[LONG] 2005: Personal Perspectives on The Digital Divide, Sustainable Development, Globalization and The Real World.

Although I already got a healthy rant out about 2005, I feel there's a need to discuss something a bit more focused - and yet, just as complicated and interconnected.

There are a good many people trying to change the world. We read about some on WorldChanging.com in lieu of the real press which largely ignores them. We read about things in niche magazines such as Wired Magazine¹. Now and then, something makes it into the news that is positive about making the world a better place, but it seems apparent to me that the majority of such information is not in the global media, but rather on the internet, through citizen journalists who take over areas where the traditional media fail. Consider: If there were more traditional media covering things that are in WorldChanging.com, there would be no need for WorldChanging.com to exist.

The Media

Yet it needs to exist. And if and when it changes into something else, and the need it used to fill is still there - something else will spring in it's place. I know, I used to be a part of the WorldChanging.com team. I didn't leave because of anything worth writing about, it was all quite amicable - but I didn't believe I could be *me* and be a WorldChanging.com team member² at the same time. These things happen. I catch up on what the WorldChanging Team is writing about every week; I keep myself busy with other things (as regular visitors know) - but they have managed to maintain a high level of quality despite my own personal concerns regarding the financial aspects of WorldChanging.com affecting it's course. It has remained balanced and positive, and something I continue to read.

The point here is that few aspects of media - be it traditional or modern³ - survive success. And it's not just the media, either, but everyone else will get a turn in this particular entry. What WorldChanging.com does, and continues to do, is something that a few people should take note of: It has survived by doing what it started off doing. In other words, it hasn't 'sold out', and I hope it stays like that. Consider this quote by Harold Bloom:

We read frequently if unknowingly, in quest of a mind more original than our own.

In 'Desperately Seeking A More Original Mind Than Our Own⁴', I tackled that issue in modern media - where the reinvention of unoriginal works has propagated across the net in what I term, 'Smoke and Mirrors weblogs' - weblogs that simply point to other weblogs without adding value. In that, I have found one exception - aggregator weblogs, such as Global Voices really do add value by aggregating. But, you see, that's really what I have a problem with: people not adding value. Value, value, value. Sure, the cost of web publishing is low - but the value of it doesn't have to be. It shouldn't be.

I read across a wide range of topics all the time - in fact, if I'm not writing these days, more than likely I am reading someone else's work and considering it. Sometimes it's just a matter of leaving a comment on a weblog. Maybe it's not worth a comment, because tacit agreement is just more SPAM. But here's a hard and fast simple rule of thumb I live by: If the person who is writing isn't using technology which permits comments to their work, it adds no value on the internet.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg, because - as I was painfully aware during the period 2003 through 2005⁵ - if there's nothing to write about, one shouldn't write. If you cannot find something to write about, then you end up with lots of 'smoke and mirrors weblogs', and that's a lead in to another aspect of this entry.

Governments and NGOs

Governments that are obsolete and don't know it yet are being lobbied by NGOs, or are being replaced by NGOs. Read that sentence carefully. It's true. That's probably why Civil Society had so little actual say at WSIS, because NGOs are a threat to governments in that they (1) have funding, (2) attract socially connected people, and (3) typically know how the governments work well enough to toss large sized monkey wrenches where they want to in processes.

A few years ago I was considering starting a NGO. In fact, even now, I am considering starting a NGO. Everyone with a cause or reason seems to be starting a NGO. There aren't that many new politicians in the world trying to get into governments, it seems - they just start an NGO. Or maybe it's just well intentioned people that start NGOs, thinking that they can change things - and inadvertently become politicians. What I do know is that in all my work with NGOs over the last few years, I have met more politicians than people who are actually focused on solutions; the latter exist but seem buried in an avalanche of people looking for funding of 'the cause'. This is not an issue, except where 'the cause' includes not just making a living - it includes completely separating themselves from the things that motivated them from taking up 'the cause'.

To further make things interesting, things such as the WSIS are drowning in so much bureaucracy that between all the acronyms and specialized words, it might as well be another language - which is exactly the same problem that the grassroots NGOs started off with. They didn't speak the language; to get funding they had to write proposals to funding agencies, funding agencies approve proposals based on what the proposal states, and what the proposal states may not be for something which actually does anything, or something with plausible results. It just looks really good on paper.

