Re: [GKD] Digital Divide vs. Social Divide.
Chris Bragg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I think there is a real value to the observation that many development projects stray on the wrong side of the 80/20 rule in an effort to ensure maximum value from the project, I cannot agree that the factors effecting decision making are in any way different from one community to the next, when viewed at the point where the decision is finally made. Whether a committee, election processes or referenda, or a single autocratic individual makes the choice the important fact is that the decision is made on the basis of existing knowledge and a necessity to reach a decision, for one or other reason. It may be that multiple people make the decision and then cast a vote, or it may be one person makes the decision, but the principle is the same in each case. In an ideal world, all decisions would be rational and evidence based. In the real world, amost none are. The experience, perception and understanding (i.e. knowledge) of those who perceive a need to make a decision and the quality and quantity of existing knowledge of those who make the decision, will impact on the decision whoever makes it. Whatever form and shape that knowledge takes, whether induced by a formal university degree, or a specific research study, or traditional folklore, or social awareness and political understanding of what is desirable or not, surely we can safely accept that in the general sense 'better knowledge' will lead to 'better decisions'. Better knowledge has the potential to lead to better decisions if you mean rational and evidence based decisions. But for many (most?) people rationality and evidence can be tossed aside at the drop of a hat. I have a health economist friend who does very good work for a number of agencies including WHO. Her work is very rational, accessible and based on good data. It shows what optimal level of investment in primary prevention could yield in long term chronic care savings and quality of life. Pretty basic stuff that some detailed costing data and a spreadsheet can generate. It also amounts to many millions saved that could be invested in education, welfare etc. Not to mention thousands of lives in which chronic care is prevented. Selling this message to the health fraternity is very difficult because innoculation, health screening, regular checkups etc. aren't empires. Running a hospital is an empire. Millions spent in imaging and other equipment is an empire. Nurses with a clip board do not make an empire. Apart from that, being rational doesn't leave much flexibility for political ploys. Cutting out breast imaging for women under a certain age may be rational because it yields no real benefits, but try selling that rational decision to a voting public in a marginal electorate. I think it is a common mistake for the rationally trained to believe that others appreciate rationality, logic and evidence. It is a mistake I made after 15 years as an academic. When I asked people to write up their arguments, evidence, methodologies and logic as a consultant I was simply regarded as an argumentative jerk. I was willng to accept the best argument from any source, but most of the people I worked with knew what I didn't- that rationality had very little to do with anything. Indeed, the vast majority of people have very little understanding of anything logical. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that one of the barriers to aircraft over 1000 passengers is not technology- it is simply the fallout that a crash of a single plane would have on passenger risk perception. Again, the risks would not have shifted but people will not be amenable to a logical contradiction. If you really look, there are many structures, processes and policies in any society that are plainly irrational and which persist because it suits the status quo or because change is simply unacceptable to the populace as a whole or to influential groups. Self interest is an amazingly rational thing for the individual and a disaster for the whole. (shades of tragedy of the commons). If people don't have time to gather better knowledge we have to find ways to enable them to have time - and this means a better standard of living usually, basic needs like fresh water and food closer to hand and electricity/light to extend daylight hours, and as so rightly pointed out, the opportunity to apply better knowledge for immediate and long term benefit. Yes, when people (usually individuals) have the power to implement their decisions, then better information does indeed yield better decisions. But as pointed out above, once an implementation decision needs to be filtered through some approval process, then the politics of the group and the divergent interests of the individuals that comprise it come to the fore. Perry Morrison http://www.alteich.com/links/morrison.htm http://www.geocities.com/perrymorrison/oz_aboriginal_comms.html ***GKD is
Re: [GKD] Linux Aid Server Project
I think what is at issue here is the different contexts involved. Edmond Gaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On simplicity: Although laptops are durable and feature low power requirements, they're more expensive and much more difficult to service. In school computer labs, teachers and students often become adept at scavenging parts to repair desktop computers. Such activities, although arising out of need, become one of the benefits of participating in school computers clubs. Such activities are _much_ more difficult with laptops. In Zimbabwe, at least through 1998, servicing of a laptop required that the machine be shipped to South Africa. In my communities there are no spares, let alone bins of cards for mating to motherboards and power supplies. Laptops eat less dust in the places I work (smaller fans in very open buildings) and hack the 100 lightning hits per hr in some ridges get in Arnhem Land. Probably the reason the US has a lightning research station in Darwin. When our machines die that's it. We can't even afford the funeral. But in my experience, the isolation of old laptops from the power grid and their smaller ingestion of dust leads to better longevity. I don't advocate new laptops in these environments (who can afford them anyway). But free discarded ones meet some people's needs fine for quite a long time. On new technologies: Several features of Matthew Grant's proposed server design have already proven valuable for the Virtual Didactic Lab education project in Sao Paulo -- and could be of similar value to other projects that require heavy e-mail / Internet use in regions that are infrastructure-poor or poorly regulated. The LabVirt project engages secondary-school students in the design of physics simulations, which are then built in Java by graduate students at University of Sao Paulo, and uploaded to a central repository for use as teaching/learning tools. Schools involved in the project, located in underserved communities throughout the state of Sao Paulo, generally have 10-computer labs, with machines on the order of Pentium 1s and 2s. The project has designed and built a blackbox server, which sits on one of the school's 10 workstations. This server links the computers in a LAN, giving them all access to the printer and maximizing the lab's limited hard-drive space. OK, here's one of my contexts. 