[Game_Ender]

No one is forcing anyone to use this water. The villagers can either use the cleaner water, something which they had no way to get before, or continue to get water their old way. How is it a bad thing to provide a better product to someone for a price?

[pointyhat]

It's not a "product". It's a survival essential. Everyone should be entitled to clean water, not at a price.

[simon_weber]

Sure, everyone needs water. But, "there's no such thing as a free lunch", and this seems to be a reasonable way to get water to people who need it right now.

update, when I had a chance to look at some data: As for affordability, it seems 5% of monthly income is typically used as the threshold [1]. This would mean that someone would have to earn $2 dollars per day to have affordable water through this solution. You're right: for many below the poverty line in India, this does not meet the affordability standard [2].

However, I would argue that any way of increasing access is an improvement, simply judging by how available water currently is [3]. As was said earlier, you're not making people any poorer by giving them another option to attain water.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_...

[pointyhat]

But when you make the most profitable way the preferred way, you shift the power from the people to a controlling party, at which point, the price goes up to suit the "investors".

It's an unfortunate part of human nature.

[pointyhat]

There are some seriously fucked up selfish capitalist bastards on this site who believe they are entitled to screw anyone for anything.

It's disgusting.