The paper is due by midnight on Saturday. Any help y'all can give me on this would be freakin' unbelievably appreciated.
Oh, and let me warn you and apologize in advance for the sloppiness. It needs a lot of polishing before I send it in. I've been working on the second half of this paper for almost six hours now, so my eyes and my brain are fried. But at this point, I only care about the quality of the argument.
The Digital Divide: Everyone's Problem
Introduction
The digital divide is a term referring to the chasm between the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of access to technologically advanced hardware, software and the skills to use both. This divide is believed to exist within advanced cultures between economic classes (i.e., poor/rich) as well as between races and even entire cultures and nations. It appears to have been coined in the mid-1990s by United States government officials and journalists (Wikipedia) in order to discuss a social gap between those who owned computers and those who did not (Bickner). With the progress of technological advancements over the years, it has grown to encompass all aspects of technological usage to include not only the hardware, but the Internet, software and skills to use all of these as well.
The purpose of this paper is to support the many arguments previously made expressing the need to bridge the divide. However, the approach I intend to take is one from the perspective of the negative effects of the divide on those who are traditionally believed to be on the beneficial side. For simplicity's sake, I will refer to the technologically advanced individuals, cultures and nations as the "rich" and the those who are deficient as the "poor". I will explore the effects of the divide on the global economy, the threat of terrorism, and global morality. First, I think that a brief overview of the popularly expounded upon aspects of concern about the divide—that of the negative impact on the poor—is in order, since I intend to show that they are strongly related to its impact on the rich as well.
Overview of the Negative Effects on Technologically Underdeveloped Individuals, Cultures and Nations.
Two closely related concerns of the effect of the divide on the poor is the limitations it puts on their educational opportunities and their ability to compete in the global economy. It is not difficult to see that this is a relevant concern. With limited hardware distribution, scant Internet access, and very little clue as to how to utilize what is available, technologically-challenged children and young adults are simply unable to access the same vast array of resources. As a result, they are less educated and thereby less viable to contribute in the job market and the economy, on both a local and global scale. This drives the poor even further into poverty, leaving them uneducated, unemployed and isolated from the rest of the world. (Wikipedia)
Health care and sanitation systems is another aspect of suffering caused by the divide. With insufficient technological development, the poor are left with old-fashioned and inadequate water sanitation systems and medical facilities. (DigitalDivide.org) Since sickness is not exactly a catalyst for education and employment, this effect of the divide compounds the effects mentioned above, in addition to the problems it presents by itself. As will be shown by the end of this paper, these effects end up cycling back to effect the rich side of the divide as well.
Explorations of the Negative Effects of the Divide on the Rich.
Now that I have arrived at the main point of my argument, I have an important distinction to make. The influence that I believe the digital divide has over the world economy, education, and (as I will explain shortly) terrorism is significant. However, I understand that these issues are highly complex and cannot be reduced to one single cause, nor will they be completely resolved by a solitary solution. My aim is not to claim or defend a view that purports to completely eliminate all of these issue simply by bridging or closing the digital divide. My contention is merely that by doing so, we will be making a tremendous step forward in decreasing their presence and, possibly, eventually eliminating them altogether. The degree to which this will occur can only be known when a successful solution to the divide is found and implemented. However, the bottom line is that both sides stand to gain from bridging the divide.
One aspect in which the divide's adverse effects are shared between the rich and the poor is in the economy. Most modern reports suggest that only one billion of the world's total population is active in using today's technology to participate in the global economy. This equals less than twenty percent of the total world population! The concern that this introduces is that by ignoring the business needs and potential of up to six billion people, markets are quickly saturated. This leads to strain on the economy, such as inflation, intense competition and failed businesses. By bridging the divide and reaching out to the other side, global businesses multiply their business potential and ultimately their profit potential. This inevitably strengthens the global economy, benefiting the rich in the form of profits and the poor in the form of increased health services, education, job opportunities and even convenience services.
There is an objection that must be considered. It might be said that by bridging the divide, companies that provide significantly to their local economies in the form of jobs will be tempted to increase outsourcing to nations and cultures that may offer comparable work services, but at lower cost. By providing equal or comparable technological resources to poorer nations, it may be said, their schools, health, economy and overall quality of life will improve. They will recognize their potential in the workforce and seek to capitalize on it by entering the global job market. The original, loyal workers of these newly potential outsourcing companies will be left jobless.
I am afraid I am not at all well-versed in the ins and outs of economics, so I am unable to answer this objection conclusively. However I do have some ideas for answers. Firstly, it must be remembered that by increasing the potential workforce pool by closing the divide and creating apt competitors in the job market, we have also increased a successful companies potential customer base six-fold. With such an increase in potential demand for a company's product or service, so would it increase in the need for workers to provide the goods or services. Is it not reasonable to expect then that there will be more than enough work to go around? Further, that perhaps it would be impossible for workers in a single country to meet such a demand? It is a possibility that outsourcing would be a requirement, without a single job loss in the company's home employee base.
