4 ms·

The conclusion of the article presents a false choice, and is flabbergastingly short-sighted: "Is progress really Wi-Fi on every street corner? No. It’s when n

The conclusion of the article presents a false choice, and is flabbergastingly short-sighted: "Is progress really Wi-Fi on every street corner? No. It’s when no 13-year-old girl on the planet gets sold for sex." First, wifi on every corner is progress. Second, you might need wifi on every corner to prevent the sex slavery. Third, even if you don't need the wifi, you can have both the arguable utility of wifi for the poor, and stop the sex slavery. I don't understand how anyone can fail to see the spread of the internet as a big step in the spread of knowledge, fail to marvel at our modern day printing press and all the good it has done. "Internet everywhere" seems like a pretty good philanthropic strategy to me.

capex 13y ago
From the business point of view, 'wifi everywhere' is a lot more desirable than say, clean water everywhere.
- nine_k 13y ago
  Clean water is often harder to provide. People that lack clean water usually don't have any use for wifi; if they had enough money for a wifi-enabled gadget, they'd probably spend it on clean water provisioning or other life-support needs. So they are a bad market for wifi deployments. From business point of view, "well-off people everywhere" is very desirable, since poor people are poor customers. Unfortunately, this problem is not readily solved by pouring in some modest money. Imagine donating to North Korea; probably the money will mostly end up in military programs, even if some of the money will actually feed the undernourished. But political influence is usually a big no-no.
  - hamsternipples 13y ago
    the first thing I thought about is paying my taxes in the US: most of my money will end up in military programs [0], but I do have the option to opt a percentage of my money out of those military programs by donating to charity -- a tax break. I agree, clean water should be a top priority, whether it's cleaning oil spills, rain water, pollution, or drinking water, whatever... another controversial point of philanthropy: is it better to fund a program to solve an existing problem using money, or to instead invest that money instead into education? I just don't know... [0] looking up military spending, I found multiple results. some sites claiming as low as 19% of income tax goes to military spending, and others claiming much higher numbers.. ~45% (https://www.warresisters.org/content/how-pie-chart-figures-were-determined https://www.warresisters.org/content/how-pie-chart-figures-w...) -- without a doubt though, and according to wikipedia, the USA definitely tops the charts by a long shot. it also appears (acc to wikipedia) that south korea spends more than it's northern counterpart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...) on military programs
    - thejteam 13y ago
      The difference in the quoted percentages is usually due to whether or not social security and medicare taxes and spending are included. If you include them, it is about 19 percent. If not, 45 percent sounds about right. Either way, it is a lot of money.
  - kylebrown 13y ago
    > People that lack clean water usually don't have any use for wifi; if they had enough money for a wifi-enabled gadget, they'd probably spend it on clean water provisioning or other life-support needs. This is just empirically false. Esther Duflo teaches in her edx.org course on poverty, in one of the very first classes: "The first surprising finding: television is more important than food." Across geographies and cultures, poor people choose time and again to spend money on communication (as in tv and telephones) over nutrition. President of Bolivia Evo Morales, in an interview with Democracy Now, said in no uncertain terms: "Communication is a human right."[1] http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/18/an_hour_with_bolivian_president_evo http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/18/an_hour_with_bolivian...
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  From the business point of view, 'wifi everywhere' is a lot more desirable than say, clean water everywhere. Precisely the problem with capitalism.
charlysisto 13y ago
The conclusion is a metaphor and this answer purely rhetorical.
rz2k 13y ago
I had the same first reaction to the juxtaposition, but came to the conclusion that really what it does is call out another implied assertion that is nonsense. A world with wifi on every corner could still have child sex slavery, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine how or why. Yet, it is a common undercurrent, not always explicitly stated in the many corners of the nonprofit world, that there could be other explanations than social problems at the heart of these problems. It is important to recognize that disastrous social problems are possible even with better technology. Furthermore, though technology may aid in solutions, it is pretty extreme to say that wifi might be needed on every corner, even with that qualifier. What really helps people achieve some sort of self-actualization? Being well-nourished, educated, and having some form of control over their own destinies, are pretty good measures for me. I think that technology and economic progress has made it so that probably a couple billion people have a successful life under those criteria than in the past, yet for thousands of years there have been some people who lead fulfilling and successful lives without today's technology, and who had better lives than people who have any access to any technology right now. There is a subtle distinction between providing for shortcomings and the long term goals of addressing the root problems, and it has been the source of countless public policy mistakes. Perhaps one of the most obvious is public housing, where it seems obvious that people who are struggling to afford housing or homeless would be better off if that were no longer a concern.
nl 13y ago
Additionally, this bit is certainly incorrect: Often I hear people say, “if only they had what we have” (clean water, access to health products and free markets, better education, safer living conditions). Yes, these are all important. But no “charitable” (I hate that word) intervention can solve any of these issues. It can only kick the can down the road. Perhaps the other examples are a bit hazy, but charity can and often does provide access to clean water (by sponsored filtration programs, well digging etc). I don't understand what he means by this "can only kick the can down the road".
- rdouble 13y ago
  It means that charity can only provide a temporary fix. The countries receiving aid need to sort these issues out themselves or they'll return as problems when the aid is gone.
  - Someone 13y ago
    Part of the problem is that "when the aid is gone", for some countries, is not an issue; for them, aid will never go away, at least not in the timeframe of a political career. It is hard for parents to let their children go find out their place in the world, especially if they are ill equipped. The same happens with aid organizations and countries.

