Literacy Rates and Developing Countries

  • Thread starter JonDrew
  • Start date
In summary: This means that people without a connection to the grid, but who are using sources of energy such as kerosene or candles, are not included in the 1.3 billion figure. This means that there are currently 1.3 billion people who have access to electricity, but because they are still using other forms of energy to light their homes they are not considered "electricity access" people.In Summary, the biggest factor in raising standards of living is providing electricity and basic lighting to people.
  • #1
JonDrew
64
0
I think it was back in high school when I read this but I remember seeing a statistic which strongly suggest that higher standards of living resulted from high literacy rates. (Which was the cause and which was the effect was considered controversial I believe.)

The other day I was brainstorming philanthropic ideas while having my Macbook Pro read me some articles from the internet and it hit me. What if for the first time in human history an entire civilization could become literate practically overnight with the help of technology. Developing nations might be able to skip a whole world of growing pains if instead of investing in schools to teach people to read, they just made an E-reader with "speech to text" software available to everyone, saving both time and money (when compared to investing in an education system).

I mean the plan isn't Ideal but neither is an illiterate population. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Can anyone find an easy-read statistic which correlates standard of living and literacy rates?

hears the Wikipedia link for world literacy rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


IMO, a text-to-speech engine is not a substitute for actual literacy.
 
  • #3


The biggest factor in raising standards of living in the most impoverished parts of the world is women's rights. Many places still forbid women to earn a living much less to learn how to read and these are cultural problems rather than educational ones. Even in the US, the wealthiest country in the world, women still earn 83c on the dollar for the same work as men and that's up from 64c on the dollar just half a century ago.

One of the best ways to address the problem is by improving communications in general rather than literacy per se. That includes cellphones and cheap tablet PCs which are spreading like wildfire and internet access worldwide is expected to as much as double in the next ten years. The remaining issue is how to continue lowering costs and implement such communications in the most impoverished and isolated countries, however, those are mostly just technical issues and not economic ones. The costs continue to plummet, the technology continues to improve by leaps and bounds, and the demand to soar.
 
  • #4


russ_watters said:
IMO, a text-to-speech engine is not a substitute for actual literacy.

Thanks for the comment but, I think that is a very general statement and also think that it is incorrect. Actual literacy is just a tool invented by men for communication purposes, and so is speech to text, I don't see why every human would have to learn to read in order to get the same information so long as "text to speech" is available. I myself use it to compensate for my poor literacy and have no intention of improving my reading ability because "speech to text" can read information to me faster then most people can read by themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • #5


wuliheron said:
The biggest factor in raising standards of living in the most impoverished parts of the world is women's rights.

Thanks for the comment, are there statistics to support this? It would be very interesting indeed if this was the case.
 
  • #6
wuliheron said:
The biggest factor in raising standards of living in the most impoverished parts of the world is women's rights. Many places still forbid women to earn a living much less to learn how to read and these are cultural problems rather than educational ones. Even in the US, the wealthiest country in the world, women still earn 83c on the dollar for the same work as men and that's up from 64c on the dollar just half a century ago.

One of the best ways to address the problem is by improving communications in general rather than literacy per se. That includes cellphones and cheap tablet PCs which are spreading like wildfire and internet access worldwide is expected to as much as double in the next ten years. The remaining issue is how to continue lowering costs and implement such communications in the most impoverished and isolated countries, however, those are mostly just technical issues and not economic ones. The costs continue to plummet, the technology continues to improve by leaps and bounds, and the demand to soar.

The biggest factor in standard of living is providing electricity and basic lighting to people.

Currently over 1.3 Billion people have no electricity at all and 3 Billion people cook with wood, charcoal, tree leaves, crop residues, coal and animal waste. 300 million households rely on kerosene or other fuel lanterns as their only source of light. How are you going to give people an e-reader who do not have a way to charge it?

