Opinion

The Great Debate

How technology widens the gender gap

The Internet and mobile phones have transformed our connections to people around the world. This technology has also, however, led to a widening gender gap in poorer countries. For it is largely men who control the information revolution that helps to educate, inform and empower.

In low and middle-income countries, a woman is 21 percent less likely than a man to own a mobile phone, according to research done by GSMA. In Africa, women are 23 percent less likely than a man to own a cell phone. In the Middle East the figure is 24 percent and in South Asia, 37 percent,

The factors driving women’s lack of connectivity vary from community to community. But the end result is always the same: disempowerment.

Women are not just missing out on educational and economic opportunities because they don’t own mobile phones. They are losing a voice. This disturbing finding is highlighted by the United Nations/Overseas Development Institute-ledMY World survey, a major, inclusive global poll. Respondents were asked to rank their priorities — including political freedoms, better healthcare, protection from violence and crime — in making the world better. They could vote paper, online or by mobile phone. The results will help world leaders as they deliberate on the post-2015 global development agenda this week, during the conference of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.

The survey has already gathered 1.5 million votes. Women are just as keen as men to have their views heard — engagement offline is a 50-50 split between women and men; online women have voted more than men, with a 52-48 split.

The missing ingredient for middle-class jobs

Christopher “Topher” Polack began his Apple career as a “creative genius.” He thrived in his job fixing customers’ technology problems and quickly rose through the ranks, getting more on-the-job training along the way. But like most other members of his genius class, he eventually quit. He now works as a freelance consultant specializing in helping older people use technology.

“I wasn’t meant to be a cog,” says Polack, who increased his salary post-Apple.

Polack’s experience provides a blueprint for how to thrive in the modern labor market and points to the future of middle-class jobs. Unlike the industrial revolution, the latest technology revolution diminishes the value of long-term employment relationships and places a premium on individual skills. Workers like Polack are more mobile and take the skills they acquire from one job to the next. Yet America’s institutions haven’t fully adapted, and may be holding the economy back.

Let free markets and technology reduce gun violence

Ron Conway, an angel investor in some of the most successful startups of the past decade, from Google to Twitter, was holding a Christmas party in his San Francisco apartment overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge on Dec. 14. One of his guests that evening was former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

What was supposed to be a festive occasion turned solemn as Conway convened a prayer for the families of Newtown, CT and exhorted the leading lights of technology and venture capital gathered in his home to ingeniously help tackle the problem of gun violence.

There may be a lot of problems that deep pockets and tech startup ingenuity can’t help solve, but the epidemic of senseless mass shootings needn’t be one of them.

The next generation demands sustainable, innovative business

Christina Marule owns a spaza shop — the equivalent of a corner store — in rural South Africa. Five years ago she was forced to keep her young son out of school while she traveled to the nearest market, a half day’s trip away, to purchase products to sell in her store. Today, she manages inventory via text message from a mobile device. Her son is back in the classroom.

Her story is one of personal determination, but also of real progress.

Fueled by innovation and the determined ambition of a whole new generation, stories like this are transforming business models and entire value chains. To the world’s future leaders, sustainable behavior is as much about educating Christina’s son as it is about protecting the world’s supply of drinkable water. It’s up to today’s leaders to connect those dots.

In a recent survey 84 percent of Millennials (the generation born between 1980 and 1993) said they care more about making a positive difference than workplace recognition. These young professionals are the very same consumers who care more about purpose than packaging or price. They are concerned, creative and impatient for opportunities to make a difference. Their terms are crystal clear: innovate business models around making the world run better and improving people’s lives — or be left behind by those that do.

Apple: ‘Early adopter’ as fashionista

To much fanfare, Apple announced Tuesday that Angela Ahrendts is resigning as chief executive officer of Burberry and joining the inner circle in Cupertino, California. “Apple-polishing” has become the headline du jour. Picturing the soignée Ahrendts surrounded by geeks in jeans and hoodies, we might be forgiven for wondering why Apple feels in need of a fashionista buff-up. After all, there is hardly a product line more shiny-bright than Apple’s — or one with less affinity to the cold exclusivity of the world’s great fashion houses.

But the extraordinary affection that iPhones inspire is different from the anxious ostentation surrounding high fashion.

However sublime couture may be, it is neither lovable nor practical. Nor does using it feel like participating in a major human advance. There is something wondrous about Apple products in the ease and pleasure they afford their users, connecting us in unprecedented ways to other people, to our surroundings and to the world of ideas.

from The Great Debate UK:

Science’s innovators are to be prized

--Juha Ylä-Jääski (D.Tech.) is President and CEO of Technology Academy Finland. The opinions expressed are his own.--

The 2013 Nobel season is once again gorging on a Grand Cru vintage of scientific achievement. Today, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to three scientists, Levitt, Karplus and Warshel, whose multinational collaboration laid the foundation for the computer models crucial for most advances in chemistry today. Yesterday, Peter Higgs and Francois Englert won the Nobel Prize for physics for conceiving the so-called "God particle" which explains why the Universe has mass. Another trio were recognised on Monday when the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was awarded to Rothman, Schekman and Südhof for solving the mystery of how the cell transports crucial cargo.

