Talk:Appropriate technology

A DIY hydrogen and oxyhydrogen generator should also be added. It allows to generate hydrogen which can fuel converted internal combustion engines (eg of old fixed-up cars/vehicles; found abundantly in the developed world).

DIY shematics/documents for electrolysis can be made from instructions such as in the following book: http://www.goodideacreative.com/h2_sys2.html , aswell as many other DIY low-cost generators can be found online; eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX-vbcaEEWA http://www.instructables.com/id/SODA-CAN-HYDROGEN-GENERATOR/ water4gas HHO generator

however, the best generator would be made using bacteria. Synthetic biology can be used to create a generator that uses no initial power (which is the major problem with hydrogen; more power needs to be generated than what is produced in hydrogen). However, at present it has not yet produced a viable organic hydrogen generator. ^[1][2][3]

81.246.176.42 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently read about liquid nitrogen. Apparently, this "fuel" can also be burnt in a ICe engine. If so (and if liquid nitrogen generation is possible at home), a liquid nitrogen generator too should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.167.2 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently looked at a project of Agro Vision, and it seems that satellite images can be used to determine moisture, nitrogen, co²-intake, ... They are working on localized fertilisation (eg by gps-controlled fertilisermachine) were the input data (nutrient content of soil) comes from satellite data.

If this approach allows enough minerals (nitrogen, potassium, ...) to be recorded it may be very useful. See http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/agriculture-crop-management-and-production-improved-by-satellite-remote-sensing-technology-and-geographic-information-systems-gis-463274.html

and the AgriVision-project at http://www.agrivision.net.au/variable-rate.php

This approach could be used to replace the more expensive sampling of the soil (by hand) in remote areas. In one of my designs sent earlier, I also mentioned a "farming-manual (telling people in developing world how they may farm more productively and without non-biodegradable pesticides). This approach should be mentioned herein.

Besides checking whether enough parameters can be recorded, it should be checked whether UAV's can also perform this "remote sensing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.142.167 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether its worth mentioning: http://www.terracottem.com/pages/en/home.htm it is somewhat similar to terra preta, yet retains moisture better; not sure how its made (DIY?)and whether it is thus appropriate in developing world (remote) locations

http://www.flipkart.com/environmental-education-prof-purushotham-reddy/8183161219-9v23frh15b Not sure whether it is a appropriate technology advocate and whether he may be included to list. May have some ideas in book the AT community may use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.176.136 (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose to make a article called workshop tools mentioning the most important (multifunctional tools). Also, i'm not sure whether it is most useful to use molds or use stuff like a 3D CNC milling machine to make stuff like gears, ... Anyone knows what a 3D printer is? the article isnt that clear, it appears that wooden, ... objects can be made with it but not sure. Some of the tools (eg screwdrivers) need to be simplified; meaning that the amount of different types of screws, ... needs to be limited to keep the amount of different workshop tools, ... low —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.1.77 (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This term seems like a POV smear. Those who use it are characterizing others as advocating "inappropriate technology". That is of course a straw man. I challenge anyone to point to one person who says "I think people should use inappropriate technology". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This wikipedia article should be neutral, but the term 'Appropriate Technology' is not! It is supposed to highlight the inappropriate nature of high-tech industry that is driven by profit rather than ecological concerns. You can't complain if they chose a name you find objectionable any more than you can object to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Jambaltine (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed two POV tags in the opening para. There's a confusion: There's a difference between a term that has a strong "politically correct" connotation, and mis-defining that concept so that it distorts the meaning of the term. I.e., if someone wrote that "appropriate technology is the work of luddites" or "appropriate technology is the only hope for mankind", then THAT would demonstrate a non-neutral statement.

This is NOT what is going on with the opening sentence as it stands ("Appropriate technology (AT) is technology that is designed with special consideration to the environmental, ethical, cultural, social, political, and economical aspects of the community it is intended for.")

Notice also, Michael Hardy, that a slur is not implied in the definition. One could design a product to be "cost effective" or "supporting national industry" or "user friendly" or "advancing technology" or "energy efficient" ... or any combination. "Appropriate technology" is simply that which emphasizes a broad spectum that places special emphasis on cultural and environmental factors. That there is some business -- some potentially displaced business -- that has their priorities differently organized does not mean that the fault lies in the concept of appropriate technology. After all, any viable business rival is going to have a business plan that is in conflict with established businesses. That doesn't make the rival's business plan somehow dishonest, biased or in any remarkable way POV. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see a POV problem here. I suggest removal of the POV tag (and the other tags too). Rlsheehan (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "appropriate" is not POV and is not inappropriate. The term "appropriate" as used does not suggest that other technology is innately wrong in any way. Most technology which is developed using expensive engineering design tools is optimized based on the assumed resources, manufacturing, and tooling of a generally technologically advanced and well infrastructured society. These technologies aren't appropriate for a society which doesn't have the resources, manufacturing, or tooling in place to build or maintain it. That doesn't mean that expensive engineering design techniques (computer simulation, prototyping, automated optimization) can't be applied to create a technology which is optimized for the particular resources and manufacturing ability of a society which isn't as well infrastructured. There is no value judgment being made by the term "appropriate", it is really indicative of using the right design assumptions for the right end user environment. -CVDon

