Before I go any further, let me just say that I do not intend for this to sound cruel or insensitive. But it probably will...
For several years now, I've been lazily following the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative. On the surface, it really does sound like a noble effort. However, the idea that making technology available to children in underdeveloped countries will open their minds and unshackle them from their perpetual cycle of poverty and will unleash a creativity that can scarcely be imagined is, I think, wildly optimistic.
I'm reminded of an anecdote one of my coworkers shared 'round the coffee pot regarding the building of a highway in an unnamed third world country. Apparently, rather than using this new highway as a miraculous aid to mobility, conveyance and commerce, the indigenous population was slowly chipping away the asphalt and using it to build their cooking fires. One might imagine that in 5 to 10 years, these little green and white laptop computers will be ubiquitous. But rather than being information lifelines to the modern world, they will be servicing their owners as door stops, wind screens, or chair levelers. Or, possibly the bright green plastics will be cleaved and morphed into jewelry. Worse yet, the heavy metals in these devices will be leaching into well water and poisoning villages. (At least Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crowe will still have something to do.)
I'm not naive enough to think that every culture would appreciate or enjoy the benefits of freedom and capitalism, so I won't go there. Instead, I would like to focus for a moment on the belief that getting these computers into the hands of children will be the educational catalyst these poor children have been waiting on. Please. There are high schools in the US where kids are given laptops (with Internet access) and a large portion of these kids can't read on a 6th grade level or balance a checkbook, nor do they seem to care. This philosophy doesn't work here in the US and it isn't going to work elsewhere.
I'd be much more open to the idea of making sure that there is a grist mill and a water well within walking distance of these villages. This would likely be much less expensive and infinitely more beneficial. Let's face it. It's hard to give a crap about who's on Facebook when you have to carry water for 10 miles. When one considers just how misplaced this gesture is, you can't help but be reminded of the scene in the movie "Airplane" where Julie Hagerty's character, Elaine (who's serving in Africa in the Peace Corps), is sitting around in a circle with the local women of the tribe showing them the benefits of Tupperware.
And another thing. How many times have you thrown away a cell phone or an mp3 player because that little rechargeable battery in it died. You want to replace it, but the thing costs more than the device itself is worth. Now, imagine you're a kid in Quessoborgo and your laptop battery just died. Now what? Honestly, this seems cruel to me.
Now don't get me wrong. I love technology. (Hey, I use Linux!) But the older I get, the more I realize that computers are not substitutes for freedom, knowledge, relationships or math skills. I think a lot of the people who think this initiative is a good idea have been staring at their LCD screens for too long, have been drinking too much Mountain Dew and have not been getting enough sunlight.
Please folks. If you want to donate your time or money to help children in underdeveloped nations, give to organizations like Doctors Without Borders or Samaritan's Purse. (I do.)
(As a grim afterthought, one might imagine some despot taking possession of a large shipment of these machines and using his new processor fleet for nefarious purposes, such as building a distributed processing platform for nuclear weapons development.)