I was involved in writing a paper this year - in doing a study - and in a meeting this year, I saw so many holes in the data that the NGO knowingly ignored that I don't know that I can finish it in good conscience. There was no contract drawn up for me, I went with a tacit understanding of what the entire thing was supposed to be for only to see a bunch of people coming together and ignoring the obvious flaws in the data - even that I pointed out. The study is wrong, the results will be wrong, and it's a topic that I am so attached to that I am not willing to have the results of this paper create further projects for funding that do not help and may hurt the particular topic. Maybe the greater good is not just about hard decisions under the gun. Maybe the greater good is also about things we decide to do and which we decide not to do. Ayn Rand covered that base well, though evil is somewhat subjective. Sanction, though, is granted by action or inaction.

Life was easier in kindergarten, and all of this is dangerous to say while looking for contracts, but... isn't that part of looking for contracts? Looking for something that is worthwhile and provides income? Isn't that what we, as human beings, are supposed to be doing - adding value to the world somehow?

And then this leads back to the media. If the NGOs are accepting funding to help people, where is the transparency even to the people who are supposedly being helped? While NGOs scream for transparency in government, perhaps it's time for some introspection within all these NGOs. There has to be some discussion, some manner of integrating the people who help with people who are being helped. Some communication in an age where technology is increasingly - perhaps exponentially - the ability to communicate, maybe there should be an actual exponential increase in communication. But then, where is the traditional media, and why aren't they asking the hard questions that a true journalist would ask? Where is the investigative reporting? Where is the 'inform the public' stuff? That's where WorldChanging.com and the Digital Divide Network make things transparent, but it's hardly enough.

Why isn't it enough? Frankly, many people who are supposedly being helped don't have access to the internet. It's a Catch-22 in many cases. But if you can't walk into a neighborhood of people who are being helped and have them tell you about a project, then the project is a true reflection on the NGO, and it's not a good reflection.

There are good NGOs out there, few and far between - and the way you know of them is that they are transparent, they stay in touch with reality - they stay grounded. Maybe my experience within the Caribbean region isn't something I should judge the world's NGOs by, but... to be frank, the people who are really interested in progress as opposed to profit always seem outnumbered and 'overpaperworked'.

Suddenly, we can look at the NGO community as a form of funding agency funded - some philanthropical - government replacement, because they operate at about the same level of transparency as most government offices. I could wax poetic about what some NGOs are doing by posting academic papers, and by talking about potential, but there's only so much of that which should be permitted without concrete steps. In fact, looking over this year's activities, I've done more than most NGOs I know. Sure, I haven't changed policies of anything, and I haven't affected any government that I know about, but I have been showing what is possible to people. That I have done; that I will continue to do. Yet at some meetings I have been at this year, I have felt like a comedian in front of an audience expecting a musical. Comedy, at least, is grounded in the level of perception. Most musicals and theatre are about telling stories.

If you really want to look at what an NGO has done, disregard all academic papers and ask someone of that NGO what the NGO has done. If they tell you about conferences and meetings, disregard it. Ask them again about what the NGO has done. They may tell you about lobbying efforts. Ask them again. Get to the core, and really see what the NGO has done. Conferences and meetings are useless without concrete progress, as are academic papers. Now, if the person says that they were trying to do something but kept bumping their heads, ask them why they didn't change direction.

Another topic is... not many NGOs seem to attempt to have self-funding projects, or creating projects which fund themselves. And NGO budgets don't go down.

Suddenly, a lot of these NGOs seem to have a lot in common in with governments. Maybe it's an aspect of Globalization.

