What I picked up from "The folly of finding what works"

“The impact of information technology on the Global Economy” was the title of my research project last semester. 2 weeks into the project and I was still finding newer things to study. Around the same time, my professor in charge advised me that I better stop searching for more topics and better get to work.

I, on the other hand wanted to make this a comprehensive study on the impact of IT. So I wanted to include Overview of the situation today, the booms and busts, the venture capitalists, web1.0, web 2.0, the long tail, Outsourcing, trickle down effect, ICT for development, mobile communications. Phew. No wait, there's more, e-commerce, e-governance, case studies of famous companies, the semiconductor industry, exports, imports, recession. Relate that to GDP, employment, education, productivity, FDI...

Did I leave out anything?

Clearly, if I did manage to include it all, I'd have a PhD thesis, which I would have sold and made money from.

Just one problem.

This would never get finished. In fact, my project wouldn't even start. I'd be so busy finding newer things to study about that I'd hardly put pen to paper and actually document anything. Instead I would just be reading and researching on every single item that was remotely related to the IT industry.

Moving on,

This May, when I started my summer internship, I was fascinated by the health care industry. In particular, primary health care. The numbers were huge and I was overwhelmed by the scale of their operations. So when I had to pick my project, I didn’t want to leave out anything. I tried to include everything, using variety of economic formulas, different theories. My internship coordinator asked me why I don’t stay for a 6 month fellowship. As flattered as I was, I also got the underlying hint. I understood that given the time frame it was unfeasible to carry out the study with so many parameters. Heck, I wouldn’t be able to make sense of all that data. So I picked one or two core areas and focused on them.

As far as personal experiences go, these were the first two instances that came to my mind while I was reading Ken Banks' blog post titled The folly of "finding what works". He brings up a very valid point:

As with the confusion caused by multiple interpretations of “sustainable development“, the social mobile space is struggling with its own definitions of concepts such as collaboration, empowerment, scale, “enabling environment” and “finding what works”. We hear these terms on a daily basis, yet we never stop to ask what they really mean. What does an “enabling environment” really look like, and do we really need one like people say we do? Who decides what scale really means, and how important scaling really is? We all nod in agreement when people use these terms at conferences, but refrain from questioning them through fear of appearing ignorant.

The “folly of finding what works” strikes particular resonance. Although mobiles for development has only been around for a few short years, surely by now we’ve identified at least a few things that work? Isn’t that the purpose of all these reports, blog posts, tweets, projects, conferences, workshops, barcamps and academic studies?

After six years-or-so of social mobile, we’re surely at the point where we can throw some real resources around at least a few tools? Surely we can pool our collective skills, knowledge and resources into helping at least a few reach their full social change potential? Instead of sitting around talking about our commitment to social mobile, we need to show our true colours and act, regardless of who gets credit for those actions.

Reading this also started another chain of thought in my head, the credit for which has to be given to Stan Thakaekara. In the course of what would turn out to be a vociferous debate on issues relating to the environment, education, caste and equity amongst other things, Stan gave us some gyaan on how he feels that technology hasn't quite lived up to its promise. How technology hasn't quite created an equitable world. How the more answers we try to seek, the farther we seem to move from actually arriving at the truth. And instead we're just making the world worse off.

But then what is the truth anyway?

Coming back, Stan was of firm belief that the divide is getting larger and larger. Technology is giving only a few answers. It's a balloon effect, where squeezing one side of a balloon makes it expand in the other direction. You can't ignore the consequences and certainly can't escape them. So we have to now come up with clean technologies in order to clean up all the mess that we created over the years* **. Jeffrey Sachs also says that it's not that we don't have fossil fuels, we have plenty of it (maybe not oil, but coal surely), its about using it in an optimized manner.

Jeez, I digress again.

When Stan first told me all this, it did strike a chord somewhere but I was still too mesmerized by capitalism. I now realize, I didn't quite understand capitalism. Maybe I still haven't. But after having read works of Jeffrey Sachs, Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Joseph Stiglitz, I have been exposed to a whole new way of thinking. These guys aren't dishing out dung. They all emphasize on the same thing, there's little time.

Bottom line being:
The reforms have to take place now, the access to credit/capital for the poor has to happen now and heck social media for development better deliver now. Because everyday, a kid is losing his life in Africa (and India and Latin America and Bangladesh and...). Like Ken said, we need to stop talking and start doing now.

