Outdoor Industry Disingenuous?

[E-rock]

can you say megalomaniac?

 

Please learn how to "quote", use punctuation, and write in grammatically correct sentences and I might actually give you my time. Goodbye.

Edited May 8, 2007 by E-rock

[Weekend_Climberz]

I guess, who are we to say that they need our money or schools and what not. Just because people in Nepal don't drive a SUV, have a morning latte, and a constantly ringing cellphone, doesn't mean they need OUR help. Their civilization has fared a lot longer than ours and looking ahead to the future I imagine it lasting much longer than ours. Maybe I missed a CNN, or MSNBC report or something recently, but the last I checked it was the continent of Africa where most of the food shortages and human rights abuses were taking place. Maybe you could help out there? Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about?

[archenemy]

I guess, who are we to say that they need our money or schools and what not. Just because people in Nepal don't drive a SUV, have a morning latte, and a constantly ringing cellphone, doesn't mean they need OUR help. Their civilization has fared a lot longer than ours and looking ahead to the future I imagine it lasting much longer than ours. Maybe I missed a CNN, or MSNBC report or something recently, but the last I checked it was the continent of Africa where most of the food shortages and human rights abuses were taking place. Maybe you could help out there? Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about?

One of our econ people can elaborate on this much better than I can: but I have read numerous studies that show that we mess up local markets beyond repair when we send food over to starving countries. The current move toward helping them with agricultural education is a step in the right direction, but it won't cure everything. The world can produce enough food for everyone--that's not the problem. Every instance of starvation in modern times is a result of polical efforts--and that won't be fixed by us. It sucks and it makes one feel helpless.

[jon]

It's not the industries responsibility to donate money to "help" these villages. If there is any negative impact on these villages by climbers it should be the climbers taking responsibility for it. Leave no trace! Is the idea here that part of buying gear is that the companies clean up your messes for you in future? These villages have been there for hundreds and hundreds of years. Maybe they just want to continue on as things were before "civilized" man went there and tried to install our toilets and wifi and HD TV service blah blah blah.

[wfinley]

It's not the industries responsibility to donate money to "help" these villages. If there is any negative impact on these villages by climbers it should be the climbers taking responsibility for it. Leave no trace! Is the idea here that part of buying gear is that the companies clean up your messes for you in future? These villages have been there for hundreds and hundreds of years. Maybe they just want to continue on as things were before "civilized" man went there and tried to install our toilets and wifi and HD TV service blah blah blah.

 

It is never industry's responsibility to promote philanthropy - however good companies practice it. It promotes a strong community and in turn a strong community helps a company thrive. BP, ConocoPhillips and Starbucks all give significant amounts to the areas they do business in - as do most successful businesses. Before scoffing at the idea that industry should promote philanthropy educate yourself on the grants provided by companies in the US (here and here). It is in the best interest of industry to give back to the communities where they operate; jobs are not enough - especially when the average CEO makes 430 times what the average production worker makes.

 

The idea that these communities would be better off without the advantages of technology such as power, running water and medicine is a western concept that borders on racism. These communities want to continue the way they were? They want to burn yak dung for fuel? They want to walk 2 days to the nearest hospital? They want a higher infant mortality rate? They want a shorter life expectancy? Get real.

 

I must admit - i tend to get angry when i see things like te Alpine Club giving a wad of cash to some kid to "teach bouldering" to kids in the Khumbu. What a wate opf funds for all involved. Likewise I continually cringe at the multiple "climb for cause" climbs that scream for attention every season; nothing stands out in Talkeetna like the climb for cause teams that have somehow gotten sponsored to go on vacation.

 

That said I would argue that teaching women and men basic mountaineering skills addresses the root cause which is lack of jobs. New toilets won't do anything if the community cannot provide jobs; mountaineering skills can and do provide a viable livelihood to many locals. However - the flip side to this comes from looking at the accomplishments of the Hillary Foundation. They have focused on the basic necessities: education, hydro-power, medicine. And when comparing the accomplishments of, say the hospital and school in Khumjung with the classic 'roll through town and teach how to climb' workshop I would say there is no comparison as to which accomplishes more in the long term.

 

As for the fact that the Outdoor Industry gives so little; it doesn't shock me. The Outdoor industry has basically become like any other industry out there - promoting Hummers at their trade shows, lecturing about carbon credits while heli-skiing and warning about the perils of consumerism while pushing 42 different shades of the same jacket. In short it has become 'Industry' and the only thing that matters to industry is profit.