That 1.3 Billion is people who have no "access" to electricity the definition from the IEA is

Access to electricity involves more than a first supply connection to the household; our definition of access also involves consumption of a specified minimum level of electricity, the amount varies based on whether the household is in a rural or an urban area. The initial threshold level of electricity consumption for rural households is assumed to be 250 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year and for urban households it is 500 kWh per year. The higher consumption assumed in urban areas reflects specific urban consumption patterns. Both are calculated based on an assumption of five people per household. In rural areas, this level of consumption could, for example, provide for the use of a floor fan, a mobile telephone and two compact fluorescent light bulbs for about five hours per day. In urban areas, consumption might also include an efficient refrigerator, a second mobile telephone per household and another appliance, such as a small television or a computer.

That is 2.2% of the power we have and we do not know how many Billions have access to just over that threshold value.

Cheap power and abundant energy are the keys to improving standard of living any other route is a fairy tale. Energy was the key to the first world becoming the first world.

Source
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/ [Broken]
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/november/name,33793,en.html
And a useful blog post by a professor in Colorado Dr. R Pielke Jr.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/11/against-modern-energy-access.html

Kersone lanterns info form UC berkely
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/11/28/kerosene-lamps-black-carbon/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Oltz said:
The biggest factor in standard of living is providing electricity and basic lighting to people.

Currently over 1.3 Billion people have no electricity at all and 3 Billion people cook with wood, charcoal, tree leaves, crop residues, coal and animal waste. 300 million households rely on kerosene or other fuel lanterns as their only source of light. How are you going to give people an e-reader who do not have a way to charge it?

That 1.3 Billion is people who have no "access" to electricity the definition from the IEA is

That is 2.2% of the power we have and we do not know how many Billions have access to just over that threshold value.

Cheap power and abundant energy are the keys to improving standard of living any other route is a fairy tale. Energy was the key to the first world becoming the first world.

Source
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/ [Broken]
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/november/name,33793,en.html
And a useful blog post by a professor in Colorado Dr. R Pielke Jr.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/11/against-modern-energy-access.html

Kersone lanterns info form UC berkely
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/11/28/kerosene-lamps-black-carbon/

Having a light bulb to cook by and small refrigerator will help, but won't change their living standard in the long run. The people I'm talking about often live in mud huts and tin shacks in the middle of nowhere. They are the poorest of the poor who are lucky if they make $2.oo a day and the issue is how to help them pull themselves up by their bootstraps as best as possible. Communications system are cheap and don't require the kind of power that a light bulb much less a refrigerator does.

Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, produce half of the world's food, but earn only 10% of the world's income and own less than one percent of the world's property. On average, women earn half of what men earn... Women make up 70% of the world's one billion poorest people.

http://www.globalpovertyproject.com/infobank/women

Even in the US single mothers are twice as likely to be poor as single fathers and the average wage for women has dropped to 77c on the dollar for the same work as men. That's not an issue of the availability of cheap power and now the US has the second highest child poverty rates in the developed world as a result of this and it's gross income inequality distribution despite it's excellent infrastructure.

Perhaps the most famous example of how empowering women overcomes destitute poverty comes from Grameen Bank. It's a micro-lending bank that only loans money to women and instead of charging interest the women work for the bank to pay off the interest. The reason they only lend money to women is the women actually pay it back, while men often don't. Where women are not empowered to earn a living they have among the highest birth rates as well as poverty rates.

http://www.grameen-info.org/

The same kind of phenomena exists in countless other countries like Afghanistan where it is culturally acceptable for men to use and abuse women like so many slaves or cattle. With access to education and income earning labor restricted only to men the poverty rates shoot through the roof. The poorest countries in the world today are all either conflict zones or have the worst women's rights records or both. That's according to the UN and Amnesty International and, again, it has nothing to do with access to electricity.

What it does have to do with is institutionalized bigotry and cultural isolation.

