Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 325:questions:week_13_questions_comments-325_17 [2017/04/20 06:42] – [“A Global Graveyard”] 173.79.242.109
+++ 325:questions:week_13_questions_comments-325_17 [2017/04/20 13:09] (current) – [“A Global Graveyard”] lmccuist
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 In my Small Group Communication course, we talked about the digital divide and how pervasive it is. One of the reasons for the digital divide is the fact that tech companies are ultimately in competition with one another to make money. However, in certain areas of the world, there simply is no market for the technology because consumers cannot afford the technology or have not been taught how to use it. Because of this, these companies never bring their products to market in these areas because they won't sell. Unfortunately, this perpetuates the digital divide. Despite there being a positive correlation between access to technology and income, this photojournalism piece is reflective of the fact that if a group of people do not know how to apply technology, then it is of no use to them. The irony is that the technological donations are intended to reduce the digital divide, as the piece mentions on slide 5. However, instead of being able to use the technology to improve their lives, the Ghanaians in the piece are depicted foraging through the technological waste for individual components to sell. -Yousef Nasser
+When looking through the photos its rather clear that this group of people see this technology as something that can be sold for the scrap metal in order to get the needs they really need like food and water. You can't eat a computer, nor have these people grown up in an environment that fosters use of computers in advances in technology. It's sort of ironic that they can give people this hazardous waste simply by calling it a gift rather than waste, but they are using this gift to improve their lives just not in the way the donors intended. - Laura B. Downs
+One image that really struck me was the photo with the burning computer with the caption explaining that this the burning of technology is often done so its metals can be sold for profit. To me, this showed the differences between the wealthiest countries and the poorest ones. In wealthy nations, access to information via computers and the internet is vital. One can't really operate from day-to-day without it - and their life wold be incredibly difficult (by their standards). However, poor countries don't have the ability to use the technology for information purposes but instead are forced to use the physical materials to help provide incomes, despite the negative consequences for the environment. This lack of information will keep allowing the wealthy countries to pull increasing farther ahead of the poorer countries. - Helen Salita
+My Intro to Digital Studies class has gone over the wasting of toxic electronics, so it was not surprising to see the Times article, but it was no less upsetting. The inability to recycle hazardous material by throw-away societies affects the whole world, specifically regions where wealthier countries care less. Giving toxic materials (not worth any more than what their parts can be sold for) as gifts to groups of people in these regions is a shameless means of disposal. Mining materials to build these machines affect countries in Africa horribly, as well. The whole process of producing electronics has become a global crisis that literally poisons parts of the world that the producers seem to have no real regard for. While we've accepted the use of electronics as an essential part of our lives, we deliberately ignore 90% of our devices' history and production.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2017/04/20 08:09//