Technology: the view of gibberish

Technonsenselogy!

It has been routinely predicted that salvation will be found in tech- advancement; is all the government tech babble pure nonsense?

Considering that billions still live below the poverty line across the world, the fact that countries can justify raking up investments into so called futuristic tech-areas illustrating an unrealistic and impractical canvas of future technological development that would supposedly bring the advent of utopia, is not only ironic but cruelly criminal to those underprivileged billions. In this issue, the IIPM Think Tank analyses technologies that have either brought quasi revolutions or endangered the economic existence of nations.

Most of this Olympic tech-orientation can be attributed to developments that were being experienced in Japan in the early 20th century. But not without costs. Russia’s numerous failed space missions,  the Chernobyl disaster, the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear accident (cleaning up cost around $975 million), the Ariane 5 explosion ($500 million) – all these and other incidents took economies of some countries a few years back.

But then, these are only totem pole examples. The ring leaders are others. Take for instance the money spent on space missions by the US during 1957-1975, which stood at $100 billion (USSR mirrored some facets of the insane spending; for example, by 1989, it was spending around $4 billion on space exploration annually). Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, started in 1983, was even more legendary, with costs of over $100 billion. Some experts opine that this space-race eventually gave birth to numerous fissures in the economies of both the countries.

But on the other hand, there are many countries surviving and even thriving on their hi-tech research and hi-tech exports, built through decades of previously seemingly useless tech investments – particularly Japan, followed by other Asian countries like China, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Israel.

The on-going technology rivalry spree (especially in China) can be encapsulated in the words of Friedman, who in one of his books writes, “In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears.” Talking in numbers, in 2008, China’s software service industry generated 757.3 billion yuan or $110 million in revenue. Israel’s economy is largely backed up by its high tech industry; the percentage of Israelis engaged in the technology sector, and the amount spent on R&D is amongst the highest in the world.

South Korea is ranked first in the world in the Digital Opportunity Index, and first among major economies in the Global Innovation Index; likewise, Taiwan, Hong Kong and many other emerging economies are on a tech-spree to boost their economy. Malaysia is promoting its Multimedia Super Corridor topped up with tax perks and lenient censorship policies since long; Vietnam is all set to develop a local “knowledge economy”, while Myanmar is concentrating on connecting all its key industries on a single IT platform.

There have been amusing fallouts of tech-advancements too. Way back in the 1980s, the generally ‘walled’ East German government allowed access of West German television programmes to its citizens as their studies showed that East Germans who watched West German television were more satisfied with life in the communist regime.

In the last few years, Twitter, Facebook, search engines and similar media are playing a huge role in political and administrative mobilization and apparently hold the strength to raise the hackles of ‘the powers that be’; but these and similar sites also clearly traverse controversial waters as not only do they openly host porn gateways, but also despicably allow slanderous, libellous and defamatory content almost without restrictions in the garb of ‘free speech’. In the same breath, thanks to social networking, Iran’s Green Movement has found its space into numerous contending debate forums. Extending this thought to even nationalism and extremism, Hezbollah and Islamist extremists (and other fundamentalists) are very active online.

All in all, this whole wave of multi-level technology orientation towards building the “biggest, fastest, tallest and mightiest” innovation somehow never talks about how many billions, who currently defecate in the open, will get a self respecting place to stay in. Obama too seems to be playing to the rote. Even though he announced in early 2010 that he planned to eliminate funding for NASA’s manned moon missions, he increased NASA funding by $5.9 billion annually. For $5.9 billion, we estimate Obama could have built 30 million toilets in India’s most underdeveloped regions, catering to 600 million destitute Indians. Imagine how amazing a gesture of goodwill that move could have been!

They say ICT4D helps; we say too

The saga of the dot-com bust would have been enough to kill the initial frenzy of Information and Communication Technologies aka ICT, but for the fact that someone somewhere along the line most intelligently raised the concept of ICT to ICT4D (Information and Communications Technologies for Development). Supported even by profit seeking entities, ICT4D  allowed a considerable part of Africa, parts of Asia, Latin America, and other developing & underdeveloped nations to leapfrog over many developed nations and their prevailing, slow and archaic infrastructure with a focus on social and economic development.

If Singapore was a developed nation revamping its administration using ICT4D to an extent where public participation in government touched new heights, India was a developing nation where a cigarette major initiated an iconic concept educating villagers how to retail their produce through the Internet; they call the forums e-Choupals. The All China Women’s Federation used ICT4D to help rural women get access to updated health information online and to provide them secret counselling on rape and abuse. Cuba is practicing online health initiatives while Egypt is using ICT4D to encourage rural education. In countries like China with a massive rural population, newspapers are using ICT4D to go on-line and reach larger sections.