 

[mtnfund]

Re: our involvement, food, leave no trace and Africa. Good points raised in all those posts and issues that should be considered for sure. William Easterly's latest book "White Man's Burden" is a good read on the question of when we in the west should get involved, and should not. It is also a pretty damning case study of how our involvement has not been productive. According to Easterly, one of the greatest flaws in our attempts to "help" has been to cut ourselves off from feedback of the very people we intend to help, the poor. Easterly argues quite well that too much aid has been measured not on the outcomes but on the inputs. So long as we, according to Easterly, can point to a large dollar amount of aid going in, we can avoid too much scrutiny of how effective that aid is in solving the problems of the poor it was meant for. Anyway, it's a good read on the topic.

 

The issues we at MF work on are ones brought to us by local organizations in the country. We are not in the business of telling people in a country such as Nepal what they should or should not want. (It is too late on the cell phones though, they are aleady everywhere in huge numbers. I don't think text-messages have caught on yet, though by the time I return this fall, that may have changed.) If a Nepali organization asks for help that is another matter. It's their issue and the ideas and approaches are being driven by local people. Our intent is that the poor who are the targets of the programs have a direct line of feedback to us and can speak to the effectiveness of the programs. That can be more difficult to do than it sounds though. It is all to easy to hear what you want to hear, or for a group of villagers to tell you what they sense you want to hear, as is true in all conversations, message boards being no exception.

 

As for poverty it is true that Africa has deeper poverty. We do work with one group who advocates for porters in Tanzania and another working with women in Uganda. That said, 7 out of 10 of the poorest people in the world actually live in Southeast Asia. The gross numbers for poverty in that part of the world are higher than in Africa. Still the poverty is deeper in Africa by which I mean the poor there are indeed poorer than the poor in Southeast Asia. When we are talking about groups of people that live on under $2.00 a day in both locations though, I don't know that it makes too much difference. Both Africa and Southeast Asia are extremely poor. Parts of Central Asia are likewise very poor.

 

Last item from above is negative impact by climbers. I don't think that is much of an issue with the possible exception of the porter industry. From what I have heard, or seen myself there has been a lot of progress in the area of climbers being responsible. The porter issue is difficult. Without tourists there would not be jobs. With tourism there are jobs but often the porter ends up with the short end of the stick and isn't paid as he/she should be. Loads are not kept with standards that most of the industry agrees are reasonable. It's not a case of climbers setting the wages either. It is the local guide, for the most part, that does it to his own, so-to-speak. What we can do though is question the trekking company and the guides about the wages and loads and advocate for better treatment. It is a market driven issue to a great extent. Competition is high to book treks (and climbs) and that leads to a price war in which the lowest man on the ladder (the porter) often takes the brunt of the price war. If a price seems too good to be true, often it is being made good by the short changing of the porter. That holds true for Peru and Tanzania as well. Continued awareness on the part of the consumer is needed to send the message that while price is indeed important so is the welfare of the porter and if cheap price means exploitation of porters that isn't going to fly. Unless and until the in-country outfitters sense that their practices are being watched and questioned, there is little motivation to do anything but work off of price alone.

 

thanks

[jon]

The idea that these communities would be better off without the advantages of technology such as power, running water and medicine is a western concept that borders on racism. These communities want to continue the way they were? They want to burn yak dung for fuel? They want to walk 2 days to the nearest hospital? They want a higher infant mortality rate? They want a shorter life expectancy? Get real.

 

Racism? Are you fucking joking me? You GET REAL! Why does everyone believe we need to "Westernificate" everything. Disease? Who brought it there? We did. They seemed to take a shit no problem before, what has changed? If they want these things then fine, but forcing it on society is another thing completely. If they really want hospitals and such there is a great solution... MOVE TO A TOWN OR CITY WITH A HOSPITAL! These people aren't stuck there, they choose to be there and live that way.

[Rad]

This looks to me like a case of marketing sour grapes. The organizations you deride are being effective in generating revenues, and apparently you are not. My small suggestion: Brevity, recall, is the soul of wit.

 

Rather than trying to poke holes in the practices of other operations, perhaps you might identify an un-met need or pent up demand and develop a product/company that addresses that opportunity. Then you might be better able to generate the revenues required to help you achieve your lofty goals.

 

Good luck.

[archenemy]

Actually, a lot of diseases started in Africa.

 

But on the other points--good point. We do infect our culture on others while saying we respect their culture.

