The Japanese Kentaro Toyama uses ten years ago the same cell, which only connects and sends text messages. Graduated from Harvard with PhD at Yale and former Microsoft employee, he is called a ‘heretic geek “, to go against the general opinion on new technologies:” we need to use them wisely, and this sometimes means just do not use them, “he preaches.
Currently professor at the University of Michigan and a member of the Dalai Lama Center for Ethics and Values MIT transformers, Toyama founded in 2005, the Research Center Microsoft India.
For nine years he developed on Indian lands projects to increase social development from technology. Practically, it found, however, that it does not. At least not when you bet all the chips in the technology.
Your book is adamant in saying that there is no technological solution to poverty. For that says that?
Worldwide, we see an incredible technological progress. At some point this year, it is likely that the number of mobile phone accounts will outperform the number of people.
This type of change is fast, but does not bring an equally rapid social change. This only happens when people become better versions of themselves. And technology can mediate or extend it, but it is not the cause of change. In a world where there is already so much technology, we do not need more gadgets. What we need is people and more mature companies.
What experiences have shown you that technology is overrated?
In India, I supervised more than fifty projects in which the goal was to use some form of electronic technology to reduce poverty.
We projects in agriculture, health, microfinance, governance and education. Within the latter, we created MultiPoint, which allowed many students to interact with a single computer using multiple mouse devices. But when we take this technology to other schools immediately we had problems.
The teachers were afraid to use it because they had no training or time to plan lessons incorporating computers. And none of the schools had technical personnel to support, so the teachers themselves had to configure the devices.
I remember a few cases where they took 20 minutes to set up your computer, which means the loss nearly half of class time. Even a good technology does not work unless the social forces are equally well-intentioned and capable
This follows what I call the Law of amplification: a. The underlying technology amplifies human strength. If these forces are good, technology can make things better. If these forces are bad, the technology does not help. In some cases it can even make things worse.
As technology reaches worsen some situations?
There is a consensus among US pediatricians that digital technology inhibits cognitive development, especially in young children. Introduce children to software – whether leisure games or educational applications – is like giving “cognitive sweet.” They give a cheap pleasure and fast that they soon learn to be desired. This causes them to lose their appetite for more nutritious activities.
You also points out that the increase in technology investments in recent years did not mean a real human progress. Exact
. Over the past four decades, the United States has experienced a golden age of digital innovation. Even very poor people have smartphones and Facebook accounts. However, during the same period, the poverty rate in the country increased, social mobility has stagnated and inequality increased.
So any idea that technology alone solve these problems is obviously a mistake . The United States is not focused on ending poverty. Therefore, the technology does not help.
As you been researching the subject, has been interested less in the technology itself?
Yes. I find it important to use them wisely – which often means simply not use them. My phone is very simple because I think I do well not be available all the time to other people and to work.
How can “amplify” the power of people to make social change?
One way is to work with human forces that are already doing positive things and use technology to amplify their impact. Another area is to focus on “nurturing” people, as individuals and as societies. As the technology amplifies human strength, you must make sure they are pointed in the right direction.
Do you support the schools that decide to ban computers? I do not
I think we must be ideological about this subject. For example, it is obviously necessary to have computers in the classroom to teach computer programming, learning more and more interesting and useful to have. But that does not mean we need computers in all classrooms.
No comments:
Post a Comment