I voted for Schmidt, but you need Gates too. Unless citizens get the right education, incentives and access to technology and to data the internet in itself won't solve their problems. But give them the whole package and the potential is enormous.
At present Internet is the technology that is highly beneficial in every day life, but in the meantime, if used in a bad way, it can cause bad effect like now teenager be played games on the Internet which it make both good and bad habits.But the Internet affect a few being to local people because the rural areas have living natural and simple, Living in a society with love and compassion to each other and help ,sharing each other so they can coexist happily on.
Nodar Mosashvili - 9 years ago
I agree with both of them. On the one hand "...Just wire them up and the citizens will take care of a lot of the problems" but on the other hand "...But no, those are not (enough), for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we’re going to do something about malaria.".
Meera Shekar - 9 years ago
This should not be framed as an either/or question. Both are valid viewpoints in different contexts and in different time frames. Everyone needs timely information through the internet, coupled with access to basic services that address the needs/demands. Especially for the poor. Providing information will create demand, but if it is not coupled with supply then we will create chaos, and a revolt.
Sam mk - 9 years ago
Gates over simplified - even then solution to a sick child could be googled-out by a parent on internet - and instantly requisitioned and delivered to the home - for Africa that anology is as yet not feasible! But very much promicing in the nearer future... so that yes; eventually direct cure or treatment of ailments could be done through the internet.
To me Schmidt takes the day
Tarun K Sarkar - 9 years ago
It's easy to get almost emotionally blackmailed (
Greshom Sichinga - 9 years ago
Bill Gates is right in the short term. In an emergency one needs rescuing but for the long term Eric is right as the best sustainable solutions are those arrived at by the people themselves which is enabled by information. Aid is very difficult to scale while information through broad band is easily scalable.
David Palma Paz - 9 years ago
Dice Bill Gates que ningun sitio web puede combatir una simple diarrea o la malaria, sin embargo coincido con él, solo que olvida que si tenemos los sitios web y somos las personas quienes las usamos esto se puede traducir en solidaridad: alguien debe vivir cerca de ese niño o ese anciano que esta enfermo y le puede proporcionar los medicamentos que necesitan. La tecnologia por sí sola no nmos da nada, es la tecnologia manipulada por el homnbre y la iniciativa de estae por servir a sus semjantes loque nos va a dar el éxico como especie humana y la supervivencia como especie humana ahora que tanto hemos acbado con nuestro entorno, por lo tanto coincido con Eric Schmidt: la tecnología nos comunicay nos conecta pero nosotros somos los responsables de ser solidarios, de denunciar lo que esta mal, de ayudar a educar a nuestros conciudadanos, etc.
Zlatan Sabic - 9 years ago
The question is not well formulated. Both statements are correct and complementary. It is obvious that you cannot heal broken arm by Internet (who knows, maybe one day it will be possible), but it is also true that connectivity significantly contributes to the openness of society, which may lead to better governance, and consequently, to better healthcare. That is Mr. Schmidt's message. To say digital connectivity does not contribute to healthcare would be like saying that education does not contribute to healthcare. True, teachers do not go around and heal people, but communities with higher level of education do better in everything - in healthcare too.
Yuri - 9 years ago
No-one seems to like Eric Schmidt. The results for this question so far contradict the other questions.
Frank - 9 years ago
Although expanding internet and broadband access will not directly provide a cure or prevention of malaria and other diseases it cures the one problem that helps spread malaria, ebola etc...lack of information. Broader internet access will also go a long way in curing corruption. You can never under estimate the power of information.
Beatriz Moreno - 9 years ago
NO TIENE NADA QUE VER, TODOS SABEMOS QUE EL BIENESTAR COMPRENDE SALUD, BUENA ALIMENTACIÓN ACCESO A LOS PRODUCTOS BÁSICOS, BUENA EDUCACIÓN, SON DERECHOS.
EL INTERNET FACILITA A PROFESIONALES, A NIÑOS, LA INFORMACIÓN MUNDIAL, PERMITE ACLARAR CONCEPTOS, PERMITE MUCHAS VECES PODER SOBREVIVIR.
CUANDO HAY MISERIA ES OBVIO QUE LO ÚNICO QUE IMPORTA ES SOBREVIVIR, PERO TODOS TENEMOS DERECHO A MEJORAR LA CALIDAD DE VIDA
ABASABYONA MILCAH - 9 years ago
Internet has really helped me a lot especially whenever i get an urgent need to tackle a new concept that i have no knowledge about. I immediately go to internet for assistance and get it instantly.
Karl Galing - 9 years ago
Internet is a tool that enables us to make more wise decisions and actions. At the end of the day it will be individuals and institutions that need to take this tool to set up efficient systems and structures that will improve delivery of basic social services especially to the poor.
