I think the biggest risk here - and the reason why talking about "bringing civilization" anywhere attracts strong pushback - is that historically, what happened was people ending up held hostage over supply of fishing equipment.

Giving hungry people fish obviously isn't a good solution, because then the fish giver becomes a SPOF. But also because the fish giver now has power over the hungry, and some givers will abuse it. Teaching people to fish doesn't work if they're still hungry. It also doesn't work if you're teaching methods that they can't employ. If your solution to the last problem is giving (especially licensing) them means to do fishing, then we're back to square one, with you being SPOF/risk of becoming exploitative.

The solution has to be helping people build self-sufficiency. That may involve giving money, or donating equipment and know-how - but with no strings attached, including non-obvious ones like "you'll have to buy spare parts from us, because your industry can't make them". The goal here is not absolute self-sufficiency (nobody truly has that), but avoiding the situation in which given society's affairs are being managed by outsiders, under threat of starvation or illness.

You can both give a person a fish, and at the same time teach them to fish as well. It is not, and never should have been presented as, an either/or argument.

Strange thought for someone writing a reply on a message board using a device there's no way they could build from scratch.

We've structured society in a way that not everyone needs to be a farmer (or microchip designer/electronic factory line worker) for people to obtain food/devices that access the internet. Are you a proponent of 'give the fish' because you didn't build the device you are typing in?

How many farms have you seen in big cities?