*Of course there are numerous theories which say that we would have reached this stage anyway even had it not been for the pollution, but lets leave that for another day.

** And then there's yet another theory that says that no matter what you do, we're way past the threshold. So we have to release chemicals in the air such as sulphates to cool our system (remember the TED talk on climate change? No? Here)

Tribal concepts of assets and “forest dwellers”

Though I can’t really hand pick the “best” moment from my trip, there are parts which stand out. And meeting Stan Thakaekara was surely one of them. (More about him Here).

Read more about GRASSROUTES: The Road Trip for Social Change 

We went to his office and just sat there while he went on and on, hopping from one issue to another. I didn’t blink once.

When you look at Tribals, the first things that come to your mind are that they are uncivilised, they live on trees, eat leaves, go around strutting, illiterate and so on.

-Stan Thakaekara

He further said that all these were highly negative ways of describing the community, leave alone stereotypical. Tribals are social groups with territorial affiliation yes, but their idea of property is very different from the conventional idea. To tribals, the concept of land ownership doesn’t exist, (s)he thinks of himself as an integral part of the ecosystem while using its resources in a minimalist way.

So how is this relevant?

Look back through history. So like we discussed there was no concept of land as an asset for the tribals. So what happens when people start treating it as an asset? The issue of inheritence comes up. This is the real problem. The inherited land is passed on mainly to the male member of the family and this is one of the fundamental causes of gender inequality. It’s only the man who is in possession of the assets where as the woman becomes a child bearing device.

When I had gone to Chembakuli I had seen that the men and women were both equally vociferous in their opinions. I suppose it all makes sense now.

Now for the interesting and tragic part. The tribals never sought to acquire the land or try to get documents to back up their claim on this land because they never felt the need to. As far as they could remember they’d always been here and the forest had always been nice to them, taking care of all their basic needs.

Coming back to the present:

When the government goes ahead and passes the laws such as the Forest Rights Act etc, they don’t expect the Scheduled Tribes of that particular area to show the documents but instead use wells, small check dams etc as a proof of their existence. That part is alright.

But when the migrants came to this region, they started claiming the land as their property (and the tribals were obviously not aware of this).

Now of these migrants, “forest dwellers” are defined as those who had claimed the land as long as 75 years ago, and they are on the safe side. The tricky part is relating to those migrants who claim to have owned the land for less han 75 years. They are the ones with vested interests and who want the policies to favour them. Obviously, opinions differ on this.

Some people feel that 75 years is too long a time. Imagine a person who has owned the land for only 73 years

Syndicated from the Grassroutes Blog.

To know more about what we did and what we're upto follow the HUNGRY FOOLS Blog

On 7k Runs

This Sunday morning, I was violently woken up by Mumma dearest.

"Lets go for breakfast."

"Wathaf...what? Its 6.30 mumma, come on. Just go back to sleep"

10 minutes later the whole family was in the car. The reason? Mom has a verrry busy schedule traveling to opposite ends of the globe in the next couple of weeks. So, the much cliched "quality family time" issue was brought up.

Breakfast it was.

While taking a U turn near our house, and going up the fly over, we saw hundreds of girls wearing tight white tees.

Ah yes, the 7k run. A premier women's college in Hyderabad had organized a 7 kilometer run as a fundraiser for their silver jubilee celebration. And well, obviously they were playing to their strenghts. I did remember seeing girls from the colleges at all malls wooing guys to attend the event. Anorexic guys who didn't look like they needed a run hounded the stall as if waiting for the girls to perform a trick.

The sight on the D Day was amusing. I realised the shirts were not tight at all. It wasnt the shirt. Bloated beauties...huffing and puffing as they took those giant leaps, inspiring the thousand behind them to follow.

The only problem?

Each one of them were given water packets. They realised since this wasn't an environmental drive, its ok to litter the flyover.

Fornication to save Rainforests!

People are always on the look out for some innovative ideas. As is the case in most start ups, the primary idea isn't anything revolutionary, its something ordinary, something which makes us go like "Yeah, so?" but what matters is how you implement it.