Offer them education so they can help themselves.
In doing so we give them something of true value, something that remains after we are gone.
This will make them proud of their own achievements and we will have an equivalent relation.
Internet and the necessary infrastructure makes them more dependent.
And that will lead to inequality.
I agree with Alex Blum
See, both views are perfectly morally/ethically correct and each has specific dimensions in development theory of change. Both is urgent and would only be taken a challenge in terms of real quick response time: health, one cannot say, wait I will need to build the ICT infrastructure; the ICT sector could not say wait till I have build that infra before I respond to your health needs but parallel with health issues is the serious global policy making ICT as another bridge for health, hence where is the conflict of the arguments? Both are equally essential.
DigEconomy - 9 years ago
Internet is digital economy... few monopolistic companies like facebook/google/telecom operators, less jobs... So even for economy in terms of human development, Internet is not helping...
Kari - 9 years ago
Internet is unstoppable. But it will not solve everything. Bill Gates expresses a much more realistic outlook. I'm sure Eric Schmidt would not "endorse" the remark he made at a digital economy event as his philosophy or serious recommendation.
Kennedy - 9 years ago
You must get the basics right before thinking of wiring them up. If you do not have Community Health Posts where people who are down with malaria can seek medical attention before wiring them up they will not live to take advantage of internet connectivity.
I think both men make valid points, but are also looking at the issue from two different perspectives when speaking of "solving" development problems. Bill Gates example makes this evident. Yes, the internet will not cure someone who currently has malaria or get someone who is starving immediate access to food. However, the internet can address and improve many of the systemic issues that lead to malaria and hunger by increasing connectivity to people and systemically improving access to education, economic opportunity, and healthcare.
I think investing in schools is an apt example. We don't erect a school and expect that joblessness will disappear. But we do recognize that if we can improve the education of children, there will be reverbative effects over time that extend beyond just learning the ABCs and basic arithmetic. An investment in internet connectivity should be viewed in a similar light, as a long-term investment with the power to create ripples throughout the larger cycle of poverty and development.
Glenn-Marie - 9 years ago
So tempting to think that all problems have a technological fix....
Shirley Skorbianky - 9 years ago
Free or highly subsidized connectiviy in a long run can help to solve many governance, education, social and health issues. When we are looking at the very poor, or fragile countries, this is a matter of life, not a matter of quality of life.
Ejaz Ghani - 9 years ago
Growth escalators and growth convergence
17 August 2014, 9796 reads
Just like the East Asian Tigers, the Lions of Africa are now growing much faster than the developed economies. However, this column shows that the growth escalators in Africa are different than in East Asia. The East Asian Tigers benefitted from a rapidly expanding manufacturing sector. The African Lions are benefitting from increases in productivity in the service sector, while the agricultural sector remains unproductive.
Amparo - 9 years ago
Internet access helps with prevention. It also helps to cure: (a) my child has diarrhea, what should I give him? (b) my child needs medical attention, where should I take him? It is indirect help, with different degrees of "indirecteness." In the case of diarrhea, knowing that you should hydrate the body and take psyllium or similar product, and knowing what food to avoid, may actually be the cure. In the case of finding out the closest health center the time savings can be crucial.
Saying that none of this matters is like saying that hospitals don't cure deseases, only medicines and surgical procedures do.
michael - 9 years ago
I agree completely with Ezio (the 6th comment)
JP - 9 years ago
Internet access enhances awareness and knowldege can often support prevention of diseases, rather than the curative. Also timely feedback and response can be expedited through better boardband in case of epidemics. Not syaing that you must not spend on disease control but boradband has changed agricultural practices in India and can change disease burden through better and faster information
Salim - 9 years ago
Both statements are complementary and both are needed to solve today and future's problems. This said, we tackled the second a lot analytically and intellectually (but still not enough financially), so its time to explore the realms of the first and its linkage to development.
Natalija - 9 years ago
People should be really confused with those two questions. Everybody gets on with Gates about malaria, but then over 90% connot live withuot the Internet. Are we really thinking to replace medcines with the Internet, or food? None of that could be replaced with the Internet, but Internet will empower individuals to get all that. And that is the most important message that Schmidt was making. It is not in coflict with Gates. I see it aligned. Today we are not in a position to choose, we need Internet ALSO.
I agree to both the statement. Being in India, i understand how both the situation exist. But i would welcome technology that can solve the issues of health and education in India. If there can be a platform as mentioned that has to be accessible to every citizen of that country. On that note i have a contradiction whether a broadband connectivity can solve the problem of majority of the population who still has no access to basic necessities.
what ever think globally,health,agriculture,education,business,environment,biodiversity & eco system,sustainable dev. not equal.just considering venerability,climate risk,economic growth,& other basic factors to come visible status we should to make some basic data or information for regional wise & make a plan to reach unreached wirth in short possible for better life.so in each every areas we established community base digital service means one stop service.people get all sorts of information to get easy solution through ict.
