PlayPumps International was an immediate sensation. The idea was this: instead of the typical hand-pump, found in many developing-world villages to provide water for the community, PlayPumps International would install playground merry-go-rounds that would pump up water from deep underground as children played on them. The children would get often their first playground amenity, and the village would get clean water — it was a clear win-win.

Soon, Playpumps International was raking in awards and accolades — a $10 million grant from the US Government, announced by First Lady Laura Bush, a World Bank Development Marketplace Awared, and even a site visit and sponsorship from Jay-Z. The international media swooped in to report the story, loving both the startling innovation and the opportunity to pun on “pumping water is child’s play” and “the magic roundabout”. At the centre of it all was Trevor Field, the founder of PlayPumps International. He reported: “It really rocks me to know we’re making a difference to a lot of people who are nowhere near as privileged as I am or my family is.”

The only problem with PlayPumps International was that the idea wasn’t actually any good. There were many problems, and I’ll just mention a few.

First, unlike normal playground merry-go-rounds, which spin freely once they’ve gained sufficient momentum, in order to pump water the PlayPumps needed constant force. The kids, understandably, would get tired very quickly, and didn’t want to ‘play’ on the pumps at all hours of the day. So it would often be left to the women of the village, who would struggle to push the additional weight, and would sometimes vomit while the pump was in motion. In one town, children were actually paid by the locals to ‘play’ on the pumps.

The second problem was the lack of consultation and maintenance. When the UN investigated the efficacy of PlayPumps in Zambia, the majority of users said that they hadn’t been asked whether they wanted the pumps and that they preferred the handpump that had been removed to make way for the PlayPump. Most didn’t know who to contact in case the pump needed repair — which a large proportion of pumps did.

Finally, there was the cost. Though initially touted at $6500 per pump, the price rose without explanation to $14 000. Though that might not sound like much, that’s equivalent to 64 years of local wages, and several times the cost of a standard handpump (which could also pump more water per hour). So donors were paying several times as much for a worse product.

In an interview prior to the public realisation that the PlayPumps program had been a disaster, Trevor Fields was asked what his one piece of advice would be. He said: “The best advice I’ve ever received, ever, is to, and everybody says this, but it’s true, believe in yourself. You’ve got to believe in your idea… So the best advice that I’ve ever got was that you’ve just got to do it. It’s like the Nike slogan. You’ve just got to do it.”

Unfortunately, when it comes to helping others “just do it” and “believe in your idea” are probably the stupidest pieces of advice you could offer (rather than, say, “do your research”). Luckily for the world, PlayPumps International was decent enough to admit it was game over and folded in March 2010.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Summary Following our co-founder Joey's recent transition announcement we're actively searching for exceptional leadership to join our C-level team and guide AIM into its next phase. * Find the full job description here * To apply, please visit the following link * Recommend someone you think could be a great fit here * Location: London strongly preferred. Remote candidates willing to work from London at least 3 months a year and otherwise overlapping at least 6 hours with 9 am to 5 pm BST will be considered. We are happy to sponsor UK work visas. * Employment Type: Full-time (35 hours) * Application Deadline: rolling until August 10, 2025 * Start Date: as soon as possible (with some flexibility for the right candidate) * Compensation: £45,000–£90,000 (for details on our compensation policy see full job description) Leadership Transition On March 15th, Joey announced he's stepping away from his role as CEO of AIM, with his planned last day as December 1st. This follows our other co-founder Karolina's completed transition in 2024. Like Karolina, Joey will transition to a board member role while we bring in new leadership to guide AIM's next phase of growth. The Opportunity AIM is at a unique inflection point. We're seeking an exceptional leader to join Samantha and Devon on our C-level team and help shape the next era of one of the most impactful organizations in the EA ecosystem. With foundations established (including a strong leadership team and funding runway), we're ready to scale our influence dramatically and see many exciting pathways to do so. While the current leadership team has a default 2026 strategic plan, we are open to a new CEO proposing radical departures. This might include: * Proposing alternative ways to integrate or spin off existing or new programs * Deciding to spend more resources trialling more experimental programs, or double down on Charity Entrepreneurship * Expanding geographically or deepening impact in existing region