Try and imagine growing food in tall buildings with a self-contained climate powered by renewable energy. A radical idea yes - but one that would address the need for arable land and year-round supply of food. These towering greenhouses immune to weather and pests might very well be the source of nutrition for generations of the future!

While I feel that this fantastic future 'might' be a pipe dream for now, our grandchildren might be forced to effectuate it by inevitable circumstances.

For the last week or so, I’ve been pondering a thought provoking article in the July 2008 issue of Wired - ‘The Petabyte Age,’ by Chris Anderson. I call it thought provoking because Anderson asserts that current statistical and theoretical methods will be trumped by the availability of HUGE amounts of data - PetaBytes (1000’s of terabytes), and the ability to process it. The basic idea is that with enough amounts of data, the numbers will eventually speak for themselves. I suppose the other reason this peaked my interest is that about a month ago I wrote about 'Crowdsourcing and the future of crisis reporting'. With enough data, you’d be able to ‘quite possibly’ predict future human and environmental disasters! While large amounts of data exist, the problem to date has been how to process it, and that’s how cloud computing comes into place.

Cloud computing is a relatively new word. Some people have used the term grid computing to refer to the same thing. It basically refers to the outsourcing and consolidation of computing services and resources. I’ll explain some more so that you can understand. The biggest nightmare to most companies IT departments has been dealing with scalability and the processing power or storage that is required to address it. Enter cloud computing companies - which would basically provide you with on-demand capacity as you grow. Some big companies you know have already been providing such services for the last few years; Amazon, Google, IBM and many more, each striving to be the next general-purpose computing platform. Basic services like Google Docs and Amazon S3 are modest examples of cloud computing.

Lately I’ve been following Google’s forays into Africa. Especially interesting has been the introduction of the Google Global Cache (You can read more about it on White African’s blog). Google in their infinite wisdom has come up with a way to deal with the voracity for data on the African continent. Because bandwidth demand surpasses supply, they would store the web on their servers and serve it up to users based on the shortest path to location, thereby improving performance. Some would call this cloud computing at its best. This would save on bandwidth costs for ISP’s, and improve performance for their customers. Wow!

If you don’t already know by now, that ‘Wow!’ in my last paragraph was meant to be sarcastic. While I applaud google’s efforts, google is inherently a corporation whose goal is ultimately profit. Google China is a prime example of how this all comes into play. Search results for ‘Tiananmen Square’, ‘Falun Gong’ or ‘Tibet’ yield far different results within China than outside it. The fallacies of cloud computing start to become clear. If a whole continent outsources its computing needs, isn’t this data then open to manipulation by the 3rd entity (Google) and other political and profit motivated interests?

Don’t get me wrong, I think Africa stands to benefit a great deal from ‘this’ faster access, but I think this means we need to step up our efforts to increase bandwidth instead of depending on a 3rd parties for access to information. We are at the dawn of the age of information, opening up new paradigms of thinking (some jokingly call it the age of mis-information). Just as happened during the industrial age, new products and integrated services are jostling for attention and marketplace attention. Ultimately there will be just a few winners.

I am - as always, indisposed to dipping into politics on this blog, but I feel that something has to be said about the situation unraveling in the heart of Africa. Before I go on though, I’d like to issue a disclaimer. “I by no means support Mugabe’s autocratic regime.” This article is also not about the constitutional and human rights that have been so blatantly violated - enough has already been said. By proceeding I’m well aware that I’ll be opening myself up to intense criticism, but I’ll take my chances.

Canada’s prime minister John Turner said “… once you yield the economic levers of sovereignty you eventually lose the political levers,” in response to the controversial NAFTA agreement. Turner felt Canada had sold out to the USA. Sadly it was the truth. In 1980 (the same year as Zimbabwe’s independence), the IMF began to impose Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP’s) on African debtor nations. SAP’s generally mandated:

• The removal of protections in the manufacturing sector
• The elimination of government subsidies for food and some other items
• Trade liberalization;reductions in barriers to trade, as well as foreign investment and ownership
• Increased role of the private sector in industry, which were previously owned by the government
• Reductions in government spending on health and education

The results were disastrous and the reverberations are still being felt today. Africa’s poverty grew at an exponential rate, along with increased dependency on richer nations. This in effect lowered the standard of living of most Africans and set a stage for an era of neo-colonialism (yes I said it).