Ezio - 9 years ago
To put at the same level of the question the two sentences is not giving valid response. The first question is about improving way fo life, the second one is about survival, and it is obvious that the second is prevailing on the first one.
I voted for Schmidt, but you need Gates too. Unless citizens get the right education, incentives and access to technology and to data the internet in itself won't solve their problems. But give them the whole package and the potential is enormous.
At present Internet is the technology that is highly beneficial in every day life, but in the meantime, if used in a bad way, it can cause bad effect like now teenager be played games on the Internet which it make both good and bad habits.But the Internet affect a few being to local people because the rural areas have living natural and simple, Living in a society with love and compassion to each other and help ,sharing each other so they can coexist happily on.
I agree with both of them. On the one hand "...Just wire them up and the citizens will take care of a lot of the problems" but on the other hand "...But no, those are not (enough), for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we’re going to do something about malaria.".
This should not be framed as an either/or question. Both are valid viewpoints in different contexts and in different time frames. Everyone needs timely information through the internet, coupled with access to basic services that address the needs/demands. Especially for the poor. Providing information will create demand, but if it is not coupled with supply then we will create chaos, and a revolt.
Gates over simplified - even then solution to a sick child could be googled-out by a parent on internet - and instantly requisitioned and delivered to the home - for Africa that anology is as yet not feasible! But very much promicing in the nearer future... so that yes; eventually direct cure or treatment of ailments could be done through the internet.
To me Schmidt takes the day
It's easy to get almost emotionally blackmailed (
Bill Gates is right in the short term. In an emergency one needs rescuing but for the long term Eric is right as the best sustainable solutions are those arrived at by the people themselves which is enabled by information. Aid is very difficult to scale while information through broad band is easily scalable.
Dice Bill Gates que ningun sitio web puede combatir una simple diarrea o la malaria, sin embargo coincido con él, solo que olvida que si tenemos los sitios web y somos las personas quienes las usamos esto se puede traducir en solidaridad: alguien debe vivir cerca de ese niño o ese anciano que esta enfermo y le puede proporcionar los medicamentos que necesitan. La tecnologia por sí sola no nmos da nada, es la tecnologia manipulada por el homnbre y la iniciativa de estae por servir a sus semjantes loque nos va a dar el éxico como especie humana y la supervivencia como especie humana ahora que tanto hemos acbado con nuestro entorno, por lo tanto coincido con Eric Schmidt: la tecnología nos comunicay nos conecta pero nosotros somos los responsables de ser solidarios, de denunciar lo que esta mal, de ayudar a educar a nuestros conciudadanos, etc.
The question is not well formulated. Both statements are correct and complementary. It is obvious that you cannot heal broken arm by Internet (who knows, maybe one day it will be possible), but it is also true that connectivity significantly contributes to the openness of society, which may lead to better governance, and consequently, to better healthcare. That is Mr. Schmidt's message. To say digital connectivity does not contribute to healthcare would be like saying that education does not contribute to healthcare. True, teachers do not go around and heal people, but communities with higher level of education do better in everything - in healthcare too.
No-one seems to like Eric Schmidt. The results for this question so far contradict the other questions.
Although expanding internet and broadband access will not directly provide a cure or prevention of malaria and other diseases it cures the one problem that helps spread malaria, ebola etc...lack of information. Broader internet access will also go a long way in curing corruption. You can never under estimate the power of information.
NO TIENE NADA QUE VER, TODOS SABEMOS QUE EL BIENESTAR COMPRENDE SALUD, BUENA ALIMENTACIÓN ACCESO A LOS PRODUCTOS BÁSICOS, BUENA EDUCACIÓN, SON DERECHOS.
EL INTERNET FACILITA A PROFESIONALES, A NIÑOS, LA INFORMACIÓN MUNDIAL, PERMITE ACLARAR CONCEPTOS, PERMITE MUCHAS VECES PODER SOBREVIVIR.
CUANDO HAY MISERIA ES OBVIO QUE LO ÚNICO QUE IMPORTA ES SOBREVIVIR, PERO TODOS TENEMOS DERECHO A MEJORAR LA CALIDAD DE VIDA
Internet has really helped me a lot especially whenever i get an urgent need to tackle a new concept that i have no knowledge about. I immediately go to internet for assistance and get it instantly.
Internet is a tool that enables us to make more wise decisions and actions. At the end of the day it will be individuals and institutions that need to take this tool to set up efficient systems and structures that will improve delivery of basic social services especially to the poor.
