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 �ppropriate" 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] 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.
