Bravo, Andy. I write this from Accra, Ghana, where in 10 minutes I help launch a two-day conference for some 80 Africans of various sub-Saharan nations interested in harnessing the new technologies for education.
Our emphasis will be on ""appropriate technology. The notion of äppropriate" technology," the term identified with the late E. Schumacher, is the key to your message. Whether walking, or biking, or motorcycling, or automobiling is the "best"vtechnology is a pointless and misleading discussion: technology needs to be chosen for its fit to the situation it is designed to improve. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Andy Carvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/03/16 Wed AM 11:19:25 EST > To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [DDN] phone vs net > > > > Info wrote: > > Putting a cellular phone in the hands of people who can barely put food on > > the table or live in sub par housing conditions, fighting aides, and worst > > of all, about to be left of out the 21st century digital workforce is just > > crazy. Cellular phones and pagers have been in the poorest hands for almost > > a decade now, has having a cellular phone helped their conditions, no. > > > > Actually, that's not true at all. Projects like the GrameenPhone > initiative are very well documented. Thousands of uneducated women in > Bangladeshi villages now have successful careers - and financial > independence - because of the mobile phones they've received through the > program and the mobile services they're offering to their villages. The > program is now expanding into Uganda and Rwanda, and hopefully will be > successful there as well. > > I think it's really unproductive for us to adopt a binary mindset in > which it's either mobile phones OR computers. Just because The Economist > says that we should ignore computers and focus only on mobile phones > doesn't mean we're right if we reply by saying the opposite. > > There's a reason why the notion of ICT for development is called ICT for > development rather than PCs for development or smartphones for > Development. The goal here isn't to take one particular technology and > force it onto the world. The goal should be to address the world's most > pressing development needs and identify solutions that, if appropriate, > can select from a _spectrum_ of ICTs, from mobile phones to computers to > community radio and everything in between. > > The Economist article makes a big mistake by assuming that ICT4D > activists are all trying to push computers as a solution in itself; it's > misleading and naive. Activists are also pushing for more affordable, > stable mobile phone networks, low power fm radio, solar-powered > technology, and many other ICTs. The key is to identify _appropriate_ > technologies for solving different development challenges and finding > sustainable, scalable ways of implementing them. So for some > communities, that may be computers first; for others it'll be another > technology. > > So let's not do what The Economist did and adopt an either/or approach > to the issue. No one type of ICT will solve all the world's problems, so > let's try to find the most appropriate uses for them from one context to > the next.... > > -- > ----------------------------------- > Andy Carvin > Program Director > EDC Center for Media & Community > acarvin @ edc . org > http://www.digitaldivide.net > http://www.tsunami-info.org > Blog: http://www.andycarvin.com > ----------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 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.
