Hello! Almost As Good As Chocolate is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- shripriya.com/blog Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I agree that you can't move the # of articles down. So pick carefully. I didn't break it out, but you're totally right - if you are paying anything, it would have to be universal...
- we made up the word so we can make up what it means!
- I'd note, though, that the FT model has not won them a lot of fans. They started with 30 monthly articles for free, then dropped it to 20; now it's down to 3. I think this approach can work...
- The model get the first x hits free only works as long as your competitiors can't reproduce similar content that's always free. If your site has unique value, then this goes a long way to...
- Agreed, Fred. I've never used FT, but the model I suggested in the post was exactly the same - first 10 articles are free and then the $5 monthly fee kicks in. I thought about whether this fell...
Jump to original thread »
Confused’s post on motives behind charity giving, reminded me about one of the most analytical ways to think about charitable giving that I�ve ever heard of.
Bjorn Lomborg, a Scandinavian economist, became famous for his controversial book, The Skeptical Environmenta ... Continue reading »
Bjorn Lomborg, a Scandinavian economist, became famous for his controversial book, The Skeptical Environmenta ... Continue reading »
2 years ago
I guess my blog is not completely useless.
2 years ago
I am kind of surprised to find that my two biggest and favorite causes - wildlife and forest conservation are not even on the list.
2 years ago
@Reality Check -- Well, the thing to remember is that they are trying to answer a specific question. " If the world would come together and be willing to spend, say, $50 billion over the next five years on improving the state of the world, which projects would yield the greatest net benefits?"
There are many qualifiers to the statement -
-- the fundamental assumption is that there is limited money, which is true
-- the time period of the next five years
-- defining the state of the world (I think they place humans above everything)
-- greatest net benefit and how that is defined
I remember when Lomborg was speaking he said something like "In a hundred years when a man in Africa looks at you and asks you why you were more focused on saving a tree than his grandfather's life, what will you say?" That gives you a sense of where he is coming from.
In terms of forests, heres the overview (from Wikipedia) -- He finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and notes that even the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978. Lomborg points out that deforestation is linked to poverty and poor economic conditions in the concerned countries, and proposes higher economic growth to tackle the problem of deforestation.
2 years ago
P.S. I guess this blog is how I'll keep track of you guys!
2 years ago
Yes, I get his point of view.
Given the qualifiers, the list makes sense.
Personally from an Indian perspective, I need to square these qualifiers with ground realities. As we speak, prehistoric rivers in Tamilnadu and AP are being mined for their sand. These pits are upto 15 feet deep. India will eventually overcome all her internal squabbles and rise economically. This will happen with or without external help. Along the way, there may be tragedies, diseases, class wars, even a moment of truth. We will eventually get there. These rivers are gone forever. If I were a donor I would subsidise alternate building materials such as flyash bricks or steel, or fund awareness campaigns. The west can play a role here because environmental awareness is strictly off the radar of Indias policies today. We are still figuring out and testing the limits of "ground rules".
2 years ago
@RealityCheck - I agree it has to be adapted to the situation. I think in developing nations where there are so many pressing issues like the need to save human life and improve human subsistence, the environment can be forgotten. And then it is too late.
2 years ago
Bjorn Lomborg is a true visionary . His book is passionate, well written, and scrupulously uses (and end-notes) data from the UN, WHO, etc.
Just a clarification- unlike many refuseniks,
Lomborg fully accepts anthropogenic (human caused) global warming . He only suggests that money being spent on Kyoto could be much better spent saving lives today. His optimization function, as it were, is preventing loss of human life (in many parts of Africa, and Asia)
One should use one's heart to determine "how much" to give but one's head to determine "where" best to give it