[mtnfund]

The idea that these communities would be better off without the advantages of technology such as power, running water and medicine is a western concept that borders on racism. These communities want to continue the way they were? They want to burn yak dung for fuel? They want to walk 2 days to the nearest hospital? They want a higher infant mortality rate? They want a shorter life expectancy? Get real.

 

Racism? Are you fucking joking me? You GET REAL! Why does everyone believe we need to "Westernificate" everything. Disease? Who brought it there? We did. They seemed to take a shit no problem before, what has changed? If they want these things then fine, but forcing it on society is another thing completely. If they really want hospitals and such there is a great solution... MOVE TO A TOWN OR CITY WITH A HOSPITAL! These people aren't stuck there, they choose to be there and live that way.

 

Actually, a lot of them are stuck there. Nepal, for example is 85% rural substinence farming. There are few cities and no jobs to be had in the cities. Poor farmers who feed their families with an average land holding of about an acre don't have the option of moving to city. Yes, they were able to "shit" as you put it long before we arrived. As the population density in the villages has increased the human waste problem has grown as well. In a couple of the villages we tested the water and every single water tap was contaminated by human waste. Drinking that water leads to very high rates of intestinal parasites which in turn weaken both pregnant mothers and young children significantly. A mother weakend from such illness is at very high risk of an unsucessful pregnancy and the child at high risk for death before age five. Most of the illness we see was not brought in from outside the villages but is a direct result of extreme poverty and ignorance.

[jon]

Actually, a lot of diseases started in Africa.

 

......says the Chronic Sprayer to the Virologist.

[kevbone]

Actually, a lot of diseases started in Africa.

 

 

Where do you get your information to make this statement?

[archenemy]

Actually, a lot of diseases started in Africa.

 

......says the Chronic Sprayer to the Virologist.

You probably didn't think it was possible for me to feel stupider than I already do. But I do.

 

But thanks for the caps, at least I feel official!

Edited May 8, 2007 by archenemy

[wfinley]

They seemed to take a shit no problem before, what has changed? If they want these things then fine, but forcing it on society is another thing completely. If they really want hospitals and such there is a great solution... MOVE TO A TOWN OR CITY WITH A HOSPITAL! These people aren't stuck there, they choose to be there and live that way.

Wow... Yes they were, as you put it, able to take a shit before. But they took it with a lower life expectancy and a higher infant mortality rate. Complain all you want about the perils of advancing Western culture - the fact is - western culture brings better health. Arguing that people were better off when they wore yak fur coats, danced for the Sahib and died from old age at 40 is pretty weak.

 

Since when is providing the basic necessities of life (food, clothing and shelter) a Western notion?

Edited May 8, 2007 by wfinley

[jon]

Yes, and you know what happens when we raise the life expectancy and lower the infant mortality rate? You get this thing called overpopulation. Eventually your demands on the ecosystem outstrip what it is capable of hosting. This is simple evolutionary biology.

 

For the record I've never referred to or even thought of these people as the "little people". Living in the mountains with a crop, a cow, and some goats minus the computer and cell phone seem pretty desirable at times.

[archenemy]

Unfortunately, one might be able to argue that Western health standards may not be considered much better for much longer.

[mtnfund]

Jon does have a valid point. Saving lives will lead to greater population and that is going to have its own price to pay. Things about life are never one-size-fits-all. It really takes a very wholistic view of these issues to be helpful and not create one problem while attempting to solve another.

 

We can look to certain benchmarks though in trying to balance the needs of people and the ecosystems. They aren't perfect either but create a loose framework at least. It sounds terrible to say this but there benchmarks for things like infant mortality. World Health and the UN track and measure that as a way to determine if aid programs are working. There are accepted levels of infant mortality. As bad as that sounds at first blush there are accepted levels for just about any of the leading causes of death in any country. Until levels are reduced to the accceptable range I am not sure anyone has asked, and then what yet? So, bringing infant mortality down in the developing world is one goal. It should be looked upon as a goal that must take place within a larger set of goals though and not happen by itself.

 

As Jon points out, lower infant mortality without other goals, such as family planning, education, job creation and protection of the natural resources could do more harm in the long run. Nonprofits need to adopt the creed of the medical profession and first do no harm. None of this will happen overnight and if it does, well that's a problem too.

