Slashdot Mirror

Sir, you are well named.

My South African friend was sure a particularly evil politician would stay in power in an election we were looking at. He was voted out in a landslide partly because of informed voters. (UN control of voting booths helped a lot too.)

African farmers are increasingly able to make use of modern farming methods. This too is due to the information age. B2B sales of farming equipment and open markets, global competition, and training via the internet have all played their part.

Technology failed to help in the past because it was being wielded by imperialists with agendas. Things in Africa are getting better and will keep getting better.

"Today 93 percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn in the U.S. grow from seeds genetically altered according to Monsanto company patents." http://theemergencyfoodsupply.com/archives/93-percent-of-soybeans-and-80-percent-of-corn-in-the-u-s-grow-from-seeds-genetically-altered-by-monsanto "Wheat, rice, and maize provide just over 50 percent of the world’s plant-derived food energy." "The maize found even in remote areas of Mexico today is not the same as the maize found in the same location hundreds of years ago. Maize is an open-pollinating species that readily exchanges genes with other maize plants growing nearby. Farmers long ago recognized this as a way to adapt varieties to their own needs. Mexican farmers say that their maize “gets tired.” When this happens, they seek other varieties to mix with it." http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31631-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Internet access helps alleviate poverty in the same way that cell phones: by removing intermediaries and giving farmers access to up-to-date pricing information and buyers..

Funny. How did we in the US handle this issue? Simple. We'd listen to the daily farm and market reports on the radio.

Don't fall for the lie that Internet access is needed for success. Broadcast radio is much, much cheaper and effective for this sort of thing.

Internet access helps alleviate poverty in the same way that cell phones: by removing intermediaries and giving farmers access to up-to-date pricing information and buyers.

This is what that "internet access" (which was actually a broker and micro-loan program) did:
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-122219-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5877.html

The epilogue to this project is not good. One year after the follow-up data were
collected, the exporter refused to continue buying the crops from DrumNet farmers since
none of the SHGs had obtained EurepGap certification. DrumNet lost money on its loan
to the farmers and collapsed, but equally importantly farmers were forced to sell to
middlemen, sometimes leaving a harvest to rot. As reported to us by DrumNet, the
farmers were outraged but powerless, and subsequently returned to growing what they
had been growing before (e.g., local crops such as maize).

As for the "cell phones" link, you don't have to go farther than the article itself:

Most of these unconnected masses live in rural areas that are much poorer and more remote than Muruguru.
Now cell-phone makers and service providers understand that they can make money by bringing cell-phone service within reach of people who live on $2 a day.
Users buy new phones for as little as $20--and secondhand models for far less--as well as airtime in increments of just 75 cents in Kenya, enough for nearly 10 minutes of off-peak calling.
.
They increased their profits by an average of 8% after they began using mobile phones to find out which coastal marketplaces were offering the best prices for sardines. Yet consumer prices for fish dropped 4% because the fishermen no longer had to throw away the catch they couldn't sell when they sailed into a port after all the buyers had left.
"That's what economic efficiencies are about--everyone is better off," says Jensen.

It is simply wonderful seeing such selective blindness.

A mobile phone costs as little as 1000% of your daily costs.
10 minutes (charged by a minute, so that is less than 10 calls) of mobile-credit costs you 37.5% of your daily costs.
And to even that out, your income has increased by 8%.

So, on average, that one 10-minute charge eats up that 8% increase in profit five out of seven days a weak.
But all is not so dark and dreary - if they work 7 days a weak, they will earn 0.32$ of extra profit each weak.
That way, they get to pay off that 20$ phone of theirs in only 1.2 years. Not accounting for interests.

After that - the sky is the limit!

 
Sure. For some people in developing nations mobile phones are providing A phone for the first time.
For some even a way of long distance communication of any kind for the first time.
And there are bound to be benefits from that as well as some measurable increases of quality of life.

But attaching the "it alleviates poverty" label on the mobile phone is way off the target.
Only people whose poverty is alleviated are mobile-phone merchants and local telecommunication companies (that practice the best kinds of monopolies - uncontrolled and rampant).
For a "regular Joe" they are more of a resource drain than a "poverty alleviation".

Internet access helps alleviate poverty in the same way that cell phones: by removing intermediaries and giving farmers access to up-to-date pricing information and buyers.

