There is a view that the state should offer courses aimed at improving digital literacy among people aged 65 and over. While this action could yield certain advantages, I disagree with this view to a large extent.
Computer training could appear appealing to some people. As everything is getting digitilized day by day, computer proficiency is considered a important life skill nowadays. This asset might prove valuable for the elderly as well. By learning how to use computers, they can monitor their pensions, send and respond to emails, and connect with relatives with ease. Not only could this make an older population more independent in managing their finances, but it could reduce a profound sense of isolation through virtual social connections. Because people aged 65 and over usually lack computer knowledge, state-subsidized courses can help them acquire digital literacy. This could consequently avoid putting a burden on children who have to manage their studies or professions on a daily basis. Clearly, this government initiative could be attractive to some.
However, the functionality of smartphones renders this proposal mainly redundant. The latest smartphones provide access to financing, email and social media applications without ever needing a computer. The conveniences of mobile phones, namely a greater mobility and a touch control, further reinforce their superiority over computers. It is expected that some might oppose this viewpoint, arguing that the elderly could struggle to utilize their phones’ small screens. However, devices with larger screens – iPads and tablets – could meaningfully solve this issue. If these tools have the ability to offer all the benefits of computers with significantly more convenience, allocating state resources to computer training becomes hard to justify.
In conclusion, although government expenditure on computer training might assist the elderly to become more independent and socially active, these merits can be achieved through other digital devices with far more comfort. Therefore, I largely disagree with this notion as investing finite capitals on the proposal without guaranteed outcomes would be inherently flawed.