10 ms·

Smart phones have completely transformed access to information, finance and services in poor countries. Would a UN SDG focussed research agenda have prioritised

Smart phones have completely transformed access to information, finance and services in poor countries. Would a UN SDG focussed research agenda have prioritised technologies that enabled that, such as 4G, high density batteries, tiny low power SoCs, etc.? Often, the future use of scientific study isn't obvious until many years or decades later. Wouldn't this just result in prioritising scientists who are good at writing funding applications that make BS claims about how this area of research will reduce global poverty? We already see quite a lot of that. It seems to me that the most impactful technology rarely comes from SDG focussed research.

gsatic 4y ago
More like things are getting so complex no one has any clue what good science and tech policy is anymore.
- User23 4y ago
  A big problem is that the kind of people inclined to become government bureaucrats are far from the best people to guide any sort of research effort.
  - liketochill 4y ago
    Because the rewards for being in government are less than in private sector. So we should identify high performers in government and pay them more.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Can you give me an example of how things are more complex today than they were 100 years ago? We have more complex widgets perhaps, but people seem to be the same.
  - tbrownaw 4y ago
    International trade is cheaper and more predictable, so there's a lot more of it now. The economy is just bigger than it used to be, which means it has more room for complexity to live in.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Perhaps you and I have different definitions of complexity. I identify complexity as increased costs due to an increased action space. In 1920, Jim can wake up and sit in the house or go to work. In 2020, Jim can wake up and site in the house (fiddling with a phone) or go to work. In 1920, Royce has to take 2 hours to iron clothes with an iron heated in the hearth. In 2020, Royce pulls clothes out of the dryer and throws them on a hanger, reducing clothing maintenance for presentability by 75%. Cars in 1970 has simpler systems. Cars in 2020 have more complexity. The additional complexity lets Alice have a higher standard of living, meaning the time traded for maintaining the car herself versus taking to a mechanic is at worst an even trade, at best much less time to drop off. Just because something has grown doesn't mean the cost of actions have increased. Maybe its harder to corner the silver market due to the internet existing, but that really wasn't a desirable outcome anyhow.
      - tbrownaw 4y ago
        But complexity as related to policy design has nothing to do with the how much it costs any one individual to navigate the decision space available to them.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    DDT is a decent example... A major chemical insecticide that was used /everywhere/ in huge quantities, and was shown eventually to be terrible for all kinds of non-insect populations (like birds) with a tendency to linger in the environment for decades. These days we have a great many more choices of insecticides, and major declines in insect biomass and animal populations. Nailing down the culprit(s) is much harder because while there's a huge amount of spraying, there are far more chemicals to choose from. (The neonicotonoid family of insecticides seems like the best candidate, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid ) and, btw, here's the insect decline follow-up study: https://www.dw.com/en/munich-study-confirms-severe-decline-in-insect-populations-in-germany/a-51052955 https://www.dw.com/en/munich-study-confirms-severe-decline-i... 67% decline in ten years is TERRIFYING. Let's keep in mind that the SDG's include studying and preventing the potential impending collapse of the biosphere...
basilgohar 4y ago
The items you've listed, as well as "impact", are not the goals of SDG-focused research. From the linked article, it identifies clearly this disconnect: In both the Global North and Global South — and across areas such as health, food or energy — research and innovation funds tend to be spent on technologies that benefit private interests, rather than on those that more directly address social and environmental problems. The research shows that most high-income countries do not prioritise research on the major environmental challenges associated with unsustainable consumption and production patterns. In fact, your assertion that things like 4G, high density batteries, and tiny low power SoCs, etc. illustrate this well. Those do not specifically help with the issues of sustainability in low income areas. Think of things like sanitation, access to clean water, sustainable food production, etc. Not everything needed for improving quality of life and opportunities has a high-tech solution.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Approximately zero innovation is needed to provide sanitation, clean water, or food production in the poorest areas of the world. They are not that way for lack of some rich country developing a new widget or publishing a paper. Global poverty like that is the result of lack of resources and poor society/government organization.
  - mangecoeur 4y ago
    That’s exactly the whole point of this work: that too much effort is spent developing new widgets instead of figuring out why governance or society is not delivering peoples needs and what to do about it. This needs interdisciplinary approaches that are not tech focused.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Sanitation: shovels, pipes, and pumps Clean water access: shovels, pipes, pumps, treatment processes Food: roads, shovels, pipes, pumps, transportation No interdisciplinary approaches needed. Resources, rule of law (so builders don't abscond with funds), a tidbit of path planning, and Bob's your Uncle. Lower the costs and mitigate the risks.
onos 4y ago
Perhaps we should funnel more resources to the problems they quote, but it seems to me we already are doing a lot: global poverty rates have dropped dramatically over the last one hundred years, much attention is given to social justice concerns and debating how to adjust society in response, and clean energy is also a large focus. Society has other concerns… the authors should argue why we need to further neglect those in favor of their preferred areas, but haven’t done it.

gsatic 4y ago

More like things are getting so complex no one has any clue what good science and tech policy is anymore.