25 unreliable party lines in an area the size of a small European country. Cut off by floods for 3-6 months a year. Reliant on air and barge supply. Phone pits regularly blown out by lightning. Irregular and poorly conditioned power. Dust ridden, unconditioned buildings. I won't even begin to describe the social dysfunctionality. 10 computers here will not happen for a long time- if ever. A network here is 2 itinerant PCs that have the occasional liaison via a crossover cable. Hence my comment to a private poster: Of course, the whole free software movement is great. I applaud it mightily. But let's just remember that the people we want to help don't have 2 cents literally, let alone 2 cents of opinion to contribute to religious software debates. If an old, ugly, creaky DOS machine lands on their desk and meets their needs, who are we to tell them any different? It might actually be the only computer they see for quite a while. Personally, I'm the last one to tell them they have to wait until they can afford a Linux network. (And what else is Linux for?) Critically, in a project that involves students uploading graphics and downloading Java applets, the server uses call-scheduling to optimize all email transactions -- processing these when the lab is unused and when the city's phone lines have the least traffic. If the phones are down or the connection is poor, the task is re-scheduled. (The LabVirt project has completed its second year -- I'm unaware of any publicly accessible web artifacts.) One could argue, as well, that _any_ Linux-based proposal for developing countries should be given serious consideration as part of an effort to reduce the future costs and constraints of participation in an otherwise exclusionary networked society. Linux has already become much more user friendly, with graphical interfaces (not unlike Windows) and simpler distributions. It continues to run well on older computers (e.g., 486s), Well, not with a GUI it won't. You'll be restricted to a reduced distribution with a shell interface. Not a nice thing for the novice and the root account provides huge destructive potential for novices. and provides good Internet-browsing capabilities even on those machines. And integration of Linux into development projects is one way to ensure that this collaboratively created alternative evolves to better meet the needs of developing-country users. In an alternative view of the future, Microsoft is releasing its new developers' toolkit (C-Sharp) this week, intended to compete with Java [open-source, free],
Re: [GKD] India Adopts Universal Access
Alan Levy wrote: Well, Perry, I agree to a point and have covered this in a less techie more socio-political email sent previously. Herein is my argument to provide an equitable platform for participation, along with a defined group of basic communications applications. Everything is determined by the network, which is why I call for more networks, and the need to specifically apply applications to the minimal requisite network technology... to avoid cross-subsidization, achieve true application cost, maintain market pressure in pricing and innovation on information providers, and create affordable access to basic ICT participation. To do otherwise solely serves big business and big government in ways that will in time become clear are simply downright evil... forms of interactivity and data collection you are not going to like, and that cause loss of freedoms, individuality and identity. I agree totally with this. Networks and their dynamics, interconnects and traffic management, pricing and content policies etc. are exactly what I'm on about. They're simply one form of political power structure that can dramatically affect the real benefits of technology- especially in terms of equity. However, the pattern of social, commercial and political relationships that drive network dynamics also works at all levels from government/business down to the village level and it's powerbrokers. Technology simply runs through the conduits of existing power structures- usually to strengthen them or enhance their control or position. Sometimes technologies create new conduits of power but again these are usually controlled by the powerful. Twas ever thus. None of this is surprising. What is surprising is the naive view that many technologists have that somehow new technologies will change, reverse or alter the relativities of power and control. My point has been that technologies can create absolute gains for the less powerful in solving practical problems--we can indeed improve some aspects of standard of living. But the relativities will always be with us. As a concrete example, email and internet may improve the commercial situation of microbusinesses in some countries through better marketing, more flexible purchase arrangements and formation of cooperatives and local industry groups to represent their interests. The marketing and purchase options are just technical issues that technology solves. Forming industry groups is a political act and the technology just makes it easier. Ultimately, if these efforts are very effective then they must actually hurt someone else's interests- their market share for example. The powerful amongst the affected parties can then use their (more powerful) technologies to monitor their newly effective competitors and use technological countersolutions for marketing etc. while pursuing political strategies such as tariff building and other market manipulation to return the status quo. Maybe in such scenarios there is no nett gain in absolute standard of living