So you ask - what does this have to do with Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe (and Mugabe’s) problem is 3-fold:

• Land Reform - The 3 month Lancaster House Conference of 1979, which concluded with Zimbabwe’s independence failed to address the most important item - land reform. Mugabe was pressured to sign and land was the key stumbling block. Both the British and American governments offered to buy land from willing white settlers who could not accept reconciliation (the "Willing buyer, Willing seller" principle) and a fund was established, to operate from 1980 to 1990. The Conservative Party led by Former British Prime Margaret Thatcher and later John Major agreed to fund the program, which was immediately crushed by Tony Blair’s Labour government. Some can still remember the letter from Tony Blair’s minister - Claire Short that said "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests…” - A smack in the face of a fledgling nation. In 1996 Mugabe took the controversial stance of supporting the seizure of white-owned land without compensation in order to reverse the economic imbalances that disadvantaged the majority blacks.
• Rejection of the Structural Adjustment Programs - Abandonment in the late '90s of International Monetary Fund-mandated "structural adjustment programs" was ultimately the beginning of Mugabe’s problems. This is a stance few 3rd world countries have won. This too poses a threat to vested Anglo-American interests as SAP’s require intense privatization.
• Involvement with the SADC - The South African Development Community includes all the southern African countries - from South Africa to DR Congo and Tanzania. In 1998 Zimbabwe, along with Angola and Namibia sent 6,000 troops to Laurent Kabila’s Congo to save a fellow SADC member country from an invasion by Ugandan and Rwandan troops (backed by the US and UK). This inadvertently or not was yet another provocative move against the west, and there would be a steep price to pay. I’m starting to hear echoes of Patrice Lumumba and Mobutu Sese Seko - but that is a story for another day.

At this point I should step back and state that Mugabe is no different from the other despots Africa has had since the 60’s. Corruption and violation of human rights are the order of the day. Beyond that, the indirect (and direct) involvement of the west in Africa’s affairs after independence remains deeply disturbing. Africa’s claim on the future depends on it being able to handle its own problems.

Zimbabwe’s debacle is a lose-lose situation at this point. The 'Great Hope' - MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai has been bankrolled by a combination of western governments, corporate enterprises and ex-landowners. His stance on increasing foreign investment and supporting fair land reform sadly suggests we’ll see a return to structural adjustment programs, and NO land reform - this issue will expectantly be postponed for another decade (or longer). I should also point out that land reform is an open wound in countries like Namibia and South Africa, and continually threatens to rear its ugly head.

Finally, the continual meddling of foreign powers in Africa puts its sovereignty in question. Sometimes, I wonder - are we truly independent nations? Zimbabwe exposes Africa's true problems and the Wests deepest fears. Zimbabwe is the dog that went rabid and bit its master after years of having a chain around its neck.

E-Governance is a term that has been loosely floating around, slightly misunderstood and highly underestimated. It refers to the use of internet technology as a platform for exchanging information, providing services and transacting with citizens, businesses, and other arms of government (Wikipedia). Basically, we would be facilitating 2-way communication between a government and its citizens using technology, a new philosophy that threatens to reinstitute a government by the people for the people (Like it was supposed to be).

E-Governance cannot exist without internet access - or can it? The same government forces that inadvertently choked land-lines, also cast their noose around internet access bottle-necking it into a snarled jam. For most Africans, getting online is just not worth all the trouble.

All hope was almost lost, when Mobile devices caught on like a wild-fire. These devices will enable new growth markets to leap-frog obstacles developed countries have had to overcome. While multi-media has always perceived to be the future, the real power lies in Text Messaging… 160 characters that will change everything and have major ramifications on public policy.

Here are just a few things for you to think about:

• Disaster & Crisis Alerts (Ushahidi)
• Health camps/vaccination Alerts
• E-Learning in Rural Areas
• E-Transactions (M-Pesa)
• Public Service Complaints about Service
• Employment Alerts
• Communication between health workers to help diagnose and prescribe
• … the list goes on

Next, I'm delighted to witness the rise of the Peer-To-Peer economy, and the death of the One-To-Many business model. Since time immemorial, information has flowed from one entity to everyone else, hence the one-to-many descriptor. The media industry one of the first victims i.e. newspaper publishers, tv, music and movie companies. As our ability to consume and create different kinds of media surges, old media struggles to stay significant and pay the bills. The same thunderbolt that impacted old media is poised to strike other industries even more disruptively.