This is what that "internet access" (which was actually a broker and micro-loan program) did:
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-122219-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5877.html

The epilogue to this project is not good. One year after the follow-up data were
collected, the exporter refused to continue buying the crops from DrumNet farmers since
none of the SHGs had obtained EurepGap certification. DrumNet lost money on its loan
to the farmers and collapsed, but equally importantly farmers were forced to sell to
middlemen, sometimes leaving a harvest to rot. As reported to us by DrumNet, the
farmers were outraged but powerless, and subsequently returned to growing what they
had been growing before (e.g., local crops such as maize).

As for the "cell phones" link, you don't have to go farther than the article itself:

Most of these unconnected masses live in rural areas that are much poorer and more remote than Muruguru.
Now cell-phone makers and service providers understand that they can make money by bringing cell-phone service within reach of people who live on $2 a day.
Users buy new phones for as little as $20--and secondhand models for far less--as well as airtime in increments of just 75 cents in Kenya, enough for nearly 10 minutes of off-peak calling.
.
They increased their profits by an average of 8% after they began using mobile phones to find out which coastal marketplaces were offering the best prices for sardines. Yet consumer prices for fish dropped 4% because the fishermen no longer had to throw away the catch they couldn't sell when they sailed into a port after all the buyers had left.
"That's what economic efficiencies are about--everyone is better off," says Jensen.

It is simply wonderful seeing such selective blindness.

A mobile phone costs as little as 1000% of your daily costs.
10 minutes (charged by a minute, so that is less than 10 calls) of mobile-credit costs you 37.5% of your daily costs.
And to even that out, your income has increased by 8%.

So, on average, that one 10-minute charge eats up that 8% increase in profit five out of seven days a weak.
But all is not so dark and dreary - if they work 7 days a weak, they will earn 0.32$ of extra profit each weak.
That way, they get to pay off that 20$ phone of theirs in only 1.2 years. Not accounting for interests.

After that - the sky is the limit!

 
Sure. For some people in developing nations mobile phones are providing A phone for the first time.
For some even a way of long distance communication of any kind for the first time.
And there are bound to be benefits from that as well as some measurable increases of quality of life.

But attaching the "it alleviates poverty" label on the mobile phone is way off the target.
Only people whose poverty is alleviated are mobile-phone merchants and local telecommunication companies (that practice the best kinds of monopolies - uncontrolled and rampant).
For a "regular Joe" they are more of a resource drain than a "poverty alleviation".

Internet access helps alleviate poverty in the same way that cell phones: by removing intermediaries and giving farmers access to up-to-date pricing information and buyers.

Or did technology that dramatically improves communication suddenly cease to be useful because you don't have derivatives to sell?

How much more power does a 100W bulb draw if it's inefficient?

Personally, I think they should check out Fog Catchers http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0308/feature3/ like the ones used in the Atacama Desert. Of course, they do have the requisite mountain range.http://archive.idrc.ca/nayudamma/fogcatc_72e.html

Actually I'm sure they would love to move to more fertile, profitable areas. Unfortunately, there are others with a different agenda who like to keep them away. Those people are getting much more outside help than the starving kids. Let's not forget the economics of the arms trade with african warlords and corrupt tinpot generals who are, of course, "good for our interests". I'm also aware that basic sanitation and clean water, both cheap and easy to achieve with the right thinking, will take care of probably a full 90% of the problem. Their old traditions are responsible for much of it. The parent's link lead me to this. It has to be just the tip of the iceberg. So the chemical insecticides are not needed. There are far too many unexplored, easily accessable natural solutions.

Outsiders really aren't interested in Africa's problems, unless it interferes with "free trade". This will be solved by the Africans with relatively little outside help. It's just the usual numbers game.

I've heard that gin is a good mosquito repellent.

According to:

http://archive.idrc.ca/books/reports/1996/01-07e.h tml

Malaria kills quite a few people every year so I don't think it's a waste.

~S

Mexico happens to have universal health care coverage. It might not be perfect, but then neither is the pharma-medial-legal complex that impoverishes anyone who happens to enter a US hospital without comprehensive insurance. See:

http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2005/Jan/vol51-jan-letters- 4.asp
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9421-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Most immigrants are not here to take advantage of the US health care "system" such as it is (any sensible person would much prefer taking advantage of Cuba's). Most immigrant are here because the US economic system affords opportunities at all levels of skill that are far superior to those available in other countries.

