This is why I'm still pissed off at Bill Gates' attack on Google [1] for trying to get Internet to Africa instead of just investing in curing malaria. What an incredibly short-sighted thing to say from someone who's apparently admired by many for his ideas.
The people there get malaria because they are the Dark Ages in terms of living conditions. Bringing Internet there, allowing them to at least educate themselves, giving them the opportunity to find jobs online, or to create a local market is what will give them the chance to get out of poverty and afford better living conditions.
The Internet will also help them live in more democratic societies where abuses by the government or criminal groups are exposed and dealt with.
There are usually two schools of thought for dealing with Africa's poverty. One deals with the now, and it's about giving Africans free food, free cloths and free medicine - forever and ever, and yet it never seems to be enough. It merely helps some survive.
And the other is about the future, and about trying to help people help themselves out of poverty. It's much more sustainable and it's about much more than just helping Africans survive. It's about getting them to catch-up to other countries in terms of living conditions, income and of course healthcare. T
One of Google’s (GOOG) convictions is that bringing Internet connectivity to less-developed countries can lead to all sorts of secondary benefits. It has a project to float broadband transmitters on balloons. Can bringing Internet access to parts of the world that don’t have it help solve problems?
When you’re dying of malaria, I suppose you’ll look up and see that balloon, and I’m not sure how it’ll help you. When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there’s no website that relieves that. Certainly I’m a huge believer in the digital revolution. And connecting up primary-health-care centers, connecting up schools, those are good things. But no, those are not, for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we’re going to do something about malaria.
Google started out saying they were going to do a broad set of things. They hired Larry Brilliant, and they got fantastic publicity. And then they shut it all down. Now they’re just doing their core thing. Fine. But the actors who just do their core thing are not going to uplift the poor.
His answer is arguably self serving, but given the question, I wouldn't go so far as to call it an attack, it's a "I don't think their approach will help really low income countries", not a "it's useless".
Bill wanted to talk about his charity work. Comparing it to the commercial enterprises of his company's (largest?) competitor was probably not how he wanted the interview to go. Why should the two things be compared at all?
Because as a philanthropist his ostensible goal is to help people, and if he was consistent a project that would help people understand what conditions affect their likelihood of getting diarrhea would certainly be a blessing and something to work with.
It just boggles my mind. A lot of people in Africa and the poor parts of India live in almost pre-germ-theory times, where the link between sanitation and disease is one competing myth in an oral tradition. Anything that has the potential to deliver video explaining sanitation could easily have an enormous benefit.
An internet connection is not the crucial missing step towards delivering such a video. If you have the video produced in the right language and have the trust and attention of the people, you can use pretty much anything to show it.
One of things the Gates Foundation does is worry about effectiveness, I think where they are spending their malaria dollars, they have some idea of the effectiveness of spending a comparable amount of money on education. If you look at the purpose entries here:
The people there get malaria because they are the Dark Ages in terms of living conditions. Bringing Internet there, allowing them to at least educate themselves, giving them the opportunity to find jobs online, or to create a local market is what will give them the chance to get out of poverty and afford better living conditions.
The Internet will also help them live in more democratic societies where abuses by the government or criminal groups are exposed and dealt with.
There are usually two schools of thought for dealing with Africa's poverty. One deals with the now, and it's about giving Africans free food, free cloths and free medicine - forever and ever, and yet it never seems to be enough. It merely helps some survive.
And the other is about the future, and about trying to help people help themselves out of poverty. It's much more sustainable and it's about much more than just helping Africans survive. It's about getting them to catch-up to other countries in terms of living conditions, income and of course healthcare. T
[1] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/09/bill-gate...