I recently added the POV tag. However it is not in reference to this discussion. I too agree that "appropriate technology" is a recognized term and not a POV issues. However, per this section I started on the talk page, I believe the second paragraph of the lede (summary) is clearly biased and I am recommending it be rewritten. EstellaGr8 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with EstellaGr8. This older (circa 2009 to early 2010) "POV" discussion is on a rather different topic than the question of some bias in the lede of the article. The discussion on bias in the lede is below, in section entitled "Bias?". N2e (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be useful to mention the Talk:Stethoscope#Vuvuzela_stethoscope ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Though cited, I wonder if the second paragraph of this article summary is too biased in nature?

"With environmental and ethical goals in mind, AT proponents claim their methods require fewer resources, are easier to maintain, and have less of an impact on the environment compared to techniques from mainstream technology, which they contend is wasteful and environmentally polluting."

With the community's approval I would like to suggest it be revisited and most likely rewritten or removed. I believe it is possible to convey the tenets of appropriate technology with out directly criticizing other forms of technology. Though this difference between appropriate technology and other forms is clearly something to include in the article, I question the placement in the summary and as the second paragraph.

EstellaGr8 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur, and would support your proposed change. You may want to consider placing an article-level tag such as {{lead rewrite}} or {{POV-lead}} at the top of the article while this discussion is going on. It let's other readers and editors of the article know that a discussion is going on and invites them to weigh in. Generally, these sorts of article-level tags are best if used only for a short period of time while active work is going on to improve an article, or gain consensus in the wikicommunity who frequent a given article, and then remove it as the issue is addressed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As part of the Public Policy WikiProject, I plan to work on the following edits:

1. Edit the lede to remove possible biased information. I have created a rough draft of my proposed lede in my sandbox and would appreciate any comments from the the Wiki community. With the community's approval I would like to replace the existing lede with this proposed lede before April 10, the course deadline for these changes.
2. Expand the background section to includes greater detail and a history of appropriate technology (possibly incorporating the founders section).I am working on the rough draft of my history section in my sandbox and would appreciate any comments from the the Wiki community. I am also suggesting a slightly new organization to the article which is reflected in my sandbox as well.
3. Expand the appropriate technology in developing areas section to include more detail.

As part of these edits, I plan to consult the following sources:

• Hazeltine, B. & Bull, C. (1999). Appropriate Technology: Tools, Choices, and Implications. San Diego: Academic Press.
• Ghosh, P.K. (1984). Appropriate Technology in Third World Development. Center for International Development. London: Greenwood Press.
• Willoughby, K.W. (1990). Technology Choice: A Critique of the Appropriate Technology Movement. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
• National Research Council. (2006). The Fundamental Role of Science and Technology in International Development. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
• Pursell, C.W. (2007). Technology in Postwar America: A History. New York: Columbia University Press.
• McRobie, G. (1981). Small is Possible. New York: Harper & Row.
• Akubue, A. (2000). "Appropriate Technology for Socioeconomic Development in Third World Countries." The Journal of Technology Studies. Vol. 26, No. 1 (pp.33-43). Bowling Green, Ohio: Epsilon Pi Tau.
• Montgomery, J.D. (1979, March). "Beyond Appropriate Technology." Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. 32, No. 6 (pp.19-37).
• The Cooper Hewitt Design for the other 90% Exhibit.
• Village Earth.
• Practical Action.

I appreciate any comments/suggestions/encouragement/assistance from the wiki community.

EstellaGr8 (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently undid an edit that changed "industrialized" to "industrialised." My logic for this is that the article appears to use American English throughout. Other examples, such as "utilizing" and "practice" are spelled in the American way and not the British way ("utilising" and "practise"). As far as I can tell the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not have a preference for either usage, but it does indicate a preference for internal consistency. Thoughts? EstellaGr8 (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the internal article consistency. And it appears that the article is/was already utilizing the American variation of English. N2e (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In its current form, the "appropriate technology practitioners" section contains an un-cited list of supposed appropriate technology practitioners. Though the links provided for some of the names clearly indicate the person had either developed technology widely considered as an example of appropriate technology or has promoted appropriate technological choice, several of the names have no supporting materials in the link provided. Furthermore, I believe the supporting materials should be clearly indicated in this article either through mentions of their appropriate technology work or through in-line citation to reputable materials naming them as appropriate technology practitioners. EstellaGr8 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD (Go for it!) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned here I planned to make several changes to this article. I have since rewritten the lede, created a history and terminology section, expanded and renamed the section on appropriate technology in developing countries, and moved the extensive examples to a new section called "Applications." I welcome any comments. EstellaGr8 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD (Go for it!) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It its current form this section is redundant to existing information in the article and does not address the topic the section lable indicates it will. I recommend it be entirely rewritten to include information on the energy crisis of the 1970s, appropriate technology groups in countries such as the US, UK and Japan, and the current use of appropriate technology in these countries. EstellaGr8 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD (Go for it!) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The information in the sub-sections under "applications" seems like an information dump. There is little structure or substantive information. I recommend a extensive edit of this information. EstellaGr8 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD (Go for it!) Thank you for your contributions. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