A Norwegian organisation which goes by a self explanatory name Fuck For Forests(FFF) has sex in public places to raise money for saving the rainforests. Now I was scandalised as well deeply impressed by the idea. On one hand the idea of having sex in public is still a taboo if not unacceptable in most countries. On the other hand they are raising money for a cause.

The idea receives cent per cent on innovation. The reason I say this is:

However noble be the cause, you can't expect to take money from people if you don't give them something in return. FFF gives it target audience exactly what it wants in return for saving the world's rainforests.

They have sex in public, they have sex on stage during concerts, basically they have sex anywhere they can.

After their first year they made nearly 100,000 USD from their website by selling merchandise and membership.

The problem from this sort of start-up can be that they'll be mostly on their own. I don't see any huge NGO (WWF doesn't accept their money) or Govt Organisations coming forward to help start-ups like FFF. The internet proxies will add to their woes. Also their reach will be quite limited as far as on ground activities are concerned, not many countries are that liberal to public pornography.

But despite that they still have a huge base according to me. If your product is good, people will buy it, the same applies to porn as well. They might not be able to have hoardings and bill boards, but I can safely assume that word of mouth publicity for a venture like this can work just fine. Also, I don't think the initial investment for this would've been anything significant.

FFF is currently working on projects with tribes and locals in the Amazon rainforests.

Some thoughts!

It’s there in the last spasm of a dying musk deer, the last breath of schools of fish trapped under oil spills, the diminishing numbers of migratory birds, the rapidly vanishing habitat of the giant panda.

It’s the cry of the earth. Can you hear it?

Do your bit. Save our planet. Please. Time is running out...

As I finished reading this I felt an intense rush of emotions. My fingers clenched and I stared blankly at the screen.

How many times have we heard this?

We all like to pretend that we care for our planet. And who knows? Maybe in some chamber deep inside our wretched mind, we actually do. But let’s be realistic.

Most of us simply don’t want to bother.

We feel that since we wont live to see the end of the world (unless WWIII decides to spoil the party) why bother? Or better, our pessimism leads us to believe that there’s nothing we can do. This belief generally comes from the environment around us. We see a friend of ours throwing the chips packet he just devoured on the streets. We see clusters of men letting loose (if you know what I mean) on the same wall that has ‘Plis don’t pass urine’ scribbled shabbily. And as time passes we truly feel that “it’s too late”.

A friend of mine who was sitting for a branch allocation counseling told me that his father found people still pursuing Petro Engineering rather amusing since in another 2-3 decades time there wouldn't be much petroleum left in the world to use.

Honestly speaking (and correct me if I’m wrong), saving the earth doesn’t feature in our top priority list. But every time the issue springs up, depending upon how it’s presented to us (especially if creative clips are shown every 2 minutes in between a mega concert), we all become environmentally charged. Sadly, this enthu disappears almost as quickly as it is aroused.

But as long as we’re charged we feel that we can make a difference (do I hear trumpets in the background?). But wouldn’t dedicate our selves to some on ground activity, instead we believe in the power of the exponents.

Little things, if initiated by a lot of people can shake the world

Ah yes! How many times have I heard that? But the sad part is even the little things like walking down to the store instead of zooming on a motorbike or using natural perfumes instead of aerosol sprays seem like too much of a bother beyond a certain point.

You know what the real problem is? It’s not smoke, its not money, its not greed. Its convenience!

It’s more convenient to blog about the issue and comfort ourselves reminding that “we’ve enlightened the public” than actually get off our lazy bum and switch off the fan that’s running, and open the windows to let the fresh monsoon breeze in.

We do what is convenient to us. We let the tap run because one hand is navigating the brush and the other hand is scratching the buttocks. We don’t switch off the lights after leaving the room because we’ve already locked the door. Now who’s going to unlock the door? Bah!

I remember myself, long ago. I was so supercharged after visiting a recycling plant that I stopped using notebooks for doing my rough work. I’d use the newspaper to scribble some formulae or note down our fundamental duties. I did that for almost two years. I guess as we grow up we come to face with the harsh reality (or so we feel) and realize that we’re helpless. Kids don’t feel that since they’re still in that imaginative world where everything is still possible and can be turned around.

At least I don’t feel like a hypocrite.

P.s: Nil dear, this post wasn't directed at you all. Remember the chat we had last night? This is just a vent post.