The digital divide debate has been going in a major way since the 1970’s. Back then it was an ideological divide on the floor of UNESCO at the United Nations. Today, it is simply a stark reality between states that are rich and states that are poor. While every new technology has a global lag from its centre of creation to the farthest ends of its consumption, the ability to produce at economies of scale and the modern accessibility to global networks leaves two stark ethical questions to be asked: a) why are the least connected of the world also the poorest; and b) does internet connectivity equal a better live?
[linebreak]
Not to confuse cause and affect here, it is not the Internet that makes countries rich, but rather that the Internet is a privilege of rich countries (and often protected by them so as to ensure return on investment). This solves the assumption of the first question, leading us to the underlying issue of the second – does having the Internet lead to a better quality of life?
[linebreak]
If the Internet means access to global markets, and therefore economic opportunity and growth, I would say yes it could make one’s life quantitatively better. If it means that now I can connect with my neighbor in the next village to chat about last nights dinner, then I would say maybe not, as it would probably improve community cohesion and one’s physical health to instead walk over and chat face to face.
[linebreak]
The BBC just cited a study that says the global digital divided has grown bigger than ever. Some countries have more than 90% of their populations on-line, while others have less than a half of one percent. This should not come as a shock. Technology is growing at such a fast pace, that even I feel left out a times. Technology is a language, and the later one learns, the less chance one has to master it. In the case of digital technologies, there are entire countries that have yet to be exposed to things that others have had for more than 30 years. We shouldn’t be shocked that the poorest of the poor are being left behind. Instead, we should be asking, should we work to solve this phenomena, how do we solve it, and what are the societal and cultural consequences of solving it?
People said…