home discussions general geek club technology justice

Technology justice

The fact that 1.1 billion people still lack access to clean water, yet the technology and knowledge to provide it is both available and affordable, is an injustice, We're leading a movement for change for technology justice and we'd like to hear your views.

Read more...

Comments

Oldest 1 | 2 | 3 Most Recent
  • Reply

    @Martin said:

    said:
    Picking up on David's labelling point and some of the themes in Jonathan's posting, could 'technology poverty' be a suggestion? Poverty is a widely understood concept in the public mind and just as food poverty is accepted as not enough food, perhaps technology poverty could enter the debate as a paucity of access to technology? Both can lead to famine and overall poverty in the developing world. As PA's objective is to use technology to challenge poverty the terms here are key to both communicate to as wide an audience as possible and to lead the debate. Potentially 'Technology Poverty' also sounds more empirical and measurable rather than the more campaigning and less hard to define term of justice.
    on 3/8/11
  • Reply

    DavidMc0 said:

    said:
    I think 'technology poverty' is a good suggestion. People in the UK also use the term 'fuel poverty' for those who can't afford to heat their homes in the winter. As @Martin said, poverty and technology are key to what practical action does. To me justice seems a bit more abstract when applied to technology.
    on 3/8/11
  • Reply

    Ellie Hopkins said:

    said:
    It's true that Practical Action works to tackle poverty, but as a term for what we're aiming for - something positive and aspirational - technology poverty is obviously the opposite of that. We're looking for a term that we could use as a campaign title, for example, something catchy and succinct. Any ideas?
    on 3/8/11
    • Reply

      DavidMc0 said:

      said:
      That's a good point - 'technology poverty' may be a fair definition of what we're tackling, but it's certainly not an aim, and therefore not an appropriate campaign title. I'll share some not great ideas for brainstorming; perhaps they'll get others thinking even if they're not good suggestions :) - Technology against Poverty - Solve - Tackling poverty with technology - Tech Aid
      on 3/8/11
  • Reply

    David Ray said:

    said:
    Politics is not for geeks. If clean water technology is available and affordable, then the injustice that a billion people lack clean water is a political issue involving a lack of leadership and commitment by the governments of those people. For which, ideally, individual leaders should be arraigned by international tribunal. At least we seem to be making a start in respect of war crimes, but the world does not seem ready to hold leaders to account for their other misdeeds. Meanwhile, one of the best things we can do as individuals is to pressure our own political leaders to set moral and practical standards, as the UK Government seems to be doing with international vaccination programmes. But unless Practical Action believes it can raise more funding for its grassroots work, by leading a movement for technology justice, then broad political action of this sort risks diluting the value of donations made on the basis that Practical Action is a leader in grass roots transfer of appropriate technology. Technology transfer is a people process and appropriate technology transfer for communities missing out on the benefits of technology is an even more specialised person process. My own view is that I would like to see Practical Action build on its hard won capability at grass roots level, through bottom up processes. A sustained practical campaign on delivering clean water is to be commended, but not a top down political process, which may prove of less overall value for those suffering injustice.
    on 3/8/11
    • Reply

      Mansoor Ali said:

      said:
      With time, Practical Action has learned the importance of working at all levels; grass root level with the people and then taking that evidence to influence the policies and practices. Our supporters understand the importance of this and we make efforts to emphasis this. For example, our work in Kisumu, Kenya, improves community managed water sources, such as springs but also ensures that government grants on improving water are properly used to benefit the poor. It showed that additional resources are required, which is a political issue, but also resources need to be used accountably; which is a governance need. Our approach to improve technologies and systems links this all, at all levels. In summary, politics, practice and evidence are all important and our context, time and people tell us what is more important, when and for whom? It is all very dynamic in delivery, after all.
      on 3/8/11
      • Reply

        David Ray said:

        said:
        A very nice summary of how things are and should be done, with which it is easy to empathise. And which I wish came over more strongly on the Practical Action website, which I revisited the other day, with a view to the take of my friends if I pushed them to support Practical Action, or tried to involve them in any fund-raising activity.
        on 3/8/11
  • Reply

    Margaret said:

    said:
    Politics is for everyone in my opinion. We are not looking at a top down campaign rather we see all of our work operating at three levels, delivering technology justice at each. Firstly we deliver great grass roots projects that directly benefit millions of people. This is the vast bulk of what we do. Secondly we proactively share our experience with others and equip the people we work with to do the same - through our knowledge sharing we multiply our impact and reach millions more people. And thirdly we try and influence policy in particularly where it directly impacts on the people we work with e.g. tax laws in Sudan that meant people were unable to sell their crops. Technology and/or access to technology is often seen as apolitical and in many ways separate from poverty reduction but that’s not true.
    on 3/8/11
  • Reply

    DavidMc0 said:

    said:
    It's essential that those involved practically at the 'grass roots' level give feedback to policy makers, and sometimes to put pressure on to see political change that will make a big difference the the every day lives of many people. Often policy can have negative effects on some groups in society, and practical implications that the policy makers didn't intend. People like those involved with Practical Action are perfectly placed to give feedback to policy makers in this situation. Saying that, I think it's important for an organisation such as practical action to remain politically unaffiliated, so any policy engagement should be focused on specific issues that have practical implications on people's lives.
    on 3/8/11
    • Reply

      Margaret said:

      said:
      Totally agree. here at Practical Action we remain religious and politically neutral but affirming of peoples engagement as active citizens in their communities in which ever way works for them.
      on 3/8/11

Post a Comment