Hacker News Reader

Comment by gibybo | Hacker News Reader

While making the world a better place may not be sufficient to build a successful business, I don't think it's fair to say only organizations focusing on the third world are improving quality of life. Companies usually don't make money unless they are helping someone, and that help often leads to an improved quality of life, first world or not.

View on HN

I specifically chose to talk about a scale, because I do agree that it is not black and white.

There is however a difference between: earning money as a goal and improving lives as a means (improved quality of life being a byproduct) and wanting to improve lives (and as such quality of life) and earning money only being a requirement to sustain those activities.

But perhaps startups are not way to go for the latter, which is why I am curious if there are any startups taking this route (or perhaps have tried and failed).

This is the perennial theological question about charity: do you measure goodness based on charitable intent or on charitable results? Say getting money to poor folks in India is a charitable result with nearly-universal support here. It is doubtful Microsoft scores very high on the intent scale there, but they have probably done more for poor Indians this year than all active charities and all foreign government aid in history. I love Mother Teresa, but aside from the poor's spiritual needs, if moving them into the middle class is a goal worth pursuing than economic growth has been really freaking effective and charity not so much.

This is one of the reasons Twilio excites me so much, incidentally. (Disclaimer: commercial relationship.) Cheap mobile phones have been a huge, huge, huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge win for the global poor. Twilio (and companies like it) upgrade every phone in the world to being a smart phone. I think that's going to create wealth on the scale of the Green Revolution or the Internet eventually.

hmm, interesting, and I don't deny that 'commercial' companies can have good (unintentional) effects. But I am sure there is a space between charity and 'actual' companies, along the lines of what Fábio Barbosa[1] is doing. Which makes me wonder if it is viable for startups to take such an approach?

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrONJfa9lZU

Honest question: how are phones for the poor such a huge win?

It depends on the existing available methods of communication. If "the poor" have internet access, email, Twitter etc then adding phones doesn't help much. On the other hand if the poor don't have any internet access then just having a cell phone that lets you communicate with business partners across town could make a substantial difference. Imagine a simple business where one guy sells vegetables in a marketplace in an urban area and his business partner buys vegetables from farmers 10 miles away in a rural area. If the two can communicates via phone then they can coordinate buying, selling and transporting the vegetables (or any physical good) easily. They could even optimize purchases on a given day based on the "real-time" demand the one guy sees in the marketplace. In general the local economy could be optimized in ways that are a net win for everyone. Lack of phones and communication could hinder this.

We have ta taken our startup down the route of wanting to improve lives. We work with a number of others like us. It works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com