and certainly no change to the relativities. However, in understanding ICT, I project it'll take another ten years for most to become sufficiently conscious of this... by which time even a high legislative agenda won't be able even if desired... and it won't be... to disassemble monolithic sole-provider networks. The accompanying content and financial infrastructures will already be too entrenched. Agreed. I am also quite fearful of the power of technology to inform and to be informed on. This really shouldn't be a mystery for those highly educated. There are similarities to be found throughout history. I suggest that technology either clouds peoples thought processes, or provides a false belief that advances will continue to cure any dysfunction. Again, history abounds with examples explaining it just ain't so. Yes. As noted in another email I sent, a network is ubiquitous in nature, making a connection only an ID. As explained in my book, a low-cost access device required to work both with user and access device authentication and verification (an ID for both) eliminates potential for theft when borrowed. And a medium bandwidth network provides a very low cost applications platform. The Ma Bell history we're repeating is going to end with a far different outcome this time around. What's worse than a dearth of information? A glut of mythinformation. A dearth is noticeable and motivating. A fire hose of superficial, narrow, self centred, materialistic and trivial information is even worse I think. That, in my view is where we are and it may only get worse as enormous commercial and political interests amalgamate and centralise. Best Perry Morrison ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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:
Re: [GKD] India Adopts Universal Access
The Simputer is indeed a remarkable piece of technology. I soundly applaud the designers and backers and all the others who have tackled the array of hurdles (not just technical) involved. My only caution is to be aware of the history of almost every truly innovative technology- namely that those in advantaged positions are inevitably early adopters and reap benefits which can sometimes worsen the position of the less advantaged. The green revolution is some places allowed early adopters (wealthier) farmers to adopt hybrid crops and their essential fertilisers and the consequent windfall yields allowed them to crush and buy out smaller, uncompetitive farmers. If these Simputers are placed in the hands of the literate, organised and articulate within a village structure- usually the ones who can pay the hire costs - then this may provide a huge commercial and control opportunity. Imagine being the guy in the village who owns the only phone booth. He should be compensated for his maintenance, care and time, but it also creates opportunities for information control, extortion and deal making, not to mention cementing and expanding small, local monopolies by cutting out access to certain businesses. It's a bit like someone addressing a village meeting saying - I have this new thing, it's called a gun. Does anyone have the money to hire it? The rich guy running the brick factory steps forward and says I do. That's not to say that good things can't happen. But for once I would like to see an experiment where someone, somewhere just foots the bill to give technology ONLY to the poorest of the poor instead of the power structures that run the village or district. Maybe nothing different would happen. Maybe the technology would be back in the hands of the powerful the next day. How much rice is a simputer worth? On the other hand, supervised, supported, guaranteed control by an INDEPENDENT body - again without cost to the user - might be worth a try. Could be interesting. Perry Morrison ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
Tom Poe wrote: Hello: So, you don't have objections to moving computers over to developing countries, setting them on the tables of all the communities, and then discussing politics. Is this a correct perception of your comments? If so, then maybe the time has come to do just that: http://www.worldccr.org/kiosks.htm Not only don't I have objections, I have been doing this in very remote areas of Australia since 1996. I guess all I'm saying is that new communications tools don't necessarily change political/power imbalances. They make organising people and exchanging information a lot easier, but let's face it, the oppressed were storming the palace long before mass literacy was even evident. And when mass literacy helped the struggle, the oppressors used their own and more powerful propaganda and information tools. In general, technologies are congruent with the rest of the world- the powerful have more and better than the powerless. To use a different analogy, having a rifle helps a lot with hunting and feeding your family, but don't think that it will necessarily redress the political underpinnings of your malnutrition. The political basis of your starvation may be the dictator down the road, but your shiny new rifle won't tackle that situation- facing machine guns and maybe the odd bit of napalm. Yes, a gun is a bit better than a sharp stick. But when you had a sharp stick, the dictator only had rifles. And so it goes. I hope this analogy is useful, if a little too violent. In this same vein, the same basic communications tools used by the oppressed to change their circumstances can also be used against them by their oppressors (media disinformation, monitoring, data matching, data mosaics, funds tracking and interruption and simple communications with operatives/agents/sympathisers/employees). Probably the most powerful weapon the West has against the claims of the developing countries is to simply ignore it by basking in an inward looking, media hyped, materialist culture that revels in itself. It's not as if our TV screens have not been saturated with images of starving children and third world turmoil. There is no lack of awareness or even information. What is lacking is the political consensus that it actually MATTERS. It may be naive to think that ICTs in developing countries will suddenly make it matter when the West has a much greater ability to tune the message out, to corrupt it or just turn up the volume on its own orgy of self interest. To put it in a nutshell, some problems faced by the developing world are practical, physical problems that ICTs can address- technology to solve