Crisis reporting is one of those industries. Often an ultra-sensitive affair, it has had to deal with issues of politics, bureaucracy and authenticity mostly because policy making and crisis situations are joined by the hip. It has always been a one-to-many situation with government/corporate dominated (and manipulated) crisis reporting. Basically we have always had to believe what 'they' tell us about how it happened, how it is being handled and how it will be prevented in future. Things are beginning to change however with the proliferation of social media and specifically the rise of the bloggers.

Crowdsourcing means that crisis situations can be explored at comparatively little cost, by making information freely available from an untold numbers of sources. We would basically be freeing up information from the vaults of Non Governmental (and governmental) Organizations that have safeguarded information release for self-preservation. Behold the rise of Many-To-One and Many-To-Many paradigm shift in crisis reporting.

The posthaste delivery of crisis information as it happens is something we'll begin to see in coming years. As all this data converges we'll have the ability to visualize patterns that were previously indescernible. With this new power policy making will finally return to the people.

While all this seems a bit idealistic, I should point out that this model is not perfect. It should be understood that crowdsourcing is still vulnerable to data poisoning (as my friend Hash pointed out). This is when malevolence is injected into the system. P2P (Peer-To-Peer) systems have often overcome this using their vastness. Try and imagine misleading data engulfed by a sea of reliable information - ultimately the authenticity can be determined by the bigger picture.

The proliferation of social networks has led to a new fad… Data Portability. Data Portability is the ability to share information across multiple interfaces and web platforms using open standards. Once the data is accessed, it can repackaged, remixed, right-clicked… you name it. Basically your Facebook profile content for instance could appear on other social sites, and the flickr photos from your phone in return could appear on a google map. The basic idea is to mash together the infinite amounts of shared data (cue the scrolling Matrix code) and attempt make sense of it.

My nagging question is - does it all end? Mashing all this information together has led to an avalanche (more like a storm) of information that we have to deal with daily. For instance a news item can be mashed together with related YouTube links, google maps, flickr photos, message boards, stock ticker information, blogs and what your friends on Twitter think… the list is endless. By the time you’re done reading you’ll know all there is to know about Myanmar.

I have two problems; First can the human mind deal with the coming onslaught of information? Secondly, where does privacy begin and end, or should we just give it up altogether? Personally, I’m afraid that a super machine in the very near future will have the ability to assimilate together all this information, decipher it and draw very precise social patterns for every individual.

The 10,000km fibre-optic cable connecting South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, and Sudan will be laid by French firm Alcatel-Lucent Submarine Networks, while firms from Britain , India , Saudi Arabia , the United Arab Emirates and the US are also part of the ambitious venture.

Initially the EASSy initiative would cut costs by up to two-thirds. Current costs of internet access in the region range from $200 to $300 a month.

Let me also point out that Kenya probably stands to benefit the most from this initiative for a number of reasons:

• It has both the population level and a density of private sector activity to be different
• Consumer and Business confidence has increased substantially with a liberalised regime. We hope that a similar climate can be maintained after the 2007 elections
• The market is readying itself for the arrival of cheaper bandwidth. This is evident with the increase in the number of BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) companies already maxing out the available satellite bandwidth

The aim of the project at this point is to bring the cost per kilowatt-hour down to roughly 25¢ or less for it to be more cost-effective than coal.

Read more at The Observer

My article is titled 'A Solution To Conflict Diamonds' because it looks like the industry is about implode on itself. Two startups in America are launching an all-out assault on the cartels. Gemesis (Florida) and Apollo Diamond (Boston) are now manufacturing gem-quality synthetic diamonds, replicating in two weeks the 100 million years that nature needs to make diamonds from coal.

As it turns out, it is now getting close to impossible to find any discernible differences between synthetic and natural diamonds. The $7 billion industry has been shaken to its core with unfathomable implications - public perception will surely be affected. In my opinion it can only mean that diamonds will become more affordable as the two startups increase their yearly carat output. Hopefully this will make mining diamonds a worthless endeavour and put an end to the madness.

Diamonds have always been steeped in mystery purposefully in an industry that's increasingly heartless and indifferent - except to the end users of course, who have been duped into believing that a marriage cannot work without a diamond. Conflict diamonds have been sold to buy weapons for the mass slaughter of innocent victims while the diamond cartels like De Beers profit.

It's a dark and scary picture of a helpless, backward continent that's being offered up to TV watchers and coffee drinkers. But in fact, the real Africa is quite a bit different. And the problem with all this Western stereotyping is that it manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of some current victories, fueling support for patronizing Western policies designed to rescue the allegedly helpless African people while often discouraging those policies that might actually help.

Read More >>>