The most extreme examples were perhaps those documented in parts of Africa. Women in isolated villages were not empowered to earn a living, so they had more children instead. The children were then sent out to fetch water and fuel and as the water and fuel in the immediate area became scarce the women had more children so they walk longer distances to fetch what was needed. Eventually a drought or something would cause the whole system to collapse as fuel and water simply became unobtainable and they would starve to death en mass. This is similar to a fish pond ecology where the fish simply overpopulate the pond until the entire system collapses from lack of resources. The question is how to break the cycle and promote something both sustainable and progressive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
wuliheron said:
Having a light bulb to cook by and small refrigerator will help, but won't change their living standard in the long run. The people I'm talking about often live in mud huts and tin shacks in the middle of nowhere. They are the poorest of the poor who are lucky if they make $2.oo a day and the issue is how to help them pull themselves up by their bootstraps as best as possible. Communications system are cheap and don't require the kind of power that a light bulb much less a refrigerator does.

Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, produce half of the world's food, but earn only 10% of the world's income and own less than one percent of the world's property. On average, women earn half of what men earn... Women make up 70% of the world's one billion poorest people.

http://www.globalpovertyproject.com/infobank/women

Even in the US single mothers are twice as likely to be poor as single fathers and the average wage for women has dropped to 77c on the dollar for the same work as men. That's not an issue of the availability of cheap power and now the US has the second highest child poverty rates in the developed world as a result of this and it's gross income inequality distribution despite it's excellent infrastructure.

Perhaps the most famous example of how empowering women overcomes destitute poverty comes from Grameen Bank. It's a micro-lending bank that only loans money to women and instead of charging interest the women work for the bank to pay off the interest. The reason they only lend money to women is the women actually pay it back, while men often don't. Where women are not empowered to earn a living they have among the highest birth rates as well as poverty rates.

http://www.grameen-info.org/

The same kind of phenomena exists in countless other countries like Afghanistan where it is culturally acceptable for men to use and abuse women like so many slaves or cattle. With access to education and income earning labor restricted only to men the poverty rates shoot through the roof. The poorest countries in the world today are all either conflict zones or have the worst women's rights records or both. That's according to the UN and Amnesty International and, again, it has nothing to do with access to electricity.

What it does have to do with is institutionalized bigotry and cultural isolation.

The most extreme examples were perhaps those documented in parts of Africa. Women in isolated villages were not empowered to earn a living, so they had more children instead. The children were then sent out to fetch water and fuel and as the water and fuel in the immediate area became scarce the women had more children so they walk longer distances to fetch what was needed. Eventually a drought or something would cause the whole system to collapse as fuel and water simply became unobtainable and they would starve to death en mass. This is similar to a fish pond ecology where the fish simply overpopulate the pond until the entire system collapses from lack of resources. The question is how to break the cycle and promote something both sustainable and progressive.

I have one problem with most of this Standard of Living and Income are 2 very different things if you live in a subsistence community and women produce half the food they make half the income because in that case food is income. That is why standard of living is defined by what you have not what you "earn" things like food and shelter are included but also amenities like how you cook and light your home do you have healthcare is there basic rule of law. Just being "poor" says nothing about standard of living hell just saying poor is next to useless because everyone defines it differently.

In the US "poor" is based on some arbitrary amount of income with no relation to standard of living. You can win the lottery and live in a mansion and be poor if you paid for the home in cash and did not invest anything and just stuffed it under a mattress to live off of you would be poor because you have no income.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/standard+of+living
standard of living
n. pl. standards of living
A level of material comfort as measured by the goods, services, and luxuries available to an individual, group, or nation.


Nothing about income empowering women is great but you can have a high stand of living and still no women's rights they are not mutually exclusive. You can not have a high standard of living without access to energy period. Also access to energy frees up time for women to advance themselves leading to all of the things you wish. Electric pumps bringing water to the home alone can save countless hours. Once the women have time on their hands they often begin self improvement which drives the movement towards equal rights.

Improving standard of living allows all the things in your post to happen not the other way around.
 