capex 13y ago

From the business point of view, 'wifi everywhere' is a lot more desirable than say, clean water everywhere.

nine_k 13y ago
Clean water is often harder to provide. People that lack clean water usually don't have any use for wifi; if they had enough money for a wifi-enabled gadget, they'd probably spend it on clean water provisioning or other life-support needs. So they are a bad market for wifi deployments. From business point of view, "well-off people everywhere" is very desirable, since poor people are poor customers. Unfortunately, this problem is not readily solved by pouring in some modest money. Imagine donating to North Korea; probably the money will mostly end up in military programs, even if some of the money will actually feed the undernourished. But political influence is usually a big no-no.
- hamsternipples 13y ago
  the first thing I thought about is paying my taxes in the US: most of my money will end up in military programs [0], but I do have the option to opt a percentage of my money out of those military programs by donating to charity -- a tax break. I agree, clean water should be a top priority, whether it's cleaning oil spills, rain water, pollution, or drinking water, whatever... another controversial point of philanthropy: is it better to fund a program to solve an existing problem using money, or to instead invest that money instead into education? I just don't know... [0] looking up military spending, I found multiple results. some sites claiming as low as 19% of income tax goes to military spending, and others claiming much higher numbers.. ~45% (https://www.warresisters.org/content/how-pie-chart-figures-were-determined https://www.warresisters.org/content/how-pie-chart-figures-w...) -- without a doubt though, and according to wikipedia, the USA definitely tops the charts by a long shot. it also appears (acc to wikipedia) that south korea spends more than it's northern counterpart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...) on military programs
  - thejteam 13y ago
    The difference in the quoted percentages is usually due to whether or not social security and medicare taxes and spending are included. If you include them, it is about 19 percent. If not, 45 percent sounds about right. Either way, it is a lot of money.
- kylebrown 13y ago
  > People that lack clean water usually don't have any use for wifi; if they had enough money for a wifi-enabled gadget, they'd probably spend it on clean water provisioning or other life-support needs. This is just empirically false. Esther Duflo teaches in her edx.org course on poverty, in one of the very first classes: "The first surprising finding: television is more important than food." Across geographies and cultures, poor people choose time and again to spend money on communication (as in tv and telephones) over nutrition. President of Bolivia Evo Morales, in an interview with Democracy Now, said in no uncertain terms: "Communication is a human right."[1] http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/18/an_hour_with_bolivian_president_evo http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/18/an_hour_with_bolivian...
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
From the business point of view, 'wifi everywhere' is a lot more desirable than say, clean water everywhere. Precisely the problem with capitalism.

charlysisto 13y ago

The conclusion is a metaphor and this answer purely rhetorical.

rz2k 13y ago

I had the same first reaction to the juxtaposition, but came to the conclusion that really what it does is call out another implied assertion that is nonsense. A world with wifi on every corner could still have child sex slavery, and it shouldn't be difficult to imagine how or why. Yet, it is a common undercurrent, not always explicitly stated in the many corners of the nonprofit world, that there could be other explanations than social problems at the heart of these problems. It is important to recognize that disastrous social problems are possible even with better technology. Furthermore, though technology may aid in solutions, it is pretty extreme to say that wifi might be needed on every corner, even with that qualifier. What really helps people achieve some sort of self-actualization? Being well-nourished, educated, and having some form of control over their own destinies, are pretty good measures for me. I think that technology and economic progress has made it so that probably a couple billion people have a successful life under those criteria than in the past, yet for thousands of years there have been some people who lead fulfilling and successful lives without today's technology, and who had better lives than people who have any access to any technology right now. There is a subtle distinction between providing for shortcomings and the long term goals of addressing the root problems, and it has been the source of countless public policy mistakes. Perhaps one of the most obvious is public housing, where it seems obvious that people who are struggling to afford housing or homeless would be better off if that were no longer a concern.

nl 13y ago

Additionally, this bit is certainly incorrect: Often I hear people say, “if only they had what we have” (clean water, access to health products and free markets, better education, safer living conditions). Yes, these are all important. But no “charitable” (I hate that word) intervention can solve any of these issues. It can only kick the can down the road. Perhaps the other examples are a bit hazy, but charity can and often does provide access to clean water (by sponsored filtration programs, well digging etc). I don't understand what he means by this "can only kick the can down the road".

rdouble 13y ago
It means that charity can only provide a temporary fix. The countries receiving aid need to sort these issues out themselves or they'll return as problems when the aid is gone.
- Someone 13y ago
  Part of the problem is that "when the aid is gone", for some countries, is not an issue; for them, aid will never go away, at least not in the timeframe of a political career. It is hard for parents to let their children go find out their place in the world, especially if they are ill equipped. The same happens with aid organizations and countries.