You would have to be in the Heart of Darkness not to have heard of Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child initiative and the various spin-offs by other players (Intel's Classmate PC / Asus's EEE) suddenly crowding the marketplace. What to make of all this maneuvering and its potential impact on the global digital landscape?
Despite the "altruism" motivating this apparent movement, the cynic in me perceives a fundamental hypocrisy in the whole enterprise. Why are we spending money and effort promoting something that does nothing to address basic human necessities of the 3rd World? How can a computer, no matter how well intentioned, address factors that impact mortality rates? What is the good of having universal accessible media to a mass of illiterates? What is the use of mesh capable networked devices where electricity is so scarce that they still rely on tallow for lighting? What's the use of being able to search for health related information, when the water you drink is likely to transmit communicable diseases that are for all intents untreatable due to lack of basic health care? How do you address the potential environmental impact of creating 100 million electronic devices and the externalities of recycling the components when they inevitably become obsolete?
I think this is an initiative of the "haves" for the "have-nots". It is similar to the Western feminist movement expounding their ideological agendas without regard to cultural circumstances surrounding the state of women they are trying to emancipate. At best, the movement is misguided and well intentioned. At worst, it is a cleverly disguised commercial venture out to extend the grasp of consumerism to those who have nothing else to loose. The numbers point to scales of economy suggesting a potential global market that could be quite lucrative. The naked greed displayed by for-profit corporations suggests that they've brought out their bean counters and come to the same conclusion. But can this movement stand for any "meaningful" change in the lives of the majority of the people in the world?
Instead of using technology to manufacture artificial "necessities" for self-congratulatory purposes, why not address problems affecting fundamental human needs such as the following:
- A way to create potable water. Something that can be manufactured locally to create a self-perpetual cottage industry. Something not patent encumbered to allow
the widest possible dispersion amongst those who need it the most.
- A way to provide light to areas with limited electricity. By extending the amount of time the printed word is visible in a given day, illiteracy will eventually recede as productive educational time increases. Light will provide the opportunity for true illumination while reducing the dependency on fossil fuels.
- A way to break the stranglehold of pharmaceutical companies on the manufacture of life-giving medicines which afflict the poor in the 3rd World. Medical research ungoverned by commercial viability allows the poorest to benefit from advances without being victims of commercial exploitation and enslavement. Erectile dysfunction or malaria? The choice should be obvious.
- Educational systems that transcend local delivery. The sum of human knowledge would be better served by allowing the best educational institutions to be accessible by anyone, any time, any where. The ultimate goal will be the internationalization of these sources of knowledge and learning.
If you look around, progress is already being made on these initiatives. The question remains however of why very little media coverage is given to these movements.
Instead of commoditizing the opportunity to empower the globally impoverished, maybe we should address these fundamental needs so that they can build their own computers.
