#Scale

by kiwanja

17 comments

1 Ken Banks { 06.02.10 at 10:51 am }

@gentlemandad Are you sure? Don't millions of (b)'s add up to one (a)? http://is.gd/czsb9 #scale

2 Ken Banks { 06.02.10 at 10:51 am }

@ictlogist @radard Comments welcome. Even small ones. =) http://is.gd/czsb9 #scale

3 miraj k { 06.02.10 at 11:00 am }

most of the times giant impacts have giant consequences.
incremental and continuous impacts are best as these can be scaled sustainably and without any adverse consequences.

4 changefeed { 06.02.10 at 11:01 am }

->@kiwanja: #Scale http://bit.ly/agN8I8

5 Tweets that mention Comments welcome. Even small ones. =) #scale -- Topsy.com { 06.02.10 at 11:51 am }

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ken Banks, changefeed. changefeed said: ->@kiwanja: #Scale http://bit.ly/agN8I8 [...]

6 digitalforgood { 06.02.10 at 12:24 pm }

->@kiwanja: #Scale http://bit.ly/agN8I8 http://ow.ly/17AqIb

7 joe { 06.02.10 at 1:50 pm }

I recommend Prof David MacKay’s excellent book (and free ebook) on the energy crisis, where there is widespread belief that small actions together add up to a large effect. This is a fallacy – small actions add up to small outcomes. Even if everyone changes their lightbulbs, the cumulative effect on the total energy budget is small.

As he says:

Have no illusions. To achieve our goal of getting off fossil fuels, these reductions in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand and in supply.

8 kiwanja { 06.02.10 at 2:02 pm }

@Joe – Thanks for sharing that. I’m not sure how this applies in the charity or development sector, but I can understand how it would with energy conservation. Something to think about, for sure. I personally believe that we all have the potential to make a difference, and the more of us that do it the bigger the positive impact will be.

9 ismael peña-lópez { 06.02.10 at 2:07 pm }

I’d rather think about (a) sytemic/structural vs. (b) particular/circumstantial

BTW, (c) none of the above is not an option when talking about impact

10 joe { 06.02.10 at 2:25 pm }

@kiwanja I don’t believe that ‘every little helps’ or that ‘little actions add up to big actions’ in energy, development or anything else. If nothing else, the time/effort taken to do things with small impacts (implying that they then add up to bigger impacts) means that they’re highly inefficient.

11 Ken Banks { 06.02.10 at 4:33 pm }

What's better? (a) One great big giant impact. (b) Millions of little impacts. (c) None of the above. http://bit.ly/9NQ6dI

12 Ken Banks { 06.02.10 at 4:33 pm }

What's better? (a) One great big giant impact. (b) Millions of little impacts. (c) None of the above. http://bit.ly/9NQ6dI

13 Carolina Ödman { 06.02.10 at 4:42 pm }

RT @kiwanja: What's better? (a) One great big giant impact. (b) Millions of little impacts. (c) None of the above. http://bit.ly/9NQ6dI

14 Juhani Antila { 06.02.10 at 4:48 pm }

RT @kiwanja: What's better? (a) One great big giant impact. (b) Millions of little impacts. (c) None of the above. http://bit.ly/9NQ6dI

15 Josep Maria Miró { 06.02.10 at 4:51 pm }

RT @kiwanja: What's better? (a) One great big giant impact. (b) Millions of little impacts. (c) None of the above. http://bit.ly/9NQ6dI

16 Mission MANNA { 06.02.10 at 5:14 pm }

RT @kiwanja: What's better? (a) One great big giant impact. (b) Millions of little impacts. (c) None of the above. http://bit.ly/9NQ6dI

17 kiwanja { 06.02.10 at 9:10 pm }

@Joe – Interesting way of looking at things! So, you’re saying that if anything someone chooses to do doesn’t or won’t have massive impact, then they shouldn’t bother? That would be quite sad, don’t you think?

Leave a Comment