Re: [GKD] A Hundred-Dollar Laptop for Hungry Minds
The $100 PC sounds great. Four questions I want to know: 1. How are they made? (It is my understanding that Europeans have the edge in terms of sourcing computer componentry so that they have minimal ecological impact and are easy to recycle). 2. How long will they last? 3. What do they do with them when they break or are no longer usable? 4. How does the $100 PC business plan address not just the digital divide but the technology divide/gap (in other words, does the plan allow for the development of facilities in emerging markets to produce these computers including supply chains)? Jeff Buderer oneVillage Initiative - Trust. Unity. Prosperity Holistic ICT Development for Eco Living www.onevillagefoundation.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 408 813 5135 San Jose, California On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, Mikhail Doroshevich wrote: At Technology Review's Emerging Technology Conference at MIT September 28, 2005, Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT's Media Lab, showed off the design of a laptop he hopes can be sold for just $100. At that price, governments in developing countries could afford to buy one laptop for every child, he said, opening up educational opportunities for millions. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/09/wo/wo_092805bullis.asp ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] Nigeria: Silicon Valley Transplant
Dear GKD Members, Its been a while since this was originally posted but in relation to current discussions, I wanted to add this response to the original comments by Femi Oyesanya. The comments relate to the Interesting parallel between this Nigerian government proposal and the Unity Center www.onevillagefoundation.org/ovf/unitycenters.html concept that we have developed through OVF, explaining how if it was done a little differently, the Nigerians might just be able to pull it off. These comments also relate to the recent post I made in relation to Walter Rostow's Stages to Take-off. On 12/03/2004, Femi Oyesanya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A recent Nigerian Newspaper article cited the Nigerian Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nasir El-Rufai, as saying that the Nigerian Government has given the approval for the building of a Technology Village. Nigeria will be building its own Silicon Valley on a 650 hectare property, located in a suburb of the Federal Capital city, Abuja. The Newspaper article quoted El-Rufai as saying, we want to create a city of knowledge in Abuja. And on the way to the airport, we have got about 650 hectares of land we have reserved out of the Abuja master-plan. What we hope to do with the technology village, which is going to cost us between $300 to $400 million is to have the highest quality infrastructure attracting the best brains in information and bio-technology, pharmaceutical and Information Technology (IT) research to work in Abuja. (1) ** Silicon Valley Story The determination of such a center's success is not so much the technology or the planning but the building of a framework of governance from which financial, technological and social infrastructure can emerge in a climate of trust and transparency. Such a realization of a grand vision, necessarily involves the social and cultural components of storytelling and myth-making. Silicon Valley at its essence is a replaying of the modern American mythology of rugged individualism. The story of Apple Computer being started in Steve Jobs' garage is repeated again and again, so that it has become the classic Silicon Valley success story. It is the story of hard working, highly intelligent people who identify innovations and know how to make them happen by working with other, often underappreciated innovators. Ironically, though, the very necessary ingredients which led to America's Silicon Valley success (and its overall success in modern times) are being weakened from the pressures of a ruling class that eshews accountability and transparency. * Pre-conditions to Take-off: 1. Such a center would ideally be organized to avoid any of the transparency and corruption issues that plaque Nigerian civil society. In this way it could be a model for a more decentralized model of governance as an alternative to the nation-state model and therefore putting Africa on the leading edge of post-industrial development. 2. Rather than seek to create one massive center it might be more realistic to develop several prototype nodes that could experiment with leading ICT as well as other leading sector innovations and then integrate them to create new models of living that are suitable for emerging markets. These nodes would be designed to be rapidly replicated into surrounding regions, eventually forming a decentralized, distributed grid that would facilitate sustainable commerce. This would include communications, food production, consulting as well as ICT related services. 3. Emphasis would be on an open source, community scaled and ICT augmented development paradigm rather than a top-down proprietary model that reinforces elite-periphery dynamics. Jeff ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] Nigeria: Silicon Valley Transplant
