Thanks. I wasn’t hoping to ‘win,’ just to bang the drum a little for science. As far as consumer society is concerned? I think the poorest people are the ones who most *wish* they had a consumer society.

My hope is that they can build a sustainable consumer society as their living standards rise.

Anyway, good discussion–keep your great posts coming.

best,

Ok, you win.

I think what I and John B were saying is- go for appropriate technology first.

What makes me uneasy about this is not really who is supporting it, so much as the priorities being set from above in global terms, and by people who may have other cultural and political concerns. I’m not convinced that the people it is aimed at would recognise it as meeting their most pressing educational need.

Without a long boring rehash of the development courses I did at University a good while ago, I’d have to say it is most likely to help to bring more of the world into the consumer society

Of course, at the same time, it may give tools to challenge the situation. Being without access to computers and the net is becoming more and more like being illiterate, in terms of being unable to access knowledge. So I am not actually against it, just a bit dubious.

I think the discussion here is about “appropriate technology,” and it is an important one. worldchanging.com has a lot of this kind of information, and is a great resource. An example of appropriate technology for impoverished countries would be the Lifestraw or solar-powered radios that cost less than a dollar. But information technology also has the ability to change lives in ways that are not always obvious.

For example, subsistence farmers are now able to access world crop market data on their cell phones and therefore not get ripped off by unscrupulous buyers. Also, widespread ability of cell phones (which are often shared by several if not dozens of people in villages) has enabled people getting by on a dollar a day to have access to microloans to finance things like hand crank water pumps or bicycles. These small tech advances have completely revolutionized the way things are done for tens of millions of the poorest people on earth.

I would of course be in favor of getting them access to clean drinking water and basic vaccinations–pencils and teachers too! But we cannot discount the role of technology to enable leapfrogging of poor societies to enjoy some of the same advantages we do. Remember when the most basic computers cost thousands?. Now they are $100, heading towards $10. Combined with renewable microenergy devices (that burn cow dung or other biomass, or use microhydro or solar inputs) and you are building the ladder to help huge numbers of people lift and educate themselves.

I’ll close with one more example of appropriate technology: A plastic water carrier shaped like a wheel. This thing holds somewhere around 40 gallons and can be pulled along the ground to easily transport water from communal wells to where it is needed. I applaud all such efforts to end human suffering through better technology and design.

(“http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/01/rolling-water-container/”)

Would it matter if even Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter supported such technology, as long as it was helping people?

I agree with you about the value of spreading access to knowledge. I think my problem with this project is to do with the way the issue gets presented without anyone thinking that there may be problems as well as benefits.

(“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_per_capita”, the comment anti-spam wont let me link) In Wikipedia’s list of countries by per capita income, the bottom 3 countries have a lower per capita income than the cost of one $150 pc. In about 70 countries the annual income per person is less than the cost of 10 of these $150 PCs.

Who will pay for these computers and the network access? National governments? Charities? The UN?

They would possibly all be better off making sure there are basic materials and teachers, with access to online resources in central locations. There are more than enough ancient working computers in the world to achieve this. Disposing of unwanted PCs is becoming a pollution problem all by itself.

John B put the point well. Development goals should be literacy and sustaining life.

As a side note: I remember Negraponte from his days in Central America. He was not on my list of “good guys”.

The only problem I have with Negroponte’s XO boxes is that they’re too expensive. Others in India are working on $10 versions. Either way, these are tools of a revolution.