  • #9
Oltz said:
How are you going to give people an e-reader who do not have a way to charge it? [/url]

I was envisioning solar-chargers, the link below shows a solar-charger that is only $7.95 retail and is capable of charging a variety of small devices.https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008U31SE6/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
JonDrew said:
I was envisioning solar-chargers, the link below shows a solar-charger that is only $7.95 retail and is capable of charging a variety of small devices.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008U31SE6/?tag=pfamazon01-20

And will this also power the internet they need to download things to read on this e-reader they now have?

What satellite modems and wifi or cell towers and free 3g? all solar?

If I cooked with cow dung and had no other source of light in my hut and you gave me a solar panel to charge an e-reader I would laugh at you and ask if I could have a hotplate/individual stove burner and a light bulb instead. Then again that panel will not power a stove it takes 10-15 hours of sunlight to store enough power to charge your phone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11


wuliheron said:
Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, produce half of the world's food, but earn only 10% of the world's income and own less than one percent of the world's property. On average, women earn half of what men earn... Women make up 70% of the world's one billion poorest people.

Isn't it possible that the worlds most impoverished countries treat women so disrespectfully because of there ignorance and therefore making women's rights the result of a healthy society not the cause of one? I mean, I don't see how women's rights would be a turning point in an impoverished country, economically. Just because the societies with the highest standard of living do have women's rights, it doesn't mean that women's rights cause healthy nations. It is possible that the reverse is true consequently negating your argument.
 
  • #12


Oltz said:
And will this also power the internet they need to download things to read on this e-reader they now have?

What satellite modems and wifi or cell towers and free 3g? all solar?

If I cooked with cow dung and had no other source of light in my hut and you gave me a solar panel to charge an e-reader I would laugh at you and ask if I could have a hotplate/individual stove burner and a light bulb instead. Then again that panel will not power a stove it takes 10-15 hours of sunlight to store enough power to charge your phone.

One may have to take a trip to the market to download the daily newspaper or maybe a delivery system could be developed, is that not the same system we had before the internet came along? All software used to be bought in a store and newspapers used to be bought there, too.

I don't see your point about the charger thing, a kindle-keyboard battery can last for ten days, one day to charge it every week is not unreasonable.

Also, If you show that person in the hut how to use the e-reader to teach themselves things they will be able to help-themselves and others in there community much more then a single stove burner ever could. Solutions to large scale poverty lay in teaching people how to help themselves not just giving them a stove burner and saying "hear you go".
 
Last edited:
  • #13


IF they need to spend an hour a day going to get water and 6 hours a week gathering cow patties for fuel in addition to finding food how much time will they have to be reading?

The stove and a fuel supply save them time and improve living conditions free time assets for other work.

I agree giving e-readers to people is more efficient then teaching them to read but unless the people have other needs met efficiently enough to allow free time to indulge in "read-listening" its useless. I have access to all kinds of knowledge that I would love to have but I do not have the time in my day to day life to pursue it. Find a way to tele-port and it will free up 2 hours of my day and I will finish grad school. Until then work and my 8 month old take all my time.

I can't imagine what a struggle life is without electricity and needing to literally eat all you can grow and gather. Available energy creates efficiency which frees time to improve oneself and living conditions. Literacy does not become an issue until you have the luxury of time to read.
 
  • #14


JonDrew said:
... What if for the first time in human history an entire civilization could become literate practically overnight with the help of technology. Developing nations might be able to skip a whole world of growing pains if instead of investing in schools to teach people to read, they just made an E-reader with "speech to text" software available to everyone, saving both time and money (when compared to investing in an education system).

...

While I can see the benefits of what you propose, your solution actually circumvents literacy rather than producing it. Literacy, by definition, is the ability to read and write.
 
  • #15


Basically I am saying higher lietarcy rate does mean higher standard of living BUT you need to get up to a certain standard of living before it matter at all so:

Literacy rate Y
Standrad of living X

X= x+Y if X >50

At least 1.3 Billion people are at "X<50" I find that as a higher priority issue then Literacy in the in-between stage people. Let's get everyone up to that imaginary "50" value then worry about teaching the world to read or providing reading devices. IMO
 
  • #16


Dembadon said:
While I can see the benefits of what you propose, your solution actually circumvents literacy rather than producing it. Literacy, by definition, is the ability to read and write.

