Hacker News Reader

Comment by codeshaman | Hacker News Reader

These things are great. But at the same time - so weird.

Helpless victims of failed states, social injustice, greed, hatred, etc can now rely on high tech structures to take care of them.

Genocide ? No problem, we've got you covered. We've got just the perfect structures for $1000 a pop for you to take shelter in.

I mean, it IS the right thing to do, but at the same time, I don't know..

I guess would prefer that somehow there were no refugees and suffering in the first place...

It's a strange thing to say, but somehow, by providing these solutions we're making the crimes less grave, more acceptable, a technical matter rather than a moral one...?

View on HN

No, what this is, is cheap shelter.

The rest of what you are saying is just an inability to cope with reality. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

It is hard, and deeply troubling, to accept that there is such a large group of displaced people in the world who could use something like this.

I feel like that is taking that line of logic too far. These aren't being created so that people can look over the suffering and alleviate the seriousness of the crime, they're to reduce the suffering that couldn't be prevented in the first place. These shelters aren't going to be pointed at as reasons why actions resulting in refugees aren't that bad, because that obviously wasn't a large enough factor to stop it from happening in the first place

You want ladders and this is another platform to keep people out of the water. They are both needed, the problem is people build platforms and forget to provide a way up or believe that is where the person will stay. This is probably why I get so irritated at the "minimum wage must be a living wage" crowd. Its not the goal or desirable for that to be good enough. I would rather be honest about it and implement some type of assistance with the goal of a career. I keep seeing people who are "getting by" but have no way to advance. It kills the soul.

People are going to suffer, its not a perfect world. It hurts to see, especially when you drive past it each day. Planning for the suffering and providing temporary solution are good things.

But, housing is broken and people are feeling around. Tiny homes, these things, micro apartments are attempts at short and long term changes. We need more options. This isn't it, but its another idea.

Something like this will keep people safe for a while, but it is should not be thought of as an end. You're a good person and care, and skepticism is a good thing, but don't lose faith that small, positive steps are a good thing. I do think this is a small, positive step that doesn't diminish the gravity of the crimes people or bad luck can perpetrate on others. The best solution will be technical and have a moral outcome.

It's a bandage. Bandages suck. They're obvious, they're uncomfortable, etc. But they're needed. Housing like this gives refugees a bit of solace while the bigger problems are dealt with. It means that the earthquake victim doesn't have a leaky roof or a mudpit for a floor come monsoon season. It means the genocide victim has a real door, and all the psychological benefits that that provides. It means that these people have a bit of a chance to heal. It's not much,, but it's a start.

It would be nice if we could just put these resources towards solving genocide, natural disasters, and war, but in the meantime these people need a place to live right now that helps them from catching and spreading disease and gives them a sense of dignity.

by providing these solutions we're making the crimes less grave, more acceptable

How often do first-worlders seriously consider these problems? How often do you seriously consider these problems? How do you get more invisible than invisible?

a technical matter rather than a moral one It's a false dichotomy to suggest that it should be one or the other (or even a mixture of only these two). Human interaction is incredibly complex, and it doesn't boil down to being operable on only one philosophical space

This is akin to saying we shouldn't need mosquito nets for the poor because mosquitoes should not exist. Yes, they should not exist, but that is tangential to the issue of the nets.

>>I guess would prefer that somehow there were no refugees and suffering in the first place...

Gandhi was once asked to preside over as a chief guest on the opening day of an old age home. In his reply in the letter he argued why in an ideal world orphanages, old age homes etc shouldn't even need to exist.

But that is how the society is. Until you eliminate the evil, you need to prepare for its consequences.

I also would expect that the purchaser may not be the same as the occupant. ie, gov't agencies can buy them, NGOs can etc.

I'm bothered by the out-sized number of negative attacks on this comment. Not because they are negative, but because they are personal. I wholeheartedly believe in constructive criticism, but discounting someones viewpoint based on another subjective viewpoint is not constructive criticism.

Considering that Ikea doesn't certify the sources of their wood, it's very conceivable that some of this suffering and injustice is directly related to Ikea's raw materials supply chain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com