Rethinking Poverty: One Laptop Per Child
What types of opportunities would one laptop per child in the world provide to those who couldn’t afford one otherwise? One laptop per child, access to the internet, healthy food and healthcare, combined with education is what everyone in this world needs. Nicholas Negroponte is plugging in one component that will allow all children and people to connect conversations and purposes with one another and begin to move the conversation of the world forward.
Categories: Connecting Conversations, Rethinking Poverty, TED Talks
Very interesting. I have not watched the video before making this post and therefore, cannot attest to its content. A few questions arise from the written post: What makes a laptop a necessity of the human condition (Reference to the author’s use of the word ‘need’)? How is our “survival” (objective) and “success” (subjective) as humans constructed to rely on technology access? What is gained or lost from only focusing on children’s access to computers, rather than parents, etc.? What cultural barriers will we face in trying to introduce technology? What are other ideas about what is “necessary” for the human condition?
Great conversation. move it forward.
For better, or for worse, technology is where it’s at in terms of keeping up with the global economy. Developing countried like those targeted by OLPC do have the time to take the Western route of conquest, colonialism, and by your bootstraps development before competing, or even just participating in the world order. The objective of survival is different than success, for sure. But, since 71 out of every 100 people on the earth live on under $2.00 a day (see Miniature Earth), survival is not enough. The human condition has changed. If we are ever to see equal opportunity, globally, we have to shift this paradigm.
As to the point on cultural barriers, they are a plenty. I think the key is in the approach. OLPC and other organizations bring education (and with it, technology) to developing communities successfully because they work on an empowerment model. It’s WE not us and you. It’s about saying to communities where attention is due, “doo this with you, not for you.” For you does not work. It’s like an injection of foreigness that eventually is rejected, and is immediately unsustainable. “With, not for” offers tools, support, knowledge, but proves ability and perserves culture (as best possible) in the community.