Agreed, thanks for the correction.
 
  • #17


JonDrew said:
Isn't it possible that the worlds most impoverished countries treat women so disrespectfully because of there ignorance and therefore making women's rights the result of a healthy society not the cause of one? I mean, I don't see how women's rights would be a turning point in an impoverished country, economically. Just because the societies with the highest standard of living do have women's rights, it doesn't mean that women's rights cause healthy nations. It is possible that the reverse is true consequently negating your argument.

First semantic splitting of hairs over the meaning of poverty and now questions about whether the chicken or the egg came first. I've already provided links to reputable websites including the UN which claim gender equality reduces poverty rates. However, if you like I can also recommend websites on how to make a rational argument and avoid logical fallacies and conspiracy theories.
 
  • #18


Oltz said:
Basically I am saying higher lietarcy rate does mean higher standard of living BUT you need to get up to a certain standard of living before it matter at all so:

Literacy rate Y
Standrad of living X

X= x+Y if X >50

At least 1.3 Billion people are at "X<50" I find that as a higher priority issue then Literacy in the in-between stage people. Let's get everyone up to that imaginary "50" value then worry about teaching the world to read or providing reading devices. IMO

I agree but, if we get the nations which are at that point (X=50) to start using a "speech to text" system then that countries economy will develop faster. More economic development usually leads to more economic development. It is possible and rather likely that the initial country which was barely at X=50 becomes X=100 and helps spur other nations (or areas) around it to the X=50 mark. From there a domino effect takes over and in the end, I think it might get more people to the X=50 mark faster than any other system currently proposed.
 
  • #19


Hi JonDrew,

I believe the predicament you're in now is that your premise needs to change.

Originally, your premise was that an increase in literacy produces an increase in standard of living. Since you're looking for ways to produce higher standards of living by avoiding literacy, you'd need to find studies that show literacy is not correlated to standard of living and go from there. Additionally, it would help to show that an increase in information alone produces an increase in standard of living.
 
  • #20


Dembadon said:
I believe the predicament you're in now is that your premise needs to change.

Originally, your premise was that an increase in literacy produces an increase in standard of living. Since you're looking for ways to produce higher standards of living by avoiding literacy, you'd need to find studies that show literacy is not correlated to standard of living and go from there. Additionally, it would help to show that an increase in information alone produces an increase in standard of living.

I disagree, I think the two (literacy rates and "speech to text" implementation) are so closely related that substituting the statistics for literacy rates and standard of living would be sufficient. I've seen much farther stretches work when analyzing other econometrics. I agree that what ever results I find on the topic might need to be taken with a grain of salt but that is how statistics are meant to be read anyway, thanks for the suggestion.
 
  • #21


wuliheron said:
First semantic splitting of hairs over the meaning of poverty and now questions about whether the chicken or the egg came first. I've already provided links to reputable websites including the UN which claim gender equality reduces poverty rates. However, if you like I can also recommend websites on how to make a rational argument and avoid logical fallacies and conspiracy theories.

And I can point out that Correlation does not equal Causation. Whats your point?

You can not compare poverty rates across multiple countries as each reports the statistic differently and every group that tries to compile there own report uses the supplied data and has to come up with a method to adjust each nation to try and normalize the data. Each agency is different and they are all equally meaning less in that they reflect the biases of the data processors as much as the data. Just like infant mortality is measured in many different ways.

Read this article
http://www.economist.com/node/17961878

and take a look at national poverty lines and criticism sections of the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#National_poverty_lines

From this report

http://www.democracy.uci.edu/files/democracy/docs/conferences/grad/alexander.pdf

We consider these four aspects indicative of a logical sequence of progression in gender
equality. In theory, it is reasonable to presume that early gains in gender equality take the form
of women’s greater equality with men in skill development and standard of living. These gains
untie women from traditional household activities, setting them free to participate in greater rates
in civic activities such as petitions and boycotts. In turn, a more strongly female civil society
helps pave the way for more women to achieve power positions. Finally, when women enter
power positions in greater numbers at a broader front, it also becomes likely that more women
enter national parliaments.

