Was everything better before?

[mazeno]

> i use the net for work
yes, i use - but it is not my the only and main work.
it is less than 5% of my income.

> [picture with the statistics]
"there are lies, damned lies and the statisctics".
more money =/= more happyness.

so i repeat:
you/we don't want the net (and i don't mean only the net - i mean most of our modern gadgets) for their better life, just for your/our OWN CONVENIENCE.

[bwv812]

> i use the net for work
yes, i use - but it is not my the only and main work.
it is less than 5% of my income.

So what? You still earn income from the internet but don't seem to think others should have that opportunity.

And yes—as I said the last time we had this conversation—internet, phone access, and connectivity are used for business purposes in developing nations all the time. From checking crop/livestock prices, learning agricultural techniques, running tourist sites, and getting medical advice to other things like getting pictures and emails (from relatives in Russia, for example) without the expense, delay, and uncertainty of the postal system.

> [picture with the statistics]
"there are lies, damned lies and the statisctics".
more money =/= more happyness.

Yes, that's why the table indicates satisfaction, and not income. The data for income levels actually does show some divergence from the satisfaction levels, and in some countries they actually report better economic conditions under communism, despite simultaneously saying they are better off now and also believing that market economies are better.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end ... ervations/

so i repeat:
you/we don't want the net (and i don't mean only the net - i mean most of our modern gadgets) for their better life, just for your/our OWN CONVENIENCE.

People aren't that different. If gadgets make life more convenient for us, they're likely to do the same for them. And even more so for those who don't have any access at all, as compared to those tourists who usually have access.

[mazeno]

> If gadgets make life more convenient for us, they're likely to do the same for them
our smartphones and pda made us talking to smartphones and pda, not to other real people. look, at the moment - we don't conversate with real persons, we just click one the keybord to someone virtual and unknown*.

do you want to tell me that our gadgets are convenient for kyrgyz nomads in remote wakhan or thakali in remote mugu, people that never left their valley? for what - for teaching them how to survive? or for communicate one to another who is nearby?
teaching to survive - can you survive more than a week in their places having only what they have? NO!
communication - years ago in asia when someone met someone on the way there're talking a lot - asked about family, friends and all the things. they could spend hours talking. and this is communication. now what we have and what we propose them? some shortcuts on a screen, not the real talks. THIS IS NOT COMMUNICATION.

and why do you want to spend your holidays in remote asia not in honolulu spa?
what are you looking for there?
to see wild monkeys in a kind of zoo?
and to give the monkeys some sweets?
to feel youself better?
(i go there to escape from the modern civilization - for not to forget the times when people near me were more important than their money. and they still give me the opportunity. until we change them to see the money, not others.)

some centuries ago western civilization brought some "sweets" and "gadgets" to native american people...
how many of them survived?
there are many different ways of conquest.

---
* - ok, enough - i quit and run away to real life ;)

[bwv812]

our smartphones and pda made us talking to smartphones and pda, not to other real people. look, at the moment - we don't conversate with real persons, we just click one the keybord to someone virtual and unknown*.

That's a choice we make, not something smartphones force us to do. I mean, back before smartphones lots of people carried books, and kept their noses stuffed in them instead of engaging with the world around them. Better save the natives from the perils of literacy, then!

do you want to tell me that our gadgets are convenient for kyrgyz nomads in remote wakhan or thakali in remote mugu, people that never left their valley? for what - for teaching them how to survive? or for communicate one to another who is nearby?
teaching to survive - can you survive more than a week in their places having only what they have? NO!
communication - years ago in asia when someone met someone on the way there're talking a lot - asked about family, friends and all the things. they could spend hours talking. and this is communication. now what we have and what we propose them? some shortcuts on a screen, not the real talks. THIS IS NOT COMMUNICATION.