Globalization

Globalization is a reality⁶. People need to get used to the idea, and also 'own' the idea. Hypothetically, this is done through governments and NGOs. Hypothetically. Globalization isn't just about Multinational corporations. It's really about the people who aren't parts of multinational corporations - the customers and the victims of monopoly and policy. Globalization is about balance, and where balance doesn't come easily, progress will either be stymied, worked around or will be dealt with in a less than pleasant fashion for everyone involved. Consider this quote and subquote by Thomas Friedman:

Put all of this democratization of information together and what it means is that the days when government could isolate their people from understanding what life was beyond their borders or even beyond their village are over. Life outside can't be trashed and made to look worse than it is. And life inside can't be propagandized and made to look better than it is. Thanks to the democratization of information, we all increasingly know how each other lives - no matter how isolated you think a country might be. The minute you think you have devised a new, higher, thicker wall to hide behind, you discover that technology has found a way to lower it. And the minute you think you have drawn a new line in the sand to protect you, technology finds a way to erase it. Raul Valdes Vivo, the rector of the Cuban Communist Party's Nico Lopez school for advanced studies outside of Havana, put it so well in an interview with National Geographic (June 1999). He was asked about the difficulties Castro's Cuba faced in maintaing socialist principles, even as it was increasingly being forced to adopt capitalist means to survive. "Cuba is no longer an island," he mused. "There are no islands anymore. There is only one world."

Democratization of information. In other words, people will find out what is going on , no matter what controls are put in place. It's an amazing thing, really, that I can read anyone who has a written voice on the internet. With enough bandwidth and patience, someone can even listen to podcasts, or even streaming video. Still, not everyone is connected - though Thomas Friedman had thrown out a figure that 300,000 new people are getting online everyday. I don't know that this is true, or what source that came from, but I do know that more people are getting connected. How long? 5 years? 10 years? But at some point, things will accelerate worldwide. I think it will come from the grassroots instead of all of these NGOs and governmental initiatives, actually. Governments and NGOs that are in touch with the grassroots will survive, and those that aren't... probably won't. Participative government - be it democracy or something else - is what globalization will bring about.

Meanwhile, a some governments and NGOs will just 'take the money and run'. Some will do the right thing. And those that you hear about doing things that benefit people will survive. Consider Hugo Chavez - as much of a character and as disputed as he is, he's still in power - democratically, or at least the elections appear to be properly and traditionally democratic. It even appears that his administration is preparing Venezuala for serious development.

Sustainable Development

It's not enough to just talk about funding and how much is being spent, or how much one has donated. It's about the change that happens, and if that change is to be positive then by extension it has to be self-sustaining. This is because development, by itself, is a vector quantity - it has both direction and speed. Generally speaking, development is considered to be progress - so that's sort of obvious. Thus the real issue is speed, and getting the world up to speed - and that's called acceleration. It means that for sustainable development, there needs to be acceleration, which means a few other things.

It means doing more with less. It means getting concrete results, and it also means that these results and the process of obtaining these results need to be open - not as in open source all the time, but as in transparent. It means that trade subsidy walls need to come down, which open source does help with but does not solve. It means sharing content and making it available to others within the global community, which involves open content. Free Energy weighs in, and some personal experimentation with solar energy this year will soon become open content on... OpenDepth.com. Wireless technology as well.

Friedman wrote a book about the world being flat. It's just become more open, and what that means is still up in the air - but it does mean change - true change, not just reinventing the same things where funding disappears into the air and no effective progress can be found. It means that cultural, technological and linguistic borders will have to be crossed... and somewhere in the center of all of this, the increasingly informed global society of humans has to figure out what it's going to do - one individual at a time. In the end, we are all each just a cheap copy of Tom Bombadil, and we have to affect our own destiny. 2006 might be a good year to focus on that.

Or we can keep doing the same things, and insanely expect progress. Personally, I'm working on the premise of Tom Bombadil. Separate yet connected, each area we cover is something we can ignore... or we can attend to.

Picture at top is by DevelopmentSeed from the MobileActive Convergence; you can view the original here.

¹ Though it seems to me that the magazine has become watered down... or perhaps the demographic that they are targeting no longer includes me... or, likely, both.
² Contributor Emeritus has a nice ring to it. Thanks, Jamais. :-)
³ Yes, I am calling traditional media antiquated; this is an aspect of the Realist Cult.
⁴ Submitted to Morph, the MediaCenter Blog.
⁵ I was trying to write articles related to Open Source/Free Software from the region, but there was quite little to write about from the Caribbean. There still isn't that much.
⁶Globalization started as soon as mankind started travelling by foot. :-)