Even if my speculations above were not realistic or did not materialize, another answer to this objection is simply that it is morally unjustifiable. Bluntly put, this objection states that in order to preserve one group of people's job security, another group of people must be oppressed and prevented from prosperity. I fail to see how this situation can be seen as anything other than another form of robbery. Keeping a group of people in an undesirable position for one's own profit may in the short run benefit the prosperous, but in the long run it will serve as a seed for contempt towards the rich. I will delve into this further later on.
Another potential objection could argue that, whether the economy encompasses a small fraction of the total world population or all of it, markets will eventually become saturated. While this is a valid point, would it not still significantly delay total market saturation? Not only would it provide time, but it seems to me that it would increase the amount of educated economists invested in the economy and working to secure its stability several-fold. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to be optimistic about the economic impact the elimination of the digital divide would have.
Health care, or the lack thereof of the poor, is a further shared dilemma of the divide by the rich and the poor. World travel being the prominent property of modern western life that it is, a disease that breaks out in a third-world country will not remain long isolated in that country. Disease spreads rapidly across our Earth, so it would benefit all who inhabit it if all nations, cultures and individuals had the required equipment, skill and education to ensure that they had properly sanitized sustenance and health facilities to prevent epidemics. More subtly, the issue of health care also shares the similar possibility of stirring anti-west sentiments and resentment in poorer countries. On these point I do not anticipate any significant disagreement.
Lastly, we reach the point in my argument that is perhaps the most controversial: the link between the digital divide and terrorism. Because it is controversial, I intend to explore the issue in considerably more depth. Again, my acknowledgment of the complexity of terrorism and the fact that solving one contributing issue is not enough to eliminate the threat altogether cannot be overstated. It is my belief, however, that the elimination of the divide will contribute significantly enough to the cause, spreading peace and security for both the poor and the rich.
According to DigitalDivide.org, terrorism is fed by the divide in three ways: 1) Religious extremism is a form of self-protection for those who either feel left out of the advancing world, or who feel threatened by modern advancements that they perceived to be infringing on their values (citing the work of sociologist Manuel Castells); 2) Terrorists are harbored in poor, underdeveloped countries that are not invested in the global economy, so they have nothing to lose from their indirect support of terrorist causes; 3) It is difficult to alleviate poverty in these areas in the absence of modern technology. (DigitalDivide.org) Acting Assistant Professor of Law (among other things) at Yeshiva University's School of Law, Peter K. Yu, agrees with DigitalDivide.org on the point of poor nations being breeding grounds for terrorism. (Yu)
On the other hand it could be argued that integrating the poorer nations and cultures into the technologically advancing sphere may serve to increase terrorism. After all, is it not well known that terrorists utilize web cams, digital cameras, the Internet and the best technology they can get their hands on in order to support their cause? Yes, computers and technology can be used for ill. However this brings up some of the more oft-forgotten aspects of the digital divide—the need for technological skills, public access and the gradual incorporation of technology into life overall. It is simply not enough to supply a nation with a few computers and call the divide sealed.
I think that the link between terrorism and the digital divide illustrates the fact that the digital divide is not just a matter of the presence of computer hardware. It is also a matter of technological skill, public access, and a broad incorporation of technology into one's life and society. Anyone can use a computer to learn how to build a bomb. However, not everyone knows how to use technology in a way that would positively shape their lives and balance their world view. For instance, using the Internet as a resource as a resource to compare how westerners are presented locally with how they represent themselves online. Additionally, it could be used to show other perspectives on their religious and political beliefs, which has likely been very narrowly constructed by their leadership. Obviously, the leaders of these terrorist organizations will likely be unaffected in their extremism, since many of them are wealthy and technologically well-educated. They are usually the planners though, requiring underlings to carry out their plans. These underlings are not usually wealthy or particularly well-educated by any means, so they fall prey. Solving the problem of the divide could significantly decrease the pool of potential recruits, if not completely eliminate it. The leader would be less powerless to execute his ends.
Of course, it could be argued that this would only serve to increase the animosity and, ultimately, terrorism. An impassioned Muslim extremist may indeed find some pleasantly surprising aspects of western culture, but he will likely find confirmations of his beliefs as well such as use of pornography, feminism, paganism, etc. Which aspect will leave the most lasting impression on the particular extremist will depend on the extremist. However it must be remembered that by bridging the divide, we will have also increased the poor's potential for prosperity. There is every reason to be hopeful that this will help in tipping the scales towards tolerance rather than fueling their resentment.
The shortage of hardware coupled with their lack of technological skill prevents any inter-communication between members of both side of the divide. Their hatred of us is, I believe, a combination of what they hear from their superiors and peers, how they interpret their religious scriptures, and their lack of direct experience interacting with us. This lack of communication makes it easy to overlook the fact that we are people, instead we are mere symbols of principles that they abhor. This makes it easy for them to hate us. Bridging the divide would provide means of communication with them, and this would put a face to the symbol. It is easy to hate a personified principle, but it is not so easy for most people to hate another human being.