What is communication? Being able to access the internet so they know national and international news and politics? Know about the weather? Knowing where the Taliban is and what they're doing? Knowing what roads have been wiped out by landslides and floods? Being able to talk to a doctor or veterinarian by phone, or perhaps even being able to videochat or do remote diagnosis with more sophisticated methods/tools?

Did I say anything about teaching anyone to survive? I actually want these people to do more than survive—I want them to thrive. Learning new information about animal husbandry, agriculture, and even family planning can help them do that. And regardless of what you think, this is what actually happens.

Anyway, here's an interesting piece on how your much-hated smartphones are used in Burma:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ar/424812/

(By the way, we're talking about internet along the Tajik side of the Wakhan corridor. I'm pretty sure most people there have left their valley. Heck, most speak a colonial language, and pretty much all of them have had their lives improved by the Aga Khan foundation, which incidentally supports a Universty in Khorog as well as internet access for locals. Terrible, I know.

and why do you want to spend your holidays in remote asia not in honolulu spa?
what are you looking for there?
to see wild monkeys in a kind of zoo?
and to give the monkeys some sweets?
to feel youself better?
(i go there to escape from the modern civilization - for not to forget the times when people near me were more important than their money. and they still give me the opportunity. until we change them to see the money, not others.)

Maybe the difference is that I don't see people in the developing world as monkeys, but as actual human beings who deserve the same opportunities as the rest of us, including access to information. I don't sit tit there and enjoy my technology while pretending that these people need to be saved from the technology that has done so much to transform our world (and almost entirely for the better).

Maybe you go places to escape modern civilization, and are angry that there are fewer places where you feel you can do that. But that's your choice to travel for that reason, and it should be the choice of the locals—not you—whether they adopt technology or not. They're not there to provide you with a more 'authentic' travel experience or to help you feel like you've escaped the modern world.

[mazeno]

> actually want these people to do more than survive
just one question.
who gave you the right to change the way of life of these people, the right to tell them how to live in their own home?
are you better than they?
more wise?
or what?

you are the guest there.
only the guest.
nothing more.

[bwv812]

I'm not telling them how to live. When internet services become common (and they will), it won't be because I or any other tourist is forcing them to do this. Change happens because there is (local) demand for it. I don't want to stand in the way of that change simply because it makes them less photogenic, less 'authentic,' or interferes with my desire to escape from the modern world.

On the other hand, you are the one who seems to be wanting to save them from the perils of the west, in a deeply paternalistic manner.

[mazeno]

again:
how many native americans survived the european conquest (not only the troops - i mean following farmers etc.)?

[bwv812]

How is the explicit militarized conquest of a people, against their will and in conjunction with exposure to virulent diseases to which those people had no immunity, in any way comparable to the voluntary adoption of technology in places where nobody has any interest in displacing the existing population?

I don't think there's anything rational left to say, and that we are just going to keep on strongly disagreeing with each other on this topic.

[mazeno]

> comparable
yes, it is comparable.
modern times, modern diseases, modern weapon.
(weapon? yes - by cellphones, ipads, computers, cameras, street monitoring etc. we give a lot of info back for free. even not fo free - we pay for it. it is really powerful weapon. and yes, i also give - but try not too much. e.g. my cellphone has no android or so. i delete all exif data from the pictures i publish. when travelling i use paper maps, not gps. my car is 22 y.o. and also has no gps. i don't have fb. etc, etc. when, where and if it is still possible i prefer to choose my freedom. and of course - i'm aware it is not possible at all. but i try. as you wrote above - "i only know what you tell us".
and weapon 'coz you have to spend more money, more energy, more time for simple things, for simple life.
and this weapon is more effective more people using it are naive to it. like kyrgyz nomads in remote wakhan.)

anyway - i wish you and me not to experience the times when meeting such excellent people is no more possible, because they would change (as nepalis changed a lot - in bad way).

> we are just going to keep on strongly disagreeing with each other on this topic
here, i strongly agree ;)

[Lovetheworld]

It has finally been concluded, the world was better before internet. Because then we didn't get SPAM