permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <hemenway@jeffnet.org>]

I thought this thread could die a graceful death, but since several people
have now brought this up, I'll respond.

Matthew S. wrote:
>300 million computers are in use - that doesn't mean
>each one is owned by an individual - on the contrary, consider a government
>department, investment bank or military institution. these organisations
>own 1000s of machines

What disturbed me about the original "sobering stats" post was that the
author chose the extreme end of several highly arguable statistics to
support his case, presenting them as gospel. I don't think that's honest or
in good service to his cause.  Regarding Matthew's quote above, I did
consider this very valid point, but decided 1) my post was long enough
already and 2) although I realize that the original post said "own a
computer," for me the important issue is access to computers, not who paid
for them.

Having access to cyberspace is, I think, one of the dividing lines between
the "haves" and "have nots" in the world (which is the original author's
point), more so than simply owning or not owning a computer. So let me
quibble over numbers a bit more before I make a more important point. Many
people only have access to a computer at work (I notice that on our
listserv, postings drop way down on weekends, so I assume that's true
here). Where I used to work I shared a computer with 40 others; the
corporation owned many that were shared by 5-50 people. Plus, each computer
at a library or school provides access to hundreds if not thousands of
people. Those computers not in individual ownership may increase access,
rather than decrease it (obviously there are places like Microsoft where
each office has 2-5 computers, but that, I think, is industry-specific).
But this is really just quibbling. I suppose I could argue that 1% is an
anomaly, while 5% may be a trend. But whether 1% or 5% use or own
computers, most of the world doesn't.

I know the original author wanted to show that most of the world isn't
exactly like me or like you. But cultural context is critical (it's that
'act locally' thing again): In western culture, if you can't use a
computer, haven't been to college, can't read, and are not white and
Judeo-Christian, you are at a strong disadvantage in your native culture.
It's irrelevant, and not very comforting or helpful that most of the world
is like you: local is what matters to you. I've known "illiterate" farmers
in "substandard" housing who live far richer and happier lives in their
culture than most of the American middle class does in mine. I don't pity
those farmers for what they supposedly lack, and it would be criminal to
force schooling and a concrete-block house on them in a misguided effort to
share our "wealth." It's useful to be reminded how "privileged" we are, but
I wouldn't use that as impetus to try to change the rest of the world.
Accept and understand, yes, but I'd think long and hard before going on to,
as the original post suggests, "educate" them.

For those who want it, here's the original set of stats:

>If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100
>people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would
>look something like the following.
>
>There would be:
><sum> 57 Asians
><sum> 21 Europeans
><sum> 14 from the Western Hemisphere, both North and South America
><sum> 8 Africans
><sum> 52 would be female
><sum> 48 would be male
><sum> 70 would be nonwhite
><sum> 30 would be white
><sum> 70 would be non-Christian
><sum> 30 would be Christian
><sum> 89 would be heterosexual
><sum> 11 would be homosexual
><sum> 6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6
>would be from the United States.
><sum> 80 would live in substandard housing
><sum> 70 would be unable to read
><sum> 50 would suffer from malnutrition
><sum> 1 would be near death
><sum> 1 would be near birth
><sum> 1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education
><sum> 1 would own a computer
>
>
>      "When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective,
>the need for acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly
>apparent."
> (stats compiled in 1999 by)
>      Phillip M Harter, MD, FACEP
>      Stanford University, School of Medicine