Offer them education so they can help themselves.
In doing so we give them something of true value, something that remains after we are gone.
This will make them proud of their own achievements and we will have an equivalent relation.
Internet and the necessary infrastructure makes them more dependent.
And that will lead to inequality.
I agree with Alex Blum
See, both views are perfectly morally/ethically correct and each has specific dimensions in development theory of change. Both is urgent and would only be taken a challenge in terms of real quick response time: health, one cannot say, wait I will need to build the ICT infrastructure; the ICT sector could not say wait till I have build that infra before I respond to your health needs but parallel with health issues is the serious global policy making ICT as another bridge for health, hence where is the conflict of the arguments? Both are equally essential.
Internet is digital economy... few monopolistic companies like facebook/google/telecom operators, less jobs... So even for economy in terms of human development, Internet is not helping...
Internet is unstoppable. But it will not solve everything. Bill Gates expresses a much more realistic outlook. I'm sure Eric Schmidt would not "endorse" the remark he made at a digital economy event as his philosophy or serious recommendation.
You must get the basics right before thinking of wiring them up. If you do not have Community Health Posts where people who are down with malaria can seek medical attention before wiring them up they will not live to take advantage of internet connectivity.
I think both men make valid points, but are also looking at the issue from two different perspectives when speaking of "solving" development problems. Bill Gates example makes this evident. Yes, the internet will not cure someone who currently has malaria or get someone who is starving immediate access to food. However, the internet can address and improve many of the systemic issues that lead to malaria and hunger by increasing connectivity to people and systemically improving access to education, economic opportunity, and healthcare.
I think investing in schools is an apt example. We don't erect a school and expect that joblessness will disappear. But we do recognize that if we can improve the education of children, there will be reverbative effects over time that extend beyond just learning the ABCs and basic arithmetic. An investment in internet connectivity should be viewed in a similar light, as a long-term investment with the power to create ripples throughout the larger cycle of poverty and development.
So tempting to think that all problems have a technological fix....
Free or highly subsidized connectiviy in a long run can help to solve many governance, education, social and health issues. When we are looking at the very poor, or fragile countries, this is a matter of life, not a matter of quality of life.
Growth escalators and growth convergence
17 August 2014, 9796 reads
Just like the East Asian Tigers, the Lions of Africa are now growing much faster than the developed economies. However, this column shows that the growth escalators in Africa are different than in East Asia. The East Asian Tigers benefitted from a rapidly expanding manufacturing sector. The African Lions are benefitting from increases in productivity in the service sector, while the agricultural sector remains unproductive.
Internet access helps with prevention. It also helps to cure: (a) my child has diarrhea, what should I give him? (b) my child needs medical attention, where should I take him? It is indirect help, with different degrees of "indirecteness." In the case of diarrhea, knowing that you should hydrate the body and take psyllium or similar product, and knowing what food to avoid, may actually be the cure. In the case of finding out the closest health center the time savings can be crucial.
Saying that none of this matters is like saying that hospitals don't cure deseases, only medicines and surgical procedures do.
I agree completely with Ezio (the 6th comment)
Internet access enhances awareness and knowldege can often support prevention of diseases, rather than the curative. Also timely feedback and response can be expedited through better boardband in case of epidemics. Not syaing that you must not spend on disease control but boradband has changed agricultural practices in India and can change disease burden through better and faster information
Both statements are complementary and both are needed to solve today and future's problems. This said, we tackled the second a lot analytically and intellectually (but still not enough financially), so its time to explore the realms of the first and its linkage to development.
People should be really confused with those two questions. Everybody gets on with Gates about malaria, but then over 90% connot live withuot the Internet. Are we really thinking to replace medcines with the Internet, or food? None of that could be replaced with the Internet, but Internet will empower individuals to get all that. And that is the most important message that Schmidt was making. It is not in coflict with Gates. I see it aligned. Today we are not in a position to choose, we need Internet ALSO.
I agree to both the statement. Being in India, i understand how both the situation exist. But i would welcome technology that can solve the issues of health and education in India. If there can be a platform as mentioned that has to be accessible to every citizen of that country. On that note i have a contradiction whether a broadband connectivity can solve the problem of majority of the population who still has no access to basic necessities.
what ever think globally,health,agriculture,education,business,environment,biodiversity & eco system,sustainable dev. not equal.just considering venerability,climate risk,economic growth,& other basic factors to come visible status we should to make some basic data or information for regional wise & make a plan to reach unreached wirth in short possible for better life.so in each every areas we established community base digital service means one stop service.people get all sorts of information to get easy solution through ict.
To put at the same level of the question the two sentences is not giving valid response. The first question is about improving way fo life, the second one is about survival, and it is obvious that the second is prevailing on the first one.