I have always found American consumerism reprehensible. The idea that everyone should have more and more things and experiences for themselves, that the objective of life should be the accumulation of private wealth, was just something I could not wrap my head/soul around.
India had always been a nation that disapproved of materialism. Gandhi said "The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed." That is a moral position that he did not invent; he merely put in words, generic Indian/Hindu ethos.
In the 80s, we decried wealth; but secretly, we all wanted more. In the 90s, society's public position changed; we were redefining what need and greed meant. Through the 2000s, I continued to seek a reason to explain my differences with the American way of life. I hung out with the communists, but I disagreed with them. Capitalism wasn't the same as consumerism. In an India that only knew regulation and control, laissez faire sounded beautiful.
And now, after all these years, the world has finally come around to collectively disapprove of rampant consumerism and hyper capitalism. Even a majority of Americans have woken up. Plastic pollution, climate change and growing inequality has put America on the wrong side of the debate.
This belief has been relevant in my own life. At the turn of the century, I volunteered for a science conference at IIT. There was a senior scientist there; I believe he used to head all of CSIR. He asked me to speak on my work. I told him the problem - PC penetration levels in India were abysmally low (they still are - only about 10% of our half a billion households own a computer).
At that time, a PC consumed over 100 watts of power, needed uninterrupted power, a work desk, dust protection and an air cooled environment, could only be serviced in a city, only worked in English, and needed quite a bit of training to use. Given the power crisis we were going through then, how could we scale just the 100 watts part of this problem to every government and private school?
But are computers important? Do we need them (or, why build computers or satellites when you still have hungry people)? Very. Our educational system was and is still built around the fountain of knowledge concept - the person on the podium in front is a know-it-all; she is always right, and whatever she says is gospel. The student must only sit with a chalice and gather. Gather knowledge and facts. Never question. Never have an exchange of ideas. Just fill up their cup and their minds, and vomit it all out in exams.
Computers can fix that. They can provide self paced learning. Collaboration. Creativity. An environment where children are allowed to be wrong without being told that they are stupid and inept.
Even today, in the age of mobile computing, computers are critical to education. Mobile devices are great for consuming content - which is still unidirectional learning. For creativity, for creating even the most basic of documents, for doing any real research work using the Internet, you need a full fledged computer and a desktop OS. And that's just education. Almost all professional work - document creation or transaction processing - is still largely done on computers.
So, it was relevant to make a computer that consumed less resources, generated less waste, had a smaller footprint, while allowing the user to leave a larger digital footprint (relevant and well made content) of their own. Where the computer is just a tool and the user's work is the product.
What is happening today in education with mobile devices is scary. Chromebooks and iPads allow students to watch a series of curated videos, and generate some video content of their own in the process. The digital trail that the students leave behind is for the digital oligopolies to own and abuse for the rest of the student's life. The user herself is the product.
When I started my research work (bits of which are still available online https://web.archive.org/web/20100408144823/http://saurabh.org.in/research/index.html), the enemies were Intel and Microsoft. Now the enemies are Google and Apple. Intel is still trying to tell you what the definition of a computer is. And that your three year old computer isn't good enough any more. Microsoft is still trying to tell you that you are not smart enough to use any OS other than their own ad infested one. But Google and Apple are far worse. They are trying to keep you in front of your screens as long as possible. Doing as many meaningless things as possible. All the while collecting more and more data on you.
This battle with the giants is what gives every day meaning at @[100063777711947:2048:Thinvent]. Doing more with less. More computing, more applications, more versatility, more choice. Less materials, less energy, less fragility, less obsolescence.
India had always been a nation that disapproved of materialism. Gandhi said "The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed." That is a moral position that he did not invent; he merely put in words, generic Indian/Hindu ethos.
In the 80s, we decried wealth; but secretly, we all wanted more. In the 90s, society's public position changed; we were redefining what need and greed meant. Through the 2000s, I continued to seek a reason to explain my differences with the American way of life. I hung out with the communists, but I disagreed with them. Capitalism wasn't the same as consumerism. In an India that only knew regulation and control, laissez faire sounded beautiful.
And now, after all these years, the world has finally come around to collectively disapprove of rampant consumerism and hyper capitalism. Even a majority of Americans have woken up. Plastic pollution, climate change and growing inequality has put America on the wrong side of the debate.
This belief has been relevant in my own life. At the turn of the century, I volunteered for a science conference at IIT. There was a senior scientist there; I believe he used to head all of CSIR. He asked me to speak on my work. I told him the problem - PC penetration levels in India were abysmally low (they still are - only about 10% of our half a billion households own a computer).
At that time, a PC consumed over 100 watts of power, needed uninterrupted power, a work desk, dust protection and an air cooled environment, could only be serviced in a city, only worked in English, and needed quite a bit of training to use. Given the power crisis we were going through then, how could we scale just the 100 watts part of this problem to every government and private school?
But are computers important? Do we need them (or, why build computers or satellites when you still have hungry people)? Very. Our educational system was and is still built around the fountain of knowledge concept - the person on the podium in front is a know-it-all; she is always right, and whatever she says is gospel. The student must only sit with a chalice and gather. Gather knowledge and facts. Never question. Never have an exchange of ideas. Just fill up their cup and their minds, and vomit it all out in exams.
Computers can fix that. They can provide self paced learning. Collaboration. Creativity. An environment where children are allowed to be wrong without being told that they are stupid and inept.
Even today, in the age of mobile computing, computers are critical to education. Mobile devices are great for consuming content - which is still unidirectional learning. For creativity, for creating even the most basic of documents, for doing any real research work using the Internet, you need a full fledged computer and a desktop OS. And that's just education. Almost all professional work - document creation or transaction processing - is still largely done on computers.
So, it was relevant to make a computer that consumed less resources, generated less waste, had a smaller footprint, while allowing the user to leave a larger digital footprint (relevant and well made content) of their own. Where the computer is just a tool and the user's work is the product.
What is happening today in education with mobile devices is scary. Chromebooks and iPads allow students to watch a series of curated videos, and generate some video content of their own in the process. The digital trail that the students leave behind is for the digital oligopolies to own and abuse for the rest of the student's life. The user herself is the product.
When I started my research work (bits of which are still available online https://web.archive.org/web/20100408144823/http://saurabh.org.in/research/index.html), the enemies were Intel and Microsoft. Now the enemies are Google and Apple. Intel is still trying to tell you what the definition of a computer is. And that your three year old computer isn't good enough any more. Microsoft is still trying to tell you that you are not smart enough to use any OS other than their own ad infested one. But Google and Apple are far worse. They are trying to keep you in front of your screens as long as possible. Doing as many meaningless things as possible. All the while collecting more and more data on you.
This battle with the giants is what gives every day meaning at @[100063777711947:2048:Thinvent]. Doing more with less. More computing, more applications, more versatility, more choice. Less materials, less energy, less fragility, less obsolescence.