TR: So from your perspective, this could still be a success even if you stopped manufacturing laptops and the technology found its way into a dozen different laptops ...
WB: Yep. But I think it's premature to do that. And the reason is quite simple: unless we keep the pressure on, the prices are going to go up, the efficiencies are going to go down, and we're going to be right back to the same "bigger, faster" model. We've got to keep the pressure on and keep the industry honest until we've really proven that this other way is viable. Because otherwise, next year's Intel machine will be more expensive and more power hungry, and that's not going to serve the needs of these kids.
TR: Okay, I have to say, I've played with the laptop, and it seems slow.
WB: Well, it's certainly slow compared to the laptop you carry around. But the metric you have to measure things by is not Grand Theft Auto III. The metric you want to measure things by is learning. The word processor keeps up with my typing. The video camera works just fine. The music programs work just fine. It's a perfectly adequate platform for kids for learning. Every decision we make is, How does this enhance the learning? And the bottom line is, if you can't turn it on since you can't power it, a fast processor doesn't do you very much good.
TR: There's also the question of whether laptops are really what governments should be sinking resources into.
WB: The way Nicholas [Negroponte] likes to put it is, substitute the word "education" for "laptop." And then ask, "Should we be giving these kids education?" "Nah, they don't need education! Education is a luxury. Why should we give them education?" What we're advocating is that the laptop is the most efficient way we know of of giving them an opportunity for real learning. It's not that we're interested in laptops; we're interested in learning. And it turns out that almost 50 years of research by people like [computer scientist and educational theorist] Seymour Papert has demonstrated that computation is a wonderful thing to think with. It's powerful stuff. And it's going to change these kids' lives dramatically for the better.
Comments
Wildgorilla
01/11/2008
Posts:2
gabrielg01
01/11/2008
Posts:402
zzyzzy
01/11/2008
Posts:6
rbulcao
01/11/2008
Posts:1
Several such experts on the economics of the poor on the OLPC board may help. One such resource could be 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus (microloans). His new book out on social business, “Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism” was recently featured on public TV.
See the Charlie Rose PBS interview: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1986204406774837194
novakar
01/11/2008
Posts:1
The thinking always went along the lines of "If we can only bring them some 'railways', many of their problems will be solved, and then they will be able to take care of themselves."
As time has gone by, the 'railways' in this scheme have been changed to 'telephone lines', 'highways', 'schools', 'hospitals'...and lately to the 'Internet', 'cell phones'...and now to 'laptops'.
What people miss is this: most Americans in the 1950s had a much better quality of life, than most 3rd worlders have today. And the America of the '50s had a lot less technology than the 3rd world has today.
The idealists are missing the 'cause and effect' connection here. It is not the technology that makes a society advanced. It is its values. The technology development is only the result, or the effect, of good civilizational values.
And if you put this in reverse: you can deliver a lot of technology to a bantustan...it will still remain a bantustan.
gabrielg01
01/13/2008
Posts:402
Lupa
01/14/2008
Posts:1
Whatever your views on the OLPC one cannot question the organisations motivation and vision; more than can be said of the likes of Intel and others involved in spoiling manoeuvres.
weee
01/16/2008
Posts:34
Sawatdwehba
11/18/2008
Posts:1