1 of 13
food should be cheapest rather than technology. what you think about this. here where we lives governments wasting sources just for technoly, But they should use these for less the hunger worldwide.
3 of 13
Spending resources on technology here in good ole SA means investing in a $23 million "security" system at the president's house. That little budget would have improved some lives if invested in providing running water, electricity and basic housing to the majority of our population who live in self made shacks, steal electricity and have no flushing toilets. Not sure what is going on in Pakistan; perhaps Muhammed can enlighten us. I'm all in favour of investing in technology that makes food cheaper and, most important here, creates some self-sufficiency or job creation.
4 of 13
from my facebook, i get the impression that most SA's aren't very fond of their president. instead of creating a horribly expensive security system to try and protect himself it might make more sense to, well, be more lovable. the funny thing, here in the PI, food *is* cheaper than technology - but most people prioritize the latter over the former. your guess is as good as mine.
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain." - Maya Angelou
Try harder, or care less.
Try harder, or care less.
5 of 13
[quote:Junelle]... i get the impression that most SA's aren't very fond of their president[/quote] That may not be true Junelle. After all, Jakes has an Olympic size pool to win some friends over with. Apparently this is also a security feature ... it is in case of fire, when the fire brigade can't get out there in time. Seems Jakes has a helicopter on standby just in-case of such a terrible happening. ;-)
6 of 13
Food should be affordable for all, but technology can make it possible for many people to climb out of poverty when they otherwise couldn't. It just depends on what you mean by technology. In the form of security for the presidents home (as Mandy said about SA), it is not beneficial in that situation, with the need elsewhere so great. But in many other ways, technology has the potential to see many people out of various situations.
7 of 13
As one who would be quite happy bartering my sewing, adding and story telling skills for a piece of meat now and again, I'm not the easiest one to convince of this. So long as I can live under the hypocritical illusion that meat grows on trees, I'd much rather be living a couple of hundred years ago - before we had technology enticing us to live a "better" life.
8 of 13
Meat(domestic animals)and people need water and plants. Irrigation comes from technology. So do methods of protecting plants and animals from disease. Sick food means sick and starving people. My mother is 86 years old. When she was a little girl, in the US, not a developing country, there were no antibiotics. If you caught an infectious disease, you locked yourself up away from everyone, tried to stay as comfortable as you could and hoped you wouldn't die. I prefer this century, thank you. Glad I don't have to deal with polio or smallpox either. (The irony of people on different continents who make a living via the internet debating the merits of technology.)
9 of 13
My preference for earlier life, is very subjective. I'd be very happy living in a secluded little town, bartering for a living, but would like the internet available to me too. ;-) And if you live on a smallholding, you don't need technology for irrigation - the ole water tank can do the job. You just have to pray for rain. On the one hand, yes, medicine saves lives and enables us to live to a ripe old age. On the other hand we have to deal with overpopulation ... which in turn causes starving populations and the culling of wild animals so that man can move in. So technology sometimes creates problems that we then have to overcome by creating more technology. Yep, it is ironic sitting debating this live while we are 1,000s of km apart. Fascinating .... all this techo stuff :-)