Thus the gender equality evolution does not start in a country or culture until the standard of living is high enough that they have time to pursue other interests. You can not launch a movement when you do not even have time to learn to read because your every moment is dedicated to staying alive. Industrialization and electricity are the keys to starting on any path.
 
  • #22


Dembadon said:
Hi JonDrew,

I believe the predicament you're in now is that your premise needs to change.

Originally, your premise was that an increase in literacy produces an increase in standard of living. Since you're looking for ways to produce higher standards of living by avoiding literacy, you'd need to find studies that show literacy is not correlated to standard of living and go from there. Additionally, it would help to show that an increase in information alone produces an increase in standard of living.

I think I agree with you Literacy improves standard of living because it allows you to gain better employment because nearly every job requires you to read messages and write messages even if its just a pizza order or an address street signs whatever. Speech to text could write your messages for you but unless your co workers are texting you everything they need to have you read how will those simple day to day minute to minute things that are in text get to your e-reader. Now an e-reader based learn to read software that was cheap and easy would be a benefit. Again in a situation where you have time to use it.
 
  • #23


Oltz said:
Thus the gender equality evolution does not start in a country or culture until the standard of living is high enough that they have time to pursue other interests. You can not launch a movement when you do not even have time to learn to read because your every moment is dedicated to staying alive. Industrialization and electricity are the keys to starting on any path.

I think substituting literacy with e-readers in many countries could make this process move faster, enough people must learn to be electricians before electricity can become unanimous.
 
  • #24


JonDrew said:
I disagree, I think the two (literacy rates and "speech to text" implementation) are so closely related that substituting the statistics for literacy rates and standard of living would be sufficient ...
I'm not following, especially since you agreed with my claim:
JonDrew said:
Dembadon said:
While I can see the benefits of what you propose, your solution actually circumvents literacy rather than producing it. Literacy, by definition, is the ability to read and write.
Agreed, thanks for the correction.
 
  • #25


Oltz said:
I think I agree with you Literacy improves standard of living because it allows you to gain better employment because nearly every job requires you to read messages and write messages even if its just a pizza order or an address street signs whatever. Speech to text could write your messages for you but unless your co workers are texting you everything they need to have you read how will those simple day to day minute to minute things that are in text get to your e-reader. Now an e-reader based learn to read software that was cheap and easy would be a benefit. Again in a situation where you have time to use it.

I am afraid I don't understand what you are saying.

Just to clarify, "speech to text" systems go both ways, they can read to you and write things for you. And instantaneous messaging isn't what I think it would solve, but it could allow someone to have access to learning skills like being an electrician or mechanic and even teach better ways to filter water or cook/grow food.
 
  • #26


Dembadon said:
I'm not following, especially since you agreed with my claim:

I only agreed with the flaw in my grammar, not my premise.
 
  • #27


Oltz said:
I think I agree with you Literacy improves standard of living because it allows you to gain better employment because nearly every job requires you to read messages and write messages even if its just a pizza order or an address street signs whatever. Speech to text could write your messages for you but unless your co workers are texting you everything they need to have you read how will those simple day to day minute to minute things that are in text get to your e-reader. Now an e-reader based learn to read software that was cheap and easy would be a benefit. Again in a situation where you have time to use it.

Just for clarity, I've not made any claims as to whether literacy improves one's standard of living; I'm just trying to understand in what manner JonDrew is connecting literacy and text-to-speech technology. I'm of the opinion that one cannot be substituted for the other without violating the definition of literacy.
 
  • #28
Think of it like this learning to be an electrician with a speech to text e-reader would be great until you went to the store and could not read the box of fuses to know which ones you need to buy.

