Okay, i want to say this up front. I am a college student (20 years..Human Ecologist), who know's very little about this subject--the Digital Divide. All the following is generally based off of gut feelings. I am of the Net-Generation, and grew up with the privilage of having access to the internet and all of the modern technologies as they grew into what they are today. I am also disposed to want to "help" all those 4ish, 5ish billion people in the world to have the same the opportunity and to have the same privilages as I have including having them not need to work the fruits of their lives until they rot in order for ME to continue and live the way i am used to with all my luxuries. How to make this "utopian" thought a reality is the quest i have just recently begun. And i will say that the following will likely be a very ill-articulated piece, with many misinformed ideas and one that are simply incomplete. What can i say, i know very little. But, that's okay. In the big picture, so does everyone, even if they act like they don't, right?
I am very interested in learning more about the worlds economic, political, scientific and technological, ecological, agrocultural and social systems (and whatever else is out there...call it an interdisciplinary approach) with respect to how we can make the world a less unequal and destructive place to live. I want to find ways to engender creativity and motivation in the people empower them to live the lives that they want and that they know makes them happy and is sustainable; that might mean that they will adopt these technologies that i am so used to in my life and that i at times, like many including the author of the article think are impossible to live without anymore; or it might mean that they take some of the technologies that help them live better lives and ignore others that are more of a burden to them that a help; or it might mean they continue with their own lines of "development" and do as they see fit without the use of modern technologies, which does not mean in my opinion that they are "resisting change" or "ignorant" or whatever; for everyone is always in a state of change, especially in todays world, it doesn't have to be forced. Everyone is human and everyone has a right to choose the lives they have in this world, as communities that they exist in and as individuals. So what i have right now is a great interest in learning how modern technologies could be of use as a creative tools to the marginalized and "underdeveloped" in moving everyone closer to the ideas of accomplishing the rediculously HUGE and inhumanly scaled problem we--all the people in the world--are faced with currently; Poverty. Now, with respect to this article, my heart skipped a few beats. I can say in the least that it is a bad article and i wonder if i could actually write something up for Forune some day soon in the future :-) J/K, and at the most, i hope the author misunderstood some things (or i did) and i really hope that simply "bringing technology to the developing world" isn't really the approach they are taking. Unfortunately though, I already do know that it is and it's a strong movement all across the world; however i would imagine it is more often to be found as an initiative in the top of the chain of economic and political power, not at the bottom except where the people have been convinced that it is "better for them" this way. This is one problem, or might i say, doubt, hesitation or sceptisism that i have towards the idea of "bridging the Digital Divide." The corporations and politicians might have all the good intentions in the world (they are most important i would believe because they seem to have the biggest "political clout" out of everyone, since they are they ones who are at the top of the latter currently and apparently forever that can truely manipulate everything in this system that is being talked about, right?), but what's a for-profit company going to intend to do over everything else in the end? Profit. Do people even exist in the pursuit of profits? I think not. Except possibly in a few very rare occasions such as a business here and a business there, or when they are treated as means to an ends (appendages..for profit...labor) or on the opposite end, as investors or consumers (consider taxes included). Perhaps also one can consider that people are considered as human when big money that is left over from the left over profits is put forth for AID projects. To me though, these mostly seem to be lame attempts that try to tackle problems much greater than they could ever be humanly possible and commonly become more destructive in their attempts to repair the social and ecological damages already made by the profitiering that they parttook in to begin with. David Kirkpatrick say's clearly that the initiatives that now have great importance in the eyes of some of the top leaders in the world is how they can help the developing countries "truly participate in the global economy." He says further, to emphasize the greatest reason for the big corporations to participate in this goal, "the world's 4 billion or so poor are the largest market that has ever existed. This is true not only in terms of their raw human numbers, but in their aggregate buying power...despite average earnings of the equivalent of no more than two dollars a day." Full proof of the consideration of these 4 billion or so in poverty not as humans, but as appendages to the current economic system (spend every last cent, it's for the better). Of which the participants in the WEForum are the top benefactors. The people are not this time as labor but on the other end of things as the consumer. Either of them though are of great benifit to the big companies profits, their bottom lines. So of course this is motivating for them, but i think for the wrong reasons and that is as David Kirkpatrick says, "a business imperitive". And this isn't even considering the fact that consumption itself, if increased greatly with all 4 billion or so beginning to consume like the "stardard of living" consumes, the world is going to have an even greater host of ecological problems to face with and the issue that made it to the 3rd spot on the list of the world's biggest problems, Global warming, will be exacerbated as well. Everything in this article points to the true motivations of the actors in this forum exactly. Poverty equals a great opportunity to increase profits. For further examples, the only way the low cost computers will be produced is if the can be "produced in enough volume." Anytime this type of activty begins, there will be a push rather than a pull for the products to regain the investment costs as profit. I can't imagine how that could ever benifit those who are "intended" to gain from such products. Especially because things such as these computers and wireless products go out of date so quickly. Think for a minute about the situation where Brazil for example goes ahead and buys a bunch of this patented, contract based, propriatary equipment, then installs it, costing a whole ton of money that they probably don't have in the first place to spend. They will quickly become dependent on those same companies to upgrade to new products that have become available to them, and will have likely been forced upon them by these same companies that are saying it's for "their benifit". The truth is that many companies like Microsoft and Cisco simply STOP supporting old hardware and software after 5-7 years. Simply STOP. Which at that point then the Brazilians will once again be "underdeveloped" because they are not up to our "standard of living" and the cycle will continue on. Plus David Kirkpatrick claims having such technology, not considering the above, just simply thinking in a "technologicaly deterministic" mindset, will give the "worlds disenfranchised ... greater political clout and financial opportunities." Hmmm....How? I don't see this in any way necessarily giving the people at the botton of the "trickle" tree political power, except to say the communication technology give the people a chance to organize in great number against those in power and with brute force make policy changes in governments that truely favor them over corporations (see for example the Zapatista movement in Chiapas). But for some reason i would really doubt the corporations would actually be talking about this...why would they? I think one of the 3 of the worlds problems should have actually been concerning the structure of the current economic system and all those "members [of the WEForum] representing the world’s 1,000 leading companies, along with 200 smaller businesses, many from the developing world, that play a potent role in their industry or region," and everyone else in the top that is involved at the top. Then they should have gone out of their way to have given those "disenfranchised" a chance to talk too! Why does that happen so often? All these Forums and stuff talking about how they can help the majority of the people live better lives...without having the majority able to have a voice. (World Economic Forum website:http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Members+and+Partners) They all need to consider how they themselves are inherently huge factors in why there even exists a Digital Divide, let alone the idea of poverty. And we all need to think about how we can truely "reenfranchise" the "disenfranchised". I mean, who DISenfranschised them in the first place? That's the real "moral imperitive" we should have; not to make sure all the poor people continue to play well in the system that WE westerners think is RIGHT for them and everyone. At least...right now that's what i think. Thanks for listening. I would love to hear what you have to say. -Chris > Excellent article > > http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,1024216,00.html > -- > Lars Hasselblad Torres > Researcher, AmericaSpeaks > 802-223-4288 > > www.americaspeaks.org > > join the movement for deliberative democracy: > www.deliberative-democracy.net > > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. > _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