I have yet to meet a US immigrant who considers health care a factor in their decision to move. Any thinking person to whom that mattered would move to Canada.

Dzongkha Version of Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 launched

The Information and Communication minister of the Royal Government of
Bhutan, Lyonpo Leki Dorji, launched "DzongkhaLinux", an entirely
localised GNU/Linux distribution based on Debian GNU/Linux 3.1. This
is the first operating system that fully supports the country's
national language and which has been developed in Bhutan.

The Bhutan Department of Information Technology chose Debian for its
high versatility and reliability as well as the guarantee to always
remain 100% Free Software. DzongkhaLinux developers have already
contributed back their translations and development (fonts, input
methods...) to both Debian and end-user applications, such as GNOME,
OpenOffice.org and the Mozilla.

The development of DzongkhaLinux was supported by the International
Development Research Center, from Canada, and the PANl10n project,
aimed at bringing localised computer use in several Asian countries.
The system consists of one CD which can be either installed or used as
a live system.

Recent laws in the country have enforced the use of the national
language in all official events and all official communication.
DzongkhaLinux is the first opportunity for the entire Bhutanese
population to join the information and communication age, using their
own language.


About Bhutan

The Kingdom of Bhutan is a landlocked South Asian nation situated
between India, Tibet and China and is often described as the last
surviving traditional Himalayan Buddhist culture. The official
language is Dzongkha, a language from the Sino-Tibetan family. Bhutan
is very committed to preserve its local culture and traditions.


About Debian

Debian GNU/Linux is a free operating system, developed by more than a
thousand volunteers from all over the world who collaborate via the
Internet. Debian's dedication to Free Software, its non-profit nature,
and its open development model make it unique among GNU/Linux
distributions.

The Debian project's key strengths are its volunteer base, its dedication
to the Debian Social Contract, and its commitment to provide the best
operating system possible.


References

Dzongkha Localisation Project
http://dzongkha.sourceforge.net/

IDRC, International Development Research Center
http://www.idrc.ca/

Significantly, the ratio of potentially useful natural compounds to compounds screened is higher in marinesourced materials than with terrestrial organisms. There is, therefore, a higher probability of commercial success. Potential applications for marine organisms include: pharmaceuticals; enzymes; cryoprotectants; cosmaceuticals; agrichemicals; bioremediators; nutraceuticals; and fine chemicals. All the major pharmaceutical firms, including Merck, Lilly, Pfizer, Hoffman-Laroche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, have marine biology departments. Estimates put worldwide sales of marine biotechnology-related products at US$ 100 billion for the year 2000. Profits from a compound derived from a sea sponge to treat herpes were estimated to be worth US$ 50 million to US$ 100 million annually, and estimates of the value of anti-cancer agents from marine organisms are up to US$ 1 billion a year.

If we were all to stop eating meat, we would save so much land we wouldn't have to turn to the cows to exploit other plant resources that we cannot digest on our own.

Consider malaria. Malaria infects 300-500 million people annually and kills around 2 million of them. (source) The single most effective way to kill mosquitos and to reduce the incidence of malaria is DDT. Unfortunately, DDT has potent negative effects on the environment, so your naive "it can't hurt us" position would argue that we should totally ban DDT. Unfortunately, that's literally a death sentence for thousands if not millions of people living in tropical nations.

This is a somewhat dramatic example, but my point is that eco-friendliness DOES have very real consequences in some cases, and we need to be careful about weighing those consequences against the benefits. If we're talking about recycling paper and plastic in a developed country, well, yeah, the benefits are reasonably large and the consequences are probably trivial. But don't assume that's true for every environmental problem the world faces.

More information here.

I hate to interupt the bigots, trolls, and everyone else convinced that every African is a starving disease ridden child, with something usefull, but here's a little info on the state of the telecomunications network in Africa.

Internet Connectivity for Africa

Connectivity Data for Africa's Information Infrastructure

Resourcery's African Telecom Links

The Acacia Initiative

Eric Henry

"When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him whose."- Don Marquis