WTF? That was my reaction too as I read an FT article which came to the radical conclusion that Twitter and malaria are bedfellows in the global fight against poverty.
|This mosquito has shares in Twitter. |
Image courtesy It's Nico under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence
Ok, I admit that I have heard the argument that connectivity alone can combat social, political and economic ills many times. It’s something that Evgeny Morozov has called technological humanitarianism. Got a problem with poverty, education or dictators? Throw some technology at it. Don’t try and understand the problem or worry about the circumstances in which the technology is deployed.
In discussing connectivity’s contribution to solving poverty (ultimately in an effort to justify Twitter’s share price), the journalist makes the general point that it changes behaviour radically and positively. He rehashes some tired anecdotes, for example the one about the African farmer using his mobile to find higher prices at market (no, I’m not sure about where Twitter fits into this picture either).
The anthropological evidence, unsurprisingly, paints a more nuanced picture. Namely in general terms digital technology often facilitates social reproduction rather then change. Specifically, anthropology has convincingly refuted the 'farmer uses phone' anecdote as myth. In other words, the journalist is wildly optimistic about technology’s potential to heal the world autonomously. Silicon Valley would welcome him as one of their own.
But Silicon Valley might want to reconsider the welcome after reading a few lines on. He maintains connectivity would do more for Africa than immunity to malaria in financial terms (and that the investment of well-meaning tech philanthropists such as Bill Gates into the latter is misdirected). That is far from convincing in itself given what I say above (and think about productivity gains from a healthy population). Worse, he thinks a malaria cure would actually cause more poverty because malaria acts as a great population control mechanism in overpopulated countries, making it doubly stupid to invest in it from a financial point of view.
Even if all his previous arguments stacked up we need to ask him: Is money the only thing people care about? Even FT readers?