 

The places we are talking about here, Nepal, Africa etc are called developing countries for a reason. The basic services for health, food security, education and jobs doesn't exist on a large scale. Inch by inch they can be introduced as the local community requires. Everything has be driven by the local people. The ones I see all the time do want many of the same things we do. They want their children to live, they want enough food, they want a clean and healthy environment. But the rate at which this things can be introduced into a community is an ever-changing thing. It's all tied together. Healthcare without education isn't sustainable. I see that one all the time. We can treat for parasites easy enough. The hard part is the education process on how not to get them in the first place. To us it sounds so simple, boil the water, use some iodine and problem solved. The primary villages where I work are living as if it is 2-300 years ago. Some of the concepts for public health are not in those cultures yet. A hundred years ago we didn't have the flu figured out and millions died from it. We had all sorts of strange notions about what caused it and how to treat it. So, education has to go hand in hand with healthcare for lasting change to take place. If you educate children you have to be able to create work or they will leave the village and go to the towns. The village then has a brain drain problem. That takes programs like micro-finance to jump start some sort of an economic base that will enable educated children to stay in the village, and it goes on and on like that. One day at a time, one step at a time.

 

We are not so different in some ways. We have health issues that we have not gotten a handle on, such as diabetes. We have environmental issues that we don't fully understand. It's all a learning and growing process. We do come from a world where the water is safe to drink and human waste can be disposed of without tainting the water supply. Our issues just take place on a different plane of technology. We are very fortunate.

 

I am not sure that if you have not been to some of these places you can really get all this. It is all unbelievable from where we sit. Diarrhea is the cause of death for 1.6 million people a year in the world. That's damn hard to understand or grasp I think. 25,000 people a day die from hunger. How can that be? That's the entire population of the small town I grew up in dying every day from hunger. I am not sure most of us can do anything with that information in our brains. It's numbers, big numbers of people dying from things we just cannot relate to. Before I started spending so much in these very poor places I couldn't do anything with that information really. What the heck could I do? Too big a problem. I now have names, faces and places though. I can grasp this one family at a time. The overall facts, the 1.6 million or the 25,000 still just are not real for me. I don't know how to make them real for you. That's how I got into this conversation in the first place. How does one go about making real things that by their very nature the average thinking person just cannot bring into the focus of reality. How on earth do you get to where the concept of 1.6 million people a day dying from something like diarrhea is real? I mean really, that just isn't supposed to happen is it?

 

I do think all this is somehow our problem though. We are all human beings. I don't think I can count my own life as a success while I know others are barely able to hang onto life. I think for me having children had a lot to do with my thinking on that. I couldn't imagine a life where I was unable to provide the most basic things like clean water and enough food for my children and had to routinely stand by and watch them die. I don't think that in the villages where I spend most of my time there is a single family that has not lost at least one child. How hard that's gotta be. It too goes on the list called I can't fathom it. No parent should have to fathom such a thing though.

[sk]

The idea that these communities would be better off without the advantages of technology such as power, running water and medicine is a western concept that borders on racism. These communities want to continue the way they were? They want to burn yak dung for fuel? They want to walk 2 days to the nearest hospital? They want a higher infant mortality rate? They want a shorter life expectancy? Get real.

 

 

 

Racism? Are you fucking joking me? You GET REAL! Why does everyone believe we need to "Westernificate" everything. Disease? Who brought it there? We did. They seemed to take a shit no problem before, what has changed? If they want these things then fine, but forcing it on society is another thing completely. If they really want hospitals and such there is a great solution... MOVE TO A TOWN OR CITY WITH A HOSPITAL! These people aren't stuck there, they choose to be there and live that way.

 

YAY jon!!!

[tread_tramp]

kudos mtnfund for your work and for bringing this discussion to cascadeclimbers.

[mtnfund]

This looks to me like a case of marketing sour grapes. The organizations you deride are being effective in generating revenues, and apparently you are not. My small suggestion: Brevity, recall, is the soul of wit.

 

Rather than trying to poke holes in the practices of other operations, perhaps you might identify an un-met need or pent up demand and develop a product/company that addresses that opportunity. Then you might be better able to generate the revenues required to help you achieve your lofty goals.

 

Good luck.

 

I would like to clarify something about this post. I will take responsibility for any lack of clarity that leads you to conclude this is about deriding any other charity. It is not. They do what they do and they do it well. But let's not be coy about this either. If you gather canned goods at Thanksgiving and give them to the Salvation Army to feed the poor that is charity. If you serve a big turkey to your family, that's having dinner.