The Nobel Prize once stood alone commanding the attention of the world’s media.  Though it remains pre-eminent, as shown by the media hordes that have descended on Oslo, the trophy cabinet of international prizes has been stuffed full in recent years. There is the brand new Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering in the UK, the AM Turing Award, the Abel Prize, the Asahi and the Kyoto prize. The Russian billionaire Yuri Milner recently endowed the Fundamental Physics Prize by offering $3 million to each winner – three times the prize money given out by the Nobel Foundation. Perhaps most star-studded of all is the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences  - a joint enterprise by tech superstars including Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook.

The Internet’s man in Washington

How Darrell Issa, a San Diego Republican, became Web advocates’ closest, and most perplexing, ally in Congress.  Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) (R) speaks with aide during testimony to the House Rules Committee about a proposed vote to find U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington June 27, 2012. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

 

At the frenzied height of last winter’s unprecedented collective rebellion against the Stop Online Piracy Act it was easy to forget that there had once been a time when SOPA was both an obscure and obdurate little piece of legislation, a 78-page digital copyright bill that, both in and out of Washington, was considered inevitable, when it was considered at all.

The moment that seemed to change was on Dec. 15, 2011, the first day of the House Judiciary Committee’s consideration of SOPA’s text. Representative Jason Chaffetz, exasperated by Congress’ slap-dash efforts to rewrite the rules governing the online world, said SOPA was like amateurs doing home surgery.

California v. Texas in fight for the future

It is not a national election year, but the “red state versus blue state” wars continue. Texas Governor Rick Perry’s recent foray into California, to lure away businesses and jobs, signals more than a rivalry between these two mega-states. The Texas-California competition represents the political, economic and cultural differences driving American politics today – and for the foreseeable future.

Texas and California are robust political and economic competitors. We don’t know which will be the template for the future. As California emerges from its economic and fiscal doldrums and some of Texas’ vulnerabilities become evident, it is now far from certain that Texas will emerge the victor.

California is a global hub for trade, tourism, culture and the manufacture of ideas and intellectual property. From high tech and biotech to entertainment, travel and logistics, the state’s brand transcends national boundaries. The Golden State tops the nation in agriculture. It also sets the pace on green energy development, which could lead to a dramatic increase in the state’s energy production.

from Paul Smalera:

What real Internet censorship looks like

Lately Internet users in the U.S. have been worried about censorship, copyright legalities and data privacy. Between Twitter’s new censorship policy, the global protests over SOPA/PIPA and ACTA and the outrage over Apple’s iOS allowing apps like Path to access the address book without prior approval, these fears have certainly seemed warranted. But we should also remember that Internet users around the world face far more insidious limitations and intrusions on their Internet usage -- practices, in fact, that would horrify the average American.

Sadly, most of the rest of the world has come to accept censorship as a necessary evil. Although I recently argued that Twitter’s censorship policy at least had the benefit of transparency, it’s still an unfortunate cost of doing global business for a company born and bred with the freedoms of the United States, and founded by tech pioneers whose opportunities and creativity stem directly from our Constitution. Yet by the standards of dictatorial regimes, Internet users in countries like China, Syria and Iran should consider themselves lucky if Twitter’s relatively modest censorship program actually keeps those countries’ governments from shutting down the service. As we are seeing around the world, chances are, unfortunately, it won’t.

Consider the freedoms -- or lack thereof -- Internet users have in Iran. Since this past week, some 30 million Iranian users have been without Internet service thanks to that country’s blocking of the SSL protocol, right at the time of its parliamentary elections. SSL is what turns “http” -- the basic way we access the Web -- into “https”, which Gmail, your bank, your credit card company and thousands of other services use to secure data. SSL provides data encryption so that only each end point -- your browser and the Web server you’re logging into -- can decrypt and access the data contained therein.

Capitalism is evolving, but into what?

This is an excerpt from Standing on the Sun: How the Explosion of Capitalism Abroad Will Change Business Everywhere, published this month by Harvard Business Review Press.

Like any “ism,” capitalism is a social construct; capitalism is only a term for what capitalists tend to believe and do. Beyond a few fundamentals—that it puts faith in markets as the best way to allocate resources, that it depends on private ownership of property, that it features mechanisms for accumulating capital to fund endeavors larger than individuals can undertake alone—very little about it is set in stone. This is why we often hear phrases suggesting different styles of capitalism: “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” for example, or “Northern European social capitalism.” No surprise, then, that capitalism is subject to change.

And what’s behind that change? Again, at the theoretical level, it’s easy to surmise. Like any adaptive system, capitalism is nested in an environment, so any substantial change in that environment alters what it takes to thrive. It’s the same basic phenomenon as in nature: when the insect population of the Galapagos moves on to new flowers with a different shape, the beaks of the finches evolve in turn.

  •