A Post-TechCrunch 9 Conversation That Really Bothered Me
Photo: Zenfolio, From left: TC interns Mark, me, Ben and Rahul
The TechCrunch 9 Party at August Capital last Friday was really exciting. It was fun meeting all the product founders in person especially the people at Pandora, DOmedia, Wallhogs and Profile Builder.
I’m new to the whole tech schmoozing scene and TC9 was only my second big networking slash product demo event. I remember at one point Sarah Meyers asking me some questions with a camera and all I did was nervously babble.
At the end of the night a group of us went to a restaurant to continue the socializing. Someone asked me about my interests and I said I was interested in for-profit solutions to extreme poverty. The conversation proceeded to stay on the subject for a while, and I walked away really bothered.
The conversation bothered me because the person sincerely thought that rich tech entrepreneurs should be giving their money to fight poverty in developing countries. This line of thought is wrong because it assumes that poverty exists because the world is unequal (which it is). And, the only way to fix poverty is to take money from the rich people and give it to the poor.
I don’t think rich tech entrepreneurs should be donating anything, instead they should be creating companies. We need for-profit start-ups to make innovative products and services focused directly on people who make under $2 a day (that’s like a three billion person market).
Creating innovative products and services will equip them to fight and eventually lift out of extreme poverty. It will also provide a highly scalable business to entrepreneurs.
2 comments
Maybe.
Or maybe people living in poverty simply need access to rich tech entrepeneurs and the rich societies they live in so that they can sell them their own products and services, innovative or not.
Hence 'gold farming' Chinese sweatshops for MMORPGS.
The idea of Silicon Valley selling nifty tech products to the third world kind of puts the cart before the horse, no?
Also, I don't know who you were debating, but I supect his or her idea of "giving" to people in poverty might involve more than mere money transfer, as your post suggests.
Keep fighting the good fight though,
-Toby
Thanks for continuing the conversation, Toby.
I think "giving" of any kind, money or else, is not a long-term solution to extreme poverty. For instance, microloans with interest promote profit-making activities and saving, which both lead to stability and security for the poor. A donation of the same microloan amount probably wouldn't have the same outcome
Also, when I mentioned "innovative products" I wasn't referring to iPhones, MacBooks etc. I was referring to products and services made specifically for people in extreme poverty. Products and services that will help them connect with information and the leveraging power of the internet etc.
Products and services like mobile internet, mobile banking and mobile phones. Right now, there is a huge gap between rich and poor because the devices that connect people to the internet are really expensive. The internet provides a leveraging access to information, people connection and low-overhead. This is a potent mix to put in the hands of people in extreme poverty.
Leave a comment, email us or connect on Facebook.