Dear Paula:
I am a great admirer of the creative genius of the Western society which
from the Industrial Revolution onwards has invented newer and newer
technologies to make our lives more comfortable and enjoyable. At the same
time I am also greatly concerned about the wasteful ways of that society.
Look at the statistics on the consumption of resources, be it water,
gasoline (and other fuels), wood and timber, and you will find the average
westerner consumes many times more than the average Asian or African. If
only they are prepared to adopt the 'public commons' approach and come
forward to share resources as a community (instead of individuals owning
resources), the world will be a much better place. While we enjoy the
physical comforts provided by Lexus technologies we can also enjoy the peace
and harmony of the 'olive tree' societies.
That is what Mahatma Gandhi had taught us. And before him John Ruskin.
Unfortunately, most of us trying to bridge the digital divide seem to be too
focused on technology, connectivity, computers, telecom, etc. and are not
addressing more fundamental issues which are outside the domain of
technology, such as how do we make people realise (and accept) that when the
resources are scarce the only way out is for all of us to share them
equitably, and how do we create all the content (for the dissemination of
which we need all those technologies in the first place).
From the limited experience we have at MSSRF, it is clear that sharing
resources and caring for others can go a long way in building a better
future for mankind. The sharing and caring I talk aout is not limited to
bridging the digital divide in the telecentre context. Take the case of
science and research. It is now clearly understood, more than ever before,
that it is important for even the poorest country to have some capacity to
carry out scientific research. The US National Academy of Sciences, with a
grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is helping science
academies of three African countries develop adequate capacity to be able to
provide policy advice to their governments. Scientists worldwide are trying
to build interoperable institutional open access archives which will enable
every scientist (irrespective where one lives and works) access full texts
of the latest and relevant research papers.
The common thread between these various programmes is the public commons
approach.
Arun
[Subbiah Arunachalam]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Digital Divide Network discussion group"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [DDN]The Personal vs the Social Computer Was:Update onthe
Simputer
I wholeheartedly agree with you Steve and Arun -- I'm in London UK with
a laptop all to myself and it's hugely convenient, but (1) that's all
very well if you can afford it and (2) actually we could learn a lot
from the way that countries like Ghana and India are solving problems of
hardware access -- because, let's face it, I've been working with NGOs
in London for years trying to make technology available to disadvantaged
communities and haven't made half the headway that Subbiah seems to have
made.
Hypercapitalism might give *some of us* in the West our very own
computers but too often at the expense of any sense of community,
ability to share scarce resources effectively, solve problems
communally and build creatively on what we *can* have.
And this crazy idea that if it isn't the same as the adverts it isn't
worth having. For example, we got some PCs for recycling and started
sorting them out for neighbourhood distribution to people who said they
were desperate for PCs. These were older but could run a graphical Linux
distro such as Ubuntu (which does everything you need and is very simple
to operate), but XP/MS Office was pushing the spec. Also couldn't get
freebie MS because end users were individuals not charities. Lots of
complaining and some people rejected the PCs because XP not available.
Meanwhile, we've donated hours upon hours renovating and installing
these machines which are being offered free of charge. Go figure!
In the West, we need to be aware of the extent to which the effects of
the hypercapitalist
mode on our sense of identity, community -- and our ability to think and
act for ourselves.
Paula
Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:
I agree with you Steve. At each one of the M S Swaminathan Research
Foundation Knowledge Centres in Pondicherry in southern India we have
a few computers - not more than five in any centre, and one of them is
out of bounds for all but the centre volunteers. But these are common
assets for the entire village. What is at work is the idea of public
commons. We cannot afford to provide computers and telephones and
Internet accounts to everyone in the village. That is the reality. How
can we overcome the problem? What we lack is the financial resources
to buy gadgets. What we have is a large heart, a willingness to share
what little we have, a commitment to care for others. After all
development is about sharing and caring. The computers and every other
service provided at the centre (such as information on a whole range
of local needs) is open to all. It works well. Eventually, when an
individual (or a family) earns enough to be able to afford something
he/she may decide to 'own' it.
Arun
[Subbiah Arunachalam]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Steve Eskow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Digital Divide Network discussion group"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 6:46 AM
Subject: RE: [DDN]The Personal vs the Social Computer Was: Update
onthe Simputer
Taran, I wish you'd reconsider your "basic economics": for example, your
belief that $480 that stays in India to buy a computer is "better" than
buying one elsewhere for $300. That may not sit well with those in
India or
Africa who have to buy a computer. Ghana, where I work, is richer
than some
of its sub-Saharan neighbors: $400 US is what the average Ghanaian
earns a
year, a year's earning not quite enough to buy your Simputer.
And I wish you'd reconsider conclusions like this one:
<<If you've ever had to share one computer with 20 people, and it was
your
only access point, I doubt you would be able to email as often. You
wouldn't have leisure time to read articles that *you* might find
interesting.>>
I've had to share buses and trains with many people, and you're
right: it's
not nearly as convenient as owning my own automobile. And I've had to
get my
learning at public schools, not nearly as convenient as private
tutoring.
And I've had to borrow books from a public library, not nearly
convenient as
buying my own and owning them.
And I've used computers at libraries and internet cafes, and you're
right:
sharing a computer is not nearly as convenient as owning one.
And I ask you to consider that your convenience argument is
misleading, and
downright harmful.
If we insist on private automobiles, millions will be continue to be
without
rapid transport, and we will continue to foul the environment.
And if we insist on personal ownership of books, millions will not read,
even if we cut down enough trees for all those books.
And if we insist on the personal computer, billions will not cross the
digital divide.
If the advantages of the Simputer at $480 are so much greater than
that of
the desktop at less, let's urge small churches or cafes or schools in
the
poorer nations to buy one or two or three and share them, until such
time as
the folks in the community can afford to buy their own.
<<In the focus on the reduction of cost, I sincerely believe by these
communications that the increase in quality of life as the *value* has
been lost.>>
You may have it backwards, Taran. Those who insist on personal
automobiles
and personal libraries and personal computers may be the ones who are
slowing down the erasure of the many divides between the haves and the
have-nots.
Steve Eskow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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.