 

My issue is only with the practice of a great many outdoor companies (and not the charities) is that are keen to use places like Nepal (or insert Peru, Kazakhstan etc) for the purposes of a photo op showing their products being used but reluctant to spend the money those products earn on the people of those countries. That they are free to choose to do so is clear. Does that make it right? I don't think so. If these countries are good enough to use for marketing, they are good enough to make more investment in too. If they are nothing more than a convenient place to show off your products but somehow not a worthwhile place to invest your money, then I think we've done a grave disservice to the people who live there. Exploitation may sound harsh, but is it really? If a toothpaste company shows me a bikini clad woman using their toothpaste in an effort to get me to buy that toothpaste is that exploiting women? I think it is, frankly. If you show me your gear at base camp Everest but through your corporate giving practices exclude the inhabitants of the area from the process then I think you've tried to dupe me. I don't care who they give their money to, that's their business. Just don't try to sell me a bill of goods about it.

 

 

[sk]

This looks to me like a case of marketing sour grapes. The organizations you deride are being effective in generating revenues, and apparently you are not. My small suggestion: Brevity, recall, is the soul of wit.

 

Rather than trying to poke holes in the practices of other operations, perhaps you might identify an un-met need or pent up demand and develop a product/company that addresses that opportunity. Then you might be better able to generate the revenues required to help you achieve your lofty goals.

 

Good luck.

 

I would like to clarify something about this post. I will take responsibility for any lack of clarity that leads you to conclude this is about deriding any other charity. It is not. They do what they do and they do it well. But let's not be coy about this either. If you gather can goods at Thanksgiving and give them to the Salvation Army to feed the poor that is charity. If you serve a big turkey to your family, that's having dinner.

 

My issue is only with the practice of a great many outdoor companies (and not the charities) is that are keen to use places like Nepal (or insert Peru, Kazakhstan etc) for the purposes of a photo op showing their products being used but reluctant to spend the money those products earn on the people of those countries. That they are free to choose to do so is clear. Does that make it right? I don't think so. If these countries are good enough to use for marketing, they are good enough to make more investment in too. If they are nothing more than a convenient place to show off your products but somehow not a worthwhile place to invest your money, then I think we've done a grave disservice to the people who live there. Exploitation may sound harsh, but is it really? If a toothpaste company shows me a bikini clad woman using their toothpaste in an effort to get me to buy that toothpaste is that exploiting women? I think it is, frankly. If you show me your gear at base camp Everest but through your corporate giving practices exclude the inhabitants of the area from the process then I think you've tried to dupe me. I don't care who they give their money to, that's their business. Just don't try to sell me a bill of goods about it.

 

 

but they did invest their money. they bought tickets to get there. paid for hotels and ate at restraunts. they prolly shopped and paid guides while they were there. why "should" they do more? they paid what the country asked in fees and taxes and food and shelter and transportation. why do they need to "donate" more?

[ken4ord]

I guess, who are we to say that they need our money or schools and what not. Just because people in Nepal don't drive a SUV, have a morning latte, and a constantly ringing cellphone, doesn't mean they need OUR help. Their civilization has fared a lot longer than ours and looking ahead to the future I imagine it lasting much longer than ours. Maybe I missed a CNN, or MSNBC report or something recently, but the last I checked it was the continent of Africa where most of the food shortages and human rights abuses were taking place. Maybe you could help out there? Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about?

One of our econ people can elaborate on this much better than I can: but I have read numerous studies that show that we mess up local markets beyond repair when we send food over to starving countries. The current move toward helping them with agricultural education is a step in the right direction, but it won't cure everything. The world can produce enough food for everyone--that's not the problem. Every instance of starvation in modern times is a result of polical efforts--and that won't be fixed by us. It sucks and it makes one feel helpless.

 

You are right about agricultural education is a step in the right direction, and that does happen, it is seperate from Food Aid, it is managed through US AID, also the UN has a whole agriculture division as well. Food Aid actually designed to help US farmers, from what I understand it the food that is produced by US farmers but there is no or not a large enough market in the states. The government purchases it from US farmer so they don't go bankrupt and doles it out to countries that have problem producing enough food. By no means is it designed to eliminate hunger issues, but it does help in the meantime while countries are trying to improve farming techniques. As far as messing up local markets beyond repair, I do not believe that, please elaborate.

 

As for Africa needing more help than Nepal, first off you cannot compare Africa to Nepal, that is just crazy thinking. Africa is hugh continent with many countries, some are good some not so good. Nepal is small country in the larger continent of Asia. Hunger, human rights abuses, lack of education and poverty are a world problem, including in the states. IMO to say that Nepal is in less need than say Malawi, is rediculus. They are in both need of help and receptive to that help. What I think is that should happen to see where you get the most bang for your buck and help those countries. Usually the biggest factor to aid and whether it is effective, has to do with how much corruption there is.

