes often get sold for cheaper prices than the locally produced ones. Both may be useful in very specific circumstances, but are harmful in large scale.
You are right that the money will go out of the local economy, but this is not excuse for making better tools and technology.
For example I live in Europe, and when I get an iPhone... the money goes to the US, but this is not a problem as its technology and its an extra in my life.
But see when you have to buy basic things for living, like food, fuel etc... from non local companies its a problem.
Especially the poorness of Africa is deeper subject and i don't think that tools like that are the cause of it.
This thing can be applied my many more places that lacks electricity and its rather good than bad to have it.