Last Wednesday, I went to the Rose Café discussion led by House Professor Garrick Blalock. With the description of the topic being about technology and poverty, I thought it was interesting that he started off talking about cars. First, it was established that we all knew about the negative environmental effects of cars running on gasoline, yet only a small amount of people have cleaner options like Priuses or Teslas. It’s not because we don’t know that they are better for the environment, it’s because of a bunch of different factors from practicality to cost or style which are all unique to different individuals as well.

These same concerns were then applied to stoves in Uganda. Traditionally, a three-stone stove that burns coal is used, but since they are so inefficient and do not burn cleanly, they have not only negative environmental effects, but also negative health effects. If they are used in households, soot coats the walls, affecting both the women cooking and the children staying at home. You would think that if given the option for an affordable, cleaner alternative, people would be happy to change stoves.

This is where things got complicated. While stoves were created to be more affordable and much cleaner, people would stop using them because they weren’t as practical. The three-stone stove is adjustable in terms of heat, size, and duration of burn, while cleaner options were built around with a focus on cleanliness. While it was definitely the better option for the environment and their immediate health, people were not adopting the new technology.

As I thought about the car analogy and the stoves, I thought about how tricky it can be to predict human behavior in terms of consumer economics. It seems to me like there are so many different factors that go into the products we buy and use that every concern for every consumer can’t always be satisfied. If a stove was developed to solve the problems first brought up, there would be something else that just wouldn’t feel right. This is a challenge for any type of technology, and doesn’t seem like something that can ever be fully solved.

While technology can certainly have health and environmental benefits, it seems pretty much impossible to get everyone to change their behavior. Would it be nice if everyone who needed a car had a Tesla and the whole world used more renewable energy sources? Of course. Do I see this happening in the foreseeable future? Not really. But do I think that there can be meaningful progress in terms of adopting cleaner technology and helping developing communities in ways that fit their needs? Hopefully, yes.