practical problems like getting the best design for a $200 shallow bore pump and advice on how to install and maintain it. Practical problems like market information, weather forecasts etc. However, ICTs won't be a magic bullet against the political processes that have determined your need for a bore pump so that you don't have to keep drinking from puddles. Your drinking from puddles probably has a lot to do with an internal power struggle, international arms deals, a non-level playing field in international trade and finance, international meddling and interference in your domestic arrangements (possibly via aid funds) and a host of other political factors. It would be nice to think that putting an internetted computer in such villages will support a massive international dialogue that will promote mutual understanding and ultimately redress the political processes that underly so many of the problems of the developing world. However, I just watched some TV for the first time in 4 years and I can't see much chance of reasoned dialogue piercing our cocoon of materialistic self interest- despite huge amounts of already available information on the issues of the developing world. Shallow is shallow regardless of the medium. In addition, as mentioned in one of my posts last year, many technologies have been touted as great equalisers of society, including railways, electricity, the telegraph, radio and TV. It's pretty obvious what DIDN'T happen and in restrospect it's obvious why- the problem of equity is a political problem, not a technological one or even a resource issue in many cases. Finally, just to complete my unholy thesis of cynicism- there is at least some possibility that greater communication around the world could actually lead to less healthy relationships. For example, I have been married for 18 years to an Australian Aboriginal woman- with all of the racism and bigotry that is normally associated with that status. It's interesting that indigenous people are usually treated better elsewhere than in than own country. North Americans often idolise Australian Aborigines in the noble savage mould, while Australians are often very attracted to First Americans. In their own countries, both are often stereotyped as drunk, lazy, dirty etc. With better communications, there is the
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
This thread is intriguing and appeals to my long term interest in the absolute vs relative gains provided by ICTs. There are really 3 points that I think are important. 1. Absolute gains in living standards. I agree that these technologies can deliver real gains in access to information, potentially better and cheaper forms of (some) service delivery and certainly the communications base to coordinate and self organise commercially and politically. For example, to take an obvious case, getting accurate weather, market and agricultural information is important in an absolute sense in terms of crop production, feeding people and export income. That is, ICTs can facilitate improvements in existing baseline living standards. 2. Despite these potential absolute gains, the relative imbalances in living standards will remain. That is, developing countries will always be a generation or two behind technologically for pretty obvious reasons. This may not be important if the aim is to provide an acceptable absolute living standard regardless of the level in say North America. 3. The global status quo is a relative imbalance of POWER that is simply refelected in (amongst many other things) similar imbalances in ICT capability. Augmenting ICT capability will not shift this relative power imbalance. For example, getting 10,000 African emails to Paris might be an achievement. Getting them read or even noticed might be a miracle. Especially when 100,000 emails come in from the Northern Hemisphere as well as videos, thousands of phone calls etc. In addition, the very tools that open up communications can be used to screen it out and even monitor those people or organisations that are particularly troublesome. J. Edgar Hoover did a pretty good job of monitoring miscreants using typewriter technology. Imagine what's possible today and imagine the media and informational tools now available to protect the interests of the status quo. So, the technologies that allow the oppressed to organise and communicate are trifling compared to those used by the the oppressors to screen them out, distort the message and actively undermine and subvert. And this imbalance will remain. In short, if the aim is to deliver an absolute and acceptable living standard to places that don't have this, then ICTs can play a role by supporting informational and human efficiencies. If ICTs are thought of as a new weapon that can be used to dramatically redress the power imbalances underlying global poverty and oppression, then I think this is an overstatement. Useful tools, yes. Magic weapon, no. Indeed, these same technologies can also be used to maintain or augment the catastrophic political divisions that exist WITHIN some developing countries just as much as they can be used to heal them. They are just tools after all. I remember reading some recent Western research on self report measures of subjective well-being (happiness for the rest of us). This suggested that the break point of income required for people to be happy was pretty low (in a Western sense) - from memory, something between US$5-10,000. That's when basic services appear to be possible. Beyond that, and despite the material frenzy that typifies much of the world, it appears that genetic factors are a much greater determinant of how we feel about each day and our life generally, rather than whether we have a porsche in the garage. I guess that explains why some of the grossly affluent are proactive in ending their days just a bit earlier than expected. Rather obviously, it's difficult to be happy when drinking from puddles and half one's children are dead before their fifth birthday. If, to use this example, ICTs can be used to deliver the water resource information, skills and support to redress such situations, I'm all for it. However, I'm not sure that they will have much role in changing the network of human power relationships that have determined and tolerated these and similar circumstances for so long. Despite every technological and social innovation, politics remain politics. Perry Morrison ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?