There are macro advantages too. Going by official reports, Egypt’s overall economy grew by 4.7%, pumped up by investments in ICT4D, which experienced a 14.6% growth. The computer and semi-conductor industry supporting ICT4D today forms the back-bone of economies like China, Taiwan and a few other Asian economies. Many developed nations are relying on continuous development in third world countries like India and China for their own future growth. And that is possible only if the purchasing powers of the disadvantaged billions living in these countries (more in India) is increased. If that needs to be double quick, then ICT4D is a social re-engineering process we cannot ignore. 

Illegal business: adoption

Business ‘of’ and not ‘for’ kids

International adoption is emerging out as a new illegal business

Adoption predominantly and fundamentally was meant to provide a better living and growth environment for orphans. Historically, the process of adoption was given a very high social recognition and was seen as a community responsibility. Of late, especially in the developed world, the increase in infertility rate has shifted this process of adoption from realm of domestic region to international markets. With Hollywood celebs like Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopting numerous children from world’s poorest regions, the whole concept of adoption seems to have become an international fad now.

Westerners see this act of international adoption as a rescue measure for orphans from poverty-stricken life. But then, this act at no given point of time convalesces the fundamental and core reason of poverty. Moreover, these so-called adopted children are actually either kidnapped, stolen or transacted and not really adopted. Social unrest, poverty and natural disaster make it very simple for child traffickers to export or import babies like any other commodity behind the veil of adoption.

International adoption has today become depraved business of supplying children to rich Westerners. Children are literally assumed as commodities and are sold to those who can afford it. In regions like Haiti, Guatemala, China and Africa there are agencies that deal in international adoption. Going by a conservative estimate, adoption today stands as a $100 million industry and agencies charge anything between $25,000 to $40,000 per child from adoptive parents.

According to an adoption advocacy organisation in the US, around 13 countries have put a ban on international adoption. There have been numerous cases where adoptive parents later kill the children or these orphans find themselves in foster care.  So much so that these so-called orphans turn out to be local children and not actually orphans. This can be exemplified by recent arrests of American missionaries in Haiti — accused of trafficking 33 Haitian children out of the quake-stricken country. A few countries use this process for exporting their socially detested or undesirable children to foreign families.

All in all, international community (viz. Hauge, UNICEF) need to urgently give a pause to the on-going glamourisation of international adoption and make it more transparent and regulated process. In the light of natural disaster and social and civil unrest, it is pertinent for countries to arrange bilateral arrangements and developed agencies based on proper accreditation norms. Otherwise soon this gratifying gesture of better-off society will take a shape of gigantic business and become an ‘icon’ among modern families. The present form of international adoption provides a different life, but do not promise a better life. What else could be the reason behind an American flying a thousand miles to adopt a baby while the next-door Canadians prefer adopting, more than 100,000 children, from the US itself?  In the same breath, a very few Americans find time to adopt orphans after the Katrina or Rita disasters; but don’t mind flying thousands of miles away and adopt a few so-called orphans from Africa, Korea or other south Asian nations.  Sounds quite morbid, isn’t it?

Pervez Musharraf - dictator in democracy

Give me my legal right this time - The Return of the Last Samuri...

Ex-President Pervez Musharraf’s desire to enter Pakistan’s politics, again, has some good and some bad with it. However, the good seems to surpass the bad at the moment

Few were ready to denote General Pervez Musharraf’s Presidential exit and his unannounced exile as his walk into the sunset; the general view was that he would return to fight another day. It seems that the time has come, as he seeks the company’s top post again, albeit via the democratic route this time. In his address on Feburary 16, 2010, to the Chatham House think-tank, he said, “I love my country and I would do anything for Pakistan. However, it is for the people of Pakistan who need to decide… I have to come through the political process, through the process of elections. But I think it’s very good, it’s very good because I think I will have that legitimacy, which I never had…” This remark of Musharraf shows that he still lives in the belief that this reign (rather eight year long dictatorial regime) was the most successful political period in the history of Pakistan. In addition, he expects the Pakistani people to now vote for him and bring him back to power. And as he admits himself, being a dictator wasn’t helping his cause either.

