The Cell Phone Snake Oil
Is the digital divide a problem? If so, should it be solved? If so, how can it be solved?
The Economist believes that the answers are yes, yes, and cell phones. In the article The Real Digital Divide the UN’s approach of building “old school” infrastructure is criticized.
A better solution, according to the article, is the promotion of cell phone usage. The article points that the “evidence suggests that the mobile phone is the technology with the greatest impact on development.”
But I am skeptical.
First, the idea that cell phones create economic growth is hard for me to swallow. Is it possible that economic growth leads to more cell phone usage?
Second, I have trouble believing that the money spent on “Mobile Technology” would not be better spent on clean water technology or education technology.
Lastly the article states that a “new report from the World Bank notes that 77% of the world's population already lives within range of a mobile network.” If this is the case why is the problem not already getting better?
The implications of this scare me.
Now brace yourselves. As you may know, if you are a regular reader or a friend, I am a Christian who ascribes generally to conservative thought. Shocked I know.
If mobile technology is the solution to world poverty and the economic problems of the underdeveloped nations, then we need not do much more because soon they will have cell phone capability.
I am afraid that people would declare victory too soon and not apply the mass of resources over a long period of time needed to truly solve these problems.
I am worried I will hear a friend at church say, “we don’t need to give money to Samaritan’s Purse, I read that cell phones will fix the economies of the underdeveloped nations.”
Exaggeration I know but you picture.
Mobile technology may be a tool in opening communication, but we need to make sure we are doing all we can as Americans (and as a Christian in my case) to meet the needs of nations that are not as blessed as ourselves.
This problem is big: wars, famine, political corruption, religious oppression, unclean water, standards of sanitation, available healthcare, unfair trade standards, and on and on.
I don’t have too much faith that a cell phone in each hand will solve all of these.
The Economist believes that the answers are yes, yes, and cell phones. In the article The Real Digital Divide the UN’s approach of building “old school” infrastructure is criticized.
A better solution, according to the article, is the promotion of cell phone usage. The article points that the “evidence suggests that the mobile phone is the technology with the greatest impact on development.”
But I am skeptical.
First, the idea that cell phones create economic growth is hard for me to swallow. Is it possible that economic growth leads to more cell phone usage?
Second, I have trouble believing that the money spent on “Mobile Technology” would not be better spent on clean water technology or education technology.
Lastly the article states that a “new report from the World Bank notes that 77% of the world's population already lives within range of a mobile network.” If this is the case why is the problem not already getting better?
The implications of this scare me.
Now brace yourselves. As you may know, if you are a regular reader or a friend, I am a Christian who ascribes generally to conservative thought. Shocked I know.
If mobile technology is the solution to world poverty and the economic problems of the underdeveloped nations, then we need not do much more because soon they will have cell phone capability.
I am afraid that people would declare victory too soon and not apply the mass of resources over a long period of time needed to truly solve these problems.
I am worried I will hear a friend at church say, “we don’t need to give money to Samaritan’s Purse, I read that cell phones will fix the economies of the underdeveloped nations.”
Exaggeration I know but you picture.
Mobile technology may be a tool in opening communication, but we need to make sure we are doing all we can as Americans (and as a Christian in my case) to meet the needs of nations that are not as blessed as ourselves.
This problem is big: wars, famine, political corruption, religious oppression, unclean water, standards of sanitation, available healthcare, unfair trade standards, and on and on.
I don’t have too much faith that a cell phone in each hand will solve all of these.
4 Comments:
I had some of the same thoughts as you when I read the article.
The article talks about people using cell phones to make cashless payments and reduce transportation costs. Cell phones do not bring food and water. I think they help consumer spending, but capitalism would first need to thrive...and the people would need money.
I think the author is thinking that the cell phone boom in China can do the same in Africa.
I think the point the article was trying to make is, if you are investing in technology for the poorest regions in the world, invest in cell phones. To the authors, it's the only thing worth the investment at this point.
I don't think anyone is saying that food/water/medicine/political stability don't come first. I think there is something to be said for starting to bridge the digital divide now in addition to aid in the critical areas.
Cell phones are the wave of the future and we'd be smart to help those less fortunate than ourselves with cell phone technology.
One of the most striking points the author raised was that cell phones work for the literate and illiterate. So if we give them the internet, but they can't read - how does that help?
I agree that there are much larger problems like water resources, religious tollerance, ect... but we are already helping with those resources. Economic development will improve all of the things you mentioned as countries increase their economic strength and citizens have the buying power to improve their situations.
Now I'm the one sounding like Reagan...
Lots of good points. And I admire your concern for the poor, and I respect your faith. But I have to ask: does today's "conservative" philosophy (which some say is anti-thetical to what conservatism used to mean) really put those concerns on the front burner?
Post a Comment
<< Home