I think the issues raised under this thread are central to a huge number of ICT development efforts. It might be very useful to fund a study which examines the impact of major past technological changes in terms of equity, distribution of benefits etc. I know such material exists, but a focused study that concentrates on the relevance of ICTs would be very useful. Even my own cursory reading suggests that the invention of railroads and electicity production were predicted to act as great equalisers of society. And TV was going to be the engine for cheap, worldwide education. In many places the green revolution displaced poor farmers who couldn't pay for the technology into the urban slums and many 3rd world countries became the victims of multinational agribusiness. As a technology enthusiast and implementer, I would like to know how I can promote more good than harm in my activities. Perry Morrison ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Technology Wars
Tom Abeles wrote: John Afele's comments, below, are worth some serious thinking. There was a community biogas project in a developing country. When the gas lines were installed in the homes, they were pressure tested with water. The women were so happy to have water, they didn't want the water turned off so that the gas could flow. There are many stories of the best laid plans of social change agents where the intentions and the ultimate outcomes were different and, may I suggest, unanticipated and unable to be anticipated. I recall a case of a remote village in Pakistan that obtained better road access and all of a sudden through much greater interaction and the arrival of TV, discovered that they were poor. Things seemed to be a lot worse after that. A great deal of misery in this world is real and even more is mental/emotional misery. For me, while appalling levels of physical misery clearly exist and there is a moral obligation to address it, the situation is not helped by in your face media that shows the lives of the rich and famous. Starving is hard. Seeing the occasional broadcast of the feast next door is even harder. The CFC/environmental consequences of the bulk of India and China wanting fridge/freezers is pretty scary. But who am I to deny such lifestyle shifts - especially when the better preservation of food is associated with much better health outcomes. Perry Morrison ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
[GKD] Re: Overestimating the Digital Divide
Richards's point about "better than measured" e-mail access in the developing world is valid, however it doesn't diminish the extent of the Nth-Sth gap. E-mail may be the bread and butter (the killer "app") of the Internet, but real broadband connectivity is a true multiplier of productivity and better decisionmaking. For example I installed Internet connections in remote Aboriginal clinics in Australia more than 5 yrs ago. Email from a Dr. to a specialist was great but the bandwidth to have a decent database like Medline available in a browser in the middle of Arnhemland blew them away. I'll probably be involved in installing some v/conferencing systems out there soon. A 2" thick A4 box with a PC camera on top plugs into a 6" portable TV getting power from the car's cigarette lighter. The satellite antenna folds flat 6" x 6". The sat phone mobile dials up the satellite and you have portable 128K videoconferencing with something that weighs only a couple of Kg. A long way from the CNN reporter's moon dish in Baghdad! This bandwidth will allow research experts to be in NY while helping live with the fieldwork/observations of people in the field. Community residents who are unhappy with a bureaucracy can dial them up and lob a meeting rather than a letter- how's that for a quantum shift in accountability? We've already had virtual prison visits, interviews, parent/teacher nights and judicial hearings etc are just a step away. Being able to email anyone in the world is amazing, but being able to almost stand in their presence will make for a very different world (one day). Perry Morrison ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