This is one point on which I fail to see any significant room for argument, since it is observed within our own country. Our nation is in a constant state of political conflict, involving people from all different walks of life, religious backgrounds and morals. Yet, we remain a prosperous nation. It is not as easy to find people of extreme views in our nation as it used to be, in fact it seems to be largely looked down upon. Westerners still maintain their personal convictions on issues from abortion to God to homosexuality. Yet the increased frequency in which we are confronted with the actual people behind these views that we actually disagree with causes us to separate the principle from the person. There is still disagreement, but the key is that there is also agreement to disagree, and business is still able to go on as usual. Tragically there are exceptions, but the responses to those exceptions by the masses tend to prove my point. For instance, the occasional terrorist attack ..ion clinics is usually condemned by pro-life groups. I think that there is a strong case in attributing such a tendency to the mass of resources at our hands, our constant exposure to people of differing views, and our dependence on people of all different beliefs, morals, and characteristics for the stability of our economy—all thanks to our technology.
The limitations on inter-communication caused by the divide also present a barrier preventing underdeveloped cultures from seeing that people of similar morals can be found in the west as well. Many are ignorant to the fact that there are westerners that they can relate to and that can show them that they can be entitled to their beliefs, but express them more rationally and to live with those who differ in a more harmonious manner. Conversely, we are unable to see them as anything short of psychopaths. We only know them from the actions of a few, those that bomb themselves in highly populated locations and the violent, threatening multi-media recordings that are put out. Perhaps the divide is preventing us from experiencing a better part of their world? Perhaps we have something that we can learn from individuals over their too? We will never know with the divide in our midst.
The bottom line is that the digital divide is hurting us who live on the good side as well as the poor. Morally, we know that people from all walks of life deserve to be presented with the same opportunities that we have. The unequal distribution of these opportunities caused by the divide foster resentment, resistance and ignorance. Economically, we are always looking for greater prosperity, and we are significantly limiting our growth by ignoring the divide. Medically, we are vulnerable to any physical ailments that the poor are. We are fighting in vain if all of our medical investments go towards defensive measures rather than preventative measures. If we maintain the divide, defensive measures are all we will ever have.
Speculations on Further Effects of the Divide as Technology and Western Life Become Increasingly Virtual
Is The Matrix in our future? I am not sure, but if it is it will only be in a portion of the population's future. I do hesitate to address this as a sub-topic because it truly is highly subject to speculation. Since it served as the inspiration to my decision to address the issue and the consequences of the digital divide in the first place, I think I should at least touch on it briefly. The question that I am most interested in is, as our society does become progressively virtual to the point that we do all of our business, education, communication, and entertainment on line, will we be more or less vulnerable to physical attack from those on the losing side of the divide? It has long been my contention that real bombs do more damage than virtual bombs. It is likely that our society, were it to evolve to such a level of technology, would develop highly advanced physical defense systems as well, but I think it would be foolish to believe that we will ever reach a state of complete invulnerability.
Another point of risk is that, as stated above, many terrorists organizations are lead by a few wealthy, educated individuals. These leaders will probably have some means of access, legal or otherwise, to our virtual system. In this way we would be vulnerable to the attack of our virtual system. Similar to the physical attack threat, we will doubtless have developed strong counter measures to prevent such a danger. It is equally as difficult to imagine that we will be able to develop a flawless form of protection, though.
Again, I am very well aware of the improbability and astronomically speculative nature of the scenario I have just described. However, I think it is still an effective presentation of the inevitability of the persistence of the divide and its dangers, to the rich as well as to the poor, as we continue to progress. It is not likely to vanish on its own, and we will continue to suffer from it globally until we take steps to bridge it.
Digital Brick and Mortar: Building the Bridge
Past efforts in bridging the divide often involved focusing on only one of many causes, usually the lack of hardware among the poor. (Citation needed) Lessons learned from those well-intentioned but failed efforts revealed the truth about the ever-increasing facets of the digital divide, and have yielded an understanding that any successful solution to the problem must be equally multi-faceted. Fortunately, there are quite a few organizations committed to tackling the aspects of the divide they reason are the most important. Programs such as One Laptop per Child and 50x15 aim to close the hardware and broadband portion of the divide. Free software activists such as Richard Stallman are working to increase free and low-cost software to needy individuals around the world. Others have suggested that research of the individuals and cultures suffering from the divide is in order, in order to discover their specific digital and technological needs and areas of interest. (Wikipedia) This last point is especially relevant according to Sherril Steele-Carlin of Education-World.com, who wonders if at least part of the problem with closing the divide involves a lack of interest in technology in general on the part of some of the poor. (Steele-Carlin)
Conclusion
The reality we are faced with the digital divide is that its presence manifests itself as a lose-lose situation for both sides. It is easy to pity the poor for the obvious disadvantage the divide puts them in—that of poor education, inadequate health care and sanitation facilities, and the degree to which they suffer economically. But when the rose colored glasses are taken away from our own eyes, we see that our pity is in vain and misdirected—we are hardly escaping the fire unscathed. The negative contribution the imbalance in our digital prosperity and their demise makes to our society is undeniable. It infiltrates our own society from all angles. We really should work diligently to resolve this problem. For our own good.
No comments:
Post a Comment