Or being a mechanic and not being able to get the right parts because you can not actually read the boxes.

Unless you can read you can't actually do the job without help no matter how much you learn about being an electrician or a mechanic you will still need the skill to read at some point.
 
  • #29


Oltz said:
And I can point out that Correlation does not equal Causation. Whats your point?

You can not compare poverty rates across multiple countries as each reports the statistic differently and every group that tries to compile there own report uses the supplied data and has to come up with a method to adjust each nation to try and normalize the data. Each agency is different and they are all equally meaning less in that they reflect the biases of the data processors as much as the data. Just like infant mortality is measured in many different ways.

Read this article
http://www.economist.com/node/17961878

and take a look at national poverty lines and criticism sections of the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#National_poverty_lines

From this report

http://www.democracy.uci.edu/files/democracy/docs/conferences/grad/alexander.pdf
Thus the gender equality evolution does not start in a country or culture until the standard of living is high enough that they have time to pursue other interests. You can not launch a movement when you do not even have time to learn to read because your every moment is dedicated to staying alive. Industrialization and electricity are the keys to starting on any path.

More equivocation and obfuscation. The first article is so short and vague as to be worthless, all the wikipedia article does is confirm every country has their own standards for measuring poverty, and the PDF consists of nothing more than a theory proposed by two authors. None of them constitute evidence that any of your assertions are anything more than wild speculation. With all the vast and reputable organizations today dedicated to addressing poverty if this is the best you can do I'd suggest trying harder.
 
  • #30


Dembadon said:
Just for clarity, I've not made any claims as to whether literacy improves one's standard of living; I'm just trying to understand in what manner JonDrew is connecting literacy and text-to-speech technology. I'm of the opinion that one cannot be substituted for the other without violating the definition of literacy.

Teaching people how to read is expensive, it cost time and money. For developing nations "speech to text" technology could allow illiterate people to have access to information that previously only the literate people had access too. I think it would be remarkable to get "speech to text" software in the hands of illiterate people in developing nations both empowering more people with knowledge and hopefully an improved economic status.
 
  • #31
Oltz said:
Think of it like this learning to be an electrician with a speech to text e-reader would be great until you went to the store and could not read the box of fuses to know which ones you need to buy.

Or being a mechanic and not being able to get the right parts because you can not actually read the boxes.

Unless you can read you can't actually do the job without help no matter how much you learn about being an electrician or a mechanic you will still need the skill to read at some point.

Haha, hadn't thought of that.

But it certainly lays the ground work for someone to easily show him how to choose the correct fuse and that is what I think the importance of this Idea is. Maybe they would develop a whole new classification system for fuses or one person is taught to fetch the fuses and the other installs them, it could work.
 
  • #32


wuliheron said:
More equivocation and obfuscation. The first article is so short and vague as to be worthless, all the wikipedia article does is confirm every country has their own standards for measuring poverty, and the PDF consists of nothing more than a theory proposed by two authors. None of them constitute evidence that any of your assertions are anything more than wild speculation. With all the vast and reputable organizations today dedicated to addressing poverty if this is the best you can do I'd suggest trying harder.

You seem to have lost your plot you said poverty is cured by gender equality. I said gender equality can not exist until a society is modern enough to have time for education.

It doesn't matter how many "vast and reputable organizations" address poverty unless you can show one that goes into subsistence living communities and mandates gender equality as a method of solving poverty you are the one without an argument.

I agree that gender equality would help in the middle east but really I have seen nothing that shows it as the cause of better standards of living and not a symptom. As those cultures modernize they will be forced to embrace equal education and other gender issues or the culture will stagnate.

What I showed was that people can not define poverty and vast and reputable organizations can not agree on how to compare poverty even in this country alone forget about globally and that other researchers are looking at the correlations in many countries between development level and gender equality as a result of development not as the cause.

