 |
::: Think Macro :::
| January 29, 2008 | 9:01 AM |
|
|
 |
On laptops and malnutrition
|
Here is a very interesting post from the OLPC news blog. It is written by a person working in Darfur and, as the publishing venue suggests, is addressing the One Laptop Per Child idea in the context of their work with refugees.
It reminded me of a a post i had a while ago about OLPC and the discussion that followed. Particularly it reminded me Nadia’s comment:
I don’t want to sound cynical, but IMHO kids in developing countries would benefit much more from improved health care than from laptops…
Nadia’s comment is not unique. The common critique of the entire ICT4D idea is that there are basic needs, such as nutrition, health care, and literacy, to be addressed before the information technology can introduce any good. Many times, I personally find it difficult to explain the importance of ICT in addressing these issues. It is hard to talk about abstract concepts such as knowledge and human capital with an image of a hungry kid in the background. I think this post provides some of the potential explanations in a better way that I could probably articulate:
This is not going to stop the fact that children are hungry, and if the extent of their malnutrition is such that they are developmentally challenged to the point that the XO is useless to them, then obviously alimentary relief is in order, but I would say that most of the malnutrition I have seen in my work in the Sahel comes from ignorance about balanced diet, and mismanagement of water resources (so you see toddlers eating only white rice, a water-hog of a crop grown in the desert). For this type of hunger and malnutrition to stop on a societal level it has to be learned and discovered, and shared throughout the community.
Coming from a person actually living this reality and working there, I think this observation has more authority than my academic debates. Also I think the bottom line of the post captures the idea pretty well:
I think the XO, if distributed, deployed, and integrated properly into the educational and societal systems of developing countries, has a better shot than anything else I have seen to end hunger and poverty.
There are many “if”s in this statement, but I think it captures the essence.

|
|
| January 27, 2008 | 2:01 AM |
| January 24, 2008 | 5:01 AM |
|
|
 |
“Technological optimism”
|
Just read about a new startup of Dov Moran, called “Modu” and it prompted a number of thoughts.
Moran is a remarkable person. In fact he is the one standing behind the invention of USB flash drive and M-Systems that was sold to SanDisk for $1.6 bln. “Modu” is his new startup developing a device that according to the article will revolutionize the world of mobile phones or in other words mobility of personal data. It was the claim for revolutionizing that kept me reading the article and thinking about it.
The idea of “Modu” is a miniature device with memory, energy source, and cellular abilities. It can be attached to anything from your land-line, the radio in your car, your laptop, etc. Once attached the hosting device is getting the capabilities of the “Modu”. In other words you have one mobile set of all your personal communication data, which is usually found in you mobile phone, and make it useful with all the other devices. You wouldn’t need a fixed line and a mobile - according to the limited information that Ynet journalists could gather (the project is very secret), “Modu” will take care of that.
According to the article, having all the personal communication data on a single miniature device will change the world (they actually start the article with this statement). This is where my social training is kicking in. Will it? Will people want to have everything on a single device? We don’t know enough about the product yet, but how is that information going to be protected and backed up? What about compatibility of “Modu” with all the other devices? Moreover, is there an economic model behind the device that will make the device standing out from being just another gadget? For example, the cellular communication is usually more expensive. How does that fit into shifting everything into a single mobile? Would organizations like their employers walking home with all the corporate information on their “Modu”? And the list can go on…
It is interesting how in most cases the new gadgets are described with such an optimism and, i would say, from a deterministic perspective. And then i start also thinking if such an enthusiasm about technology is necessary attribute for any visionary beginning in that industry. Most of the technological gurus i hear are always optimistic, as are the people behind technological startups. The fact that most of the startups fail and the fact that less than a decade ago we witnessed a major .com bubble, seems not being able to wipe out that belief in the next gadget changing the world (I suddenly remember Kindle and the fact that it has practically disappeared from the public agenda).
And that is interesting. I wonder how this technological optimism works. Is it an inseparable component of innovation? Is critical thinking here in fact limits creativity?
What do you think?

|
|
| January 21, 2008 | 9:01 AM |
| January 16, 2008 | 12:01 PM |
|
Latest Posts
Monthly Archive
Change Language
Tags Archive
activism blogosphere communication culture development digitaldivide economics facebook fun google innovation interesting internet israel media middleeast msm nms observation policy politics positive random religion research society technology uncategorized usa youth
Links
12008 views
|
 |