I guess everyone will vote for Poverty if asked to choose between "Poverty" and "Bridging Digital Divide". As a technical person, acquainted fairly with what ICT (information, communication, technology) can do to help the poor, I would confuse myself with what what to choose.
The interview of Diego Rumiany really gives an interesting perspective on poverty vs bridging digital divide, when he was confronted with a question
Is it indecent or is it an obligation to fight against the Digital Divide while hunger is still a major issue ?
Well he is very true. In today's information age, the only way to combat poverty is to properly manage information and knowledge. Information is power so if information is exploited at every level and corner of country, then poverty and underdevelopment need not be addressed separately.
The interview of Diego Rumiany really gives an interesting perspective on poverty vs bridging digital divide, when he was confronted with a question
Is it indecent or is it an obligation to fight against the Digital Divide while hunger is still a major issue ?
[...]Why are we talking about introducing a particular technology when a lot of people are dying because of hunger?[...]
I’m sure nobody will disagree that it is more important to feed a person than giving him/her Internet access. However, it is not so clear to everybody that “Bridging the Digital Divide” means more than that. Take a look. When “Bridging the Digital Divide” means providing the infrastructure to a village to distribute their products, fostering entrepreneurial activity, creating business networks, stimulating trade, generating employment and, consequently, streamlining food distribution in a region and reducing hunger, then we are not “Bridging the Digital Divide” anymore but fighting hunger instead.
I argue that there is a problem with the Logic of “Bridging the Digital Divide”. We tend to think that we need to overcome obstacles to cross the bridge and reduce the Digital gap, when those obstacles are actually our primary objectives.
This might be a marketing problem. Answering your question, we need to show that fighting the Digital Divide is a way to reduce hunger (I am convinced about this), and not two separate issues that need to be prioritized.
I’m sure nobody will disagree that it is more important to feed a person than giving him/her Internet access. However, it is not so clear to everybody that “Bridging the Digital Divide” means more than that. Take a look. When “Bridging the Digital Divide” means providing the infrastructure to a village to distribute their products, fostering entrepreneurial activity, creating business networks, stimulating trade, generating employment and, consequently, streamlining food distribution in a region and reducing hunger, then we are not “Bridging the Digital Divide” anymore but fighting hunger instead.
I argue that there is a problem with the Logic of “Bridging the Digital Divide”. We tend to think that we need to overcome obstacles to cross the bridge and reduce the Digital gap, when those obstacles are actually our primary objectives.
This might be a marketing problem. Answering your question, we need to show that fighting the Digital Divide is a way to reduce hunger (I am convinced about this), and not two separate issues that need to be prioritized.
Well he is very true. In today's information age, the only way to combat poverty is to properly manage information and knowledge. Information is power so if information is exploited at every level and corner of country, then poverty and underdevelopment need not be addressed separately.
No comments:
Post a Comment