having just arrived at this article i found it incredibly hard to discern what it was that appropriate technology entailed. i feel that this article could go a very long way to include a simple, single sentence summary of what appropriate technology actually is. The following line from http://lsa.colorado.edu/essence/texts/appropriate.htm was far more useful to me than the existing background, and i suggest that someone find a means to incorporate it, or something similarly "to the point" into the beginning of the article. I would do it myself, however as an unregistered user i do not have the confidence to go about editing the article.

"Appropriate technology is small-scale technology. It is simple enough that people can manage it directly and on a local level. Appropriate technology makes use of skills and technology that are available in a local community to supply basic human needs, such as gas and electricity, water, food, and waste disposal. " ---- Anonymous (talk) 01:02, 07 April 2012 (GMT-5)

Perhaps the Mokshda Green Cremation System (MGCS) can be mentioned ? 91.182.27.70 (talk)

You guys did a great job here and hope some of you are still watching the page. Since many people get appropriate technology and alternate technology confused, and the alternative technology article is very poor and doesn't define the differences, it's an article some of you might want to beef up. I'll try to at least fix the definition aspect. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 18:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is intermediate technology really the same thing? Surely that refers to technology that is neither low technology nor high technology? Whether such technology is 'appropriate' or not is another matter. The article isn't completely clear on this point - first saying that the two terms are synonymous, and later saying that intermediate technology is a subset of appropriate technology. Ben Finn (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

When the terms first came into use, they were very close. However this has since shifted.

One of the major shifts in recent years has been the result of telecommunications and cheap globalisation. Mobile phones are now cheap and they're also relatively cheap in much of the 3rd world. It is still difficult to obtain a wired phone line (poles and cables still cost serious investment) but it is now affordable to obtain mobile phones and even an internet connection (the cost is high relative to basic food and shelter, but low in relation to a wired phone). This gives access to information such as weather forecasting and market prices, information that can make a "knowledgeable" fishing village a more efficient and competitive vendor than a similar village without such information. The smartphone is appropriate technology (it delivers a benefit in relation to its cost) even though it is not intermediate technology (it's made in the same Chinese mega-factory that other such phones are made in). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's never good to use the word "recent" in Wikipedia articles... Can someone replace the "recents" with a year indication? In particular in this sentence: In more recent years, the appropriate technology movement has continued to decline in prominence. - For that one, as it talks about the German GATE project which ended in early 2000 I think, if not earlier, we could perhaps say "Since the late 1990s..." ? Unless people disagree about this statement regarding the decline? Perhaps it only relates to AT in development cooperation? EvM-Susana (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the National_Innovation_Foundation_-_India#Honey_Bee_Network Honey Bee Network can be mentioned somewhere on the page ? 109.130.161.237 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs its own page -- you can certainly have inappropriate intermediate technology -- this needs to be slit off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.36.109 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Appropriate technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090226051936/http://users.etown.edu/m/mcbridet/Research/McBrideIRESNov2007Presentation%20trim.ppt to http://users.etown.edu/m/mcbridet/Research/McBrideIRESNov2007Presentation%20trim.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003075303/http://www.villageearth.org:80/pages/Appropriate_Technology/ATSourcebook/Agriculturaltools.php to http://www.villageearth.org/pages/Appropriate_Technology/ATSourcebook/Agriculturaltools.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080803075351/http://www.villageearth.org:80/pages/Appropriate_Technology/ATSourcebook/Agriculturaltools.php to http://www.villageearth.org/pages/Appropriate_Technology/ATSourcebook/Agriculturaltools.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Appropriate technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215051537/http://www.antiqbook.de:80/boox/domdey/4332.shtml to http://www.antiqbook.de/boox/domdey/4332.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appropriate technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216014031/http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/PDF_Files/AIDEA_Energy_Screening.pdf to http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/PDF_Files/AIDEA_Energy_Screening.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appropriate technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-report-2012-en.pdf%2C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070730205707/http://www.tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=1636&lang=English to http://www.tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=1636&lang=English
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418032252/http://dst.gov.in/whats_new/press-release08/solekshwa-launched.htm to http://dst.gov.in/whats_new/press-release08/solekshwa-launched.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appropriate technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122073324/http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html to http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122073324/http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html to http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the use of "overpopulating certain areas" is true in the "Health care" subhead under "Applications". It's not clear whether that quote is properly sourced. Perhaps a citation could be added? –HannahLH (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Indiana University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)