A simply marvelous idea. Similar ideas done on a far more limited scale have produced exceedingly positive results. Of course, I'm actually less interested in sending these laptops to India and think that the first project should be to send them to every child in the US living below the poverty line. Add in free wifi networks in all major urban areas (which seem to be growing on their own) and you suddenly have kids in such environments with access to things other than the fake realities of TV and the depressing and violent realities around them.
The fact that the people behind this are talking solely about 3rd world distribution indicates to me that the MIT people behind this project are as profoundly ignorant of the realities of life for the American poor as one would expect of such people, which is very sad. Someone should let them know that perhaps their are hundreds of thousands of kids within the borders of their own nation that would benefit from these laptops at least as much as children in Thailand or India.
"I'm actually less interested in sending these laptops to India and think that the first project should be to send them to every child in the US living below the poverty line. [...] Someone should let them know that perhaps their are hundreds of thousands of kids within the borders of their own nation that would benefit from these laptops"
It seems to me that the kids in Thailand and India (actually I got the impression of Africa for some reason?) are even poorer than the poor kids here. Not that all of them don't deserve help, but ??? I find this thought/opinion a bit boggling, I must confess. Can you explain more about why you think it's better to help kids in the US than other places?
1) The opportunities for such kids in the US is considerably greater than in the 3rd world, but only if they can get access to such things.
2) (and this is the most important one) the venture is being done at MIT, which is in the US. Given that there are truly horrible conditions in the US that these laptops could help, not even mentioning this use for them annoyed me. Also, I firmly believe that people in any nation have somewhat more of a obligation to help their fellow citizens than others. Also (and of equal import) there are vast international relief agencies attempting to aid most of the 3rd world. Given that the US government clearly cares not one whit for this nation's poor, there is no one but a bunch of smaller and ill-funded private agencies helping them. It is potentially arguable that in some ways they need the help more - especially since far too many people forget entirely about them.
3) W/o radical changes (which I don't expect), most of the very poor in the 3rd world are essentially doomed to lives like they have now - there is simply an insufficient amount wealth in those nations to bring everyone to anything resembling a middle-class or even working class standard of living - the government of India recognizes this and specifically focuses much of their aid on the poor but not desperately poor regions because these people are more likely to gain long-term benefit from help. A more extensive discussion of my thoughts about the 3rd world can be found here. OTOH, everyone in every First World nation can (and as I see it should) have access to this degree of wealth and opportunity, and these things could help make that happen. I have absolutely no objection to these things going to the 3rd world, but I think they should go to poor people in the US first (or at least simultaneously).
Really, because those people are known to need help, so they're going to get it one way or another.
Everyone providing assistance seems to assume the American poor have some mystical quality that will cause them to suddenly not need help someday. Because of this, poor Americans routinely get overlooked in the mad dash to help the needy and get handouts and foodstamps while the 'less fortunate'* get computers and full scholarships.
*Yes, they are in much worse circumstances. However, fortune is luck, and if someone handed me a good laptop or a scholarship just because I need it, without me having to jump through extra, pointless hoops, I'd count myself fortunate indeed.
I actually kind of agree with that, to a degree. The problem in very poor places such as Africa often go beyond mere poverty into severe issues with infrastructure. If you can't grow food efficiently, can't transport food to various locations, don't have a decent supply of water, and don't have proper medicine and nutrition... a laptop will merely be a nice gesture, that won't solve the biggest issues facing the kids over there.
For countries that are "third world", but fairly well developed ones (like India and Thailand), the low-cost laptops are probably a good tool to boost their knowledge economy. I do agree that we need to remember that we have impoverished people in the United States or other developed nations, where $500 for a computer might be unaffordable; I imagine if this laptop becomes a reality, people may take the technology and sell it here. Nations which do not yet have proper infrastructure (e.g. much of Africa) probably need to work on that first; it is, alas, a much harder problem to solve.
An intriguing idea, but if they can make it profitable at that price point, they should simply sell it to anyone and everyone. As long as there are no tax subsidies for the project, I'm fine with it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
The fact that the people behind this are talking solely about 3rd world distribution indicates to me that the MIT people behind this project are as profoundly ignorant of the realities of life for the American poor as one would expect of such people, which is very sad. Someone should let them know that perhaps their are hundreds of thousands of kids within the borders of their own nation that would benefit from these laptops at least as much as children in Thailand or India.
no subject
It seems to me that the kids in Thailand and India (actually I got the impression of Africa for some reason?) are even poorer than the poor kids here. Not that all of them don't deserve help, but ??? I find this thought/opinion a bit boggling, I must confess. Can you explain more about why you think it's better to help kids in the US than other places?
no subject
1) The opportunities for such kids in the US is considerably greater than in the 3rd world, but only if they can get access to such things.
2) (and this is the most important one) the venture is being done at MIT, which is in the US. Given that there are truly horrible conditions in the US that these laptops could help, not even mentioning this use for them annoyed me. Also, I firmly believe that people in any nation have somewhat more of a obligation to help their fellow citizens than others. Also (and of equal import) there are vast international relief agencies attempting to aid most of the 3rd world. Given that the US government clearly cares not one whit for this nation's poor, there is no one but a bunch of smaller and ill-funded private agencies helping them. It is potentially arguable that in some ways they need the help more - especially since far too many people forget entirely about them.
3) W/o radical changes (which I don't expect), most of the very poor in the 3rd world are essentially doomed to lives like they have now - there is simply an insufficient amount wealth in those nations to bring everyone to anything resembling a middle-class or even working class standard of living - the government of India recognizes this and specifically focuses much of their aid on the poor but not desperately poor regions because these people are more likely to gain long-term benefit from help. A more extensive discussion of my thoughts about the 3rd world can be found here. OTOH, everyone in every First World nation can (and as I see it should) have access to this degree of wealth and opportunity, and these things could help make that happen. I have absolutely no objection to these things going to the 3rd world, but I think they should go to poor people in the US first (or at least simultaneously).
no subject
Everyone providing assistance seems to assume the American poor have some mystical quality that will cause them to suddenly not need help someday. Because of this, poor Americans routinely get overlooked in the mad dash to help the needy and get handouts and foodstamps while the 'less fortunate'* get computers and full scholarships.
*Yes, they are in much worse circumstances. However, fortune is luck, and if someone handed me a good laptop or a scholarship just because I need it, without me having to jump through extra, pointless hoops, I'd count myself fortunate indeed.
no subject
For countries that are "third world", but fairly well developed ones (like India and Thailand), the low-cost laptops are probably a good tool to boost their knowledge economy. I do agree that we need to remember that we have impoverished people in the United States or other developed nations, where $500 for a computer might be unaffordable; I imagine if this laptop becomes a reality, people may take the technology and sell it here. Nations which do not yet have proper infrastructure (e.g. much of Africa) probably need to work on that first; it is, alas, a much harder problem to solve.
no subject
no subject