This is an interesting conversation and I see the points from both sides. I think Ken is right in questioning the idea that you cannot as Tim says skip the first three stages and go straight to flying. I want to make an important distinction here between infrastructure approach and readiness and mental/organizational capacity/readiness. There are preconditions to take off such as outlined by former Kennedy/Johnson advisor Walter Rostow: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RcpyDDw_J4wJ:www.duke.edu/~jcd10/SO C126/Devolop1.doc+stages+to+take-offhl=enlr=lang_en I feel also that these preconditions to nation-state development critical mass also apply today. Because what Rostow is talking about applies not just to nation states but to all aspects of human development. His stages to take-off are a generalized set of criteria relating to developing momentum towards a critical mass within a particular system towards rapid growth and replication. From my perspective we are talking about a rule of physics that applies to human phenomena and relates specifically to a core area of interest to the group here: growth and modernization (and preferably fitting the triple bottom line criteria of ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development). I see ICT as an augmentation tool that can rapidly change the dynamics and characteristics of the growth curve that Rostow described. The concept of disruptive technologies offers another new concept to the mix. When disruptive technologies as well as approaches are applied effectively as part of a comprehensive package of solutions to address not only development, but world urgent issues like global warming, AIDS and loss of biodiversity, we start to see that the old rules of development don't always apply. Now I want to emphasize I am not talking about rejecting Rostow's assumptions because to me to reject those preconditions he is talking about is sort of like saying the law of conservation of energy does not apply. However what we see is many assumptions that conventional development policymakers and economists make about the best way to develop a society not only are increasingly irrelevant, but are counterproductive to the stated goals and intentions. What many of us are seeing materialize is something that is truly a bittersweet experience for us, because we see the potential of disruptive technologies and approaches to totally transform human reality like never before. However, the human network readiness on a global level is still not in place to properly execute this. Therefore, it is very frustrating for many of us to visualize the integration of these various disruptive technologies and approaches into a comprehensive and whole systems approach to sustainable development. We see the potential is there but the capacity to effectively implement (so that the effectiveness of ICT as an augmentation tool is obvious and unchallenged) is still missing. The central component of this thesis relates not only to ICT/wireless. What we are seeing is that new technologies in every aspect of human existence are rapidly making the old technologies and centralized infrastructure systems obsolete. This has important implications on the very way in which economies grow because: 1) It impacts ROI, primarily by significantly reducing the infrastructure costs of development. 2) We are at a unique point in history. Those previously marginalized by highly hierarchical systems of command and control suddenly have access to tools to disrupt the conventional order/status quo of contemporary society. The technologies are there and ready to be applied, what is needed now is the effective ICT augmented global network. However, this is not just an issue of organization but mental and organizational readiness: right attitude and right mindset. There has to be a basic level of educational aptitude, strong social networks, effective governance, financial backing, a general economic justification for developing an integrated ICT infrastructure and network and finally a firm resolve to do so, and maybe that is what Tim is getting at. You can have all the innovative ideas about wireless networks and disruptive and sustainable technologies, but if there is not the right execution or implementation, it has limited value... as theory that seems plausible but is not proven to be true on a practical level. To effectively address the unprecedented challenges that humanity now faces (which extend far beyond issues of development to embrace the very nature of modernity and human existence) we need to get many of us (including me) who spend a lot of time on the computers talking, more fully engaged in implementation in the field. Jeff Buderer | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sustainable Design/Project Development oneVillage Foundation USA | http://www.onevillagefoundation.org oneVillage.biz | www.onevillage.biz 102 Ballatore Ct. San Jose CA 95134 Cell 408.813.5135 Yahoo IM: jefbuder
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Is Profitability Essential for Sustainability?