User23 4y ago
A big problem is that the kind of people inclined to become government bureaucrats are far from the best people to guide any sort of research effort.
- liketochill 4y ago
  Because the rewards for being in government are less than in private sector. So we should identify high performers in government and pay them more.
tomrod 4y ago
Can you give me an example of how things are more complex today than they were 100 years ago? We have more complex widgets perhaps, but people seem to be the same.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  International trade is cheaper and more predictable, so there's a lot more of it now. The economy is just bigger than it used to be, which means it has more room for complexity to live in.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Perhaps you and I have different definitions of complexity. I identify complexity as increased costs due to an increased action space. In 1920, Jim can wake up and sit in the house or go to work. In 2020, Jim can wake up and site in the house (fiddling with a phone) or go to work. In 1920, Royce has to take 2 hours to iron clothes with an iron heated in the hearth. In 2020, Royce pulls clothes out of the dryer and throws them on a hanger, reducing clothing maintenance for presentability by 75%. Cars in 1970 has simpler systems. Cars in 2020 have more complexity. The additional complexity lets Alice have a higher standard of living, meaning the time traded for maintaining the car herself versus taking to a mechanic is at worst an even trade, at best much less time to drop off. Just because something has grown doesn't mean the cost of actions have increased. Maybe its harder to corner the silver market due to the internet existing, but that really wasn't a desirable outcome anyhow.
    - tbrownaw 4y ago
      But complexity as related to policy design has nothing to do with the how much it costs any one individual to navigate the decision space available to them.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  DDT is a decent example... A major chemical insecticide that was used /everywhere/ in huge quantities, and was shown eventually to be terrible for all kinds of non-insect populations (like birds) with a tendency to linger in the environment for decades. These days we have a great many more choices of insecticides, and major declines in insect biomass and animal populations. Nailing down the culprit(s) is much harder because while there's a huge amount of spraying, there are far more chemicals to choose from. (The neonicotonoid family of insecticides seems like the best candidate, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid ) and, btw, here's the insect decline follow-up study: https://www.dw.com/en/munich-study-confirms-severe-decline-in-insect-populations-in-germany/a-51052955 https://www.dw.com/en/munich-study-confirms-severe-decline-i... 67% decline in ten years is TERRIFYING. Let's keep in mind that the SDG's include studying and preventing the potential impending collapse of the biosphere...

basilgohar 4y ago

The items you've listed, as well as "impact", are not the goals of SDG-focused research. From the linked article, it identifies clearly this disconnect: In both the Global North and Global South — and across areas such as health, food or energy — research and innovation funds tend to be spent on technologies that benefit private interests, rather than on those that more directly address social and environmental problems. The research shows that most high-income countries do not prioritise research on the major environmental challenges associated with unsustainable consumption and production patterns. In fact, your assertion that things like 4G, high density batteries, and tiny low power SoCs, etc. illustrate this well. Those do not specifically help with the issues of sustainability in low income areas. Think of things like sanitation, access to clean water, sustainable food production, etc. Not everything needed for improving quality of life and opportunities has a high-tech solution.

colechristensen 4y ago
Approximately zero innovation is needed to provide sanitation, clean water, or food production in the poorest areas of the world. They are not that way for lack of some rich country developing a new widget or publishing a paper. Global poverty like that is the result of lack of resources and poor society/government organization.
- mangecoeur 4y ago
  That’s exactly the whole point of this work: that too much effort is spent developing new widgets instead of figuring out why governance or society is not delivering peoples needs and what to do about it. This needs interdisciplinary approaches that are not tech focused.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Sanitation: shovels, pipes, and pumps Clean water access: shovels, pipes, pumps, treatment processes Food: roads, shovels, pipes, pumps, transportation No interdisciplinary approaches needed. Resources, rule of law (so builders don't abscond with funds), a tidbit of path planning, and Bob's your Uncle. Lower the costs and mitigate the risks.

onos 4y ago

Perhaps we should funnel more resources to the problems they quote, but it seems to me we already are doing a lot: global poverty rates have dropped dramatically over the last one hundred years, much attention is given to social justice concerns and debating how to adjust society in response, and clean energy is also a large focus. Society has other concerns… the authors should argue why we need to further neglect those in favor of their preferred areas, but haven’t done it.