No it doesn’t. They still need civil rights and food. IT apparently makes them very happy. That doesn;t mean they don’t need food and civil rights.

I agree that, since we live in a society that has made computers and connectivity important in order to function, giving people those tools is helpful for survival. I love the idea of teaching developing nations the same skills i’ve been able to garner here in media and computers. I want a more even playing field all around. I’m just saying, none of that has to do with being happy. Cory’s post claims they are happier, and that’s just not true.

Second: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, give a man a broadband connection and WOW and he will not eat at all.

Rather than, say, forming a business out of it. Through your mobile phone, you’re suddenly turned into the smartest guy in the village. You’re suddenly the modern witchdoctor, with access to weather reports, to animal care and husbandry knowledge, to medical knowledge, to a world’s worth of tips on increasing crop yields.

You can communicate with people many day’s walk away, so you can tell people it’s not worth trekking over to the market at village A, since they had a bumper crop with all the rain, and instead go to village B, where the floods wiped out most of theirs.

You can talk to banks, and put separated families in touch with each other.

You don’t need a business plan, or startup funding from an angel investor. You’re “the guy with the phone”. Everyone in the village knows that, and they will all come to you. The only people they love more are the guy with the truck, and the guy with the ox and plough.

To claim that the point of technology is about keeping up with the Joneses is completely missing the point, and sadly suggests someone who actually BELIEVES Apple’s advertising.

When you’re poor, technology isn’t for posing. It’s a tool, something that makes something possible or simple, that was previously complex or impossible. And tools make their owners happy. “The guy with the chainsaw” is a popular and happy guy, too.

I don’t get it – communication is a basic human function, and yes, I’m talking talking and SMSg, not Facebooking or World of Warlockery Unicornery.

How about the conversation continues … ” the local witch doc is wrong again about the rain! Let’s stop giving him our goats!”

I’m torn between “Well, duh. New avenue for social mobility.” and “Well, duh. This conclusion reached because social exclusion/women’s issues are the shibboleths required to open the taps for all that delicious third sector grant money.”

Who do I see about getting some money for old rope like this?

More, it can be useful – and leverage social networks for massive use, like helping in disaster zones – see yesterday’s Danger Room report – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/preparing-for-the-next-haiti-with-maps-texts-and-tweets/

And as for civil rights and food – comms help people get both.

Civil rights with no communications, as an extreme, ain’t worth a suck on a dog’s ass, and although dictators can hamper comms, they can’t extinguish completely.

As for getting food – rapidly some smart kid in a social network will spread word about resource access and availability.

All in – a great thing, and so flipping obvious that I’m annoyed a group of people have spent time and money writing a paper.

“Anti-IT-development argument” – sounds suspiciously stone age to me.

Duh?

hmm. weird. such touching faith in research conducted by clearly not wholly unbiased ppl. RIAA, FRC, NRA etc all tell me things. but. umm. like, the IT ppl tell me that IT is win, I’m like, whatever.

Access to tech also squashes the time it takes to gain capability in a certain field down to your capability to learn it – rather than fighting to access the intellectual property in the first place.

I don’t mean to completely ignore the genuine ways in which tech can enhance lives in developing nations – for instance, banking by cell phone is ideal for people living in isolated villages who previously had to trek miles to the nearest branch to deposit their money. That this also causes new hurdles (i.e. paying to power the device, maintenance of the phone, danger of theft, etc.) does not completely override the major benefits to people’s quality of life that can accrue from this tech. But I think two things need to be considered here: A) What works in the West won’t necessarily be how people use tech in the developing world, and B) Promotion of tech shouldn’t altogether replace efforts to improve basic services that guarantee quality of life (e.g. you need to be healthy – say, have access to clean drinking water – in order to be capable of learning how to use new technologies, for example).

In the end, food is a necessity, self-esteem is a necessity, but owning an iPad is not a necessity. Sorry, tech-lovers.

Why does it seem like some people are against this kind of self-improvement? Real progress happens from the inside, no matter how much foreign aid you send over.

Consequently, when they’re only offered food or agricultural tools but not technology they complain to rich nations saying “We don’t want to be where you were twenty years ago – we want to be where you are now, especially in terms of technological capability”.

I say, with apologies for any sky-godly taint – teach a man to fish.

And if with his iphone he can geo-co-ordinate with his mates where a good shoal is, so much the better.