Even in the US and UK development happened first then gender and race issues became possible. Now its on you to show me one example that goes the other direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33


Oltz said:
Speech to text could write your messages for you but unless your co workers are texting you everything they need to have you read how will those simple day to day minute to minute things that are in text get to your e-reader.
Camera on your device snaps a picture of the text on a menu/billboard/receipt/shipping label/product packaging/other document and a text recognition software renders the text that is then converted to speech.
 
  • #34


Gokul43201 said:
Camera on your device snaps a picture of the text on a menu/billboard/receipt/shipping label/product packaging/other document and a text recognition software renders the text that is then converted to speech.

Or a barcode system of similar type could work. Perfect.
 
  • #35


Oltz said:
You seem to have lost your plot you said poverty is cured by gender equality. I said gender equality can not exist until a society is modern enough to have time for education.

It doesn't matter how many "vast and reputable organizations" address poverty unless you can show one that goes into subsistence living communities and mandates gender equality as a method of solving poverty you are the one without an argument.

I agree that gender equality would help in the middle east but really I have seen nothing that shows it as the cause of better standards of living and not a symptom. As those cultures modernize they will be forced to embrace equal education and other gender issues or the culture will stagnate.

What I showed was that people can not define poverty and vast and reputable organizations can not agree on how to compare poverty even in this country alone forget about globally and that other researchers are looking at the correlations in many countries between development level and gender equality as a result of development not as the cause.

Even in the US and UK development happened first then gender and race issues became possible. Now its on you to show me one example that goes the other direction.

Grameen bank loaning money to women in a country like India where women are often still treated like property is an example of how gender equality can be promoted in poor countries and can address destitute poverty. Other organizations provide micro loans online and allow individuals to pick and choose who they loan money to. These are but a few examples of how greater gender equality is already being promoted in extremely poor countries and how improved communications allows this occur. If you were expecting some sort of miracle transformation overnight I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the real issue here is dealing with destitute poverty and supporting the right of women to earn a living.
 
<h2>What is considered a "developing country"?</h2><p>A developing country is a nation that has a lower standard of living and less developed economy compared to other countries. These countries often have high poverty rates and lack access to resources and opportunities.</p><h2>What is the definition of literacy rate?</h2><p>Literacy rate is the percentage of the population aged 15 and above who are able to read and write. This includes both basic reading and writing skills, as well as the ability to comprehend and use information.</p><h2>What factors contribute to low literacy rates in developing countries?</h2><p>There are several factors that can contribute to low literacy rates in developing countries, including poverty, lack of access to education, cultural and societal barriers, and inadequate government funding for education.</p><h2>How does low literacy rates impact a developing country?</h2><p>Low literacy rates can have a significant impact on a developing country's economic and social development. It can limit opportunities for individuals and communities, hinder economic growth, and perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality.</p><h2>What can be done to improve literacy rates in developing countries?</h2><p>To improve literacy rates in developing countries, it is important to address the root causes of low literacy, such as poverty and lack of access to education. This can be done through initiatives such as increasing government funding for education, providing free or affordable education, and promoting literacy programs and resources within communities.</p>

What is considered a "developing country"?

A developing country is a nation that has a lower standard of living and less developed economy compared to other countries. These countries often have high poverty rates and lack access to resources and opportunities.

What is the definition of literacy rate?

Literacy rate is the percentage of the population aged 15 and above who are able to read and write. This includes both basic reading and writing skills, as well as the ability to comprehend and use information.

What factors contribute to low literacy rates in developing countries?

There are several factors that can contribute to low literacy rates in developing countries, including poverty, lack of access to education, cultural and societal barriers, and inadequate government funding for education.

How does low literacy rates impact a developing country?

Low literacy rates can have a significant impact on a developing country's economic and social development. It can limit opportunities for individuals and communities, hinder economic growth, and perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality.

What can be done to improve literacy rates in developing countries?

To improve literacy rates in developing countries, it is important to address the root causes of low literacy, such as poverty and lack of access to education. This can be done through initiatives such as increasing government funding for education, providing free or affordable education, and promoting literacy programs and resources within communities.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
13
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
232
Views
39K
Back
Top