But is this true for everyone in the world? These days it’s easy for us to believe that without a computer and the internet that comes along with it (thanks, Al Gore) we’re disconnected from the world around us. This fact is accentuated in Third World countries, and there was little anyone could do about it, until now.
In case you haven’t heard, the One Laptop Per Child project intends to bring small, heavily padded laptops to every child in the world. The lofty mission rests on the assumption that laptops in the hands of children will help bridge the “digital divide” and provide a more equal playing field across a world with such disparity. This non-profit founded by Dr. Nicholas Negroponte originally intended to create the first $100 computer.
The goal to sell large lots of the computers to impoverished nations was not well received by said nations and, as the price of the computers crept toward $200, plans changed. The reality is that OLPC has loads of computers and no one to buy them. Plan B: Through Nov. 26, First World consumers were given the option of purchasing one of these lime green beauties for $399, then OLPC would donate one laptop to a child in a Third World nation in return.
In the meantime, let’s consider the idea from a global environment perspective. While I respect the project’s mission in theory — to give these countries a leg up — the idea that our technology-centered society is another’s saving grace is problematic. The truth is that simple, social entrepreneurship ventures like putting sewing machines, plowing mechanisms and tilapia ponds in the hands of town and tribal elders in order to foster sustainability have been quite successful. Yet, OLPC doesn’t necessarily result in jobs or food for its participants and comes with a host of caveats.
The OLPC plan is neither cheap nor easy. Let’s assume first that the nations it proposes to help scrounge up initial funds. Let’s then assume that they have the electricity to power the computer on an infrastructure that can sustain whole digital classrooms. On top of that, let’s also assume that they have access to the internet.
Once this skeletal framework is in place, the next phase involves finding teachers trained to operate, teach and perhaps even repair this foreign inanimate object for kids who have scarcely seen an electrical appliance. (This train of thought worries me considering I have not yet successfully taught my mom how to double click.) Money then must be dedicated to trained repairmen, replacement parts and even to the green disposal of this equipment to countries that have no means to do so. While the environmental concerns alone are disconcerting, something tells me that the upkeep is enough to pull funds away from what these students probably need most: books in their own language.
It’s hard to imagine that this American approach to solving third world problems will suffice in nations where healthcare is poor, water is not potable and schools are over-crowded or nonexistent. Meeting the needs of developing countries first requires us to take their needs into consideration. Perhaps in this case technology is not the answer. But I think this is difficult for us to wrap our heads around — I have the nerve to write as I type on my plastic machine, glancing every so often at eBay to see how my auctions are doing.
Not sure whether technology is necessary, evil, both or neither, Christine Heinz perpetuates this love/hate relationship every day as a photographer, graphic designer and educator.