There is no denial to the fact that Pakistan, today, is in a process of utter disintegration. A brief recall of Pakistan’s past will make it clear that the ground for Pakistan’s disintegration was all set during Musharraf’s presidency. It was actually during Musharraf’s time that corruption found its new highs within the whole bureaucratic hierarchy. Today, Musharraf stays in one of London’s most expensive areas. Covertly and overtly supporting terrorist and extremist blocks and even manipulating their actions against India, Musharraf is an excellent example of how shrewd scheming and manipulation can be diplomatically window dressed in hyperbole words.

Musharraf has himself admitted boldly that the Kashmiri insurgency was fathered in Pakistan. But in the same voice, he also says that the Indian Muslim youth are increasingly feeling alienated. Strangely, one doesn’t hear him commenting on Pakistani Muslim youth that much. While stating his desire to return to power – and commenting that the Pakistani people need to decide on the issue – Musharraf forgets that it’s the same people who want him to be punished for the mammoth money laundering case that is still pending against him.

But then, Pakistan also saw something remarkable in Musharraf’s time. Between 1999 to 2007, Pakistan’s economy, revenue, per capita income, exports grew by 100% while foreign reserves, stock exchange, foreign direct investment grew by a jaw dropping 500%. The country also saw marked reductions in poverty and illiteracy levels. In 2006, Pakistan was the 3rd fastest growing economy of the world and a preferred destination for investment and also saw its ranking in almost all international lists improving. This dictator also gave licenses to almost 50 TV channels to operate.

But then, the current gloomy future of Pakistan is not safe for India’s internal security. Undoubtedly, if Pakistan disintegrates, the probability of the power and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists will be quite high. In the given situation, would Musharraf be a good choice for India to support as the President? That’s a choice between the Devil and the Deep Sea, as India stands a loser whichever way the Pakistani cookie crumbles. Irrespective of any person in power in Pakistan, India would be seen as a legacy enemy and a violator of the rights of Kashmir. To that end, the American hold over Pakistan – however managed – is not only to India’s benefit, but to the whole region as well.

A joke in Pakistan goes like this. With 50% of Pakistani citizens illiterate, at any given moment only half of them make sensible statements. Musharraf qualifies on that statistic pretty well. He makes sense only half the time.

Homeschooling

It’s all about homework!

'Homeschooling' is here to stay, especially in the developing world

The concept of 'homeschooling' has not caught-on with parents in this part of the world. But then, in most of the developed countries the whole idea of homeschooling has gone beyond mere alternative education and has entered the ambit of politics and lobbying.

For the starters, homeschooling is the education of children at home and is seen as an alternative, in developed countries, to formal education. However, the surge in homeschooling is hitting the market of conventional education system in the US. A conservative estimate shows that over 50 million children are enrolled in over 100,000 schools in the US. The average per student expenditure in the US public schools is around $7,000.

In the US, where quality of formal education is quite worrisome, parents are largely opting for homeschooling. Take for instance, the IQ level (and maths skills) of an average American student is far too less than his counterpart in the developing countries. A 2007 survey by the Department of Education reveals that 88 per cent of homeschooling parents felt their local public schools were unsafe, drug-ridden or unwholesome in some way and 73 per cent complained of shoddy academic standards.

However, in developing countries, the practice of homeschooling is not so common. Reason being, that homeschooling is too expensive in metros (even surpasses school’s tuition fees). And in non-metros (or tier-II and tier-III cities) parents are not able to match up with modern education syllabi. Moreover, homeschooling is not encouraged at the time of college admissions. Unlike the West ­— where there is a strong network of activities and legal lobby that has ensured colleges/institutes to have a separate policy — developing countries do not have any body to advocate this concept.

Homeschooling in Africa is highly influenced by many missionaries, who are homeschooling their own children (due to lack of good schools and domestic instability). But there is an ongoing struggle between homeschoolers and the government over control of curriculum. Moving to Asia, there are a limited number of homeschoolers and many governments are against homeschooling.

On the one hand, schools in the West are lobbying with top officials to regulate homeschooling and discourage parents (of course, for obvious reasons!). Whereas on other hand, this concept can, to a large extent, compensate for lack of schools. This can also help those who are sole bread earners of the family and thus are not able to attend conventional schools. It will also help children in those parts of the states who can’t attend school because of domestic instability. What government needs to do is to recognise homeschooling (and standardise the syllabi) and make it acceptable during admission in college admission procedure. Moreover, with intervention of ICT (Information & Communication Technology) this medium can reach a larger audience.

However, this form of education is not an answer to lack of good schools and quality education, but for the time being can solve the problem of education (and schooling) in rural hinterlands of developing countries across the world.