"If They Don't Starve to Death Before They Can Use Them"

I was chatting with a friend last night, telling him how excited I was about the XO, and about the OLPC program in general (I find myself gushing a lot about it these days), when he said, "Giving laptops to children is great, as long as they don't starve to death before they can use them." This is not an atypical response to the program, but I think that it is too quickly made and never fully thought out.

So, as many a blogger before me has done, let's think this through. People have (for the sake of an easy argument) two choices: donating $200 worth of food or donating a $200 laptop. If the food is chosen, then children in other countries will get to eat for X number of days, but their educational system will remain underfunded, their learning tools scarce, their access to reading materials limited to what they can physically obtain, and their knowledge of the world constrained by what those close to them (geographically) know. Thus, the educational attainment of these children will be limited, they will not be able to get high-paying jobs, and they and their children (assuming they have any) will continue to live by receiving food provided by humanitarian efforts.

Now, some might look at that argument and say, "Hey, at least they continue to get food." And that is true. Well, until other countries decide to stop providing food. Or until the UN, US, or EU decides that it wants to go to war with that country and stops sending aid. Or until the government of that country is forced to make trade agreements with the food-providing countries that it would rather not make but must make for fear of losing the primary source of food for its countrypeople. Developing countries being dependent on developed countries for food and other resources is very problematic, and it is not in the best interest of the developing nation.

What happens if we return to our original decision, food or laptop, and choose laptop? It's my guess that the children who receive laptops will not receive less aid from humanitarian groups and the United Nations, so it is most likely that they will continue to be fed. These children will have more than food, however. They will have education. Furthermore, this education will not be limited to the number of books that are present in their libraries (assuming they even have a library) and it will not be limited by the knowledge of those around them. This education will only be limited by whether or not an internet connection exists, and then by what books, information, and knowledge the child can find in the vast reach of cyberspace. This knowledge will lead to better job attainment, better wages, and thus better food.

What if the children decide to take jobs as craftspeople, farmers, or other trade workers, instead of taking a more corporate position? Well, the internet is also of great help then. How do you know what other basket weavers are charging for their baskets without traveling from weaver to weaver? The internet. How do you share planting and plowing tips, not just with the farmer at the next field, but the farmer in the next province? The internet. How do you mobilize groups to fight oppression, either by Western countries or by your own? The internet.

Laptops are better than food because they ensure future access to food. Plain and simple.