 

As for the outdoor industry being disingenuous, there might be a little of that going, hell every corporation is as far as I am concerned. There tends to be a big focus on help that is given to far off exotic places, but in the sceme of things of where their contribution go most money tends to stay locally. When it comes to me and purchasing outdoor gear, I don't look at their charitable causes, I look at how the item I am interested in purchasing functions, how it is constructed and if I really "need" it.

[wfinley]

Perhaps it is not what you look for - but I believe many people do. I don't think many manufacturers or companies would go out of their way to promote what they do for the community if they did not belive that there was some sort of financial return to be made from the investment.

 

Just about every major gear manufacturer has a page about their philanthropic goals. For example:

Black Diamond: http://www.bdel.com/about/partners.php

Patagonia: http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/patagonia.go?assetid=2927

North Face: http://thenorthface.com/na/partners_philanthropy.html

REI: http://www.rei.com/reigives

 

That said - ken4ord is right in that most contributions tend to stay locally - look at the Conservation Alliance (http://www.conservationalliance.com) - $560,000 in 2006 to North American causes; whether this is right or wrong is hard to say. Personally I am more apt to give to a local nonprofit that is fighting to protect an area I visit and treasure (like ANWR for instance) than I am to give to some nonprofit where the return is not so easily seen.

 

As for being swayed by ads that say Company A promotes stewardship - yes, I am swayed by those ads. I buy the Patagonia propaganda hook line and sinker and am more apt to blow $300 on a new jacket from them because their commitment to philanthropic causes is very apparent in all they do.

[ken4ord]

The idea that these communities would be better off without the advantages of technology such as power, running water and medicine is a western concept that borders on racism. These communities want to continue the way they were? They want to burn yak dung for fuel? They want to walk 2 days to the nearest hospital? They want a higher infant mortality rate? They want a shorter life expectancy? Get real.

 

Racism? Are you fucking joking me? You GET REAL! Why does everyone believe we need to "Westernificate" everything. Disease? Who brought it there? We did. They seemed to take a shit no problem before, what has changed? If they want these things then fine, but forcing it on society is another thing completely. If they really want hospitals and such there is a great solution... MOVE TO A TOWN OR CITY WITH A HOSPITAL! These people aren't stuck there, they choose to be there and live that way.

 

Sorry they are stuck there. To move to a town or city would mean death, on the street no food and very little chance of making it, letting alone affording health care or education. Hell here in Rwanda last time I went to the hosipital, (I had an alergic reaction), to see a doctor and get a shot of Hydrocortizone cost me 5000RWF ($10) to get my perscricption was 7500RWF ($15). Now when I go out to a rural village and stop at a store (mud hut) to get a coke most of the time they have difficulty making change for 1000RWF note for a 150RWF, this is from a shop owner. BTW that shop owner may make as much as 4000RWF a month, that is if he does a lot of business. You really think they can just afford to pack up and afford housing, food and health care, you are out of your freaking mind. I would really to see you manage to move your family with a couple of dollars from a rural area to a city with no transport, no skills for employment, no housing and then afterwards, I would like to hear you say that you still think it is by choice that they stay in a rural area.

 

I agree people don't want to loose their culture ( be westernificated), but they do want food, education, toilets, housing, clean water, electricity and health care. I can tell you that every Rwandan I have met out in the village would gladly prefer to cook with gas instead of in some smoked out mud floored hut cooking with twigs. Oh btw this mud hut they happen to sleep in as well and call home.

 

Diseases are everywhere and are constantly mutating to say they are coming from a particular is fucking rediculus. Come on people. In the state we are lucky we have access to health care, medication and vaccine all which work on controlling outbreaks.

[ken4ord]

Perhaps it is not what you look for - but I believe many people do. I don't think many manufacturers or companies would go out of their way to promote what they do for the community if they did not belive that there was some sort of financial return to be made from the investment.

 

Yeah I was speaking strickly for myself in the way that I purchase items. I used to better about looking into the companies and purchasing based on what companies gave back. Lately I think I have become cynical, and really see that most people don't really care one way or another, including myself and that companies are just out to make a buck. I do think though there is a lesser of two evils when it comes to companies and if company does good and makes a good product, then I am happier to purchase that item.