Ultraefficient Urban Farming?

Stewart Brand has a very bold article appropriately titled How slums can save the planet about the benefits (while admitting some of the real problems) of highly compacted urban environments. One paragraph about urban farming really struck me and I’m very curious to hear whether it’s actually accurate and sustainable. If so it makes for some very interesting possibilities:

One idea that could be transferred from squatter cities is urban farming. An article by Gretchen Vogel in Science in 2008 enthused: “In a high-tech answer to the ‘local food’ movement, some experts want to transport the whole farm shoots, roots, and all to the city. They predict that future cities could grow most of their food inside city limits, in ultraefficient greenhouses… A farm on one city block could feed 50,000 people with vegetables, fruit, eggs, and meat. Upper floors would grow hydroponic crops; lower floors would house chickens and fish that consume plant waste.”

Kiva Dev Garage was a huge success!

Saturday’s Kiva Dev Garage was a huge success with a great turnout and real progress on both some existing and entirely new projects. We had people working on iPhone and Facebook Apps, a Kiva loan browser, and lots of other cool things. My team worked on a WordPress Widget that is both really easy to install and hopefully really compelling and will lead to more people lending to Kiva Entrepreneurs. Check out this great video from the event:

Are the Poor Underestimating Returns to Education?

I just found this interesting tidbit from a paper I was reading last night that shows how teenagers in developing countries literally tend to underestimate the returns to education. Researchers asked students about how much more educated people earn compared to uneducated ones and found that they substantially underestimated the amount. More importantly, informing them about the true difference increased their likelihood of staying in school:

Jensen recently carried out a randomized experiment in which he gave secondary school students in the Dominican Republic information about how much more money an educated person makes compared to someone who did not get an education. He found that teenagers substantially underestimate the returns to education, and that providing them with this infor mation had a substantial effect on the children’s likelihood to stay in school. In the treatment group, children were 5 percentage points (an increase of 10% since only 50% return) more likely to come back to school the year after the intervention.

Before you think that this is somehow limited to the Dominican Republic a similar result was found in Madagascar where parents were more likely to keep their children in school upon being given similar information:

These results are confirmed by recent work from Nguyen, who provided parents in Madagascar information about returns from primary and secondary education. There, too, many parents underestimated the returns from education, and when they were informed about the measured returns reacted by making sure that their children went to school more regularly. At the end of the year their grades were also better.

This is one powerful illustration of how people often lack critical information that can improve their future choices. It is also a good indicator that giving people more and more choices without the necessary mechanisms for choosing between them will not necessarily produce the expected return.

Smaller, Smarter, Faster, and More Connected

Richard Florida has a phenomenal article on how the current crisis will shape the geography of American cities. Recent growth has focused around growth in increasingly suburban cities clusters and the feedback loop that this created and about how the kind of sustainable economic growth that we want for the future will be about communicating and spreading ideas. But first things first, let us look at a typical housing boom city:

As prices rose, more people moved in, seeking inexpensive lifestyles and the opportunity to get in on the real-estate market where it was rising, but still affordable. [...] Cities grew, tax coffers filled, spending continued, more people arrived. Yet the boom itself neither followed nor resulted in the development of sustainable, scalable, highly productive industries or services. It was fueled and funded by housing, and housing was its primary product. Whole cities and metro regions became giant Ponzi schemes.

The big increase in suburbanization was a product of the World War II era, young men returning from the war, starting families, buying houses in cheaper areas, stores opening to sell to this new market, factories also moving to make use of the cheaper space and plentiful labor, creating jobs, attracting more workers, … This is where it gets interesting:

Incredible Shortsightedness

The US economy is reeling and we are all worried, many of us have lost their jobs or know several people who have. There are good economic arguments for trying to keep as much as possible of the economic stimulus inside the country (to maximize the impact of each dollar spent) while avoiding new protectionism that might spark a trade war. With all of us so focused on the domestic economy it is easy to forget that things are also happening in the rest of the world and that they aren’t that different from what we are going through here (and many of the problems like speculative investment in Eastern Europe are not at all the US fault).

However, if the current crisis has taught us anything, it is that nations are interlinked. The economic decoupling was a myth and the economic crisis is hurting everyone and endangering many US foreign policy priorities, including the recovery of Iraq. Because of this I was extremely shocked to see the following shortsightedness from Richard Posner:

I think the big foundations, such as the Gates foundation (the biggest), should be strongly urged to redirect their extensive foreign charity to the United States at this time of depression. I am not suggesting that his projects should “Buy American,” in the sense of buying U.S. products to give to foreign recipients of his charities. The point is rather that charity should begin at home when home is suffering.

I agree that in these tough times all of us who have steady incomes should help less fortunate ones by donating more to local charities. But taking away funding from the developing world would both be immoral and counter productive. These countries are already suffering immensely from a crisis that they did not create, the World Bank’s Chief Economist for Africa expects up to 700,000 additional infant deaths in Africa because of the crisis and an increase in conflict and decrease in governance quality. Ted Miguel and Ray Fisman have shown how economic shocks greatly increase the likelihood of civil wars and the same is true for a rapid fall in natural resource prices. Offering aid and then withdrawing it can be much worse than not giving anything in the first place. This decade has taught us that failing states, from Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to Somalia are real security problems, not just for their neighbors but also for the West.

If the Gates Foundation and others like it suddenly stopped funding projects in developing countries countless projects that have come to depend on their funds (many of which were started because of it) would have to shut down and it would take a long time for them to recover once the money becomes available again. The cutting of funds would worsen the impact of the crisis in affected countries, increase the time it will take for the global economy to recover, endanger long term research into tropical diseases, and produce a (potentially protectionist) backlash against the United States that we really don’t need right now.

This crisis and the way we get out of it is a chance for the US to show its leadership and creativity in the face of tough problems and together we can achieve that. If you as an individual want to help those less fortunate than you consider making a loan on Kiva or donating to a US charity.

Update: As Lauren pointed out in the comments you can also contribute by spending your time solving important problems and make a career out of making the world a better place.

Update 2: Richard Posner wrote another post supporting the elimination of tax deductions for charitable donations to foreign countries while Gary Becker (on the same blog) had a more nuanced opinion. Posner also maintains that we should regulate such giving which as an entrepreneur leaves me just flabbergasted. Many innovative non-profits started by young upstarts with great ideas such as Kiva, Forge, Face Aids, and Unite for Sight would never have been started under this plan and the world would be worse off for it. Let’s foster entrepreneurship in all sectors of the economy, not limit it without good reason.