as the reality that the money has to come from somewhere and I think we would all prefer that capital flow be sustainable and not interrupted. The core issue is not financial sustainability but financial stability and local empowerment. Many current projects are not financially sustainable and they are dependent on funding from affluent countries. Now I am not necessarily against this but I do feel that it needs to be a system that is more accountable, more direct, focusing on end-to-end human services rather than on sustaining bloated, inefficient and highly centralized bureaucracies with high overhead. With ICT, we can enable networks that make the bottom-up economy empower the grassroots in emerging markets but also the grassroots in affluent countries. This is what we call at oneVillage a multi-track approach because it considers the complementary (rather than adversarial) nature/relationships of people in both the affluent and non-affluent worlds and explore how we can work together through the development of end-to-end human services. I would say the donor driven ideology is problematic in the development field because it encourages a disconnect to emerge between the people who are served and people who provide the funding, organize the projects and design and build them. It also encourages a dependency mentality whereby people spend much time filling out grant proposals and all the associated paper work. This from my perspective has a very limited ROI and actually inhibits our creative and innovative capacity to find solutions and effectively more forward in reaching our ambitious sustainable development goals. An alternative non-profit subsidy framework could involve using ICT to develop a research database to outline the costs of the current globalization model and to evaluate the economic, social and ecological sustainability of existing capital and resource flows. For example, because Ghana faced a high debt load in the 80s, it was forced to increase the export of natural resources and much of this was not ecologically sustainable as the forest cover dwindled. Now if these transnational trade flows were deemed unsustainable (as most are), then a tax would be levied on that product or service. Consumers in affluent countries would then more accurately pay the full ecological and social cost of that product. This fee would go to defray and mitigate the costs of these unsustainable practices possibly building rural development/empowerment centers. The emphasis would not be on profitability but on developing local social enterprises that would provide local services using ICT to build capacity through education, health and improved agricultural practices, and to promote the sustainable management of natural resources. They might actually be profitable in many cases with the money plowed into the replication/expansion of these sustainable prototypes. Their focus would be on addressing local ecological degradation such as biodiversity loss, soil loss, water loss, desertification, and loss of cultural identity through tree planting, land preservation, carbon sequestration and sustainable agriculture, etc. Jeff Buderer oneVillage Foundation Sustainable Design/Project Development www.onevillagefoundation.org www.onevillage.biz http://blog.onevillage.tv Cell 408.813.5135 Yahoo IM: jefbuder http://www.ryze.com/go/Jefbuder This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Is Profitability Essential for Sustainability?
Dear GKD Members, It is great to hear all the thoughtful ideas and I am encouraged by them particularly as a nice counterpoint to the recent political setbacks in US. I am working with a start up social enterprise called the oneVillage Foundation http://www.onevillagefoundation.org. We are excited by this conference and the potential of BOP. We currently are in the beginning stages of developing what we call Unity Centers. I hope that our work on this may have some relevance to this discussion. Most telecenters are not profitable or economically self-sustaining. This would not be an issue so much if the telecenters were developing an integrated program of development that incubated social enterprises in the communities they operated out of. It is not so much an issue of whether telecenters are directly profitable but whether they are building economic value in the communities they are operating in. Yet as Meddie Mayanja seems to imply, profit is essential not only for successful ICT Development but for all things done in a civilized society. If one is ideologically downed by the idea of profit then one can use the term resources. To replicate sustainable communities-based economies you need to have a return on the initial investment. Here is one scenario we have looked at as we have worked to develop a comprehensive plan for local community development around ICT centers: ICT centers could be designed as money losers but the businesses and other organizations they incubate or assist could pay a fund to keep the operation going from their profits or surplus revenues. At the same time, the program could be designed to subsidize small groups doing research and organizational work relevant to increasing the momentum of local development. People just wanting to see the Madonna website or find out if Bush won the re-election on CBS.com would have to pay to use the computers, as would be the case in normal cyber-cafes where everyone has to pay. The subsidy towards serious computer usage would discourage frivolous use of what is still a very precious resource in non-affluent countries. I think it is important to not only look at profit but how the profits are spent. This is a real issue in non-affluent nations and also affluent ones (probably more so as they are the 15% of the world's population that unsustainably consumes 85% of the world's resources) as well. More on this later... Jeff This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
