However, each unit costs $500. At Midnight Mission, it looked like they were only a few and primarily used to provide a safe, separate, space for young mothers to sleep at night. EDAR seems unsustainable and a bandaid solution to the issue of poverty. Critics say that it may just "perpetuate homelessness", to which the founder Peter Samuelson says, "Fine, I agree with you, so do something else. Get off your behind and build some buildings with beds in them". So what's better, creating something that fixes symptoms of poverty or going after policy that created poverty? What will actually make a difference in the community?
I think this is a great example Ananya Roy's paradigm: "hubris of benevolence//paralysis of cynicism". With so many nonprofit/charities/aid organizations cropping up, it is easy for us to criticize any initiative that aims to alleviate poverty (this one isn't participatory enough, that one won't garner funding...) At the same time, we can't just delve ahead without thinking about a project's unintended consequences either. While these are two extremes, I think it is also a fine line between if we are hurting or helping. (Refer to To Hell With Good Intentions - Ivan Illich!)
-------
If anyone is interested, the program I am in is called Alternative Breaks which focuses on different social issues (immigration rights, food justice, animal welfare, urban health - to name a few) through a critical service-learning model. We spend spring break learning from community partners and serving in a way that is most beneficial to them.
I agree that the EDAR is not a sustainable or realistic solution to homelessness. However, I agree with founder Peter Samuelson when he states we must do something to help the situation. However, I believe his invention is ideal for natural disaster relief, rather than permanent homelessness that pervades the cities of America. We need to be creative with how we apply the technologies and innovations we design because often times, an alternative can be more effective. These sturdier shelters would be much more dignified than flimsy tents, and also the price would be more realistic when millions or billions of dollars of aid are made available following a natural disaster. Again, we must realize that these EDARs are not a substitute for rebuilding infrastructure, but rather a temporary shelter following destruction of the displaced's homes.
ReplyDelete